King Richard and the Crusaders (1954) User Reviews

Loved it when I was 12

[jjsemple · 7/10 · 19 January 2011]

I give it a NINE as a 12-year-old. As a mature person, I can't say because it's not available, even on Netflix. At the time, I thought it a great adventure film. So they scrambled history a bit and the lines were corny; but with costumes, intrigue, and romance, plus Rex Harrison and the always impeccable George Sanders, what more could a kid want?

Especially loved the part "where King Richard meets Saladin and shows him 'the strength of English steel' by cutting through an iron mace placed across the backs of two chairs. Saladin responds in kind by throwing a silk veil in the air which separates as it falls across his scimitar, and he replies that 'sometimes it is not the strength of the steel but the sharpness of the blade.'"

Didn't you ever like some film as a kid for reasons known only to a 12-year-old?

Lawrence Harvey, Scottish knight in copper colored armor

[Deusvolt · 6/10 · 13 June 2007]

Saw it on its second release in 1962. I liked it then and recalling several scenes, I still like it. First, I fancied Sir Kenneth's very unusual armour which was a deep copper color. I had seen silver and gold finish armor in movies, even shiny black but this was the first time I saw copper colored armour. But wait, in Samson and Delilah (with Victor Mature) the shields and breastplates of the Philistines were made of copper.

Memorable is the scene when Sir Kenneth introduces himself to King Richard (portrayed by George Sanders) in Gaellic. Although used to foreign knights as the Crusades were after all a multinational mission of Christian kingdoms, the King nevertheless was surprised that he couldn't discern the language spoken by Sir Kenneth. When the latter informs him that it was Gaellic, George Sanders' blue eyes flashed and he said: "One of the Scotsmen! I swear as soon as this crusade is over and the Saracens are defeated, I will bathe their miserable country in their blood." Or something to that effect. Remember in the 11th century,England and Scotland were rivals in power and were constantly at war over borders with England always trying to subjugate the Scots.

I always enjoy listening to George Sanders' rich voice and very cultured but manly intonation which can sometimes be reassuring but at times menacing. His voice over of Bagheera the tiger in Disney's The Jungle Book with its range of moods is superb.

The battle and dueling scenes were very good.

By Saint George – Or Andrew

[hitchcockthelegend · 6/10 · 31 May 2014]

King Richard and the Crusaders is directed by David Butler and adapted to screenplay by John Twist from the novel "The Talisman" written by Sir Walter Scott. It stars Rex Harrison, Viginia Mayo, George Sanders, Laurence Harvey, Robert Douglas, Michael Pate and Paula Raymond. A WarnerColor/CinemaScope production, music is by Max Steiner and cinematography by J. Peverell Marley.

Unfairly maligned as one of the 50 worst movie of all time, David Butler's picture has enough spectacle about it to ensure it can be enjoyed by fans of such fluffy fare. The script is often awful, the historical accuracy equally so, while Rex Harrison – who is otherwise excellent – singing like a love sick minstrel, is a touch bizarre! But on the other side of the fence is the lush colour, the costuming, Harrison and Sanders' playful jostling, Steiner's rumbling score and the lively action scenes (mucho jousting high in calibre).

It for sure isn't approaching the top end of the swords and shields list of movies, but is it really worse than the likes of Androcles and the Lion, Helen of Troy, Sword of Lancelot etc? No say I! There's fun to be had, both intentional and otherwise. 6/10

The Warriors Of Christendom, The Warriors Of Islam

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 28 September 2009]

Somehow King Richard And The Crusaders made the Medved list of the 50 Worst films of all time. I'm not saying it's Citizen Kane, but I've seen far worse. And until The Lion In Winter and Robin and Marian, we have never been given a true picture of King Richard I of England.

George Sanders who also in his career played King Charles II, a monarch of a far different temperament than Richard is in the title role. The film is based on the Sir Walter Scott novel, The Talisman and takes place in the Middle East during the Crusades.

