MOVIEmeter
SEE RANK
Up 4,768 this week

The Crusades (1935)

6.8
Your rating:
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -/10 X  
Ratings: 6.8/10 from 613 users  
Reviews: 17 user | 6 critic

King Richard and the Third Crusade (1190-1192) are given the DeMille treatment with more spectacle than history.

Director:

Writers:

(screen play), (screen play), 4 more credits »
0Check in
0Share...

User Lists

Related lists from IMDb users

a list of 42 titles
created 09 Nov 2011
 
a list of 43 titles
created 09 Sep 2012
 
a list of 39 titles
created 16 Feb 2013
 
a list of 48 titles
created 11 months ago
 
a list of 24 titles
created 7 months ago
 

Connect with IMDb


Share this Rating

Title: The Crusades (1935)

The Crusades (1935) on IMDb 6.8/10

Want to share IMDb's rating on your own site? Use the HTML below.

Take The Quiz!

Test your knowledge of The Crusades.
Nominated for 1 Oscar. See more awards »
Edit

Cast

Cast overview, first billed only:
...
...
Richard - King of England
Ian Keith ...
...
The Hermit
Katherine DeMille ...
Alice - Princess of France (as Katherine De Mille)
...
Conrad - Marquis of Montferrat
...
C. Henry Gordon ...
Philip the Second - King of France
George Barbier ...
Sancho - King of Navarre
Montagu Love ...
The Blacksmith
Ramsay Hill ...
John - Prince of England
Lumsden Hare ...
Robert - Earl of Leicester
Maurice Murphy ...
Alan - Richard's Squire
William Farnum ...
Hugo - Duke of Burgundy
Hobart Bosworth ...
Frederick - Duke of the Germans
Edit

Storyline

The Third Crusade as it didn't happen. King Richard Coeur de Lion goes on the crusade to avoid marrying Princess Alice of France; en route, he marries Berengaria to get food for his men. Berengaria.is captured by Saladin, spurring Richard to attack and capture Acre. But Saladin, attracted to her, takes her on to Jerusalem, and Richard is in danger of assassination. Written by Rod Crawford <puffinus@u.washington.edu>

Plot Summary | Add Synopsis

Taglines:

You need ten eyes to see..ten ears to hear...ten hearts to feel...the tumultuous surge and glory of this mighty sepctacle, this shining romance...as impassioned now as when it first awed the world with its perfection! See more »


Certificate:

Approved | See all certifications »

Parents Guide:

 »
Edit

Details

Country:

Language:

Release Date:

25 October 1935 (USA)  »

Also Known As:

The Crusades  »

Company Credits

Production Co:

 »
Show detailed on  »

Technical Specs

Runtime:

Sound Mix:

(Western Electric Noiseless Recording)

Aspect Ratio:

1.37 : 1
See  »
Edit

Did You Know?

Trivia

One of over 700 Paramount productions, filmed between 1929 and 1949, which were sold to MCA/Universal in 1958 for television distribution, and have been owned and controlled by MCA ever since. See more »

Goofs

Richard's coat of arms is shown as three lions. He did not adopt this device until 1198, four years after returning from the crusades. See more »

Quotes

Berengaria, Princess of Navarre: [Resisting Richard pulling her into her father's room] Let go of my wrist! You're hurting it.
Richard, King of England: Well stop pulling then.
See more »

Connections

Referenced in Hollywood Out-takes and Rare Footage (1983) See more »

Soundtracks

The Man in the Moon
(1935) (uncredited)
Music by Rudolph G. Kopp
Lyrics by Harold Lamb
Performed by chorus
See more »

Frequently Asked Questions

This FAQ is empty. Add the first question.

User Reviews

 
Not just historically inaccurate but amazingly dull considering the subject matter
31 October 2011 | by (Bradenton, Florida) – See all my reviews

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.


2 of 3 people found this review helpful.  Was this review helpful to you?

Message Boards

Recent Posts
Epic Battles Scenes donovanarchmontierth
Discuss The Crusades (1935) on the IMDb message boards »

Contribute to This Page

Create a character page for:
?