Medicus

I am lucky I didn't read the book. In fact, the book and film of any story is always very different from each other and should be rated separately without comparing them. It is a 2:30 hours movie and it isn't boring at any moment. From the beginning till the end you are entertained by the story and the action. It is a big production, one of those you have to see in the theater due to the imagine, the landscapes, the special effects. And talking about the special effect; there are enough, but for once this movie is not an "ONLY and overloaded action" movie. Lately, most of the films are possible to see on the screen at home, because the imagine is not of that type a cine-screen is needed. This production is made like the classical big productions, like Lawrence of Arabia or The English Patient. So, enough action, not boring, entertaining and you can leave the theater in a relax status and not tired of all the car chases.

Tom Payne, Mr Kingsley and Skarsgard make a very good act.

Negative parts ?! Missing some link in the voyage between England and the Orient. Some unexplainable jumps in the story, which for sure are treated well in the book. But, it is not disturbing and quiet normal in a big story as this one.

I just watch the movie and from movie point of view its really a very nice one. But what i didn't like and i'm amazed why such thing be written and them made a movie of which includes history and an altered one. Ibn Sina was a great Muslim scientist who has expertise in Medicine, Phylosophy, Metaphysics and many more. He died early and not by suicide but by a natural death. If instead of Ibn Sine they had used some other fictional Muslim name, a fictional place and fiction Shaw then that would be understandable but writing the wrong history, by altering not only a lot of facts and figures and then making a movie out of it is not good ethically and morally. I guess any historical publications and movies should go through some check before being released unless such things are done on purpose.

I can understand that many history buffs would be disappointed with the movie. Okay, it is historical inaccurate, but it's just entertainment. The same with any novel which introduces fictional characters and imaginary or altered historical events. An example: In one of the best movies of all time (at least for me)Ben-Hur, the main character, played by Charles Heston, when almost dying of thirst, is given water by Jesus. Later on he tries to help Jesus carry the cross. Bible followers could be appalled by this since it never appear nor in he Bible or in the Christian traditions. This is very common with all historical novels or movies based on real life characters. Producers and directors play for their public at a given time. As in the movies of World War ll, Japanese where demons and all Nazis murderous monsters; in this day and age, anyone from the East or Middle East wearing a cloth around his head or a burka, is a fanatical zealot. As we know (or should know), that is not necessarily true.

So in the movie we have at hand I can safely say that is a very entertaining movie, with excellent photography, breathtaking landscapes, good action, excellent acting and an overall a very interesting story. What really bothered me was the almost quantum jumps it makes in its story line. How this impoverished boy managed to get accepted into a prestigious and exclusive medical school without even knowing the language? Furthermore, it is never explained how he managed to have the resources to live quite a lavish in this progressive city. Probably you'll have to read the book to find a plausible explanation. In the other hand, I cannot discard this movie because of its glitches. It has lots of other aspects going for it; specially that it made me feel good; it had that old time spectacular grandeur that has been lacking in today boisterous blockbusters.

a beautiful novel. a great cast. splendid music. more than a good adaptation or remarkable work, it is an useful message about basic values of society. a film about tolerance as fruit of courage, about love and friendship as results of sacrifice. about vocation. all in seductive package. Ben Kingsley as Avicenna, Olivier Martinez as the shah, Tom Payne as lead actor are pillars of a wise, touching, subtle show.and they are not the only - the flavor of Arabian Nights is, in same measure, admirable ingredient. more than a film, it is a sort of delight. and a lesson out of didacticism laws. that fact is fundamental. for viewer. and for understand the delicate axis behind its beauty.

Really people! This was a good movie! Its entertainment. I did not watch this for historical value. Since movies are always,always altered for impact, even a work of fiction. If I wanted to know the true accounting of someones life I would read a history book. But this movie made me want to know the truth about this history because it change the way medicine advanced and in turn Life. Again, movies are for letting someone enjoy time away from a ordinary Life. No 10..a little long but they don't have 9 1/2 and in order to tell this story we needed to see all of what was shown. If you watch movies not documentaries and even then, don't expect the truth. Movie: story or event recorded by a camera as a set of moving images and shown in a theater or on television; a motion picture. Stop harping on political,social injustice, and religious inconsistencies and just enjoy the MOVIE.