As in the DeMille epic The Crusades which this bear a faint resemblance, The Lion Hearted King is beset with lots of problems, not all of them caused by the Syrian warrior King Saladin whom he faces in the field. Duke Leopold of Austria and Philip Augustus of France question his leadership of all the Christian nations, his brother Prince John is looking to seize his throne back home and right in camp, he's got a couple of fifth columnists in Robert Douglas and Michael Pate.

Pate and Douglas put in action an assassination attempt in which Richard is only wounded by a captured Saracen arrow. Richard's loyal retainer a Scot knight played by Laurence Harvey starts hunting up the assassins. But in the mean time, a truce of sorts is called as Saladin, hearing of Richard's attempt sends his personal physician played by Rex Harrison.

There is a romantic subplot going here with Harvey and a cousin of Richard's played by Virginia Mayo. Richard likes Harvey enough, but not to marry into the royal family, especially when as a royal princess, Mayo can be married off for alliance purposes.

Sir Walter Scott was one of those authors in the 19th century who cleaned up the Middle Ages quite a bit and invested those bloody times with a romantic aura. He was never more effective in doing this than in his more well known work Ivanhoe. In fact Ivanhoe is almost a sequel of this film as it deals with the capture of Richard by Duke Leopold on the way back to England after the action in this film is concluded and the ransom for Richard demanded and paid.

George Sanders and Robert Douglas were both in the screen version of Ivanhoe that MGM did two years before Warner Brothers did this film. Ivanhoe is a much better film, yet King Richard And The Crusaders does hold its own.

When the Medveds wrote that 50 worst film book they cited a line that Virginia Mayo says which is "war, war that's all you ever think about Dick Plantagenet". In point of fact that was the thing uppermost in that very bloodthirsty man's mind. More truth than humor there.

And you won't get much truth from King Richard And The Crusaders. Still it's not as bad a film as the Medveds would have you believe.

Pretty Good Adventure Flick

[bellemarie · 7/10 · 22 September 2007]

King Richard and the Crusaders is an entertaining movie, with plenty of action, nice costumes, some good scenery, and a fast-moving plot. Everything you would normally want from an adventure movie.

However, the script is horrible, many of the actors are completely miscast, the actual story is pretty poor, and it has next to nothing to do with the Crusades. It is not Crusaders versus Saracens. It is Good Crusaders and Good Saracens versus Bad Crusaders. Also, they most certainly do not have a cast of thousands, looking like it has a very low budget.

As a result, if you are looking for a historically accurate epic about the Third Crusade, you will be disappointed. Although it is not a great movie, it is underrated, being far better than a lot of other adventure movies, and is overall entertaining.

If you want to enjoy it, simply do not go into the movie looking for an award winning script and brilliant acting.

Ineptly written, poor in colorful characters and chivalry...

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 5/10 · 9 July 1999]

The fifties was Hollywood's decade of change... With television's continuing stronghold on the public, the film industry had to rethink itself into competing against the monster box and, in so doing, underwent a radical personality change...

Clearly, the only way to lure audiences back into the cinema was to provide them with something that was unavailable on television. The alternatives soon became apparent: new projection ratios that could in no way be matched by the small screen, epics whose production costs were beyond the reach of TV...

"King Richard and the Crusaders" begins with Richard the Lionhearted (George Sanders) and his allies having hardly set foot in the Holy Land on the Third Crusade when a group of treacherous nobles plans to kill Richard and take command of the whole operation...

Sir Kenneth (Lawrence Harvey) makes his appearance as a noble Scotsman, the only knight who is truly loyal to Richard... He warns the king about the traitors in his midst, and rides off to find evidence against them...

Virginia Mayo is Richard's cousin, Lady Edith, who is hopelessly in love with Sir Kenneth, but she can't marry him until he proves himself...

