User reviews

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.

Films about medieval times are always nice to watch, especially for me, who have a great affection for this historical period, about which I did a specialization as a historian. Unfortunately, and as happens regularly, this movie is full of mistakes.

The script is quite good, from an entertainment point of view: an English orphan who is raised and trained by an itinerant barber acquires a great fascination for medicine and for the ability to cure illnesses and physical ailments. However, he is aware that he knows very little, and that his master knows even less, and this awareness becomes clearer when he lives with Jewish doctors who learned his art in the East. So he decides to disguise himself as a Jew and travel to Persia in order to be admitted as a pupil of a master physician, Ibn Sina.

For those who don't know, the film is partly based on real facts and characters: Ibn Sina, for example, really existed and entered the history of medicine with his Westernized name: Avicenna. It is also true that the Arabs had, during this period (the so-called Year A Thousand), a much more advanced scientific knowledge than the Christians, and the Jews, who had a certain ease in circulating between the two worlds (East and West), ended up developing a particular vocation for science and medicine, which was later used in the West, especially in times of greater religious tolerance.

Unfortunately, many things in the film (particularly the details) don't make sense: it would be a bit difficult for a Christian without much education to disguise himself as a Jew without being recognized and "unmasked", nor would it be so easy to make a journey from the British Isles to the heart of Persia, although it would not be impossible. It would be impossible, however, to see the Persians of the year 1000 celebrating something with fireworks, since this technology only reached that culture two hundred years later. Modern notions of sorcery and necromancy would also only emerge from the 13th century onwards, and the Church never burned anyone, it declared the defendant a heretic and handed him over to civil justice, which (that one) could burn him or not. Even more egregious was the mistake of including in the film an epidemic of bubonic plague before the 14th century, when the disease historically appeared. And even though the Shah did exist, and the Seljuks were indeed a threat in the region during the time period depicted, we would never have seen Muslims prostrate themselves to the Shah because they simply won't. There are still other errors: the Tower of London, which appears at the end of the film, was only built a hundred years later and would not have the appearance of the current building until, at least, the 16th century. Don't get me wrong, the movie is worth it even with these problems. What we have to understand is that this is not a documentary and things were not exactly as they are portrayed.

Thomas Payne is quite good in the lead role and does a good job as an actor, even if he is sometimes overshadowed by the impressive and charismatic performances of colleagues like Stellan Skarsgard or Ben Kingsley, two actors who are in excellent shape and who give us truly committed performances. And interesting. Emma Ribgy has also done a good job, but has relatively little to do.

Technically, the film has good cinematography and good sets and costumes. They're not especially accurate from a historical point of view, but they're aesthetically well done. The CGI is reasonably good and works well, if not very realistic. The soundtrack didn't particularly convince or please me, but the visual and sound effects are good. The pace is also quite good, and despite the film being relatively long, you hardly feel the time passing.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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