Druids

Rating:
Summary: If it's the last thing on the shelf keep looking!
Review: I saw it a couple of years ago and can't remember much about it, it's that memorable. There is nothing historically accurate about the film, it will answer no questions about Druids, Vercingetorix, or anything. This clunker is so bad that if Halle Berry, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Elizabeth Hurley where pleasuring me while this movie was on, I would still have to crawl out of the room. This movie is "double coyote ugly" which means you would chew your own arm off to get away from it and then chew your other arm off just to make sure you never made that same mistake again. In other words: this movie stinks. It makes "SHOWGIRLS" look like a masterpiece. Not only don't rent, buy it, or pick it out of the trash; don't let anyone get off cheap if they are paying you to watch it. Other helpful expressions: Niet!, Nein!, Schiese!, ¡Mierda del Diablo!, Coprolite, Toxico, Basura, Hut Ferdoma, Ikke god!, Hellen Keller envy.

Negative uncountably infinite stars, or lower than whale $#!^ at the bottom of the ocean.



Rating:
Summary: I came, I saw, I cringed!
Review: Horrible rendition of the life and death of Vercingetorix, chief of the Gauls who fought Julius Caesar and was defeated at Alesia in 50 B.C. A heroic figure of great courage and dignity whose historical persona should have never been dragged into this amateurish attempt of a movie!

Although much of the subject is taken directly from Caear's De Bello Gallico, the script and acting is pathetic. Klaus Maria Brandauer is a good solid actor, but his casting as Caesar was a poor choice; it's hard to imagine him as one of the greatest Roman leaders with his heavy German accent. Althouh Max Von Sydow is also a solid actor, he doesn't really get to shine much in this movie; as a matter of fact, besides the obvious cues that he's a druid, no one would guess it by hearing the dialogue. Contrary to the movie's title, the movie has very little to do with druids anyway. The most horrible casting is Christopher Lambert as Vercingetorix. Lambert's acting hardly reflects a 20-year old Gaul nobleman who's fiece charismatic appeal and valor was able to unite all of the tribes of Gaul into one force against their Roman invaders: something that no other chieftain had ever been able to achieve in the history of the Gauls (or Celts for that matter.)

The film location and settings were equally bad in that it was filmed in Canada and Eastern Europe (Probably because the French government was too embarassed to be associated in any way with this pitiful film.) This hardly matches the plains, oak forests, and low plateaus of central France. Although the final scene of the battle of Alesia does a good job of showing how the Roman legions prepared fortifications with pallisades, trenches, and spikes against cavalry, the film failed to show how vast of a siege this really was. There were over 250,000 Gauls fighting 60,000 Roman legionaires! The Romans had built over 12 miles of double pallisades with towers and forts to surround and invest the city of Alesia. These fortifications descended into valleys and rose on to hills. The hill town of Alesia in the movie looks more like a little match-stick pueblo surrounded by a small army. The film also makes the same mistake as so many other films of that period: stirrups did not exist until the 7th Century A.D. Both Romans and Celts used a Celtic saddle to support themselves on a horse: the front and rear parts of the saddle would curve inward near the thighs at the top to allow the rider to stand firm on the saddle. Stirrups were invented by Arabs.

The script lacked depth and failed to grasp the Celtic culture or the world view of ancient peoples in general: the dialogue reflects themes that are too modern to the point that one would think Vercingetorix wanted to build a socialist and pluralistic democracy. The soundtrack was equally horrible. A quasi-disco trendy soundtrack hardly sets the mood in a movie about antiquity: imagine how good of a movie Spartacus or Ben-Hur would have been with the Bee-Gees for a title theme and you have "Druids." Apart for history teachers who want to show their students brief details about how the Roman legions built their fortifications, this movie is definitely worth skipping: it's not even worth renting.


Rating:
Summary: Not nearly as bad as some are saying
Review: Hmm, I don't usually write movie reviews, but I have to respond in this case. I'm not going to praise this one as one of the "greats" of all time, but, it wasn't the worst movie of all time either, not at all. Part of the problem is that the box itself compares this movie to Braveheart - which is a bad idea for at least two reasons. Braveheart was a huge budge Mel Gibson movie - so this leaves druids with a tough act to follow. Next, they are only very superficially the same. Though both movies involves swords and arrows, and a "weaker" nation fighting a powerful invader, there the comparison ends. Braveheart, put simply, was a battle between good and evil, oppression and rebel. Druids contains these elements, but also contains much more subtle elements. It asks question (subtely, without spoon feeding them) - such as what is right and wrong in war? How far should you go to win? Is it more important to do what you feel is right, or what you know you must do? (Vercingetorix must choose between sparing or destroying his people's own towns in order hopefully win the war!) Braveheart doesn't get quite so deep - English = Evil, Scottish = Good. I'm not even sure Vercengetorix was 100% justified in his rebellion (maybe 75% justified, but not so obvious as Braveheart's choice to rebel). Had things gone differently, Vercengetorix and Caesar might have even been friends, but his choices led him on another path. Braveheart never even came close to having the choice of whether or not to befriend the English king. But, the movie isn't without its flaws. The acting in some places is uneven (though I won't rage against Christopher Lambert like some people do - I think some people simply hate him). The arch druid, Max Von Syndow was excellent, though in a minor role. I have mixed feelings about a German as Caesar. SOme complain that Caesar showed too little emotion - but I believe this is merely a result of his enormous ego. This whole war was, to him, almost a nuisance, as he was sure his great destiny was assured. His low-key performance to me indicated his almost absolute certainty that this war wasn't going to get in his way and could be swept aside as befitting a man with a destiny. And finally - don't claim historical inaccuracies by complaining about things like Gallic mustaches or the women who bared their breasts. The Gauls DID have big mustaches - this isn't a mistake or an anachronism, and, the scene with the women was in the book, so it's not a mistake either. Where the movie lacks is, in my opinion, in its budget, but, take it for what it is, and don't expect Braveheart and Mel Gibson, and avoid it if you already hate Lambert. Besides, for such a low budget, I feel they did a good job at costuming and settings.