User Reviews (179)

Add a Review

  • 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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I read the novel over 15 years ago when I was a child, so I don't remember every detail, I cannot even fully recall the main plot line. But I'm quite sure there's a lot of stuff happening in the movie that was never in the book. And I have no idea why it was made part of the screenplay since it is neither interesting nor helpful for the story.

    One can roughly cut this movie in three parts. First we meet Rob as a child, losing his mother and getting adopted by a traveling healer in medieval England. He quickly learns what the barber has to teach him, and after meeting a Jewish doctor, he realizes there's much more to learn. This part was very close to the book, wonderfully directed, it showed medieval medicine and life in all its religious superstition, naivety and nastiness. It was an ugly time and the movie is not afraid to show it.

    Part two shows us - after a quick travel around the whole known world and disguising as a Jew - how Rob manages to become a pupil of Ibn Sina, the greatest doctor of his time, played by Ben Kingsley who delivers his usual Gandhi. While the visuals remain stunning, I started to get a bit bored, a lot of scenes seem to be dragged out too long.

    Part three, the showdown, completely leaves the source material behind. Rob performs an abdominal operation on the Shah, who then rides to battle like El Cid, tied to his horse, willing to gloriously die for his people. The mullahs start a Pogrom in the Jewish quarter and burn down Ibn Sinas University, the love interest gets saved from being stoned to death for adultery, and then they all leave the burning city like Aeneas left Troy. I'm sorry, but something feels wrong here.

    In the Novel I recall Roc's Love Interest was a red-haired Scottish girl, and the Shah desired her so hard she had to give herself to him to save Rob's life. Here she's married to a fat old guy who conveniently dies in the pogrom (insert lame redemption scene).

    In the Novel I recall the Shah is a wonderful antagonist, a brutal ruthless dictator with some interesting character traits, not an open-minded western governor who wants to open society for science and multi-culture. It all felt like someone wanted to violently press into the story his version of 20th century Iran. I'd advice this person to watch the first 5 minutes of "Argo" to get a more accurate and less propaganda view of these events. Really left a bad taste in my mouth.

    Instead of these endless scenes of Islamists roaming through the streets, the movie could have shown us the huge effort Rob had to put into understanding the human body, the sacrifices he had to make, the permanent danger of blowing up his cover. This seems more like a walk in the park... ;)

    So, to sum it up: Visually stunning, storytelling starts well but can't keep up to its own standard. Overall I'd rate it 7/10 (5/10 +1 for costumes and scenery + 1 for Stellan Skarsgård's wonderful performance).
  • Warning: Spoilers
    It's hard to rate movies which are based on books, especially if you really like the book. So while the movie is entertaining in itself it's a huge disappointment in terms of "sticking to the original story".

    ---------Spoilers---------

    The book can be divided into three parts: 1) Rob's time in England 2) His journey to Isfahan 3) The time in Isfahan

    Part 1 is based loosely on the book but very well done. It's hard to transfer a 700 page book into a 150 min movie so I guess I can live with the shortcuts the movie took in this part especially because of Stellan Skarsgård's wonderful performance as Rob's mentor. I was very skeptical at first about the movie because I love the book so much and I've read it five times, but the beginning exceeded my expectations and I was really looking forward to the upcoming 2 hours. Unfortunately it all went south from there. Part 2 (the journey) was almost completely cut out of the script. That's really disappointing because that is the time in which Rob first bonds with his future wife (a redheaded Scottish Chritian), learns to read, the ways of Judaism and how to keep his cover. Part 3 - the biggest part of the book by far- is completely different from the book. It's pretty much a redone story, something Noah Gordon (the author of the book) was not too happy about either. I recommend to anyone who saw the movie and at least kind of liked it to read the book: The movie took basically nothing away from you, it contains no spoilers to the real story whatsoever which is great. Of course there are a few parallels like Rob illegally performing autopsies or the outbreak of the pest, but all in all it's nothing like the book.

