Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Leoni Haney Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

Kirandeep Yoder The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Frances Chung Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

drystyx This loosely told story of the Crusades isn't so bad historically, if one allows for this one "crusade" to represent a total summation of all the Crusades, probably de Mille's goal.But while de Mille gives a fairly accurate portrayal of some historical characters (if one reads between the lines), he gives a totally bizarre portrayal of their personal lives that could not possibly be believed.First, the few things that make sense. Richard was not a "Christian", and de Mille shows this. He gave the usual lip service, but he represented the "mercantile" endeavors of those who used the papal promises for their own ends. The pope made the mistake of granting Richard rule over all Christians in the conquered lands. What this led to was Richard simply slaughtering any person who wasn't guaranteed to be under his rule, which meant non Christians.This was the savagery of the Crusades. It had nothing to do with religion, but of men taking advantage of religion. In a subtle way, de Mille does show this.Saladin was well depicted. Despite what critics say, he was one of the more benevolent of warriors, which isn't saying a lot, but if you were captured by a Moslem force, you would rather it be by Saladin than most others. He could be reasoned with. if nothing else, you could convert to Islam and be spared by him.The business with the sneaky European who Saladin killed is derived from another instance, well chronicled, dealing with a man whose evil was not nearly as "Mickey Mouse" as this villain, and who would've tried any person's patience. he was the terrorist of the era, and Saladin offered the cup of safety to everyone he captured but this man. The incident is depicted fairly faithfully in the modern epic "Kingdom of Heaven".de Mille simply combines all the events into one main event, and that's fair poetic license. Certainly closer to the truth than "Tombstone" is of Wyatt Earp and the Clantons.The personal lives are laughably unbelievable. King Richard comes across as gay (and he probably was gay or bisexual), resisting romance with the gorgeous princess of France, spurning her, and then later becoming enchanted with a very homely princess of another land. Loretta Young looks her worst for this. She is figuratively the ugly step sister, and we see the hand of women in the making of this to be a chick flick, where the homely girl gets the romance and the pretty girl is out in the cold. Nice fantasy for the female wallflowers, but men had to be shaking their heads at this, particularly when Saladin falls for the pale homely girl, when we know how beautiful Arabian women are. Loretta is not usually this plain. Her hair looks pitifully bland, but we have to remember this is a Hollywood movie, and Hollywood has always pushed the "blonde woman" look in heir chick flicks to appease the female audience.We get a lot of ho hum, no risk, same old stuff. The nice guys all die, of course, true to Hollywood clichés. The hero has to start off as a creep, and actually he's a total monster, but de Mille does some clever snake oil soft soap to make us think he isn't a monster.It's easily one of de Mille's worst works. But we see some of the skills that made de Mille great later. de Mille knew how to make a logical sequence of events, how to cut and edit, the importance and timing of comic relief. he was still in the experimental stage on his total skills, but we see a hint of them here.

hundd44 Nobody ever accused DeMille of painstaking historical accuracy - his films are far more the type to set the mood and tell a good story with a historical period as a background. "The Crusades" is a prime example - historically Richard the Lionheart was a lousy king of England who barely spent a year in England during his entire reign - to him, England was merely a source for taxes and troops so he fight the his continental wars. The opening scene of the movie when the Chrisitians captured at Jerusalem are being sold into slavery (with the obligatory Muslim leering at the blonde Christian beauties) is also historically suspect. Saladin and his generals expected the Christian nobility that was captured at Jerusalem to ransom the common people prisoners. When they didn't, Saladin and his generals were so disgusted at such a lack of concern that they ended up ransoming many of the commoners themselves - supposedly Saladin personally ransomed several hundred so they could return to Europe. But I digress.This is a movie which contains a scene that has stayed with me for several decades. I doubt if it would play well today - I can't think of any actors who could pull it off. The scene is where the Christian leaders of the Crusade meet Saladin for the first time when Saladin comes to warn them to go back to Europe. The various Kings, dukes, et al are all seated and listen to Saladin's message. Richard the Lionheart then steps up and tells Saladin that the Christians aren't afraid, that their armies are powerful and to illustrate his point he has two servants hold an iron mace while he proceeds to cleave it in two with his sword. An impressive display of the strength of his blade. But Saladin has a priceless response. He walks over to Berengaria and asks if he can have her silk veil. He takes the veil, tosses it into the air, and then pulls his own sword and positions it below the falling veil, blade up. The veil falls onto the blade and is cut in two by its own weight - for this was a famed Damascus blade. Saladin's point - brute strength isn't everything. Of course, all of the Christian nobles just drop their mouths in utter shock at the demonstration. A priceless scene - and an illustration of the "little things" that separate a humdrum film from one you enjoy watching time and time again.