Rex Harrison plays the role of the Saracen ruler Saladin, who falls in love with Lady Edith... The motion picture makes it clear that it is Saladin, not Richard, who is the nobler and wiser chieftain through a series of intrigues which show the great Sultan playing physician, matchmaker and spy all the while Richard is being cheated by traitors and self-interested allies around him... In fact, the tricked king is moved to condemn to death his bravest knight and supporter...

Robert Douglas is Sir Giles Amaury, the treacherous knight who sneaks up to Richard's tent one night with a hired bowman... "Strike deep!" he urged, "this is no ordinary man!"

Very loosely based on Sir Walter Scott's The Talisman, David Butler's "King Richard and the Crusaders" is a fun film, full of adventure and exotic locales, but absolutely far from Richard Thorpe's "Ivanhoe," poor in colorful characters and chivalry...

Heavy plotting and absurd dialogue kill movie even Max Steiner's score could not save...

[Doylenf · 2 October 2011]

KING RICHARD AND THE CRUSADERS is a Warner Bros. attempt to get folks away from their TV sets during the '50s and watch a spectacular adventure film in CinemaScope and Warner Color. Based on a story "The Talisman" by Sir Walter Scott (of "Ivanhoe" fame), it contains a lot of absurdly anachronistic dialogue ("Go squat on the Alps!"), and plot- heavy nonsense that gets more and more entangled as the film plods toward another saber-rattling conclusion.

REX HARRISON seems to be having a fine time as a turbaned Mideasterner (Saladin) under heavy dark make-up in a rather physically demanding role not characteristic of most of his work. And LAWRENCE HARVEY is more animated than usual in a cardboard assignment, in love with VIRGINIA MAYO who has little to do but look decorative in her colorful costumes.

The big mystery is why David Butler (who specialized in comedies and musicals) was chosen to do the sort of directorial chores that should have gone to Michael Curtiz. One can only yearn for a better film when listening to Max Steiner's well orchestrated background score, but even his music fails to save an inept script from seeming even the least bit credible. Most of the dialogue is unbelievably bad in a screenplay by John Twist.

No wonder this was a box office dud, in no way reaping the sort of rewards Warner Bros. hoped for or the sort of success that MGM had with "Ivanhoe" and "Knights of the Roundtable."

Summing up: At your own risk.

King Richard And The Crusaders (David Butler, 1954) **1/2

[Bunuel1976 · 6/10 · 7 March 2008]

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!!

The trouble with Dick...

[wilvram · 5/10 · 17 November 2013]

King Richard I, known to posterity as the Lion Heart and, according to this script, to his friends and family as Dick, certainly has his work cut out on his Third Crusade. He faces a host of vicious and unscrupulous foes and they're just his fellow Crusaders. Lucky for him, that flashing-eyed rascal Saladin is a stickler for fair play as well as fancying cousin Edith, so things could be worse.

Though screen writer John Twist has supplied the more idiotic dialogue, the eccentric narrative stems from Sir Walter Scott's The Talisman itself. By the time of its publication in the 1820s, Richard had long become one of the great romantic legends of English history. In reality he was a ferocious warrior of the 'kill first and ask questions later' school, but a useless ruler. So when Virginia Mayo as the fictitious Edith utters the much mocked line: "War! War! That's all you think of Dick Plantagenet!" at the end of the movie, it's not far from the truth. Except that Richard's descendants did not adopt the name Plantagenet until a couple of centuries later.

Of course no-one expects factual accuracy in this kind of movie, but it's also rather dull in places. Too much time is taken up by the interminable feuding in camp at the start of the picture, while it ends in a frenzy of action in which it's hard to discern what's going on. Then there's the business of Sir Kenneth, hit in the chest by Saladin's arrow and falling from his horse, only to be prancing about with no harm done within a minute or two. I have seen similar films that are worse though, there is the lush photography and an excellent score from Max Steiner that's worthy of a more prodigious production and while some of the action scenes are very average, the joust and fight between Richard and Sir Kenneth is well done.

