In one of his books Terry Pratchett describes a light that would "make Steven Spielberg reach for his copyright lawyer." I've always felt Mr. Andersons book was like that light. It was the sort of thing Spielberg or Lucas or the Disney studios could grab and run with. Unfortunately this version is a stumbling fumble. Hopefully Lucas or Spielberg or someone will read the book one day and go for a remake and we can forget that this wasted effort ever existed. My children bought me the DVD of this movie because I'd told them for years that someday the book would be a great motion picture...they still apologize now and then for not watching it first and buying me a tie instead.
Add a Review
-
Eeyore3D1 November 2007
-
Doke16 May 1999This film has almost everything it needs to be first class science fiction, except a decent screenwriter. The effects, makeup, photography, and direction are all perfectly acceptable for the story. However, the script is a disaster. This is a highly inept adaptation of Poul Anderson's classic sifi novel. Most of the basic premise, and introduction, are preserved. However, the rest is terrible. Anderson's competent crusader knights are replaced by idiots and buffoons. The subtle humor of the original is replaced by inane slapstick. The result is implausible, and embarrassing. If they had simply cut for time, without trying to replace or add, the film would have been vastly better.
-
Ary_Monteiro9 January 2005Thankfully I've not read the book because this incredibly silly medieval comedy entertained me from start to finish. Some friends made a double-feature with this and A Knight's Tale and I Knew next to nothing about it, which added to my enjoyment because the alien focus came somewhat unexpected.
Mild Spoilers: It tells the tale of a knight and his soldiers that kidnap a spaceship and try to use it against the Saracens in the Crusades, but the ship ends up heading to an alien planet and they must fight using their medieval mentality. The movie looks nice for a mid-nineties European flick, and even some cheesy special fx add to the fun so, no problems here.
The humor is what will certainly put some people off, but if you dig flicks like Monty Python's Holy Grail, Brancaleone, A Knight's Tale or even Kung-Pow, you may find something to like here.
The annoying french bard reminded me of Asterix. -
Uthman6 February 1999Poul Anderson had done all the screenwriters' work for them. With a solid historical backbone, subtle wit, and an engaging story, his novel was enough to relegate the writing of the script to a fill-in-the-blank exercise. Instead, the movie emerges as a pale ripoff of MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL, yet with even more historical inaccuracies (HIGH CRUSADE has Jerusalem falling to Saracens in 1345, not 1187, and even has a trio of Saracens attacking a keep in England!)
The dialogue does flirt with intelligence, as when John Rhys-Davies's character, Brother Parvus, insistently tries to "educate" spacefaring aliens about the Holy Trinity and geocentric cosmology, but ultimately it's just a tease. Things quickly descend into weak farce, and some devices, such as the aliens' construction of an evil human clone, are pure throwaway filler.
I sure hope Poul Anderson never saw this film. My fear is that he would never sell film rights for one of his excellent books again, which would be a shame, since in the right hands some fine movies could be produced. -
Ironwolf8 January 1999When I found this movie listed at DVD Express, I was excited. I've been a serious fan of Paul Anderson's work since I started reading. "The High Crusade" has always been one of my favorite books by Anderson and I have long thought that it would make an excellent movie. I still think it would make an excellent movie. Unfortunately, this is not it.
I was completely surprised by the direction taken by the screen play and direction of this movie. Or maybe shocked would be a better word. It had simply never occurred to me that Anderson's book would be interpreted as a comedy. Certainly, there is humor in the novel, but it is basically a story of high adventure with some very serious elements balancing the humor. There is none of that in the movie. Brown (the screen writer) and Knoesel & Neuhauser (the directors) extracted elements from the book and used them as a skeleton on which to build a second rate "Monty Python and the Holy Grail."
This movie was almost painful for me to watch because I could see enough of the novel on the screen to know that a good movie could have been made from "The High Crusade." The SFX, though a little cheezy by current standards, are still acceptable. The cast was adequate, though some of the parts would have been cast differently if this were not a comedy, I'm sure. Certainly, John Rys-Davies makes an excellent Brother Parvis and he is one of the few redeeming factors of this film. And the few scenes taken from the novel were almost watchable. But the overall tone and direction were not even remotely true to the novel. Frankly, even fans of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" will be disappointed because it's just not that funny.
