Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 6 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 6
  2. Negative: 1 out of 6
  1. Reviewed by: Andy Webster
    Mar 4, 2013
    A far, far cry from “Lawrence of Arabia,” but it has its diversions.
  2. Reviewed by: Angie Errigo
    Feb 28, 2013
    Ambitious but very tedious and talkatively hackneyed, redeemed just a smidge by the money shots of a swarm of extras on horseback sweeping across the sands.
  3. Reviewed by: Andrew Pulver
    Feb 28, 2013
    There's undoubtedly a good film to be made out of the scramble for oil in the Arabian desert in the 1920s – but this, for all its herculean efforts, is not it.
  4. Reviewed by: Matt Mueller
    Feb 28, 2013
    Banderas hams and Pinto flutters. If it weren’t for Strong and some colourful art direction, you could chalk this up as a busted well.
  5. Reviewed by: Jay Weissberg
    Feb 28, 2013
    Helmer/co-scripter Jean-Jacques Annaud's rep for spectacle over screenplay is again borne out in this overblown yet oddly anemic epic of warring Arabian tribes during the nascent oil boom.
  6. Reviewed by: Diego Costa
    Feb 28, 2013
    There's an enormous amount of perverse pleasure to be had here for those who get off on the annihilation of nuance.
User Score

No user score yet- Awaiting 1 more rating

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 1
  2. Negative: 0 out of 1
  1. Jul 21, 2014
    Meta Critic gave this film a score of 35 of 100.

    That's odd because it's really a better film than that.

    I liked the Arab Chief who was
    more interested in his traditions than the flow of oil. The conflict with he and the other Arab leader was interesting. Usually Arab's in film are terrorists to be shot, but here there is more to it, as the Western Influence is Oil Conglomerates.

    The film is not as bad as these Critics complain.

    Full Review »