Rex Harrison as Saladin and George Sanders, looking less bored and cynical than usual, as Richard offer enjoyable performances, though the latter could have been played by a younger actor as the King was in his early thirties at the time of the Crusade. Laurence Harvey though is fairly dire as Sir Kenneth, not sounding remotely Scottish, and his love scenes with Barbara Mayo fall flat. Harvey always had his fans, but those who have speculated as to why an actor so lacking in talent and charisma became a star will find no answers here.

Spectacular and shimmer adventure set in Crusades time with historical roles as Sultan Saladin and Richard Lion Heart

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 26 December 2017]

King Richard landed at Acre on 8 June 1191, along with several other European monarchs , is in the Holy Land intent on retaking Jerusalem from the Saracens . Set in 1191, Holy Land , in which King Richard the Lionhearted (George Sanders) encounters much battle and outright betrayal in the European encampment . Two nobles in particular, Sir Giles Amaury (Robert Douglas) and Conrad of Montferrat (Michael Pate) , want to kill the English king . Severely injured and on his death bed , Richard is brought back to health by a Saracen doctor (Rex Harrison) who has an altogether different identity and being recruited by one of his loyal knights, Sir Kenneth of the Leopard (Laurence Harvey) . The king recovers from injures but other knights attempt to have him assassinated. When he hears that Sir Lawrence wishes to wed Lady Edith Plantagenet (Virginia Mayo) , the knight is banished only to be taken in by the very doctor who treated the king .

This historical film contains epic events , impressive battles , thrills , betrayals , romance and wonderful scenarios in which take place the death clashes in a neverending conquest for the Holy Land . Passable and colorful rendition based on the famous novel "The Talisman" by Sir Walter Scott with screen play by John Twist , including emotional highs and lows . The picture has been criticized for its plodding plot in which emerges a strong rivalry and hate among the Crusaders and Muslims , with several moments of tension where the warriors must survive the crises of desert life , impressive tournaments , jousts , sword-play and human frailty . Acceptable performances from a great main cast as Laurence Harvey , Rex Harrison , George Sanders and the gorgeous Virginia Mayo . And fine support cast such as : Robert Douglas, Michael Pate , Paula Raymond as Queen Berengaria and brief acting by Nick Cravet , Bur Lancaster's usual colleague . It contains an atmospheric and evocative musical score by the classic composer Max Steiner . Glimmer and glamorous cinematography in Technicolor by J. Peverell Marley . The motion picture was lavishly produced by Henry Blanke and middlingly directed by David Butler .

