User reviews

After the release of Ridley Scott's KINGDOM OF HEAVEN and 70 years after the premiere of DeMille's CRUSADES, I found it interesting to see the film. Cecil B DeMille is usually associated with ancient or biblical epics like TEN COMMANDMENTS, CLEOPATRA, KING OF KINGS or THE SIGN OF THE CROSS. However, after the two great epics of the early 1930s, he made a movie about a different historical period, the infamous crusades that aimed at protecting the Holy Land from the Muslim "infidels". The problem with this film, however, is that it looks historical but contains serious historical inaccuracies. Therefore, it cannot be treated as a serious historical epic and it is not a history lesson whatsoever. Nevertheless, it is a very interesting movie being an authentic look at DeMille's talents and a real 1930s movie. Consequently, it can still touch some of the 21 century viewers, particularly classic movie fans.

CHARACTERS: Most of the names that we hear in THE CRUSADES are historical. They are, however, showed in a different perspective and addressed to the audiences of that time. DeMille calls our attention foremost to Richard the Lionheart (Henry Wilcoxon) and his lovely wife princess Berengaria (Loretta Young). Richard is a man of courage, a king who, unlike other kings, is close to his people. But, he joins the crusade due to entirely different reasons than other kings. He does not have any faith in the cross he is to wear but wants to escape marriage with Alice (Katherine DeMille), the sister of Philip, king of France. On the way to the Holy Land, he meets the love of his life, Berengaria, a very noble and pure lady who, in the long run, changes Richard into a peacemaker and believer. These two characters are very well developed and their plot has much to say to today's viewer: the love between a man and a woman does not have to be based on sex only. Their love is mostly a spiritual love rather than sexual one (so appreciated by Medieval people). It is showed a bit humorously in the moment when Richard dares jump into his wife's bed, dedicated to John, Matthew, Luke and Mark... Another character that needs mentioning is the Hermit (C.Aubrey Smith). This is a man of great courage and faith whose sole aim in life is the cross. "Take the Cross to your hearts," as he says to the people in England gathered to join the crusade is a particularly powerful moment.

CAST: Even though Henry Wilcoxon plays the main role, he is not that good in this movie. As a matter of fact, I far more liked his performance in CLEOPATRA (1934). His acting, behavior of a proud man suits Antony very well but does not suit Richard that well. Stars who deserve highest attention in this movie are C.Aubrey Smith as the Hermit, Ian Keith as Saladin, and Joseph Schildkraut as Conrad, Marquis of Montferrat. Smith memorably presents a stereotypical hermit (this face and this voice!), Keith stresses Saladin's wisdom and an indefatigable desire to defend his religion. He shines in the scene when visiting the royal assembly. Finally Schildkraut undeniably deserves careful attention in his magnificent portrayal of conspiring Conrad. It is true that his role is distorted historically, but he does, in this performance alone, a terrific job. Loretta Young's performance, however, is far from masterpiece. Sometimes, she is sweeter than chocolate with sugar.

DIFFERENT DeMILLE: It is noticeable that THE CRUSADES, though an epic, concentrates more on message rather than lavish sets and costumes. As a result, DeMille is less noticeable than in lavish CLEOPATRA or THE SIGN OF THE CROSS. What we get here is the story, vivid characters, message of peace. That is very important to state since a lot of people associate DeMille ONLY with sets, visual effects, costumes and bathes. Here, he gives something more. It is true that there are monumental moments, like the siege of Acre or a touching scene of crusaders leaving their families for the Holy Land, but they are not in the main focus.

This film is filled with one more thing that I consider significant to mention, SYMBOLISM. It is in other DeMille's movies too, but never that much as in THE CRUSADES. The most memorable moment is a scene of salvation. Simple crusaders die and just before their last breath, they desire to touch the Cross. They climb high steps enlightened by the light coming from above. It is similar to Christians going to arena in THE SIGH OF THE CROSS, but here, it really seems that DeMille wanted to show a vision of heaven.

