During the fifties, especially after the success of "Ivanhoe" in 1952, Hollywood was going through something of a romance with all things mediaeval. The reason was doubtless that producers were attracted by the colourful pageantry of the era at a time when the cinema needed to make maximum use of spectacle as a weapon in its battle with television. This film was one of the fruits of that romance, along with the likes of "The Knights of the Round Table" "The Adventures of Quentin Durward" and "The Black Shield of Falworth". "King Richard and the Crusaders" is, like "Ivanhoe", set in the reign of King Richard I and based upon a novel by Sir Walter Scott. In this case the novel in question was "The Talisman", which was originally also to have been the title of the film; it was presumably changed because the film-makers preferred something which gave audiences an idea of what the story was about.
The film tells a highly fictionalised account of the Third Crusade in which a coalition of European monarchs, including King Richard the Lionheart, were fighting to defend the Crusader kingdoms in the Holy Land and to recover Jerusalem, which had been lost to the Saracens. The Saracens are not shown as villainous; indeed, their leader, Saladin, is portrayed as noble and honourable, inspired by a code of chivalrous behaviour similar to the one which motivates Richard. The true villains of the piece are the Castelaines, a fictitious crusading order based upon the Templars, and their leader Sir Giles Amaury. Amaury, who has plans to set up his own kingdom in the Holy Land, is plotting to kill Richard, whom he sees as an obstacle to his ambitions.
Similarly the real hero of the film is not Richard, portrayed as brave and decent but not very intelligent and a poor judge of character, but the Scottish crusader Sir Kenneth of Huntingdon. (The patriotic Scott clearly wanted to make his hero a fellow countryman). A sub-plot deals with the romance between Kenneth and Richard's (fictitious) cousin, the beautiful Princess Edith Plantagenet. (The Plantagenets were of Angevin French origin, so it is unlikely that they would have given a daughter the Anglo-Saxon name Edith, but she has the same name in Scott's novel, so I will not claim this as a goof).
Richard is played by George Sanders, who also starred in "Ivanhoe" as Sir Brian de Bois-Guilbert. Sir Brian is a complex, nuanced figure; he initially seems like a straightforward villain, but later reveals some good qualities and achieves a sort of tragic redemption. Sanders's performance here is nowhere near as good as the one he gave in the earlier film, possibly because there is nothing complex or nuanced about Richard, whom he plays as the mediaeval equivalent of a bluff, hail-fellow-well-met upper-class Englishman of the mid-twentieth century. (The real Richard spoke French as his native language; it is not known whether he could speak English at all).
Rex Harrison's portrayal of Saladin was intended as sympathetic, but it has been criticised as racist in recent years, largely because of the use of dark make-up. I am well aware that in the fifties this practise was not regarded as politically incorrect as it would be today, but in this particular case it seems unnecessary. Saladin was a native of Kurdistan and would have had a much lighter skin than the one shown here. The other two leading actors, Virginia Mayo as Edith and Laurence Harvey as Kenneth, are largely forgettable.
I am indebted to the reviewer who reminded me that the film was included in Harry and Michael Medved's "The Fifty Worst Films of All Time". (I read the book many years ago and lack of shelf space meant that my copy went to a charity shop soon afterwards). No doubt the Medveds could have found fifty movies worse than this one, but they clearly realised that their book would have become very repetitive had they filled it with fifty examples of low-budget Z-movies like "Plan 9 from Outer Space" or "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians". They knew that to attract sales they needed to be controversial and include some big-budget mainstream pictures; even big-name directors like Griffith, Eisenstein and Hitchcock were not spared.
And, to be honest, there is a lot that is bad about "King Richard and the Crusaders". The acting is mediocre, the plot is often confusing and difficult to follow, and the dialogue frequently laughable. The best-known line is probably Edith scolding her cousin "War, war! That's all you ever think about, Dick Plantagenet!" but there are some equally overripe examples. ("These strange pale-eyed Goths, they show their hearts like the bumps on a pomegranate"). The film is not in the same class as "Ivanhoe", which can still be enjoyed as a good movie; "King Richard..." may be enjoyable too, but only to connoisseurs of bad movies. 4/10
Some goofs. According to the film, Saladin did not know what ice is. He certainly would have done as Kurdistan is a mountainous region with cold winters. Richard is portrayed as distrustful of the Scots because they will not submit to his authority. In fact, Richard had no interest in subjugating Scotland. His father Henry II had forced the Scottish king William the Lion to sign the Treaty of Falaise, making Scotland a vassal-state of the English Crown. Richard nullified this treaty by the Quitclaim of Canterbury, thus restoring full Scottish independence. As a Crusading Order the Castelaines would have borne a cross on their shields rather than the gryphon shown here; perhaps the film-makers did not want to associate the sacred Christian symbol with the villains of the film.