The film is partially based on historical events , the real deeds are the followings : Richard and his forces aided in the capture of Acre, despite the king's serious illness. Eventually Conrad of Montferrat concluded the surrender negotiations with Saladin's forces inside Acre and raised the banners of the kings in the city. Richard quarrelled with Leopold V of Austria over his position within the crusade. Leopold's banner had been raised alongside the English and French standards. This was interpreted as arrogance by both Richard and Philip, as Leopold was a vassal of the Holy Roman Emperor. Richard's men tore the flag down and threw it in the moat of Acre. Leopold left the crusade immediately. Philip also left soon afterwards, in poor health andafter further disputes with Richard over the status of Cyprus and the kingship of Jerusalem. Richard, suddenly, found himself without allies. Richard had kept 2,700 Muslim prisoners as hostages against Saladin fulfilling all the terms of the surrender of the lands around Acre. Philip, before leaving, had entrusted his prisoners to Conrad, but Richard forced him to hand them over to him. Richard feared his forces being bottled up in Acre as he believed his campaign could not advance with the prisoners in train. He therefore ordered all the prisoners executed. He then moved south, defeating Saladin's forces at the Battle of Arsuf 30 miles north of Jaffa on 7 September 1191. Saladin attempted to harass Richard's army into breaking its formation in order to defeat it in detail. Richard maintained his army's defensive formation, however, until the Hospitallers broke ranks to charge the right wing of Saladin's forces. Richard then ordered a general counterattack, which won the battle. Arsuf was an important victory. The Muslim army was not destroyed, despite the considerable casualties it suffered, but it did rout; this was considered shameful by the Muslims and boosted the morale of the Crusaders. In November 1191, following the fall of Jaffa, the Crusader army advanced inland towards Jerusalem. The army then marched to Beit Nuba, only 12 miles from Jerusalem. Muslim morale in Jerusalem was so low that the arrival of the Crusaders would probably have caused the city to fall quickly. However, the weather was appallingly bad, cold with heavy rain and hailstorms; this, combined with the fear that the Crusader army, if it besieged Jerusalem, might be trapped by a relieving force, led to the decision to retreat back to the coast. Richard attempted to negotiate with Saladin, but this was unsuccessful. In the first half of 1192 he and his troops refortified Ascalon.The Crusader army made another advance on Jerusalem, and in June 1192 it came within sight of the city before being forced to retreat once again, this time because of dissension amongst its leaders. In particular, Richard and the majority of the army council wanted to force Saladin to relinquish Jerusalem by attacking the basis of his power through an invasion of Egypt.Richard stated that he would accompany any attack on Jerusalem but only as a simple soldier; he refused to lead the army. Without a united command the army had little choice but to retreat back to the coast. There commenced a period of minor skirmishes with Saladin's forces, punctuated by another defeat in the field for the Ayyubid army at the Battle of Jaffa.Richard knew that both Philip and his own brother John were starting to plot against him, and the morale of Saladin's army had been badly eroded by repeated defeats. However, Saladin insisted on the razing of Ascalon's fortifications, which Richard's men had rebuilt, and a few other points. Richard made one last attempt to strengthen his bargaining position by attempting to invade Egypt-Saladin's chief supply-base-but failed. In the end, time ran out for Richard. He realised that his return could be postponed no longer since both Philip and John were taking advantage of his absence. He and Saladin finally came to a settlement , the terms provided for the destruction of Ascalon's fortifications, allowed Christian pilgrims and merchants access to Jerusalem, and initiated a three-year truce. Richard, being ill with scurvy, left for England on October 9, 1192

a camp classic

[MOscarbradley · 3/10 · 11 June 2014]

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.

some people should not write movie reviews

[blakduke · 8/10 · 9 May 2007]

Why is it that people who write movie reviews always expect a message from the movie or the movie to make some social statement, or worse yet each movie has to have academy award performances. King Richard and the Crusaders will never win an academy award for anything. Is it pleasant escapism, absolutely. Knights in armor, damsel in distress, nefarious plots all over the place, swords, pitched battles, good lord all that and you want academy award dialog as well?????? Many a rainy Saturday I crawled up in my chair and watched this movie. Accept it for what it is and don't try to milk more out of it than what is there. As for it being in the top 50 worst movies.. Like I said some people should not review movies. These kinds of film were being pumped out like cannon fodder in the early 50's. Ivanhoe, the Black Knight etc. Even Ivanhoe was not any type of academy award film and yet it received some very favorable reviews. So if your going to post reviews, reflect on what the movie is before slamming it for no good reason.

King Richard and the Crusaders

[CinemaSerf · 6/10 · 21 November 2022]

Laurence Harvey portrays a fictional Scottish knight on crusade with Richard the Lionheart in this brightly coloured but laboured adaptation of Sir Walter Scott's "The Talisman". The history is all over the place and the casting - particularly Rex Harrison as Saladin, but George Sanders as King Richard is pretty lame too. Robert Douglas reprises his oft-seen role as the baddie to some effect, and Virginia Mayo adds a touch of glamour but the dialogue is very dry, the acting overly theatrical and though well enough put together, this comes across as a lot-made film made to fulfil outstanding contractual obligations by the actors rather than to engage an adult audience.

