emuir-1 I really enjoyed this epic which is fine for a winter night by the fireside, and gave a more balanced view of the horrors of the crusades, but I was puzzled by one aspect at the beginning. Peter's mother, A Saracen camp follower, appeared to be dying of smallpox. Why then would she be nursing her baby and why would the possibly infected baby be given to a family to raise? None of them seemed the slightest bit bothered that the baby might infect them all.The only other problem was the American English dubbing. As I always have the subtitles or captions on, I would have preferred to hear the actors speak in their own language, or at least an accentless English. when one of the characters kept shouting "lets, go, go, go", prior to a battle scene it sounded like a gung ho "GI's winning the war" film. At least no one said "yeah, right!" For that we may be truly thankful.

Derek Doe This film is probably pro-Muslimization. Why do I write that? The main character has a Muslim father and a Christian mother. He lives his first 20 years in a Christian village. In the end of the film he seemingly is a Muslim because of his head-wear, that he has kept his amulet, and his general clothing. He has a six year old child, who wears the same head-wear and therefore is probably a Muslim, although the mother is a Christian. The main character thus chooses to, it seems, to be a Muslim and his child becomes a Muslim. No one of the other male main characters, which are Christians, seems to breed a child. There are more Muslims in the world of this movie at the end of it, it therefore seems.

Air America I will have to base my comments entirely on my unfamiliarity with life in the Eleventh Century, though not entirely unfamiliar with the events of this time. As a former militarist peripherally engaged in other "crusades," I see parallels in this film with events of the Twentieth and now in this Twenty-First Century. It firms my belief that men and ideas do not change much, only the times, the methods and the instrumentalities of implementing one's philosophies. Though lacking the spectrum of stars and the vastness of the array of invading forces, this film fits in with my ten favorites along with "The Longest Day," "Gettysburg," and others. I found beauty in this story from the beginning when Peter (Alessandro Gassman, from a famous acting family) is left behind by his Saracen father. Just as there was good and compassion in this man, I see good in many who would be now considered among his posterity. That his ancestry and actions cause the film to delve into seeming divided allegiance, this only serves to fortify this viewer's interest. I cannot imagine how this story line would have succeeded as well as it did, nor could it have held the conflicts and following resolutions into the tight and numerous turns and even reverses seen in its three-plus hours; a tribute from me and credit to the writer Andrea Porporati. It is with anticipation I await seeing his later screen work, L' Inchiesta.It adds so much to the story that Peter is a learned and scholarly man as well as a kind man who actually shows more Christian qualities than many of the leaders of the force making its way to the Holy Land. I did not find the slightest weakness in his portrayal of these qualities though at times, his quietude and acceptance of his conquered position without the extremes of violence seen by many of the others did puzzle me at first. However, this is not a film to be fully understood and appreciated at its first viewing.Armin Mueller-Stahl's performance as Alessio was another of his commanding presences in most every film I have seen him appear in. I was saddened that his existence met its end so near the beginning of the film. I found the symbolism of the carrying of the palm frond and its being woven into the tapestry of the film much of a factor in carrying this portion of the interest foreword.The performances of Thure Riefenstein and Johannes Brandrup are also powerful throughout the film. Their characters, actions and the unpredictability of the storyline add to the overall heightened interest I found throughout.Franco Nero's role and familiar face add much to his part in the film and the revelations he makes add a completeness to an earlier facet of the film. His performance is at his usual high standard.Some have noted and I comment also that it is a film without dialects and accents among the various factions. I suppose if this film had been made twenty years ago with Arnold Schwartzenegger playing Olaf Gunnarson; that would have satisfied the requirement. Given the various nationalities of Italians, Germans, Austrians, Slovakians, Yugoslavs, and likely others not identified playing Saracen roles, I found this lack of accents to be a plus as this film follows a number of very successful predecessors filmed by Cecil B. DeMille.Noteworthy and appreciated by me was a somewhat less than the usual Hollywood depictions of killing and violence. Though killing is prominent in the film, there is little of the beheading, limb loss and volumes of blood seen. In most instances I do not believe this adds any realism and in fact, is deplored similarly by others like myself. There is art to hand-to-hand combat and swordplay which have been carefully executed by whomever was responsible for this choreography and I found it to be first-rate.The locations and vistas chosen by the director and the liberal use of them and the quality of the cinematography adds much to this film. I always find a film much more interesting when it includes many scenes showing topography other than the action taking place on flat ground or cars buzzing around on city streets. There is more than an ample amount of horsemanship demonstrated which should prove spellbinding to those aficionados.Finally I must complement the costumer of this film. There are so many different groups and factions coming together in this saga and a broad spectrum of camp wear is seen throughout the film. Noteworthy are these differences, as would certainly have been the case in fact given the times. Altogether I believe this film is an epic in the same category as "Troy," "Alexander," or the recent miniseries, "Rome."

