Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

SoftInloveRox Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

Manthast Absolutely amazing

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Martin Bradley It has to be seen to be believed though you need to be in a very giddy frame of mind to sit through it. "King Richard and the Crusaders" was Hollywood's idea of what Sir Walter Scott's "The Talisman" might look like as a film and it's a howler from start to finish. It was directed, if that's the word, by that master of mediocrity David Butler and a cast who really ought to have known better and were obviously only in it for the money, included Rex Harrison, (in black face as Saladin), George Sanders, (looking very sorry for himself as King Richard), Laurence Harvey, (as a Scots knight) and Virginia Mayo, (as an English rose). But it's the dialogue that 'elevates' the film to something approaching cult status. "War, war, that's all you think about Dick Plantagenet" says Virginia at one point and there are many more where that came from. Atrocious but all the better for it while, of course, young boys, surely its target audience, will love all the derring-do.

Prismark10 Colourful costumes, battle scenes, chivalry and betrayal yet King Richard and the Crusaders is a dud of nonsense proportions.Based on Walter Scott's, The Talisman and little credence given to historical accuracy, King Richard (George Sanders) and his pan European allies are in the midst of treachery as some of the knights and barons plan to kill him. Only Sir Kenneth (Lawrence Harvey) a Scot and therefore untrusted senses danger and is loyal to Richard.Sir Kenneth has other motives as he is in love with Lady Edith (Virginia Mayo) who is Richard's cousin.Rex Harrison is the Saracen ruler Saladin who enters the camp in disguise and also falls for Lady Edith. Saladin is shown to be wise and noble even healing King Richard at one point whereas King Richard is surrounded by treachery and petty rules which leads him to banish his most trusted knight at one point.The film is too long, too padded and even confusing. The setting looks to much like California than the desert of the Middle East. The intrigue is laughable as Richard is not astute enough to have spies in his camp to search out any counter plots, but the nasty noblemen can figure out Richard's plans by standing outside his tent and listening in to his conversations.Saladin although appearing to be decent and intelligent with good command of English, his Arabic consists of mangled Muslim prayers. Imagine an Arabic film that had an English character and every time he spoke English, it consisted nothing but portion of the Lord's prayers!You have scenes such as jousting where they spend too long on the fanfare and the setting up rather than the actual jousting. You have Sir Kenneth getting shot by an arrow and yet he miraculously recovers and in any mass use of Bows and Arrows, no horses ever gets hit. Its a daft film but it is not gloriously daft. At least Harrison, Mayo, Sanders and Harvey try hard and take it all seriously.

Ray Faiola The main reason to indulge in KING RICHARD FOR THE CRUSADERS isn't the very cheap interiors reproduced in the wonderment of CinemaScope; it isn't the sleepy performance of mutton-chasing George Sanders; it isn't the cross-eyed heart-pounding (literally!) histrionics of Virginia Mayo; and it isn't even the surprisingly unsteady surliness of Robert Douglas (usually sharp as a rapier). Nope. Tune in to KING RICHARD for one of Max Steiner's grandest adventure scores. It's truly a thrilling work, with lovely melodies and rugged action set-pieces. But as good old Max said many times, "good music can help a picture but it can never save it." David Butler was a terrific director whose musicals and comedies have real spark and often puckish whimsy. Why he was handed this piece of cheese is a mystery. At least journeyman Curtiz could have made something worthwhile out of it. Oh well, it's still a great film to listen to.

ragosaal Have to admit I didn't read Sir Walter Scott's "The Talisman" in which this film is supposed to be based on. If "King Richard and the Crusaders is a good version of the book I'm glad I didn't.This movie is sort of colorful with some acceptable gowns (I didn't say accurate), Virginia Mayo has some good profile shots (I didn't say scenes), George Sanders renders an acceptable performance as the title character and Robert Douglas plays fine one of his usual costume villains. And that's about all.The medieval extravaganza looks definitely as a low budget one with not much credible situations, lots of full speed horseback riding towards nowhere, standard swordplay and that originally ridiculous undercover doctor (Saladin himself) curing his enemy Richard wounded by an arrow thrown by his own men. Nobody understands either why really Douglas wants to kill his king; I mean they say why, but its not enough reason (too standard). And there's one of the most insipid and dull heroes ever in a medieval film: Laurence Harvey as Kenneth The Leopard with a blonde wig, a wooden acting and ridiculous lines in his romantic scenes with Mayo (it's hard to understand how Harvey went into a reasonable film career if his first roles where like this one).The only explanation for this picture being made could be that the producers tried to take advantage of the ticket box's success of "Ivanhoe" (based on Walter Scott's best novel) and "Knights of the Round Table" both released a short time before. If my guess is right, they failed completely.