The film tells a highly fictionalised account of the Third Crusade in which a coalition of European monarchs, including King Richard the Lionheart, were fighting to defend the Crusader kingdoms in the Holy Land and to recover Jerusalem, which had been lost to the Saracens. The Saracens are not shown as villainous; indeed, their leader, Saladin, is portrayed as noble and honourable, inspired by a code of chivalrous behaviour similar to the one which motivates Richard. The true villains of the piece are the Castelaines, a fictitious crusading order based upon the Templars, and their leader Sir Giles Amaury. Amaury, who has plans to set up his own kingdom in the Holy Land, is plotting to kill Richard, whom he sees as an obstacle to his ambitions.
Similarly the real hero of the film is not Richard, portrayed as brave and decent but not very intelligent and a poor judge of character, but the Scottish crusader Sir Kenneth of Huntingdon. (The patriotic Scott clearly wanted to make his hero a fellow countryman). A sub-plot deals with the romance between Kenneth and Richard's (fictitious) cousin, the beautiful Princess Edith Plantagenet. (The Plantagenets were of Angevin French origin, so it is unlikely that they would have given a daughter the Anglo-Saxon name Edith, but she has the same name in Scott's novel, so I will not claim this as a goof).
Richard is played by George Sanders, who also starred in "Ivanhoe" as Sir Brian de Bois-Guilbert. Sir Brian is a complex, nuanced figure; he initially seems like a straightforward villain, but later reveals some good qualities and achieves a sort of tragic redemption. Sanders's performance here is nowhere near as good as the one he gave in the earlier film, possibly because there is nothing complex or nuanced about Richard, whom he plays as the mediaeval equivalent of a bluff, hail-fellow-well-met upper-class Englishman of the mid-twentieth century. (The real Richard spoke French as his native language; it is not known whether he could speak English at all).
Rex Harrison's portrayal of Saladin was intended as sympathetic, but it has been criticised as racist in recent years, largely because of the use of dark make-up. I am well aware that in the fifties this practise was not regarded as politically incorrect as it would be today, but in this particular case it seems unnecessary. Saladin was a native of Kurdistan and would have had a much lighter skin than the one shown here. The other two leading actors, Virginia Mayo as Edith and Laurence Harvey as Kenneth, are largely forgettable.
I am indebted to the reviewer who reminded me that the film was included in Harry and Michael Medved's "The Fifty Worst Films of All Time". (I read the book many years ago and lack of shelf space meant that my copy went to a charity shop soon afterwards). No doubt the Medveds could have found fifty movies worse than this one, but they clearly realised that their book would have become very repetitive had they filled it with fifty examples of low-budget Z-movies like "Plan 9 from Outer Space" or "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians". They knew that to attract sales they needed to be controversial and include some big-budget mainstream pictures; even big-name directors like Griffith, Eisenstein and Hitchcock were not spared.
And, to be honest, there is a lot that is bad about "King Richard and the Crusaders". The acting is mediocre, the plot is often confusing and difficult to follow, and the dialogue frequently laughable. The best-known line is probably Edith scolding her cousin "War, war! That's all you ever think about, Dick Plantagenet!" but there are some equally overripe examples. ("These strange pale-eyed Goths, they show their hearts like the bumps on a pomegranate"). The film is not in the same class as "Ivanhoe", which can still be enjoyed as a good movie; "King Richard..." may be enjoyable too, but only to connoisseurs of bad movies. 4/10
Some goofs. According to the film, Saladin did not know what ice is. He certainly would have done as Kurdistan is a mountainous region with cold winters. Richard is portrayed as distrustful of the Scots because they will not submit to his authority. In fact, Richard had no interest in subjugating Scotland. His father Henry II had forced the Scottish king William the Lion to sign the Treaty of Falaise, making Scotland a vassal-state of the English Crown. Richard nullified this treaty by the Quitclaim of Canterbury, thus restoring full Scottish independence. As a Crusading Order the Castelaines would have borne a cross on their shields rather than the gryphon shown here; perhaps the film-makers did not want to associate the sacred Christian symbol with the villains of the film.