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 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).

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.