    But the thing that really baffled me the most was the poor character development of Rob Cole. Tom Payne did a decent job, no question. But at no time during the movie could you sense all of Rob's struggles: losing his family; traveling England and finding himself to emerge from being a young roughneck who fought with every man and slept with every woman to wanting to become a real healer; having a sixth sense about upcoming death; betraying his religious views; learning to deal with all those new cultures...to name a few

    Also another big part of the book is completely canceled out of the story: The development of a great friendship between 3 very unequal men. In my opinion the most important and best part of the whole book. Karim was a joke in the movie. Ben Kingsley was good, not great. The Shah was played very well by Oliver Martinez but the character's relationship with Rob Cole is not even close to what it is in the book.

    Furthermore the topic of Islamic radicalism is unnecessarily blown out of proportion.

    Don't get me wrong, the movie was entertaining and everybody who did not read the book and saw it with me liked it or found it to be at least all right. But this movie compares to the book like two football games: Sure, it's 11 on 11, the fan's scream in the stands and the grass is green but what really happens on the field differs a lot.

    Watch the movie if you like, but you have to read the book to understand why it is considered to be one of the best books ever written...
  • I accept it i really enjoy and same time annoy when i was watching this movie. They just tried to insult Turkish and Muslim people. Especially if u are Christian u can not pass the Muslim's country. This is bullshit. Respect other religion if u want to other people respect yours. And if u publish that kind of movies at least write there it is not real history just imagination. How dare you show Seljuk like a monster. If i am not Turkish i could believe that. And i will pretend Turkish people bad behavior. Please respect other people. I don't want to write more than this. Why they don't allow me to send this review. As a Persian I feel offended by the way Isfahan and it's population are presented. Karim plays lousy and beside the focus on the Jewish families I see no deep dive and intelligence put into the Persian culture (in line with other movies such as 300 or Alexander, kind of a pattern).
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    or anyone English with a modicum of knowledge of History! Because that final shot of London with the completed Tower of London - after the movie clearly stated it started in the year 1021 - was SO jarring, it really ruined the ending for me, personally! This after 2 and a half hours of successfully suspending disbelief over so many maybe-it-'twas-really-so (i.e. back then in the 11th century) moments in scenes so attractively staged and nicely acted, that I was willing to believe them: But that willingness was shot with that final shot! :( Beautiful film but a BIG mistake to cast the relatively unknown Tom Payne in the leading role, IMO; though certainly NOT recommending the makers cast Shia LaBeouf or one of the Jonas bros (!?!) - HOWEVER, the star power of Ben Kingsley was undeniable and made poor Mr. Payne pale by comparison beside him…which is not what one wants, surely, from one's primary (and in almost every scene) player?

    (Noticed that the primary producer was just promoted to C.E.O. of U.F.A., perhaps he's not held accountable for casting inconsistencies?!)

    Overall definitely worth watching and listening to due to a very nice Howard James Newton-esque score, but dangerously similar to the many (also very attractive yet too slowly paced) filmed Biblical stories shown on T.V. as made-for-TV movies on channels such as TBN, 3ABN. and Lifetime.
  • While this movie is well acted and beautifully shot, there are so many departures from the original story that I couldn't help feeling a little let down. It's true that to include everything written by Noah Gordon would require a mini-series (which would have been a good idea) , there are a number of things that gave the story more depth that could easily have been included. An accurate account of where Rob J Cole was born would have been a good start.

    Despite these omissions The Physician is still a good watch.

    For those who question the truth of this title, it's fiction, total fiction.
  • The story is quite fascinating and keeps you interested throughout. It takes place at the time when the Middle East was way more advanced in science than Western Europe and it's quite illuminating to see how a man from England had to go and learn about medicine from the Persians. The production is quite sumptuous and well done considering it's not a wide release movie. Different cultures and a slightly unnecessary love story fill in the rest of the 2 and a half hours. Not a terribly famous cast apart from Ben Kingsley. The lead actor looks more Middle Eastern than Anglo any way. Doesn't explain how he can understand and communicate with everyone there.