In the end, the film shows the victory of peace. It is a historical fairy tale but partly refers to the period of peace between Christians and Muslims termed by Saladin. This led another director to make a movie, 70 years later... THE CRUSADES, however, is still entertaining in some way. It is not for historians, but a must see for all DeMille's fans and all people interested in early talkies. 7/10!

The production values of this picture are excellent. You can tell from the sets and costumes a lot of money was spent. The great weakness of this film is the script and acting technique. The script is straight 19th century maudlin melodrama. Unfortunately, the acting technique is the same. Lines are delivered in a stilted, formal manner common to the stage of an earlier era instead of the more natural technique we are accustomed to seeing in film today. The 30's was indeed a transition period in acting technique: the over wrought melodramatic technique of the silent pictures and stage in the early thirties to the natural technique finally adopted in the late 30's. Of course, the plot itself is implausibly melodramatic "love conquers all" for "world peace" kind of thing. Still, for a film student its still worth watching for the fine directing.

The name De Mille evokes big sets, big costumes and bigger action and Crusades was his follow up to his earlier take on Christian oration from the scandalous - in a good way - Sign of the cross. Henry Wilcoxson, his Marc Anthony of Cleopatra and the always beautiful Loretta Young team up in this extravagant epic. King Richard the Lionheart is not a Christian and is not faithful to the ways of the sign of the cross but to escape a forced marriage he signs up for the Crusades to free the holy city of Jerusalem. Of course, there is scheming behind his back to seize his throne while he is gone. Along the way he trades for a wife, Loretta and haggles and argues with his other European leaders. Now, it has often not be said for it is almost as if De Mille build big sets and big stories to tell little moments for all his excess, his movies are ridiculously dialogue driven, even by the standards of the other expensive blockbuster-type movies made back then. De Mille loved dialogue scenes and focusing on character. Very strange. And this movie is really a politics and character movie as the future of Europe is argued and royal pompous exposed. The action sequences are obvious studio sets but well shot. The final moments have good heart that is not forced but earned. Thus, is this a good movie. It is hard to say because for every good scene there is a juvenile scene obviously put in to satiate the masses. Good direction though, very good direction. That said, Crusades lost money when first released, if you only look at its Domestic boxoffice rentals but was the biggest grossing movie of its year.

Cecil B. DeMille's spectacles were mostly bound to America and Americans for most of the silent film period into the early talkies. His exceptions were the original "Ten Commandments" (but there was a modern story set in America as well as the tale of Moses), and "King of Kings" where he told the story of Jesus's Ministry. Then, in 1933, he decided to do movies that dealt with the history of the ancient world. First came "Sign of the Cross" in 1933 and then "Cleopatra" in 1934. Both were in the Roman Empire, and both allowed DeMille ample scope to be lascivious and tantalizing about sex, and yet be moralistic as well (especially in "Sign of the Cross"). Both had Claudette Colbert in them in the female lead (shared in "Sign of the Cross" with Elissa Landi). "Sign" had Charles Laughton and Frederic March in the leads. But "Cleopatra" only had Henry Wilcoxon and Warren Williams as the leads. Still both films were very successful.

DeMille seems to have planned to tap European and Middle Eastern history for awhile. His next historical pageant is "The Crusades" which, while an entertaining film (none of his films are less than entertaining) is not as good as the first two. It is actually telling the story of the Third Crusade of 1190 - 92, and (although lauded in some of these comments as being historically accurate) it doesn't really go into it too well.

The third crusade was led by Richard the Lion Hearted (King Richard I of England), King Philippe Augustus of France, and the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarosa. Now the movie does show Philippe at the initial planning stages, and Richard soon getting involve. But aside from an occasional mention of Barbarosa, and one or two brief glimpses of an actor as the Emperor, his character is never developed. Frederick Barbarosa was a lead player in this crusade, and he drowned trying to ford a stream during the early part of it. This was a real tragedy for the European invaders, as Frederick had been umpiring the constant arguments between Philippe and Richard (neither of whom liked each other). None of that is in the film.