Is it bad enough to merit inclusion on the infamous list?!

[planktonrules · 2/10 · 6 May 2011]

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.

Notice the title says Crusaders and not Crusades.

[padutchland-1 · 16 April 2006]

I picked up a video of King Richard and the Crusaders this weekend at the local flea market, never having seen it before. In watching it, I kept wondering when the Crusaders were going to crusade against the Muslims. The Crusaders in this movie did enough fighting amongst themselves. Leopold of Austria and King Phillip of France were both ineptly trying to take leadership of the Crusade while Sir Giles (Robert Douglas) and Conrad (Michael Pate) were scheming behind King Richard's back. Sir Kenneth of Scotland was the only one he could trust. In fact, by the time it came to the part where King Richard (played by George Sanders) and his loyal Scot Knight (played by Laurence Harvey) were at the training joust, it seemed more like they were in old England than in far off lands. This was supposed to be the third Crusade, but if you are looking for a movie about the Crusades, this isn't really it. The film is based on The Talisman by Sir Walter Scott. I've not read the book, and it could be that the book had more actual Crusade history, with the movie being made to just entertain. It's an entertaining movie with all the familiar parts - good guys, bad guys, treachery and a damsel in distress. Plenty of sword fighting, arrow shooting and other weapons and that was OK with me as I like the action of the 1950's movies. So - if you are looking for a good old fashioned type action movie with sword play and a castle, you will probably like this one. As for acting, I wasn't too taken with Laurence Harvey as the love interest of fair maiden. His acting was adequate, but rather stiff. I guess I like the lead to have that easy going, devil-may-care attitude that can win the lady yet be poison to his enemies like Errol Flynn and Richard Greene. Perhaps it was the way the part was written, but he was angry and stiff-necked the whole movie. George Sanders did a decent job but could have had better writing for his part. Did you know he was married to both Zsa Zsa Gabor and then her sister Magna? That his brother was Tom Conway whom he handed off the part of The Falcon which he had tired of doing. In 1937 he told David Niven that he would commit suicide when he got older and did just that in 1972, leaving a note that he was bored. Rex Harrison was the supposed bad guy in this but really wasn't. He played the Muslim leader Saladin. Rex Harrison so very famous for many great parts. My favorite with him is My Fair Lady but others will remember Agony and the Ecstacy and Doctor Doolittle. Rumor had it that Carole Landis committed suicide over his ending the affair with her. However, she was besieged with extreme ill health (malaria, amoebic dysentery and pneumonia) caught while entertaining WWII troops and financial difficulties so who knows. Rex was his usual charming self in this movie and played his part well. The lovely lady in this one was none other than Virginia Mayo (always beautiful favorite) who did a nice job. Nothing academy award but a decent performance. I read where she was slightly cross eyed and had to be filmed carefully. She took her last name Mayo (real name Jones) from other actors in a vaudeville act years before. Unfortunately, we lost her in 2005. I did discover where those New Year's Eve ratchet noise makers came from. When the Crusaders were rousing the camp, one of the soldiers shook one above his head. An interesting sidelight is Henry Corden who played King Phillip, as he was the voice of Fred Flintstone for 30 years, taking over from the original man who passed away. The best idea for this movie is to strap on your sword and grab that spiked ball on the end of the chain (whatever it is called), take your critic hat off, and just enjoy some 1950's action!

Colorful Adventure

[Tweetienator · 6/10 · 25 August 2022]

Those colors! Balm for the eye and soul. King Richard and the Crusaders is a well made adventure movie set in the time of knights good and bad and the Crusades: we get action, romance, treason, revenge - everything you can crave for, if you like such kind of old-school movies, of course. Watching this one, is like reading one of those books you loved in your youth.

Enjoyable, but only to connoisseurs of bad movies

[JamesHitchcock · 4/10 · 2 September 2022]

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.

Just For Kinghts Films "Ultra" Fans

[ragosaal · 4/10 · 19 October 2006]

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.