    Worth watching.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    All things considered I recommend this movie, It's picturesque and captivating. The music is very beautiful as well. And hands down to Ben Kinsly as always! It is a beautiful movie. The actors are brilliant and the story is very captivating. For once I didn't feel wretched when foreign cinema has tried to show Persia. At least Persians were speaking Persian even though they looked like Arabs. The illustrations that were used as the school material were the exact replicas of what remains from Ibn Sina and what you can see in his great book. That said the movie is very wrong in historical facts. What was supposed to be Isfahan looked nothing like it, but I suppose that's too much to expect. First the whole time line is wrong, Ibn Sina lived during the ruling of Saljugi dynasty and was caught up in their wars. He had to be on the run all the time for most of his life. The most important blunder of the movie which was quite central to the storyline is that Ibn Sina did not practice autopsy! He did! It was considered a sin so he had to steel corpses during the night. It is one of the reasons why people didn't like him. I have not read the book, I am talking about real documented history about him so maybe this blunder can be blamed on the book. I don't know!
  • mohyyy830 December 2018
    Warning: Spoilers
    Very short review: 1- Historyically all wrong and a total fiction. 2- Good movie to watch (forget about the history anf think as if Ebn Sina is a marvel character!) 3- Many errors in the movie like Isfehan location and view, peoples races and faces, languages and ofcourse mr. Rob! How can a dude with no education end up teaching Ebn Sina!
  • snickerfoot7 August 2015
    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.
  • I did not read the book so after i saw the movie i read the summary of the book at Wiki. The story line is almost the same . If u value history and facts u have to bare the ignorance of novelist and the director ! Their ignorance may be intentional. Before the year 1938 there were a lot of intentional pieces about Jews in Nazi Germany. In the year 2013 when the movie was on screen there is Islamophobia around the world and this movie may intensify the ignorance of the ignorant people. I can understand the need of a fictional character from the view of novelist but at least he could stick with the historical facts if he was not meant to serve Islamophobia. I don't believe the novelist meant that but the German makers of the movie definitely thought about it ! Ps: Am not Muslim or believe in any other religion.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Not only is this film historically inaccurate, but it is also terribly unlikely, childish and ridiculously stupid. It tells the story of an uneducated English barber, who (with no knowledge of Persian, Arabic, Hebrew, and more importantly, no knowledge of philosophy, mathematics, medicine, etc. and perhaps a total illiterate), disguised as a Jew, travels to Isfahan to seek medicine training from the greatest physician of the world, Avicenna.

    Up to this point, the movie is a total work of fiction (except that Avicenna was actually the greatest physician of the time and Isfahan was a center of civilization), and highly unlikely, but not quite stupid yet. The shameless stupidity starts when this young man (again, with no knowledge of Persian, Arabic, Hebrew, philosophy, mathematics, medicine, etc.) attends Avicenna's classes without any problem, and in few months(!) starts guiding Avicenna in treating different diseases! He even helps Avicenna to realize that plague is transmitted by rats! Seriously?! The greatest physician/philosopher (and a polymath) of the 11th century, whose books were taught at most European universities as late as 1650, does not know something in medicine (of course no shame), but an uneducated barbarian lad does discover confidently! Great!

    More ridiculously, this lad (who has come from a time England was full of superstitions and religious dogma) is shown advising the great philosopher to grow up of his religious dogma(!) and dissect corpses for medical purposes!… He even takes a 20th century "human rights activist" tone when saying this "let's dissect" advice to Avicenna!… Were the creators of this movie high on something?!… Perhaps they were, because they later show that this barbarian dissects a corpse, performs a colon surgery(!) on (and upon the order of) a drunk(!) Shah who goes to war with the Seljuks right after the surgery!… And during these all great "scientific" discoveries that the barbarian does, the great Avicenna appears no more than an assistant!… There is also a very "cheap" parallel love-sex story, as well as quite a few 21st-century(!) urban-Persian conversations going on in the background…

    The historical inaccuracy is not the main thing annoying me here: It is rather the stupidity and unlikeliness that annoys me the most. This movie is as ridiculously stupid as if it was telling a story in which Sir Isaac Newton has a Mongolian student who speaks with him in Mongolian, and shows him the true scientific method, helps him develop calculus and ultimately spreads Newton's science around the world, while escaping with his Jewish lover during the "Napoleonic" wars! Probably some Ali-Baba also appears during the "Napoleonic" wars too! Ah, yes, and Newton commits suicide when he realizes his library is flooded by the Vikings! (as in the movie Avicenna commits suicide, in more of a nihilistic 20th century gesture, when he realizes the Seljuks set his library on fire)…