To fully appreciate this film (flaws and all) watch it first after seeing "Becket" and then "The Lion in Winter". Those two films tell the story of Richard Plantagenet's daddy and mommy, Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine. Henry II had built up his kingdom and power, despite problems from his old friend Thomas a'Becket. Most of the power was due to the inheritance of Eleanor in France, which was her dowry. Eleanor had been Queen of France briefly, but divorced King Louis and took her property with her. Henry was in a very good position to dominate King Louis and his son Philippe. But (from "The Lion in Winter") you will remember that Philippe tells off Henry that time is on his side - Henry is going to die soon, and Philippe is young. Philippe was also very sly. He was more interested in getting Richard into the Crusade so to weaken the English government, and allow Philippe to make incursions into Eleanor's power base. And it worked like a charm. Once Barbarosa was dead, Philippe took advantage of the first argument with Richard to take his men back to France. Soon he was in touch with Richard's brother, Prince John, who was regent for the king. John soon makes arrangements to keep Richard from ever coming home again.

At this point I'd suggest you see "The Adventures of Robin Hood" followed by "Robin and Marion" to see the return of Richard and the end of his lamentably bad reign.

DeMille hints at the political skulduggery. Note the business between Conrad of Montsarrat (the potential King of Jerusalem) and John. But John is made to be the mainspring of these conspiracies. That he was involved there is not doubt, but Philippe was the real key to them.

There is also another issue, touched on in "The Lion In Winter" but dropped here - DeMille would never have discussed it in the context of a hero. Richard I was gay. His marriage to Berengaria was not a love match (although made one here and in the later film "King Richard and the Crusaders" based on Sir Walter Scott's "The Talisman"). So on that part the film is not accurate.

The battle for Acre was very bloody, but the worst part of it (which Arab historians have bristled about for centuries - British ones tended to ignore it) were the massacres of Arab (and Jewish) citizens at Acre. Somewhere over 30,000 (at least) were killed. This atrocity was sort of dropped from the movie.

The acting is good, and some of the scenes quite fascinating: the marriage by proxy of Berengaria and Richard (represented by his friend the minstrel Blondel); The literal horse (or cattle) trading by the King of Navarre for his daughter to get married is funny. Especially moving is a scene where Richard sees his old friend, the blacksmith, die after a fight with the Saracens.

"The Crusades" was a box office flop. DeMille (for the next 15 years) made films about American History, beginning with "The Plainsman". Only in 1949 did the old world beckon again with "Samson and Delilah". And his final masterpiece, the second "Ten Commandments", would be his picture of ancient Egypt.

Starring Henry Wilcoxon, Loretta Young, and Ian Keith. This film focuses mainly on the Third Crusade, with events from the others used as background.

In 1187 , when infidels take Jerusalem and hold Christians captive, a man called The Hermit escapes and goes back to Europe, preaching for a Crusade to free Jerusalem. Several countries join. When The Hermit reaches England, King Richard the Lion-Hearted (Henry Wilcoxon) joins the Crusade to avoid marriage to Alice (Katharine DeMille), the King of France's sister. When the soldiers from the various countries reach Navarre, the King of Navarre sells his daughter Berengaria (Loretta Young) in marriage to Richard in exchange for rations for the soldiers and horses. The director in tall boots takes the story from there.

This film is long, drawn out by political intrigues and lots of speeches about Christianity being the only true religion. Film Finally wakes up in the second hour with some spectacular footage of the siege of Acre, and the plot gets moving.

Wilcoxon plays Richard as a thuggish dimwit. Young is seemingly the only person in the film to have a brain in her head, and who acts with subtlety. Ian Keith, as Saladin, does well in a small role. Everyone else is either of very good or very bad character, and you can tell by their dialogue in their first sentence which they're meant to be. No real nuance in the characterization. Alan Hale is annoying as a minstrel.