A cardboard costumer, if ever there was one

[pninson · 4/10 · 25 March 2008]

The problem with this movie isn't so much the hokey dialogue, the relatively cheap sets, and the slapdash makeup. The story isn't bad, but it never gets as gripping as Max Steiner's spectacular musical score suggests it should be.

There are a few good battle scenes and a good jousting match, but only Rex Harrison (in absurd makeup as Saladin) and George Sanders (as Richard the Lionheart) give the film any substance. Virginia Mayo still looks like Cody Jarrett's wife in WHITE HEAT; this is a substandard performance for her. For that matter, Rex Harrison still looks like 'Enry 'Iggins, despite all the soot they've smeared on his face to make him look like a Kurd.

This is a fun film, but I can bring myself to give it five stars, because it was somewhat boring. It's campy, but not campy enough to be enjoyable from start to finish.

At least I saw it in a widescreen German print (in English); to my knowledge there has been no video widescreen release of this film in any format.

Captures your attention from the start

[lora64 · 10/10 · 15 August 2007]

Hollywood was in the business of producing entertainment and not necessarily historical documentaries. I consider this film to be a very good action-packed movie, the kind we would expect when going to the movies on a Saturday night when we were younger. It's just great sitting through this one.

I like George Sanders in this role as he has more scope here as Richard the Lionhearted, and at least he isn't a cad or the usual bad character as in most of the other films he's done, so it's a nice change.

Laurence Harvey is just fine as Sir Kenneth, the loyal Scotsman, and portraying a Scot he displays their usual staunch reserve by nature, quite in character I thought.

Of course Rex Harrison as Saladin is the master showman here, wily and filled with crafty schemes, at the beginning he manages to work his way into his enemies' camp, in the guise of a physician sent there by Saladin to treat Richard's wound as he has been laid low by a poisoned arrow shot at him. Luckily he survives.

Lovely Virginia Mayo lights up the screen in my view with her exquisite beauty and although she doesn't have a really fulfilling role, her portrayal of Lady Edith is well done.

It's good entertainment with lots of action and should be appreciated as such. I'm glad to add it to my collection.

Don't watch it, Listen to it!

[16mmRay · 5/10 · 9 January 2008]

The main reason to indulge in KING RICHARD FOR THE CRUSADERS isn't the very cheap interiors reproduced in the wonderment of CinemaScope; it isn't the sleepy performance of mutton-chasing George Sanders; it isn't the cross-eyed heart-pounding (literally!) histrionics of Virginia Mayo; and it isn't even the surprisingly unsteady surliness of Robert Douglas (usually sharp as a rapier). Nope. Tune in to KING RICHARD for one of Max Steiner's grandest adventure scores. It's truly a thrilling work, with lovely melodies and rugged action set-pieces. But as good old Max said many times, "good music can help a picture but it can never save it." David Butler was a terrific director whose musicals and comedies have real spark and often puckish whimsy. Why he was handed this piece of cheese is a mystery. At least journeyman Curtiz could have made something worthwhile out of it. Oh well, it's still a great film to listen to.

King of England?

[dbdumonteil · 24 December 2006]

Actually,Richard Lionheart spent hardly one year in his country;most of the time,he was in France,where he owned big fiefs,or gone on crusades.

Adapting a Walter Scott novel and with a cast featuring Rex Harrison,Laurence Harvey ,George Sanders and the "tangible proof of Allah's existence "(dixit a local sheik) ,Virginia Mayo ,how can a director do wrong?However that's what he does in an awful screenplay.The actors are miscast and/or their parts are inept.

Who could believe Rex Harrison is Saladin?Who could believe he came to the crusaders' camp ?the secrecy with which he surrounded himself? I did not even recognize the fair-haired (?) Scottish -"never trust a Scottish " seems to be Richard's motto) Laurence Harvey who ,sadly falls in love with the king's sister Edith..