    No, the historical true Avicenna did not commit suicide. He did not have any English students. He did not die in Isfahan, nor around the time that Isfahan was defeated by the Seljuks. Moreover, no one around that era was able to teach Avicenna how to do medicine. No one was able to perform a colon surgery during that time (still, even in 21st century, no patient is able to fight in a war right after a colon surgery), and finally, English was not among the spoken languages in 11th century Persia…. If the creators of this movie really wanted to produce such a childish fairy-tail, why did they even bother themselves using the name (and abusing the reputation) of a real historical figure?! They could have introduced some bogus character in a fictional country that well matched their boring fairy-tail.

    Besides the historical inaccuracy and childish unlikeliness, I do not see any artistic achievement in the movie either: just lavish production, resulting in an unnecessarily long/boring movie (that reveals nothing about Avicenna's youth/life/achievements), and flashy scenes, bad clichéd acting, depicting inaccurate architectures, clothing, races, faces, etc. Quite a blockbuster garbage that stupidly tries to tell us very unlikely lies about the history and life of (one of) the greatest physician of all time.
  • I don't care what Ibn-Sina's origin was, Though as said in Wikipeida he is Persian, anyway Ibn-Sina was accused of apostasy by Ibn-Taymiyyah, and wasn't a Muslim he was more into spirituality than believing in a personal god

    And who's trying to say that Islam is evil !? when in quran it's mentioned "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" and you dare to say Islam is not evil all the tribes, empires, and monarchies who embraced Islam were barbaric, savages against everything related to development.

    Not just Ibn-Sina was accused of heresy and apostasy all of the scientists who lived under Islamic rule were not muslims, their lands were conquered by the savages, and forced to embrace Islam

    Read for Ibn-Taymiyyah and you'll find out the large numbers of the scientists whom were accused of apostasy.. Tchuess
  • Warning: Spoilers
    if we just ignore history it was outstanding movie. it was an effective movies like "AGORA" which enrage a science lover for the destruction of science and knowledge in the hands of religious fundamentalists . tears can easily roll down your cheeks seeing hard earned research work burnt to ashes by these followers of darkness .

    despite it's length you won't be bore for a second because it's thrilling drama . acting was good too .

    but coming to history side it distorted history in every possible way . history of a great physician like ibn e Sena , known as father of medicine, shouldn't be handled immaturely like this.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    In the Eleventh Century, in England, the mother of the boy Rob Cole has side sickness (appendicitis) and he foresees her death when he touches her. The orphan Rob is alone and he follows a traveling barber-surgeon (Stellan Skarsgård) that teaches him how to cure the needy. When the barber is blind with cataract, Rob Cole seeks out a Jewish physician that recovers the barber's vision.

    Rob Cole decides to learn medicine with the famous Ibn Sina (Ben Kingsley) in the distant Persia. Along his one-year journey, Rob makes a circumcision on himself and changes his name to Jesse Ben Benjamin, posing of Jewish to be accepted by Ibn Sina's school in Isfahan. Further he falls in love with Rebecca (Emma Rigby) that is traveling to Isfahan in the same caravan to get married in a marriage of convenience. Jesse learns medicine with Ibn Sina while he performs forbidden experience with a corpse and has sex with Rebecca. When the mullahs betray the Shah Ala ad-Daula (Olivier Martinez) to the Seljuk, the lives of Ibn Sina, Jesse and their friends are deeply affected.

    "The Physician" is one of the best adventures of 2014. The saga of gifted Rob Cole in his pursue for the knowledge of medicine in a primitive Middle Ages in Europe. Ben Kingsley is perfect as usual in the role of a wise scientist limited by the religion to explore his knowledge. My vote is nine.