The film is almost free of knee slapping lines, but there is one priceless line. Just before Acre is attacked, a sentry yells: "The Christians are coming! The Christians are coming!".

Comic book history, smothered with religion to please the production code, and spectacle on the side. It's an okay watch-just have caffeine handy for the talky scenes in the first hour.

One of Cecil B DeMille's lesser known blockbusters, if that's not an oxymoron, as he tackles the weighty subject of the 12th Century Christian Crusade in typically extravagant fashion.

Undoubtedly mangling historical fact in the process, he nevertheless, for the times, plays fair one suspects with his treatment of the competing Muslims here in a way that Hollywood certainly didn't do with, say, Native Americans in countless Westerns. Their leader, the famous Sultan Saladin, is shown to be brave, wise and ultimately, considerate as he tends to Richard the Lionheart's wounded wife Berengera who he's captured, eventually allowing her to go back to her Christian husband for the sake of true love.

We follow the story from the initial sack of Jerusalem by Saladin's Muslim army and the rallying of the European Christian monarchs by the fervent call-to-arms proclaimation of a holy hermit who escaped the slaughter. Richard at the time is involved in delicate negotiations with the King of France to marry the latter's sister and so keep the fragile peace between the two forever-warring nations, but quickly seizes on the idea of entering a Holy War to put off his unwanted nuptials. Nevertheless, he requires to strike an uneasy bargain with the French King Philip who along with several other monarchs has likewise heeded the hermit's call. Worse than that, there are designing plotters in both courts with treachery afoot that will see Richard's throne claimed in his absence by his brother John and also the scheming French Marquis Montferrat attempt a power-play which will supplant his own King.

Into the mix enters the lovely Berengera, the beautiful daughter of a French Duke, who her dad craftily marries to Richard for basically the price of feeding and watering his tired and hungry army. Her relationship with Richard gets off on the wrong foot but it's not long before each sees the light, in more ways than one, culminating in a choice between war and peace which in the end has a decisive impact on the outcome of the war.

As others have said, the film lacks an eye-popping "miraculous" occurrence spectacularly shot by DeMille, like the parting of the Red Sea or the collapse of Samson's temple, but throughout he keeps the action charging along, marshalling crowd scenes and employing monumental sets and props which he really scales up in the siege of Acre.

Like I said, this isn't a film for serious historians as it plays loose and looser with the known facts. The characterisations of the principal individuals are painted with rather broad strokes as we're expected to believe the sudden love which binds Richard and Berengera after we've witnessed their avowed antipathy, but the sympathetic portrayal of Saladin came as a welcome surprise. As a matter of both personal belief as well as taste, however, I could have done without the overbearing religious symbolism espoused at times but there's also some slightly bawdy leavening humour, as you'd probably expect, in between the action.

Loretta Young with her bright blonde hair, is very pretty as the ultimately resourceful Berengera, Ian Keith is convincing as the noble Saladin and Henry Wilcoxon, an actor with whom I was formerly unfamiliar, did well I thought as the mercurial King Richard.

Unlike say, his contemporary John Ford, it seems to me that De Mille's reputation as a director has fallen a little by the way-side, but the man knew how to craft a thrilling spectacle, especially here in the fight for Jerusalem with fireballs flaring and battering rams pounding away, even as I personally feared for the wellbeing of the numerous horses flung into battle.

Even if the events portrayed are more hysterically than historically accurate, the film is undeniably exciting and entertaining, just as you'd expect from Cecil B.

Having witnessed the flop of his last few contemporary dramatic pictures, Cecil B. DeMille made a pledge to the public that from now on he would only make epics. True to his word, he strove to make each successive picture more stupendous than the last. He had made some very effective shoestring epics in the poverty-stricken early 30s, but by 1935 the worst of the depression was over and DeMille could at last be reunited with the big budget.

