|Page 1 of 13:||          |
|Index||124 reviews in total|
45 out of 50 people found the following review useful:
I can't believe it's a real movie, 7 June 2003
Author: AliquaSalix from Paris, France
"Vercingétorix" is the worst movie I have ever seen. It's a catastrophe
beyond your imagination. Christophe Lambert is ridiculous as young
Vercingetorix, and as old Vercingetorix too. The dialogues are so bad
even I could have done better. The costumes look like rags. The fights
are boring. Some scenes are so inconsistent it's funny... Example:
imagine you've been living in a forest all of your life, without seeing
the world. OK. Now, you're going out of the forest (obviously not a
very thick one), and what can you see? A "via romana", a roman highway.
Yes. Just a couple of trees from your cave. And who's riding on it,
with a couple of bodyguards and one extra-horse? Julius Caesar himself
and its fierce army. And the emperor just gives you a horse, because he
has an extra one. And this explains why, some time later in the movie,
Christophe Lambert says, giving a horse back to a roman soldier: "I
give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar."
I'd say the following things to people who have the opportunity to see "Druids" (by the way, what druids? Those white-clad weirdos jumping around with a sword?): If you are a cinema student, you might want to see this movie just to get what you should never do. If you are interested in bad movie experiments, don't miss it either (it's a cult movie for many people for that very reason). If you're just a normal person, don't lose 3 hours of your life. The first hour is very funny but the 2 following ones are long.
47 out of 57 people found the following review useful:
Relentlessly Bad, 24 March 2004
Author: everyones-a-critic from Boston, MA
Now I'm a great fan of historical epics, and I am willing to forgive a lot
of historical inaccuracies in the name of cinematic expediency, especially
with regard to a Celtic hero like Vercingetorix. However, as with all truly
bad films, this film really can't decide what it wants to be. It makes a
game attempt at historical accuracy (at least history according to Ceasar
which is all we have to go on) by portraying Vercingetorix as someone who is
willing to deal with the enemy then betray them, and there are some scenes
such as the breast-baring women distracting the Romans which have a basis in
writings of the time. OK - I'd be willing to forgive the historically
inaccurate (and very un-scary) German connection until...
...we see Vercingetorix chatting with busty druidesses and gaining a magic
sword and magic powers which he proceeds to twirl around faster than is
humanly possible. Err, OK - so it wants to be a fantasy film. In which case
why set it in a real historical time period with so many real events to
build off - just go all out like Conan and be done with it. I mean - if he
has magical power he should win at the end right?
The film proceeds to both destroy history and ruin one's enjoyment of all fantasy films with ruthless efficiency. So thats the screenplay written off, but perhaps it can be saved by some good performances?
Lambert. Never before has there been an actor made entirely of wood. Does this man have more than one facial expression carved on his trunk? Ceasar was passable, but lets face it, if he wants to make a name for himself by playing famous Romans he is in for a long wait for that phone call. The rest of the cast act like, and probably are, extras. Good for them for getting some face time I say.
OK - so the screenplay and acting are garbage. Perhaps the action and/or special effects can save the film. Err. No. Sorry. Joan of Arc and Gladiator-style battle scenes this does not have. I'm willing to even cut it some slack for its obviously low budget, but even taking that into account its a non-starter.
When you truly feel you could have made a better film with claymation figures and a shoebox camera then something is very very wrong indeed. However that is not the end of it. The awful, choppy editing and lack of timing and pacing combined with everything else makes for a truly painful viewing experience, one of the worst in my living memory. It is this which turns a merely bland and boring film into a bottom-100 dweller.
If the real Vercingetorix saw this he'd fall on his sword. Nul points as they say at Eurovision.
32 out of 41 people found the following review useful:
I'm starting to lose patience..., 6 March 2002
Author: Leigh Loveday from UK
Much as I generally enjoy watching good old Mr. Lambert messing about in the
usual mindless, middle-of-the-road sci-fi shenanigans that he likes to
frequent, I get no satisfaction whatsoever from seeing him jump up and down
violently on what's left of his career in a sick-makingly irredeemable
cinematic dog such as this.