    Title (Brazil): "O Físico" ("The Physicist")
  • Set in 11th-century when nine-year-old Rob Cole felt the life force slipping from his mother's hand he could not foresee that this terrifying awareness of impending death was a gift that would lead him from the familiar life of London to small villages throughout England and finally to the medical school at Ispahan. Rob Cole left poor, disease-ridden London to make his way across the land, hustling, juggling, peddling cures to the sickand discovering the mystical ways of healing. In Persia, the surgeon's apprentice (Tom Payne) disguises himself as a Jew to study at a school that does not admit Christians .Though apprenticed to an itinerant barber surgeon (Stellan Skarsgård) , it is the dazzling surgery of a Jewish physician trained by the legendary Persian physician Avicenna (Ben Kingsley) in Ispahan that inspires him to accept his gift and to commit his life to healing by studying at Avicenna's school. There our starring attends an Arab university where he would undertake a transformation that would shape his destiny forever. Despite the ban on Christian students, Rob goes there, disguising himself as a Jew to gain admission.

    An adventurous and inspiring tale of a quest for medical knowledge pursued in a violent world full of superstition and prejudice . Based on Noah Gordon bestseller , Director Philipp Stölzl adapts faithfully the known novel . Made in an attractive style , especially on the perilous, unheard-of journey to Persia, adding a peculiar travel that he found his own very real gift for healing a gift that urged him on to become a doctor , and though the road to enlightenment is a difficult one, the young boy forms many human connections that instill him with the fortitude to pursue his ambitious goal. Main and support cast are pretty good. Stars Tom Payne as the young boy who changes his name to Jesse Ben Benjamin, posing of Jewish to study medicine under renowned Persian expert Ibn Sina, Stellan Skarsgård as the sympathetic rogue Barber-surgeon , Emma Rigby as the Jewish girl with whom he falls in love, Olivier Martinez as Shah Ala ad Daula who fights relentlessly against the Seljusids and special mention for Ben Kingsley as the wise scientist/physician Avicenna.

    The film based on historical events and and particularly of the famous scientist Ibn Sina , commonly known in the West as Avicenna , was a Persian polymath who is regarded as one of the most significant physicians, astronomers, philosophers, and writers of the Islamic Golden Age, and the father of early modern medicine. Sajjad H. Rizvi has called Avicenna "arguably the most influential philosopher of the pre-modern era". He was a Muslim Peripatetic philosopher influenced by Greek Aristotelian philosophy. Of the 450 works he is believed to have written, around 240 have survived, including 150 on philosophy and 40 on medicine. His most famous works are The Book of Healing, a philosophical and scientific encyclopedia, and The Canon of Medicine, a medical encyclopedia which became a standard medical text at many medieval universities and remained in use as late as 1650. Besides philosophy and medicine, Avicenna's corpus includes writings on astronomy, alchemy, geography and geology, psychology, Islamic theology, logic, mathematics, physics, and works of poetry. He created an extensive corpus of works during what is commonly known as the Islamic Golden Age, in which the translations of Byzantine Greco-Roman, Persian and Indian texts were studied extensively. Greco-Roman (Mid- and Neo-Platonic, and Aristotelian) texts translated by the Kindi school were commented, redacted and developed substantially by Islamic intellectuals, who also built upon Persian and Indian mathematical systems, astronomy, algebra, trigonometry and medicine. The Samanid dynasty in the eastern part of Persia, Greater Khorasan and Central Asia as well as the Buyid dynasty in the western part of Persia and Iraq provided a thriving atmosphere for scholarly and cultural development. Under the Samanids, Bukhara rivaled Baghdad as a cultural capital of the Islamic world. The physicians and philosophers Abu Abdallah al-Natili and Abu Sahl al-Masihi educated Avicenna. Together, they studied the Isagoge of Porphyry and possibly the Categories of Aristotle as well. After Avicenna had read the Almagest of Ptolemy , Euclid's Elements, and in Greek sciences. Avicenna wrote extensively on early Islamic philosophy, especially the subjects logic, ethics and metaphysics, including treatises named Logic and Metaphysics.
  • The two hours and a half movie has a lot of good things going for it. First there is the acting, coming from people that are mostly quite unknown, but which is good even for actors in secondary roles. Stellan Skarsgård and Ben Kingsley do, as expected, a great job. Then there are the landscapes, starting from wet green Britain and ending in the Arabian desert. But of course, the best of it all is the story.