While DeMille had proved on Sign of the Cross (1932) and Cleopatra (1934) that he could make a big picture without masses of extras or impressive sets, he certainly knows how to make the most of those assets when he does have them. It is in The Crusades that we see the development of the style of presentation that he employed for all his subsequent epics. Rather than bombard us with the colossal, he likes to gradually reveal the vastness of a place by slowly and smoothly pulling the camera back. During these moves he usually has an extra or two move horizontally across the frame at a similar pace to the camera, giving the manoeuvre extra grace and momentum. Then there are the battle scenes, tense and frenzied creations of Anne Bauchen's superb editing. These are similar to the ones in Cleopatra, but far more effective, not because of the higher production values, but because the shots are held for longer and their sequencing is better timed.

And while DeMille clearly loves the massive crowd shot, he has enough sense to shrink the space and simplify the setting when it comes to key dialogue scenes. Compared to the busy outdoor locations many of the interiors are quite plain, which helps to focus us entirely on the actors, their expressions and their words. The transitions to these dramatic moments are often very smooth, with the drop of a tent flap or simply a change of angle to frame the actors against a bare wall. DeMille was an expert in turning the spectacle on and off, as it were, according to the demands of the narrative.

Given the above, it's a pity that, like most DeMille pictures of this era, The Crusades is dramatically rather weak. The dialogue is bland, and most of the characters are lazily-written stereotypes. In the early scenes, there seems to have been this attempt to cram in as many "Olde Englande" accessories as possible, with a cheeky minstrel, a burly blacksmith, the king and his court all hanging out together. Mind you, there is at least a fairly decent character arc in that King Richard is portrayed as a kind of medieval cad who joins the crusade for ulterior motives, but is eventually humbled by his experiences. It's also a refreshingly mature approach to make Saladin an honourable foe, although there is of course still the obligatory moustachioed villain in the form of some anachronistic minor king (played by Joseph Schildkraut, naturally).

After having suffered Henry Wilcoxon's wooden turn as Mark Anthony in Cleopatra, it's a major disappointment to see him again in a leading role. You might wonder why DeMille so persistently cast amateurs like Wilcoxon, until you realise he selected players primarily for their physicality, their talent being of secondary concern. In this light it makes sense for Wilcoxon, with his prominent brow and broad shoulders, to play a king. And although Joseph Schildkraut was, as it happens, a very good actor, DeMille repeatedly cast him as these Judas figures because of his thin face and piercing eyes.

But this is DeMille. Script and cast will always play second fiddle to the director's showmanship. Despite all the baloney and anachronism, his visual style is on top form here. The Crusades is like a stained-glass window in a church. It will not reach us on an emotional, human level, but it is full of grace and majesty. Yes, DeMille is often called a Victorian moralist, but in his presentation and imagery he was practically medieval. And we should forgive him, because he did it so well.

A playboy king & a beautiful princess. A holy hermit & a sacred mission. Intrigue & romance & sin & spectacle. In fact, another Cecil B. DeMille history lesson.

This time, DeMille takes on THE CRUSADES, a highly complex military & political enterprise that actually played out over 200 years. He focuses on one episode: The Third Crusade & England's King Richard the Lionheart's thrust to claim Jerusalem & the Holy Land from the Seljuk Turks in 1188-1192. Interestingly enough, DeMille gets a lot of his historical facts correct, but he does spend quite a bit of time detailing Richard's lustful, wanton ways.

Literature & film have tended to wildly romanticize Richard. In historical fact, he was a bad king interested primarily in his own glory. He spent only 6 months of his reign in Britain, he bankrupted the Treasury with his Crusading schemes and he abandoned his young wife. But such is the power of Romance that he is generally seen as the beau ideal of kingliness.

Henry Wilcoxon is a good, sturdy, if unspectacular, Richard. Loretta Young is beautiful, as always, as the Princess he marries. Sir C. Aubrey Smith is magnificent as the Holy Hermit who is the spiritual leader of the Crusade. Others in the fine cast are Alan Hale, Joseph Schildkraut, Mischa Auer & John Carradine (pay close attention to find him).