If you have never read the book, then you may find this movie mildly amusing. If you are a fan of this classic science fiction novel, then I recommend steering clear of this movie. It will taint your good memories of the book forever. -
AllanHy20 September 2012I you have read the book by Poul Anderson and had the assumption that the book had a shard of intellect as to what 13th Century feudal Englishmen would do if they had access to (what we would regard as) 23rd Century technology, then you are in for a horrifying disappointment with this movie. Apparently the directors thought that if you could take the story of Christ and turn it into a satyric comedy, then you could do the same thing to Poul Anderson's book. At least the "Life of Brian" had some humor. And the special effects were actually better. This movie is a total waste of time. And intellect. And the money I paid to buy it thinking that it had any resemblance to the book which I just bought and read for the third time. Read the book which is about how guile and barbarity can overcome civilized sloth and don't waste your time with the movie.
-
imdb-20-eharper1 September 2005Rented it because of the book. Enjoyed it for it's own Pythonesque humor.
It's not a serious movie and it doesn't take itself seriously, nor are the actors all that good. Nonetheless, it takes a very light-hearted approach that is fun if you are in the right mood. My 15-yr old son and I laughed and laughed, my wife left the room.
Did you enjoy Time Bandits (especially the scene with Robin Hood?) How about Monty Python's Holy Grail (especially the scene with the rabbit?) If yes, give it a try; if not, you've been warned. As my son says, "It's so random!!" However, from him, this is something close to praise.
For what it is, the production values are pretty good and the jokes (especially in the subtitles) are frequent. Others criticize it for not being what they wished it were. Yes, there could be a much different movie made that takes Pohl Anderson's book more seriously. It could be the basis of a good series of the SciFi Channel. But if you can take THIS movie as it is and put aside thoughts of the OTHER movie you might wish it were, you can have some fun.
That's how it looks from here. -
gibblestick25 August 2005A very bizarre movie but highly amusing, at least it was years ago, when I watched it on video. Back then, all the aliens had comedy Sean Connery accents which the English could not understand. All very high camp and kind of stupid, but definitely amusing. However, when I watched it recently on DVD, all the Aliens spoke alien gibberish which subsequently required subtitles. This lost a massive amount of the comedy value of the original version. It seems a shame that the directors or whoever, would mess with the original format when the end result is vastly less entertaining. The acting is still pretty good (for such a daft film) as are the effects. I guess the budget was pretty low but it doesn't show as much as you might expect. Certainly it has a better production values than so called "B movie classics" such as Spaceballs. For those who've read the book and are now complaining that the film is not the same, hard luck, get over it. As a movie, it was pretty good (originally).
-
ye_river_xiv7 May 2006Poul Anderson's book "The High Crusade" is an enormous milestone in the rare genre of historic alien invasions, a true work of fine penmanship, and this movie doesn't hold a candle to it.
In all honesty though, alien invasion movies, and historical realism movies generally require huge budgets to be done "right" by Hollywood standards, and combining the two sounds to me like a movie maker's nightmare. While it would be great to see the original book done justice, the budget needed for an epic battle between knights and aliens isn't likely to be forthcoming.
The movie version of the high crusade sticks with the original premise, but due to the restrictions of a very tight budget, it was necessary to scale everything back. The special effects are sparing, the sets are repetitive, the script is a little worn around the edges, and the actors are, for the most part, not huge names.
All things considered, the movie does especially well for what it has. The slick, smart humor of Poul Anderson is cut out to make room for a lot of silly European humor, but thankfully, it all works great. Certainly, there are not a lot of surprises, but the gist remains funny, and it is the first movie I've seen my boorish father laugh at in over five years, which has to say something.
Also, the movie is pretty clean. The worst language is the repetitive use of "bloody," "bastards," "Hell," and "Devil's." The bloodiest wound in the movie is a bump on the head. Two battle scenes, and a severed leg don't spill a drop though. A certain amount of reproductive humor adds a bit of spice to the movie, but this is done in as tasteful a manner as the matterial can be done.
