bsmith5552 "The Crusades" was Cecil B. DeMille's attempt to depict the crusades of the late 12th century. The first three quarters of the film kind of drag along before the battle scenes emerge in the final quarter.The story opens with a Moses type Hermit (C. Aubrey Smith) vowing that he will raise an army of Christians to re-capture the holy city of Jerusalem from the Sarasins led by Saladin, Sultan of Islam (Ian Keith). King Philip of France (C. Henry Gordon) agrees to join the crusade. Since his daughter Alice (Katherine DeMille) was promised to the English King Richard the Lion Heart (Henry Wilcoxen) by Richard's father, Philip journeys to England to convince Richard to join the crusade and to marry his daughter. Richard relents but discovers an out when he learns that those joining the crusades cannot marry during that time.Along the way with his men in need of food, he meets with King Sancho, King of Navarre (George Barbier) who offers his comely young daughter Berengaria (Loretta Young) in marriage in exchange for the much needed supplies. Richard doesn't take the marriage seriously and sends his minstrel Blondel (Alan Hale) as his proxy. Of course Richard ultimately discovers his new bride and falls in love with her.Then the Christian armies attack the gates of Jerusalem with tragic results. DeMille, as only he could, stages realistic battle scenes for the siege utilizing authentic looking siege towers, catapults and other weaponry. It is the highlight of an otherwise over long film. The film apparently didn't do well at the box office and DeMille did not return to the biblical epics again until 1949 with "Samson and Delilah".Others in Demille's "cast of thousands" are Joseph Schildkraut as Conrad, Marquis of Navarre and Ramsay Hill as Prince John who scheme to take power during their respective leaders absences, Montague Love as the Blacksmith (watch for his touching death scene), and William Farnum, Misha Auer, John Carradine, J. Carroll Naish and Ann Sheridan in smaller roles.Richard needn't have worried about Prince John taking over his throne as Errol Flynn as Robin Hood had every thing under control back home.

drystyx 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.

Polaris_DiB 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

raskimono 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.