As a master of spectacle, DeMille really comes through towards the end of the film with the siege & capture of Acre (north of present day Haifa in Israel).All the stops are pulled out to show the full panoply & horror of mediaeval battle.

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.

In his autobiography, C. B. Demille indicated that he found the greatest compliment ever given to the film was during an IRS audit. The agent doing the audit was astonished that a film that good didn't make any money.

The historian and author Harold Lamb was instrumental in the scripting. Demille wanted the flavor of the Crusades in the one film, so The Hermit was used to outline the cause of the Crusades, and was used to "compress" the timeline to the Third Crusade. He also wanted to show that Saladin was as "knightly" as any of the Crusaders.

The film provides spectacle throughout, from ceremonies to battles, but that was Demille's style. The political intrigue in the background was more pronounced in this film than behind-the-scenes activities in . other Demille films, but that touch may have been Mr. Lamb's.

I first saw this on television, many years ago, by accident. It wasn't scheduled, but I happened to tune in to it when it started. It caught my attention, and I was hooked. It's one of his better films. It's also an interesting contrast to Kingdom of Heaven.

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.

The first part of the film is excellent with only credits to the sustained grand cinematography with constantly impressing settings and great acting, showing all the best of what made Cecil B. DeMille the greatest director of epics in Hollywood. The second part is ridiculous, a very liberal rewriting of history, the script writers using it lavishly to construe their own fancies, resulting in a monumental soap opera. Loretta Young is the star of the film, constantly bewitching as Berengaria, and actually living up to her real legendary beauty - her beautiful legendary hair, very much emhanced in the film, has sometimes been confused with the constellation "Berenice's hair", while Berengaria couldn't have been far from it. Henry Wilcoxon also makes a Richard Lionheart with credibility enough, he actually was like that in reality, outragesously insolent, politically impossible for his lack of realism and reliability, a great romantic but no good as a husband, and a hopelessly foolhardy daredevil. Here of course he is made more ideal, as Hollywood always did in the 30s, and you forgive the gross distortions of history in the second part because of his charming chivalry. The film is good but not one of DeMille's best, but it is impressing enough, and the first part, until the ridiculous Saladin-Berengaria affair gets started, is among the best of DeMille's works.

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.

To begin with, being a fan of the epic genre, I had always wanted to check this one out and, in fact, was very pleased when Universal released it as part of their 5-Disc Cecil B. De Mille collection; however, since I already owned both THE SIGN OF THE CROSS (1932) and CLEOPATRA (1934) via TCM showings, I kept postponing the purchase of this set – until I acquired the lot through a friend of my father's! Having been duly impressed with those two De Mille spectaculars, I had intended to watch this immediately (I got the film around the middle of last year) but for various reasons – I even had to exclude it from my Christmas viewing – I could only get to it now that Easter is approaching!

Incidentally, the 5th of March happened to mark the centenary from the birth of actor Rex Harrison, who had starred as Saladin (the villainous 'infidel' of THE CRUSADES) in KING RICHARD AND THE CRUSADERS (1954), which I recorded off Italian TV (even if I had already watched it and in spite of its poor reputation) expressly for the purpose of accompanying my viewing of De Mille's film! Anyway, THE CRUSADES is another notable achievement (from the days prior to the epic heyday of the 1950s and 1960s) which goes to prove – yet again – that De Mille was perhaps cinema's greatest purveyor of hokum disguised as inspirational art for the masses (even if this particular example, reportedly, flopped at the box-office).