Certainly, a lot was lost from the book, but the movie that is left makes for several good laughs, and memorable one-liners. -
halfpapp8 November 2001at first i must say that i'm german. considering this film to be made by a german producer/director, my comment is influenced by a different way of life than the american one. this film is made by european and made for europeans. the humor, the jokes appearing in this movie are hard to understand when you're u.s. american.
ok, i don't know the book. but my personal experiences tell me that nearly every movie is disappointing compared to the original book.
this film is simply "cool". a weird story, british black humor mixed with some intelligent jokes. not made for broad masses. "underdog" would be a good word to describe it. it's a pity that it had not a sucess like the blair witch project. a european film has to be extraordinary to be succesful in the u.s. the last try to make a good film was "das boot", directed by wolfgang petersen, now being a great director in hollywood. a great story, great emotions, great actors (juergen prochnow, e.g.),a surprising end and a perfect technique was not enough to prevail in u.s. cinemas. the same happened to "high crusade". not lacking on famous actors, not lacking in good fx, the film was not good enough for the u.s. market.
what more to say. it had no success and it won't have any success. but i will watch it everytime it is shown on tv. -
skookum126 November 2005I have to strongly disagree with the previous review, and perhaps it's because I haven't read the Poul Anderson book; in fact I never knew there was one. This is one of the funniest Brit-com pieces I've seen, and it only gets funny once you get past the thick brogues of the dwarf aliens, and of course you have to already have a taste for Python-esquire humour and understand some of the references in the rapidly-delivered alien speech. The madcap slapstick and pathetic buffoonery of the story's "hero" and the villainy of his alter-ego cracks me up every time. I recommend this film quite often and have never considered anything but magnificently twisted. Sorry it's not faithful to Anderson's book; it's not the first time that Hollywood's savaged a novel.
-
bigger-211 February 2004Years ago the very first SF magazine I ever saw had a knight battling an alien -- it was Astounding SF with "The High Crusade." For a kid it was a great adventure, reading as an adult it is truly hilarious. Poul Anderson handled comedy and tragedy equally well. Had they filmed the book they would have had a hit. Rick Overton would have been a perfect Sir Roger, John Rhys-Davies is worth watching even if he isn't very 'parvus (ie. 'measly.')They clearly did not have the budget for the cast that would have been required The best lines are the ones taken from Anderson's book, such as the 'negotiation' scene. My recommendation, if you have time to kill Rhys-Davies is always worth watching as is Overton. The novel was recently brought out again by i-Books in a cover evidently modeled on the movie. Add the book to your collection and enjoy. Really, it's a very good book and someone should make a movie out of it.
-
The_Madness1 August 2006Lets just start by clearing the air a bit: I haven't read "The High Crusade" in book form, and I believe it helped towards the enjoyment of the film.
The humour used throughout the film was unique, to say the least, and the fact there is an English and an American version certainly perked up my ears. British humour is something I enjoy, and no American humour is the same.
Several key differences are such: **Possible spoilers** The aliens speak with beeps in the American version, with subtitles underneath; in the British version they have badly-dubbed, yet funny, Scottish accents, to the degree that you could swear Good Ol' Sean's in the film.
To skip all the blurb, it's a fun film to watch, especially after a couple of beers and a good night with your friends.
Rent it, only buy it if it's for a quid in the bargain bin (very likely).
8/10.
Madness. -
Amy_Brigman22 November 2003At first, I have to say, that I didn´t read the original book, so that I can´t be disappointed in the way, the story was changed in the movie. The movie is original, and can be shown to all ages. Yes, the humor is strange! As well as the idea to let a bunch of medieval knights fight against aliens. But, hey - Don´t take this movie serious! Its wonderful ironic and stupid, with his black humor and the crazy heroes. Some of the gags you get only by watching the movie again and again. For example this two gay soldiers at the beginning, how Ray Cokes looses his leg, or the cute equipment in the torture chamber ;-) To describe the movie short: It´s cool! I can remember only one time it was shown on TV, but it´s worth renting! And if you get the chance, watch as well the making of! Have fun with it!
-
Ceronomus3 February 2019In the vein of Yellowbeard, this comedic gem is fantastic. Ignore the book or you will be disappointed. As a stand-alone story? A hit!
-
kosmasp7 June 2019I remembered this fondly - because I had watched this as a teenager and I remember laughing a lot. Now I rewatched it, to see if I remembered it correctly. And I still had fun. It did age well, especially if you consider this having hand made effects instead of digital ones. The actors try their best to give the whole thing gravitas. Which is quite something if you consider how silly this is. Some choices worked better back then (Ray Cokes was quite known as MTV talking head), but nothing really takes you out of the movie.
The dialog of this Science Fiction meet Middle Ages is well chosen ad the actors also did a great job. As mentioned great model design and really good sets. A lot of heart, sweat and blood went into this - which is showing on screen. If this hits the spot (everyone has a different view on comedy or what they think is funny), it will really hit the spot!