Like so many reviewers before me, I just don't know where to begin.
Let's see: a shockingly bad soundtrack, editing the likes of which I've never seen, pointless, half-finished subplots, props and costumes that look like they were bought from the joke shop down the road (well, from some comedian in the nearest Bulgarian farming village, anyway), the criminal comparison to Braveheart on the video sleeve, dialogue that makes Hellgate and Slugs sound like they were written by David Mamet, and the most Austrian Austrian they could find to star as the most Roman Roman of all time, Caesar. Worst of all, the "kill me now" plea so obvious in Mr. Lambert's eyes (when you can see them through the hair) from start through to merciful finish.
Easily the worst film I've seen for years. And in the last few years I've seen Octopus, Spiders, Spiders 2, Ripper, Bats, Turbulence 3 and Deathstalker IV. Somebody tell Christopher Lambert that it's not funny any more.
26 out of 31 people found the following review useful:
Poor Vercingetorix... he got dragged into infamy once again., 19 July 2004
Author: jlpicard1701E from New York, NY
The English title itself is stupid and misleading.
Unfortunately it should have been the story of Vercingetorix, King of the Gauls, but it falls short in its intent. Although the Cast is hard-working and professional the movie is a weak action-adventure nonsense. If you compare it to "Gladiator" it pales and fades away into nothingness.
My supposition being, that it was conceived for a TV audience and probably was intended as a mini-series (a 2x90min. TV movie), in which case some silent and motionless scenes could be explained away as being the remnants of what should have been an interesting plot-twist of the longer version, and instead some battle scenes (some of which we might never know to which battlefield they would belong... must have been a director's afterthought just to bring life to an otherwise boring film) could have been better organized to follow the plot.
"Braveheart" and "Gladiator" it ain't. What remains is oblivion.
Poor Vercingetorix, had he lived to watch this, he would have hunted down the director rather than Julius Caesar. The French didn't honor much their hero this time...
10 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
what were they thinking?, 27 September 2002
Author: (EithneNolan@aol.com) from New Jersey, USA
I picked up this video with a free rental coupon, as part of a Klaus Maria Brandauer video marathon. I have been holding off on watching this one, because I had read some reviews and knew it had not been well-received. I have never seen anything so tedious. I tried to understand what made it so bad and I have a few ideas: C.L. has no personality on film. He was good in the "Greystoke" Tarzan scenes because he was young and lean and naked, once dressed and indoors, he had nothing to offer the viewer. In "Druids" he looks awful, so that only leaves us with his delivery of lines - which is also awful. Klaus was boring ( I am shocked to write it) and seemed to be killing time in every scene. The warriors seemed to spend their time waiting to be told what to do. Everyday as sunny, all the battlefields were smooth and grassy, the horses were never out of breath or foaming with exertion. It was totally unrealistic - NO BLOOD or mud on the battleground after a clash. One good aspect was the two female leads - the girlfriend and the warrior, who were portrayed as intelligent and capable. That's it.
11 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
Worse than waiting in line at the DMV, 11 March 2002
Author: gallus-2 from Bronx, NY
I can't add a lot to the comments already made by those who gave this
a bad review. It really is horrible. You know an adventure movie is bad
when you find yourself fast-forwarding through the battle
I rented this movie without carefully reading the plot outline on the jacket. I saw the title "Druids," read that it was about Vercingetorix, and assumed that the movie was based on the so-so book by Morgan Llywelyn, which I had read. However, the movie has nothing to do with the book. The movie has nothing to do with Druids. The movie has nothing to do with anything. I'm not even sure there was a script (despite the fact that there were at least two writing credits). If there was a script, I'm not sure anyone in the movie bothered to read it.
The casting is good for a mild chuckle. I love how the young Vercingetorix, who speaks with a distinct American accent, grows up to be Christopher Lambert, who barely manages to spit out vaguely understandable English, warped by a grating French accent that could peel paint.