The central relationship between gorgeous Loretta Young (such strong female presences abound in the director's work) and De Mille regular Henry Wilcoxon (an unusually handsome, and Godless, Richard the Lionheart – amusingly referred to by Saladin as "The Lion King"!) goes through some interesting, yet oddly believable, tangents during the course of the film. Starting off in antagonistic vein more typical of then-current screwball comedies (he even prefers carousing with his men to their wedding ceremony, where his place is eventually taken by the royal sword!), it develops into one that borders on amour fou – which could jeopardize the outcome of the whole crusade (it's actually comparable to the bond-to-the-death between Roman centurion Fredric March and Christian slave Elissa Landi in the earlier THE SIGN OF THE CROSS)! The excellent supporting cast includes, among others, Ian Keith (as Saladin), Joseph Schildkarut (typically sneaky as one of the Christian rulers), C. Henry Gordon (as the French King, whose sister Katharine De Mille – the director's adopted daughter – Richard has deliberately spurned), Alan Hale (as Richard's minstrel/sidekick, a Little John type that would soon become his trademark), C. Aubrey Smith (as the old hermit who is challenged by the overly confident Saladin at the beginning of the picture to rally the Christian countries in a crusade against his forces and, later, made hostage and chained to a cross to bar passage to the advancing army, he asks Richard to proceed with the attack regardless!) and Mischa Auer (in an early role as a monk).

While the script obviously eschews the Robin Hood legend that has become associated with Richard and the Crusades (the Douglas Fairbanks version of 1922 about that popular outlaw figure, in fact, spends more time with him as a knight than the proverbial 'Merrie Man'!), subtlety is still the last thing one would hope to find in a De Mille pageant. In fact, Young's abduction by the Muslims (with her dressed as a sentry in a suicidal bid to end the discord between the various royals!) is pretty contrived; similarly, the fact that Young is contended in the terms laid down by Saladin for the truce with the Christian world is pure Hollywood. With this in mind, the dialogue (co-written by Dudley Nichols) is consciously stilted throughout – albeit featuring such good lines as Saladin's defiant claim to the monarchs gathered in their tent, "There is room enough in Asia to bury all of you!"

Made after the dreaded (and stifling) Hays Code came into force, it's not as bloodthirsty as the afore-mentioned THE SIGN OF THE CROSS – even so, the battle scenes are quite realistic (with the clanging of heavy steel being heard as the opposing armies clash in a confusion of warriors and horses) and may well have influenced Sergei Eisenstein's Alexander NEVSKY (1938). There is one evident display of viciousness here on an isolated member of Schildkraut's treacherous army as a clutch of Muslim riders (appearing on the scene to rescue the cornered Wilcoxon at the instigation of Saladin himself, in the hope of thus winning Young's love) fall on him en masse with their spears. Boasting superlative photography (Victor Milner's work in this capacity presented the film with its sole Oscar nomination) and massive crowd scenes, the film survives as tremendous entertainment even after all these years. Incidentally, it seemed common practice in spectacles of the era to provide villains of the Muslim persuasion – as can be gathered from the likes of ABDUL THE DAMNED (1935; a British production I first watched over Christmas), THE LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER (1935), THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE (1936) and GUNGA DIN (1939).

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!

The release of a Cecil B. DeMille movie was a big event in Hollywood with his sprawling epics. His August 1935 "The Crusades" was no exception. The director's latest epic, set in the late 1100s, is unusual in that the Christian wars in the Middle East was an era cinema had largely ignored before DeMille placed a spotlight on them.

It was a difficult production for the director. He was highly stressed filming the battle scenes showing the Crusaders using parapets to attack the city of Acre. He displayed an unusually short temper with the extras, harping on their shortcomings and demanding more from them, to the point the actors realized he was endangering their lives. Several were injured in the scaling of the castle walls and the aggressive fighting between combatants, which led to the death of a few horses. DeMille was cranking his voice through a megaphone so loud that one extra, an expert in archery, decided to take matters in his own hands. He took aim at the director's megaphone he was holding to his mouth and shot an arrow at it. The weapon hit its target, just inches from DeMille's head. Stunned, the director walked off and called it a day. For the remainder of the filming, DeMille did not once raise his voice to the people on the set.

