AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

2hotFeature one of my absolute favorites!

SteinMo What a freaking movie. So many twists and turns. Absolutely intense from start to finish.

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Martin Bradley It has to be seen to be believed though you need to be in a very giddy frame of mind to sit through it. "King Richard and the Crusaders" was Hollywood's idea of what Sir Walter Scott's "The Talisman" might look like as a film and it's a howler from start to finish. It was directed, if that's the word, by that master of mediocrity David Butler and a cast who really ought to have known better and were obviously only in it for the money, included Rex Harrison, (in black face as Saladin), George Sanders, (looking very sorry for himself as King Richard), Laurence Harvey, (as a Scots knight) and Virginia Mayo, (as an English rose). But it's the dialogue that 'elevates' the film to something approaching cult status. "War, war, that's all you think about Dick Plantagenet" says Virginia at one point and there are many more where that came from. Atrocious but all the better for it while, of course, young boys, surely its target audience, will love all the derring-do.

MartinHafer In 1977, Harry Medved wrote an amazing book. First, he was only a teenager when it was published. Second, he helped to create the craze of enjoying bad films, as it was entitled "The Fifty Worst Movies of All Time". Third, it came out just before videotapes--so he had to, in many cases, go archives and view a ton of bad films to ultimately come up with his list. Now I do not think every movie on it is that bad, but I do think it's incredibly good--and his book made very entertaining reading. In fact, it was so entertaining that I have made it my life's goal to see all 50 and "King Richard and the Crusaders" represents the 49th film! To be among the last dozen or so that I've seen means that I have had to do a lot of digging myself to find these last elusive films. In the case of "King Richard", I had to get a Chinese DVD of the film, as Warner Brothers never released one in the US. The print is acceptable but what this really weird viewing were the DVD captions--which is often a problem with Chinese produced DVDs. However, "King Richard" is much worst than the usual terrible captioning by the Chinese. In practically every sentence, there are weird mistranslations that occur because they are either using a bad computer program or a badly educated Chinese person to do the captions. The examples of mistranslations abound but here are just a few:ACTUAL CAPTIONS (actual word first, followed by captioned words): liege-league, fancied-offended, jester-just, debt-death, Christendom-crescent dumb, seldom educated-sodomy.That last one IS a heck of a mistake! But, on the other hand, it sure made watching the film with captions a lot more exciting and unpredictable. Plus, on its own, "King Richard" is a pretty dull film.Now not all the bad dialog is due to crappy captioning. On its own, the film was pretty wretched. I loved when King Richard's cousin (Virginia Mayo) kept calling him "Dick Plantagenet". I also liked when one of the characters talked about "...killing him dead". Is there any OTHER way to kill someone?! And, throughout the film, the love scenes were just laughably bad--about as romantic as a flea bath!The film is supposedly about 'Good King Richard' during the Crusades. As a history teacher, the film made me cringe. It was accurate in a few ways but so much of it was just hooey. In particular, the Sir Walter Scott notion that King Richard I (also called "The Lionhearted") was a good and just man. In reality, he was one of the most vicious and cruel kings in English history--more interested in splitting open heads in battle than ruling his domains in England and western France. In fact, he practically never spent any time in England. Much of the time, he was out hanging with his male friends and slaughtering entire cities--even ones that surrendered to him! By any standard he was a blood-thirsty maniac--except, of course, Sir Walter Scott's! In this film, I laughed out loud when Richard was angry at a knight who "unjustly persecuted and killed unarmed Muslims". This was Richard's personal hobby in real life! Raping, pillaging and murdering all in the name of God--that was our beloved Richard!Even if you accepted the film's premise that Richard was a swell guy, I still thought his casting was very odd. The very erudite actor, George Sanders, played 'Dick Plantagenet' but was simply too fat and old and the thought of him being unequaled in battle seemed ludicrous--unless it's a fight to get the last sandwich at a buffet! Now I should talk--I'm not exactly svelte myself--but at least I am not playing a macho warrior. The story is a whole lot of nonsense about a conspiracy within Richard's ranks to kill him and wrest control of the crusade by some fictional knight. And, oddly, he was saved by a Scotsman and, of all people, Saladin--the Muslim leader himself! And, in the process, there were lots of love scenes involving Mayo and the Scot (Laurence Harvey) and Saladin (Rex Harrison)--none of which seemed to make any sense. Mostly it just seemed like a dull and clichéd plot that paled compared to GOOD costume dramas. In fact, aside from the horrid dialog, I think this was the worst thing about the film--even worse than its inaccuracy.So the bottom line is this--is "King Richard and the Crusaders" bad enough to be on a worst film list? Probably not. It's bad, but I have seen a few costumers that were worse...but not many! The only good thing I could see in the film (other than nice costumes) was Rex Harrison. Despite wearing dark paint and a goatee, he actually came off much better than the Christians in the film--who were all dreadfully stuffy and awkward. You could do a lot better, but it is good for a few laughs--particularly if you can activate the English captions.