Marcin Kukuczka One year after the premiere of Ridley Scott's outstanding epic KINGDOM OF HEAVEN (2005) and after reading the magnificent novel by Zofia Kossak Szczucka, I felt curious to see this film by Dominique Othenin-Girard. I am not going to compare the two films because despite their actions are set in a similar historical period (infamous medieval crusades), they are entirely different. What I am trying to do in my comments is discuss the film from an objective point of view since I am neither a great fan of this movie nor its critic but an average viewer. The film indeed has very strong points as well as quite serious drawbacks, which make it no outstanding production. Let me present some of the aspects of the film more clearly since there have not been many people yet who wrote about it.MAIN PLOT: Aurocastro, Norman Duchy of Taranto, A.D.1079. After the Saracen attack on the town, master Alessio (Armin Mueller-Stahl), an honorable man, adopts a baby boy, names him Peter, and raises him similarly to Andrew, his son. When the boys become adults, the town faces some difficulties from the cruel master, Corrado. However, his cruelty has its end. When his brother, Baron William (Dieter Kirchlechner), comes to the Duchy with his son Richard (Johannes Brandrup), he decides to bring order and justice to his land. But not all people are satisfied with this policy. Plots against him are more and more frequent. The conspiracies reach its climax when Richard, Baron William's son, sets free Peter (Alessandro Gassman) who is punished for a rumored affair with Maria (Karin Proia), the woman of Bastiano (Rodolfo Corsato), the most trusted man in Corrado's army. Aurocastro is destroyed, Baron William killed and deadly wounded Alessio dies with his last wish left onto the hands of his sons - to do the bell to a new cathedral that he had promised to Baron William. After these hard experiences, the noble son of Baron William leaves for a crusade but...not alone. Two other men come with him: Andrew (Thure Riefenstein) and his step brother Peter (Alessandro Gassman), the sons of Alessio. They are no longer masters and peasants but equal people with one aim: the Holy Land and its protection from "infidels". At the moment they join the crusaders, the greatest but bitterest adventure of their lives begins. The entire rest of the movie deals with various horrific events, revealed secrets, fights, slaughters, conspiracies, but also love and honor that they experience in Palestine. No one could foresee that these young men who were leaving their country full of dreams will one day return full of nightmares...CAST: SPOILERS: Although the content is quite involving, this movie cannot boast very fine performances. Mostly, the cast do not play very memorably. Alessandro Gassman in the role of Peter shows nothing special. He sometimes only "speaks" and does not seem to feel the role. Thure Riefenstein also portrays his character (Andrew) with no particular power. Sometimes, I get an impression that he does not feel very comfortable in the role he is given. Johannes Brandrup is better as Richard. There are, indeed, some moments that he plays really well, but it is difficult to talk of his outstanding performance. Just quite good. A young Slovakian actress Barbora Bobulova does a fairly nice job as a Jewish girl, Rachel, in love with books and a woman Pietro and Andrew fell in love with. There are two actors who are not given much time on screen but do really nice jobs: Slobodan Ninkovic as the cruel crusaders' commander of Viking origin, Olaf Gunnarson and Flavio Insinna as a prophet-hermit Bartholomew who claims to have seen St Andrew and calls on defending Jerusalem. Yet, one performance is marvelous and that is of a man whom I have seen in many epics: Franco Nero. He is given a magnificent, mysterious role of Ibnazul, a wise, elderly knowledgeable Muslim who loves peace and his field of science, astrology. Nero does a great job portraying a character of balance and wisdom.OTHER ASPECTS: First, there are some great moments that are worth seeing. What struck me was Pietro and Rachel's visit at Ibnazul while he observes stars. The scene is filled with mystery with Muslim sounds in the background. Another moment highly worth considering is the crusaders' first steps in the Holy Land. Most of them kneel and kiss the wet sand on the beach of the Mediterranean Sea. Strange that they started to slay innocent people so soon... I also loved the symbolic moment when Richard calls Muslims and Christians for peace in the name of the Cross. Yet, immediately when peace talks are possible, the siege of Jerusalem begins from the crusaders. How many times in history peace was so close but wicked people disturbed it? Besides, the film touches an important truth: the misery of killing. We see crusaders being falsely led to a Jewish town and slaying innocent Jews since they thought they would kill "infidels" (at that moment, Muslims). What you also get in this movie are the key aspects of reality promoted in the heyday of the Middle Ages: hermits' visions having impact on armies, prayer at the relic combined with purifying the minds of people, conspiracies among the "believers", honor, sacrifice, and finally, building cathedrals as giving thanks to God.THE CRUSADERS is a nice film but not all viewers will enjoy it. Because of very long battle scenes, much politics and particularly specific content, it is purely a film for epic fans. Yet, I have to admit that it is a very specific epic. Therefore, I will put it like this: if you just liked KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, I can's promise you that this film will make your day. But if you are a real fan of Ridley Scott's masterpiece, you will definitely enjoy this film, too. Worth seeing as an insight into crusades' reality 7/10