Crociati

Im still in doubt if this is just a horrible movie or the worse movie i ever saw. Actors are painful and its impossible to get into the text.

Don't waist your time into this movie. By submitting this comment you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your comments will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Comments that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph.By submitting this comment you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your comments will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Comments that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph.

What makes this movie so good is the realism. Hair, hands, faces are as you would expect in the 11th century. You feel like you are right there and the movie completely absorbs its audience. This movie did not have the multi-million dollar budget of many recent films but the overall effect is the best I have seen. The actors are so good. the costumes are so real. The movie will tear at your heart. It makes no excuses for war and there is no political statement to be made - just a story about the worst and best in us.

To the people who think this is a pro-Christian or pro-Muslim movie .. get a life and open your eyes! Evil can be found in the holiest of places, and sometimes in the hearts of seemingly the noblest of people. And there is good to be found everywhere regardless of religion or color of one's eyes.

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.

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."

This movie show the historical background of the Christian warfare in the early middleage. It takes the audience also to a setting of personal views of the different characters and blends love, personal rivalry and religious ambitions to a exciting movie. The characters are authentic in their behaviour and expression. The costumes and the requisites of the movie are authentic. It has something of Nathan the Wise because it shows in my opinion that all three religions of Christianity, Islam and judaism have the same background and a relationship. All three religions have holly relics that there are protecting. I would say that the battle of the friends shows also a battle of the three religions.