MARIO GAUCI Based on Sir Walter Scott's "The Talisman" (which I own in a comic-strip version!), this was made in the wake of IVANHOE (1952) – adapted from another classic by the same author; however, given that that film was made by journeyman Richard Thorpe (followed, with leading man Robert Taylor in tow, by two other popular MGM adventures – KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE [1953] and QUENTIN DURWARD [1955]), Warners somewhat incongruously assigned musical comedy expert Butler to this one! While clearly inferior to those three films, KING RICHARD AND THE CRUSADERS isn't nearly as bad as its reputation would suggest (though it must be said that most spectacles from this era, disregarded by the majority of critics when new, stand up surprisingly well today as entertainment!). Even so, there's some definite campiness to the film – notably when Rex Harrison as Saladin lullabies George Sanders, playing the wounded King Richard (the score by reliable Max Steiner being noteworthy apart from this)…and, in any case, the whole emerges to be even more fanciful than Cecil B. De Mille's THE CRUSADES (1935; which preceded this viewing), what with the Muslim leader insinuating himself into the enemy camp, providing a cure for the King, and even aiding him in routing the traitors (genre staple Robert Douglas and Michael Pate) among his own ranks!! One similarity to the earlier epic is the fact that Saladin falls for a Christian woman – though, in this case, it's Richard's cousin (Virginia Mayo) as opposed to his wife (who gets very limited screen time here) – but ultimately relinquishes the heroine to her lover (a fiery Scots knight played by a young, blonde yet surprisingly effective Laurence Harvey). Incidentally, Sanders – while older than Henry Wilcoxon's incarnation of Richard in THE CRUSADES – is no less gruff and headstrong and, in fact, spends more time fighting Harvey (including a jousting duel) than Harrison!!

ragosaal Have to admit I didn't read Sir Walter Scott's "The Talisman" in which this film is supposed to be based on. If "King Richard and the Crusaders is a good version of the book I'm glad I didn't.This movie is sort of colorful with some acceptable gowns (I didn't say accurate), Virginia Mayo has some good profile shots (I didn't say scenes), George Sanders renders an acceptable performance as the title character and Robert Douglas plays fine one of his usual costume villains. And that's about all.The medieval extravaganza looks definitely as a low budget one with not much credible situations, lots of full speed horseback riding towards nowhere, standard swordplay and that originally ridiculous undercover doctor (Saladin himself) curing his enemy Richard wounded by an arrow thrown by his own men. Nobody understands either why really Douglas wants to kill his king; I mean they say why, but its not enough reason (too standard). And there's one of the most insipid and dull heroes ever in a medieval film: Laurence Harvey as Kenneth The Leopard with a blonde wig, a wooden acting and ridiculous lines in his romantic scenes with Mayo (it's hard to understand how Harvey went into a reasonable film career if his first roles where like this one).The only explanation for this picture being made could be that the producers tried to take advantage of the ticket box's success of "Ivanhoe" (based on Walter Scott's best novel) and "Knights of the Round Table" both released a short time before. If my guess is right, they failed completely.