I gave it a 7.5 out of 10

Good concept, poorly executed.

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

While "The Crusades" features a very impressive cast, the film itself is tedious as well as often historically inaccurate. It's not terrible...but you could do a lot better.In movies from the 1930s-50s, Richard the Lionhearted (Richard I of England) is a very noble warrior (such as in "Robin Hood" and "Ivan hoe") but in real life he was a blood-thirsty maniac--a man who had no interest in ruling England (having spent very little time there during his lifetime). He was NOT very noble or chivalrous and was probably one of England's worst kings. Instead, he delighted in going to war and was renowned for his bravery and brutality--sacking cities and killing everyone inside! He spoke French--or at least the French language of his empire in what is modern Western France. Although he adored war and manly deeds, he showed little interest in women--and pretty much ignored his wife. This has led to speculation that he was gay. Not surprisingly, he didn't leave an heir.Now the Cecil B. DeMille version of Richard (Henry Wilcoxon) in "The Crusades" is not as flowery and ridiculous as that in many other films of the era. He was a warrior first in this film--which is who Richard truly was. But, in the film he is a nice and good king--a man to be admired (ha!). And, although initially showing no interest in women or his poor wife, the film later shows a touching romance between him and his queen, Berengaria (Loretta Young). Weirdly, however, his strange relationship with his enemy, Saladin (Ian Keith) isn't that far from reality. Despite being enemies, there was a strange respect and admiration between them--and when ill, Saladin really did apparently send doctors to treat Richard! Let's put aside the historical problems with the film (there are many more). After all, as a retired history teacher, it's easy for me to go on and on about this...and thus bore you to tears! How is the film as entertainment? Well, it's a very mixed bag. Despite being a film about war and death and the like, it's amazingly subdued and VERY talky through the first half of the film. I kept hoping to see someone kill someone--but they kept talking and talking. Some of this wasn't all bad (there was a serious rivalry between Richard and the King of France--and a lot of plotting) but for an action film, there was a tremendous lack of action. Later, things did heat up a bit and I must admit the costumes and battles were pretty well orchestrated--though on a relatively small scale (despite nice props, for a DeMille film is lacked the huge cast you'd usually expect). And, even when fighting FINALLY broke out, there still was a lot of talking and talking. It's not good...but at least it beats "King Richard and the Crusaders"--a horrible epic about the same material done in the 1950s.So, overall, it's a dull film with some historical errors. It's certainly not among the worst films about the subject but you can certainly do better. For example, the wonderful series on the Crusades by Terry Gilliam is leap-years better--more interesting, more accurate and, oddly, a bit funny.

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

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.

THE CRUSADES is a film of awesome power with some of the finest costumes, epic battles and all the pagentry expected of the legendary Cecil B. DeMille. Henry Wilcoxon's Richard the Lionheart gives (along with his star turn as Marc Anthony in DeMille's CLEOPATRA the previous year) the greatest performance of his entire career. Mesmerizing in its power, just as effective today as when it was filmed in 1935. A must-see for all who esteem the epic/spectacle genre. Fine performances given by an all-star cast right down to DeMille regulars in supporting roles. They don't get much better than this!