    In an age where Europe is a cesspool of ignorance and filth, while the East is where the knowledge resides, the plot follows a young boy witnessing the death of his mother from an incurable disease, which I assume is appendicitis, and grows to want to become a healer. Pretending to be a Jew, he travels to the Middle East to train with a famous and wise healer, played by Kingsley. He proceeds in defeating diseases, healing friends and finding the love of his life, while religious extremism and violence stretch through the region.

    Now, I have some qualms with some of the details of the story. I understand they tried to describe a larger piece of history in the span of a single movie and I also understand that drama requires brutal realism while the mechanisms of movie making require happy endings and satisfying the money people. However, there are some things that just don't sit well, like presenting Europeans as filthy barbarians using their faith only to oppress, the Arabs as either tyrants or violent zealots, while Jews are all nice, helpful and never take up weapons to hurt anyone. This kind of unilateral bias sours an otherwise quite nice and beautiful story. The repeated scenes of the Torah burning (oy vey) while tomes of medical knowledge burning in Ibn Sina's university were mere an afterthought is one of those things, too.

    Bottom line: the switch from filthy barbarism to enlightened richness, from decadence to overzealous morality, from peaceful people to thieves and murderers and all back again makes for an inconsistent world. However it is a nicely presented world, with interesting well played characters in epic journeys that change their and the viewer's perspective on the world. A well done movie, I would have preferred it less biased and more focused, but one can't look a horse gift in the mouth; after all, how many new movies are there to advocate science and knowledge over special effects and cheap emotions? Good film. You should watch it.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    i'd say this movie is well worth watching - no matter what ...

    in fact, i even enjoyed watching it, for many reasons, Avicenna's character and his life story being only one of the least important ones in it i'd add btw ...

    yes, to me, the movie doesn't make justice to his character, not thoroughly at least, but it's fine enough ... after all, Avicenna's not the first character we see appear on the screen in this movie, nor is he the last one either ... and although the entire story sounds like to be built on and around him and his life, the movie's name is Physician, not Avicenna ... (so, could we say it could be any -important- physician as far as history is concerned?) haven't read the book ... and it's unlikely i ever will ...

    why: 'cause there are so many other books and articles as well as research material about Avicenna that i haven't read either! :) i HAVE read about him in a scattered manner though, you know: here and there ...

    i also read a short work of his once, whose name i can't remember right now ... (or was it something written by others but attributed to him? who cares ...) and no matter who wrote about him and why, many of those scattered bits and pieces i have read about this great man are of course of the exaggerated nature ... which is pretty much like most other important historical figures of all kinds: the gentleman's character is 'huge' and things he has said or done are also unbelievably big and at times even unusual ... and most resources treat him in that manner in fact: a scientific hero!

    i even remember there was a TV series about him made by the Iranian television (post the Islamic revolution) and it followed certain texts about him i was already familiar with: Avicenna has been such a genius person he'd been curing some tough illnesses since he was an 8-year-young child ... more curious than anything else, eh? ;-)

    OK, back to this particular movie, which shows Avicenna in the last few months (or years?) of his life only and with no reference to his childhood, well, yes, it's a very well made one indeed, i gave it 7/10, could as well have given it even more, but since i didn't find it 'accurate' enough (in terms of portraying Avicenna "correctly", as well as mishandling certain historical reports about him and his era of existence) then i decided to not go with 10/10 ...

    especially bothering (to some extent) is the fact that a young man from nowhere goes to Persia and uses his natural instincts to the max so that he even manages to teach his master in a very short time ... (used the word 'nowhere' as in the historical reality that England at the time was not considered very important, or so at least this movie is trying to tell us that!? and btw, did the British really allow 'modern' medicine to replace their ancient, mostly superstitious manners of curing people in the 11th century?)

    well, as long as this is not a movie about Persia along the lines of the awful movie 300, and gets on with facts of all kind much better than that one, then it's overall a really fine movie i'd recommend people to watch if they like this kind of story ...
  • z-ajmal75923 June 2014
    Whether this movie is filmed on real story or not(that is not by the way as another view describes the facts in details), i saw this movie as message of hope to anyone who wants to achieve his goal.