Polaris_DiB Now, the Crusades are not only historically an exercise in grandeur, bigotry, and hubris, but often are portrayed as such in films, even in modern ones that lay claims to "anti-war" justification for the carnage that they show. Seeing a movie from the 30s, by a man who uses Christian topics often, wouldn't you expect more of the same? I did, and was sorely mistaken. Cecil B. DeMille's "The Crusades" is actually a romance movie about a man who learns humility and grace through love.That man is Richard the Lionheart (Henry Wilcoxon), who joins the Third Crusade to show off his brawn and evade a political marriage. Ironically, in order to even make it to the battle, he is forced into another political marriage, and even more ironic than that, upon meeting his new wife he falls helplessly in love. Of course, that doesn't mean the way is paved for a happily-ever-after unless he learns to do something with that pesky arrogance and militancy he has. This, surprisingly enough, leads him to rediscover Christianity and learn a humble grace that seems a contradiction to the usual (and also, ehrm, historical) image of the Crusades.The actual battle scenes are kept to minimum, but they're surprisingly harsh and visceral. I expected, due to the era, for DeMille's battle scenes to be poetic justification for large levels of carnage, but perhaps because I'm unfamiliar with a large part of DeMille's work, perhaps because of my own immersion into the primary sources of the Crusades, I ended up completely mesmerized by a much starker anti-war message than any contemporary film has fully justified for me. Add to this a very crafty script that quietly and gracefully clears up all promises, ties up loose ends, and creates a completely believable mix of unique characterizations, and DeMille's "Crusades" ends up being a very delicious and powerful romantic story.I've not previously been very interested in DeMille's career beyond his importance to Hollywood and film history, but this movie made it clear that he is an expert craftsman and artist.--PolarisDiB

bkoganbing Whatever else you can say about Richard I, the Lion Hearted he was a mighty warrior in battle. In fact he loved wars and battles so much he spent very little time ruling his own kingdom. Remembering that his kingdom was not just England, but a good deal of what is now France, it is estimated that he may have spent at most, six months on the British Isles.Not that his brother John was any bargain. But Richard and his wars cost his people a great deal in taxation. England was in medieval chapter 11 after he was done. Yet his legend as a warrior lives on, perpetuated greatly by Cecil B. DeMille and this film. It's a typical DeMille product characterized by topflight spectacle and action scenes and some arcane dialog, the kind that was used when DeMille was learning his trade from David Belasco in the early 20th century.DeMille sent out for his leading lady, over to Fox for Loretta Young. I'm sure Ms. Young was more than happy to star in The Crusades as she, Irene Dunne, and Rosalind Russell were THE three Catholic stars of the screen. Young plays Berengaria of Navarre who has the dubious distinction of being the only Queen of England never to set foot on English soil.Berengaria, here and in real life, was a political pawn in an arranged marriage. Richard was supposed to marry Princess Alice of France, played here by Katharine DeMille. But for the real story of who Richard would have married in a love match, check out The Lion In Winter. Berengaria survived her husband by about 30 years. I'm sure in real life she was one lonely person.DeMille tried hard to make his good friend Henry Wilcoxon a star, both here and in Cleopatra. Wilcoxon as an actor did far better away from C.B. than with him. He's probably best known for playing the Vicar in Mrs. Miniver.It's hard to sympathize with Richard. Even in this favorable treatment of him, he comes across like a blundering fool. He goes to The Crusades in the first place to get out of marrying Alice because any promises would be absolved if he went on Crusade to reclaim Jerusalem for Christendom. And after that it's one blunder after another.Remember in Patton George C. Scott remarks how much he enjoys all the combat and how Karl Malden chides him for just that. The plain truth is that was what got Richard going in the morning. Sex with whomever didn't measure up to a good battle.Ian Keith as Saladin comes off far better. He was a genuine warrior hero defending his kingdom, as chivalrous a person as the Christian knights claim to be. And politically he spins rings around Richard. So does the wily Conrad of Montferrat as played by Joseph Schildkraut. Another reviewer described him as unctuous. That's the word that fits him best. In fact in a later role in The Shop Around the Corner, Schildkraut practically patented unctuous for the screen. The spectacle is grand, the Battle of Acre was one of the most ambitious screen undertakings up to that point. But a Victorian script and a fool for a hero defeats this film.I'd recommend the recent Kingdom of Heaven for a more accurate depiction of The Cruades. I'd even recommend King Richard and the Crusaders with George Sanders as Richard and Rex Harrison as Saladin as being better.