Ricardo, Coração de Leão

I give it a NINE as a 12-year-old. As a mature person, I can't say because it's not available, even on Netflix. At the time, I thought it a great adventure film. So they scrambled history a bit and the lines were corny; but with costumes, intrigue, and romance, plus Rex Harrison and the always impeccable George Sanders, what more could a kid want?

Especially loved the part "where King Richard meets Saladin and shows him 'the strength of English steel' by cutting through an iron mace placed across the backs of two chairs. Saladin responds in kind by throwing a silk veil in the air which separates as it falls across his scimitar, and he replies that 'sometimes it is not the strength of the steel but the sharpness of the blade.'"

Didn't you ever like some film as a kid for reasons known only to a 12-year-old?

King Richard I, known to posterity as the Lion Heart and, according to this script, to his friends and family as Dick, certainly has his work cut out on his Third Crusade. He faces a host of vicious and unscrupulous foes and they're just his fellow Crusaders. Lucky for him, that flashing-eyed rascal Saladin is a stickler for fair play as well as fancying cousin Edith, so things could be worse.

Though screen writer John Twist has supplied the more idiotic dialogue, the eccentric narrative stems from Sir Walter Scott's The Talisman itself. By the time of its publication in the 1820s, Richard had long become one of the great romantic legends of English history. In reality he was a ferocious warrior of the 'kill first and ask questions later' school, but a useless ruler. So when Virginia Mayo as the fictitious Edith utters the much mocked line: "War! War! That's all you think of Dick Plantagenet!" at the end of the movie, it's not far from the truth. Except that Richard's descendants did not adopt the name Plantagenet until a couple of centuries later.

Of course no-one expects factual accuracy in this kind of movie, but it's also rather dull in places. Too much time is taken up by the interminable feuding in camp at the start of the picture, while it ends in a frenzy of action in which it's hard to discern what's going on. Then there's the business of Sir Kenneth, hit in the chest by Saladin's arrow and falling from his horse, only to be prancing about with no harm done within a minute or two. I have seen similar films that are worse though, there is the lush photography and an excellent score from Max Steiner that's worthy of a more prodigious production and while some of the action scenes are very average, the joust and fight between Richard and Sir Kenneth is well done.

Rex Harrison as Saladin and George Sanders, looking less bored and cynical than usual, as Richard offer enjoyable performances, though the latter could have been played by a younger actor as the King was in his early thirties at the time of the Crusade. Laurence Harvey though is fairly dire as Sir Kenneth, not sounding remotely Scottish, and his love scenes with Barbara Mayo fall flat. Harvey always had his fans, but those who have speculated as to why an actor so lacking in talent and charisma became a star will find no answers here.

Somehow King Richard And The Crusaders made the Medved list of the 50 Worst films of all time. I'm not saying it's Citizen Kane, but I've seen far worse. And until The Lion In Winter and Robin and Marian, we have never been given a true picture of King Richard I of England.

George Sanders who also in his career played King Charles II, a monarch of a far different temperament than Richard is in the title role. The film is based on the Sir Walter Scott novel, The Talisman and takes place in the Middle East during the Crusades.

As in the DeMille epic The Crusades which this bear a faint resemblance, The Lion Hearted King is beset with lots of problems, not all of them caused by the Syrian warrior King Saladin whom he faces in the field. Duke Leopold of Austria and Philip Augustus of France question his leadership of all the Christian nations, his brother Prince John is looking to seize his throne back home and right in camp, he's got a couple of fifth columnists in Robert Douglas and Michael Pate.

Pate and Douglas put in action an assassination attempt in which Richard is only wounded by a captured Saracen arrow. Richard's loyal retainer a Scot knight played by Laurence Harvey starts hunting up the assassins. But in the mean time, a truce of sorts is called as Saladin, hearing of Richard's attempt sends his personal physician played by Rex Harrison.

There is a romantic subplot going here with Harvey and a cousin of Richard's played by Virginia Mayo. Richard likes Harvey enough, but not to marry into the royal family, especially when as a royal princess, Mayo can be married off for alliance purposes.

Sir Walter Scott was one of those authors in the 19th century who cleaned up the Middle Ages quite a bit and invested those bloody times with a romantic aura. He was never more effective in doing this than in his more well known work Ivanhoe. In fact Ivanhoe is almost a sequel of this film as it deals with the capture of Richard by Duke Leopold on the way back to England after the action in this film is concluded and the ransom for Richard demanded and paid.

George Sanders and Robert Douglas were both in the screen version of Ivanhoe that MGM did two years before Warner Brothers did this film. Ivanhoe is a much better film, yet King Richard And The Crusaders does hold its own.

When the Medveds wrote that 50 worst film book they cited a line that Virginia Mayo says which is "war, war that's all you ever think about Dick Plantagenet". In point of fact that was the thing uppermost in that very bloodthirsty man's mind. More truth than humor there.

And you won't get much truth from King Richard And The Crusaders. Still it's not as bad a film as the Medveds would have you believe.

Based on Sir Walter Scott's "The Talisman" (which I own in a comic-strip version!), this was made in the wake of IVANHOE (1952) – adapted from another classic by the same author; however, given that that film was made by journeyman Richard Thorpe (followed, with leading man Robert Taylor in tow, by two other popular MGM adventures – KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE [1953] and QUENTIN DURWARD [1955]), Warners somewhat incongruously assigned musical comedy expert Butler to this one!

While clearly inferior to those three films, KING RICHARD AND THE CRUSADERS isn't nearly as bad as its reputation would suggest (though it must be said that most spectacles from this era, disregarded by the majority of critics when new, stand up surprisingly well today as entertainment!). Even so, there's some definite campiness to the film – notably when Rex Harrison as Saladin lullabies George Sanders, playing the wounded King Richard (the score by reliable Max Steiner being noteworthy apart from this)…and, in any case, the whole emerges to be even more fanciful than Cecil B. De Mille's THE CRUSADES (1935; which preceded this viewing), what with the Muslim leader insinuating himself into the enemy camp, providing a cure for the King, and even aiding him in routing the traitors (genre staple Robert Douglas and Michael Pate) among his own ranks!!

One similarity to the earlier epic is the fact that Saladin falls for a Christian woman – though, in this case, it's Richard's cousin (Virginia Mayo) as opposed to his wife (who gets very limited screen time here) – but ultimately relinquishes the heroine to her lover (a fiery Scots knight played by a young, blonde yet surprisingly effective Laurence Harvey). Incidentally, Sanders – while older than Henry Wilcoxon's incarnation of Richard in THE CRUSADES – is no less gruff and headstrong and, in fact, spends more time fighting Harvey (including a jousting duel) than Harrison!!

King Richard and the Crusaders is an entertaining movie, with plenty of action, nice costumes, some good scenery, and a fast-moving plot. Everything you would normally want from an adventure movie.

However, the script is horrible, many of the actors are completely miscast, the actual story is pretty poor, and it has next to nothing to do with the Crusades. It is not Crusaders versus Saracens. It is Good Crusaders and Good Saracens versus Bad Crusaders. Also, they most certainly do not have a cast of thousands, looking like it has a very low budget.

As a result, if you are looking for a historically accurate epic about the Third Crusade, you will be disappointed. Although it is not a great movie, it is underrated, being far better than a lot of other adventure movies, and is overall entertaining.

If you want to enjoy it, simply do not go into the movie looking for an award winning script and brilliant acting.