    At first i thought this movie of normal B class film but it turns out to be an A+, that credit goes to the director who did't bore his viewers. Acting was off course great, there are many great names in the movie and sure they all played their role in the success of this film.

    The character of Rob was not that easy but it was done as this person is meant to do this role (that's my thoughts anyone can deny it :)) and believe it or not as i am watching Hollywood films for about 7 years, this is the first movie in which Muslim's contribution to knowledge of science / medicine is shown and i appreciate it.
  • It's 1021 in Dark Age Britain. Young Rob Cole loses his mother and follows traveling 'barber' (Stellan Skarsgård). A barber is a medieval magician, dentist and healer berated by church fearing people. As the barber's eyesight goes, Rob (Tom Payne) becomes his apprentice. Starting with his mother, Rob has had a sense of someone's impending death. A traveling Jewish doctor cures the Barber's cataract and tells Rob of master teacher Ibn Sina (Ben Kingsley) in Isfahan. He decides to leave for the far east to study medicine disguised as a Jew since Christians are banned from Muslim lands.

    I really like the first part in Britain. Skarsgård held down the acting and basically carried young Brit actor Tom Payne on his shoulders. The movie skips ahead to the middle east which is too bad. It's understandable because of the scope of the story. The second half just isn't quite as compelling. It's also where historical facts starts to be twisted for dramatic purposes. A Christian pretending to be a Muslim becomes the hero of the piece. It's a writer's contortion that takes much of the drama away. It's well made movie. I just like the first half more.
  • If you have not read the book (like me) you will probably not be disappointed, otherwise you should probably read the review of somebody who read the book before.

    This movie had a lot going for it: beautiful scenery (and a likewise beautiful Emma Rigby), credibility and oriental charisma. It was educative about the founding days of modern medicine/surgery and very nicely crafted overall. Ben Kingsley was grand as usual and the other cast was very convincing as well.

    There are not a lot of negative aspects I can find here. Some parts in the late first half of the movie are not very suspenseful but it picks up very nicely from then on.

    Another small issue for me was that there were a few too many saved-at- the-very-last-moment scenes (not as many as in The Hobbit II, which was a great movie anyways)

    I just hope that this movie is as successful as it deserves to be (which I am not sure about since there were only 4 other people attending the Friday afternoon show in my hometown).

    Great movie. I recommend it highly!
  • I have read some reviews on this film on here, and I agree in large that this film is historically very inaccurate. But should not be put down for that with a rating of a score of 1 by some.

    It is well acted and is pleasing to watch on decor alone, but I will point out the way they depict Isfahan is totally wrong! My ex wife is from Iran and I spent 6 glorious weeks in Iran in 2007 and spent my honeymoon traveling all over Iran ( and what a fantastic country Iran is) and spent several days in and around Isfahan, and it is nothing like what is portrait in this Hollywood German produced fantasy film! You have to take this film with a huge grain of salt, and not seen as a historical film of any kind, sure the great Ibn Sina is apart of the story line, but is again wrongly portrait as to what history will tell you if you do some research on a great historical figure.

    I gave it a 6.5 but IMDb won't let me score in half points so I rounded it of to a 7, due to the fact it brought back memories from when I was madly in love with my than Persian princes.

    7 out of 10
  • Warning: Spoilers
    First of all, If one wants to write about history you must make an effort to read about it. Even- though I don't read about Rob Cole any where in Ibn Sina's history, still I can bear adding him to the story but not not giving him all the credit to Ibn Sina's work. Everyone must knows or even heard about Ibn Sina, in the medical field. People still studying his work.

    All I can say, it is not a good job to steal someone's work and give it to an imaginary character. Credit must be given!!!

    Also, I would like to mention the language, the sitting of the movie. Isfahan is in Iran, who speaks Persian not Arabic, even though they are Muslims. How come the characters speaks Arabic?!!! The shah's interest looks like an Arabic prince interest, where in real life there are big majors different between Arabs and Persians.

    Isfahan did not look like a The Arabian Nights from Thousand and One Nights, which again belongs to Arabs culture.
An error has occured. Please try again.