Unique to cinema in the 1930s was the director's sympathetic view in "The Crusades" of the Muslims' occupation of Palestine and Jerusalem, led by Saladin (Ian Keith). DeMille noted in his memoirs, "One of my objectives was to bring out that the Saracens were a cultivated people, and their great leader, Saladin, as perfect and gentle a knight as any in Christiandom." "The Crusades" concentrates on England's King Richard the Lion-Hearted (Henry Wilcoxon), who marries Bergengaria, Princess of Navarre (Loretta Young), for the money he needs to feed and pay his knights traveling to the Middle East. In the king's meeting with Saladin, the Muslim leader is overtaken by the beauty of Richard's wife, and eventually helps save his life from his real enemies in the film, the French.

The key to casting "The Crusades" was to find the perfect actress for the role of Bergengaria. DeMille said the actress playing the part "must act like Helen Hayes, have the vivacity of Miriam Hopkins, the wistfulness of Helen Mack, and the charm of Marion Davies. As for looks, she must be a combination of all four." His first choice was Merle Oberon, who was unavailable. Young was then hired despite her pregnancy to Clark Gable, which she didn't divulge to DeMille. After filming ended, Young took a break from movies and went into hiding, keeping her pregnancy and delivery secret.

"The Crusaders" didn't fare as well as expected for Paramount Pictures. One reason was its high production costs. Another is audiences weren't used to witnessing any hint of a sympathetic portrayal of Muslims and Arabs on the screen in the form of their leader Saladin. Film historian Anton Kozlovic saw "The Crusades" as "not as enthusiastically received in the West as DeMille would have liked, probably because it showed the good and noble side of the Muslims and contrasted it with the darker deeds of Christianity." Even though "The Crusades" lost $700,000 in its initial release, the movie did recoup its loses in subsequent showings. DeMille viewed the film as a success, however, as opposed to his earlier drawing room dramas. Director Ernst Lubitsch, who specialized in sophisticated romantic comedies, and head of production at Paramount, frequently visited the set of "The Crusades." DeMille, shocked to see the legendary director so fascinated by his work, asked him "What on earth interests you in my poor efforts?" "I'm hypnotized," answered Lubitsch. "There isn't a cocktail shaker or a tuxedo in sight!" "The Crusaders" was nominated for the Academy Awards Best Cinematography (Victor Milner) and won the best foreign film for 1935 at the prestigious Venice Film Festival. In a footnote, the actor who played King Richard, Henry Wilcoxon, played a memorable scene as the Bishop on the golf course with Bill Murray in 1980's "Caddyshack."

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.

"The crusades" (1935) directed by Cecil B.De Mille is as story conceived as love affair, explaining part of the influence that it produced in the internal affairs of two countries as nations in Europe, promoting the allegedly third crusades against Islam, situated at the corner of Southeast on Mediterranean sea.

Overall, at the time of vessels charged with horsemen, some of them who went fighting for an apparently common faith but forgotten the symbolic land and cultural influence of diversified local populations, far away of their respectively reigns like France and England. The spirit of cavalry, wedding intrigue, eroticism on the drapes and campaign bed of kingdom of Christianity are ingredients of adventure at the land lost, meaning expansionism and its pretext for quarreling about frontiers and warriors in a love affair at the mood.

Director Cecil B.De Mille enjoying us with such subject, altogether he capsizes over our child mind, maybe he was thinking in another configuration for the problem of imperialism and the propriety of rights from these times linking two things, fanaticism and medieval glory at the time of Abyssinia and its nature of rivalries where sex attraction concealed by the strength for power. A tent is the main location concerning an attitude for dealing and in this place both sides made what is better for each one of the intervenor before peoples in conflict in a postponed peace deal. The scene is that tent where both sides entering and a woman is the subject of sharing in between affects that are responsible for the way that the present crusade is understood by the chiefs in place with their costumes and clothes that the director put his energy not to explain why but what burns the heart of kings in that phase of humanity and superiority of Europe before its extremities... This kind of acting at the time was watched as explaining the orders of knighthood in a displaying manner of obvious meaning on public stage at the corner of a town of the ancient world. But historically displaced from the real present time of then in 1935 not at all in relationship of others in incendiary domestic mission where it was inserted such a Hollywood production as a flop.