Edith,played by Mayo,is a pacifist: "fight fight fight that's all you think of Dick (sic) Plantagenêt (re-sic)! And George Sanders plays the well-known part of George -Sanders-the-suave- unctuous-villain.

A big disappointment,given all the talents involved.

Dick Plantagenet Goes To Camp

[ArtVandelayImporterExporter · 1/10 · 24 August 2018]

It's entirely plausible this is one of the 50 Worst Major Releases of All Time. The opening scene has King Richard and his fellow marauders riding through a set that looks left over from a Joh Ford western. They are set upon by Saracens throwing rubber arrows and swinging wooden swords. A totally inept fight scene. Then we get 15-20 minutes of camp (and campy) squabbling among Richard, the other kings, and their rabble. So boring. Saved only by the arrival of Virginia Mayo, whose line readings are so laughably bad they make the rest of the cast look like multiple Oscar winners. It actually manages to go downhill from there. Sanders bloviating from a sick bed. Harrison in black face. Harvey scowling in a blond wig. Probably the only reason this didn't bankrupt the studio is that it was mostly shot on a sound stage or in front of a blue screen. They might have spent a week outside, at most, somewhere in the Baja, filming extras swinging plastic battle axes at one another. A fascinatingly bad movie on every level. Except for Steiner's score, which is above reproach.

Richard the not so lionhearted

[Prismark10 · 2/10 · 14 May 2014]

Colourful costumes, battle scenes, chivalry and betrayal yet King Richard and the Crusaders is a dud of nonsense proportions.

Based on Walter Scott's, The Talisman and little credence given to historical accuracy, King Richard (George Sanders) and his pan European allies are in the midst of treachery as some of the knights and barons plan to kill him. Only Sir Kenneth (Lawrence Harvey) a Scot and therefore untrusted senses danger and is loyal to Richard.

Sir Kenneth has other motives as he is in love with Lady Edith (Virginia Mayo) who is Richard's cousin.

Rex Harrison is the Saracen ruler Saladin who enters the camp in disguise and also falls for Lady Edith. Saladin is shown to be wise and noble even healing King Richard at one point whereas King Richard is surrounded by treachery and petty rules which leads him to banish his most trusted knight at one point.

The film is too long, too padded and even confusing. The setting looks to much like California than the desert of the Middle East. The intrigue is laughable as Richard is not astute enough to have spies in his camp to search out any counter plots, but the nasty noblemen can figure out Richard's plans by standing outside his tent and listening in to his conversations.

Saladin although appearing to be decent and intelligent with good command of English, his Arabic consists of mangled Muslim prayers. Imagine an Arabic film that had an English character and every time he spoke English, it consisted nothing but portion of the Lord's prayers!

You have scenes such as jousting where they spend too long on the fanfare and the setting up rather than the actual jousting. You have Sir Kenneth getting shot by an arrow and yet he miraculously recovers and in any mass use of Bows and Arrows, no horses ever gets hit. Its a daft film but it is not gloriously daft. At least Harrison, Mayo, Sanders and Harvey try hard and take it all seriously.

Never Trust A Scot

[malcolmgsw · 1/10 · 28 July 2014]

I watched this on TCM and couldn't quite believe what I was seeing and hearing.Although I marked it 1/10 it is so bad it is hilarious.We have George Sanders who really doesn't look one inch a king nor Rex Harrison ,Saladdin.However the biggest laugh is Laurence Harvey.He is supposed to be a Scot ,so where is his kilt?He does nt pretend to have a Scottish accent.Furthermore he is called Sir Kenneth of Huntingdon.Should be Sir Kenneth of Williams !Huntingdon is near Cambridge and was the former parliamentary seat of ex PM John Major.All I can say is that I hope all 3 got a big fat cheque for their participation as they have left us with a truly awful film full of anachronisms."Don't get mushy over her" says Sanders to Harvey at the end.By my troth indeed!