Bad sets, bad costumes, bad cinematography, bad casting, bad direction, bad acting, bad editing, bad research, bad music, bad hair. I would recommend this movie only for insomniacs who have already tried all the other sleep-inducing agents available on the market.
Where can Christopher Lambert go from here? "10-10-220" commercials?
9 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Lambert's biggest fan, the worst movie ever., 22 February 2002
Rather than bash what has already been destroyed by the filmakers, I just
recommend anyone who would see Druids solely as a Lambert fan to save
This film has all the look and feel of a college, maybe highschool film project.
I've seen 18 of Lambert's movies; a number of them over again; and this one (which for some odd reason took a month to be available in my local video store because of rentals on it) I fell asleep during at 9 o'clock at night!! There was not one redeeming thing to this film, let alone the cheap wigs and fake moustaches, Klaus Maria Brandauer doing Julius Caeser and sounding like Marlon Brando in the Young Lions as a Nazi officer, and the intro and exit with the view from space that looked like the schlock film "Hercules goes to New York" with Arnold Schwarznegger back in the early 70's.
If you haven't seen it, save your rental fee...they must have burned theaters in Europe when it came out.
8 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Weeheeeheee!, 11 October 2006
Author: Polaris_DiB from United States
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
In the wonderful world of bad b movies, we have this. THIS! This. This
is another one of 'those' movies, the movies that everyone begs you to
see because it's THAT TERRIBLE! Oh my God you won't believe it, it's
sooooooo baddddd... You know that type of movie.
Of course if you've seen other movies of this type, you may be asking, "But what sets this one apart from all the other bad movies out there? I mean I'm a Bela Lugosi fan, afterall. I've seen Plan 9 from Outer Space. Heck I'm a regular MST3K fan, only without the silly commentary by that dude and his robots!" So in answer to that question, here is what Druids has that other terrible movies hasn't: -A complete plot arc that ends fifteen minutes into the movie, leaving an hour and forty five minutes for nothing really to happen before the most anticlimactic ending in human history.
-Poor editing even by bad movie standards, where in most movies the editing is just successful enough to not notice, but in this one every single cut sticks out like a papercut thumb.
-An obscenely ugly woman. Who appears in almost every scene. And causes retches of revulsion with each appearance. And even has a nudey part.
-'Druids' that cut down trees.
-A director who thinks he's making Braveheart when he's not even making Hercules vs the Romans.
-The experience of what it's like to see where a scene is going, and then have it not only not go that way, but not go anywhere at all... every single scene.
So there we go, ladies and gentlefanboys, go out and see the new cult classic of our generation! --PolarisDiB
6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
OMG! This was horrible!, 28 August 2008
Author: (firstname.lastname@example.org) from NC, United States
A truly horrible movie, from the acting to the camera-work, to the
editing. I only watched it because I got the VHS for 50 cents and
absolutely nothing was on TV. It barely beat out doing housework! Ugh!
I already knew Christopher Lambert couldn't act (he got lucky and was carried by Sean Connery in Highlander) but he surpassed even my low expectations. And that hairdo! Like Frankenstein on a bad hair day.
For what it's worth, Klaus Maria Brandauer did a good job (if you envision Caesar with a German accent) and Max von Sydow was, well...Max von Sydow.
Oh, and one of the tribes (a little over halfway through the move) all had pink hair and looked like some type of mutant's escaped from a Wendy's restaurant! There was even a guy who looked like Pipi Longstocking. Scary.
Anyway, if you want to watch something while you get really drunk (or otherwise inebriated) this might work, otherwise, save your 50 cents!
7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Druids in the USA - a Stinker, 4 March 2002
Author: William Ralls
Convoluted story line, poor to bad acting , mediocre sets, thin plot. Even
Christopher Lambert (Highlander) took a long vacation form acting when he
made this one. Even the music has no redeeming value. Sounds like some kid
playing with a computer generation program. Rent only if it is the last
on the shelf.
|Page 1 of 13:||          |
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|