Crusade in Jeans

Crusade in Jeans is one of the most popular Dutch children's books. There have been plans for a movie for several years now, but due to the budget it was never realized. Until now. Ben Sombogaart, Foreign Movie Oscar nominee for Twin Sisters, directed a solid, exciting and even moving version of the book. Even more praiseworthy: the budget was only about 10 million euros (12 million dollars)!

This English spoken movie is about 16 year old Dolf Wega (a great Joe Flynn). He just screwed up an important soccer match and wants to use the scientific experiment of his mother - a time machine - to go back in time to fix it. Unfortunately he types in the wrong data and arrives in the year 1212. He almost gets mugged by two thieves but he's rescued by Jenne (Stephanie Leonidas). He joins a children's crusade heading for Jerusalem and with his modern wit and responsibility he becomes the actual leader of the group. But what are the real plans of the people who organized this crusade? And why are they heading for Genoa in Italy instead of Israel?

Compared to the book director Sombogaart took the liberty of changing a lot. Jenna wasn't in the book for example. Neither was the soccer play. But all these changes work out fine. The Dolf from the book was almost a super being. But in the movie he's much more human: he's afraid, venerable and not that strong physically. If you filmed all the scenes from the book you'd have a movie that lasted about 4 hours. Now it runs a little longer than two. Although we were watching a version that wasn't 100 percent finished – some of the special effects were lacking, the soundtrack needed more music – I was pleasantly surprised by the scope of the movie. There were some SFX scenes with big crowds giving the movie an epic feel, but most of the time Sombogaart kept the action small. And that worked out fine because of the way the actors performed. Both Joe Flynn (Dolf) and Stephanie Leonidas (Jenne) were great. There's a real chemistry between the two, making you really care for the characters. And of course there's Emily Watson, giving a great performance as Dolf's mother.

So was it a flawless movie? No, some things could have been better. The building up to the end for example, realizing why the crusade was really organized. That could've used a little more suspense. The look of the streets in the Middle Ages: it all looked too clean to me. But then again, I have never been there myself.

But the piece de resistance was really the moving ending. It differs a lot from the book, emphasizing the fact that they're actually two different things. Unlike other films I know I will still pick up the book again to read it. This movie hasn't spoiled that for me. Crusade in Jeans is a great movie that everybody should see. I sincerely hope that it will also be released in the States and England, because this film deserves to be successful. Go check it out when you have the opportunity!

ever since I was little I was apparently a big bookworm,and Crusade in Jeans was the book I devoured the most. I think I must have read it over 40 times.... so you can imagine that I was very exited about the movie. However, that level of excitement went down when I heard that they where going to put 2 of the characters into a new one, and I was afraid what would happen to the rest of the film. Would it be a Harry Potter 1 for me, when I was annoyed throughout the whole film about everything they cut&changed, or would it be a Harry Potter 4, where there where also many things cut and changed, but everything was so wonderfully done and even replaced with some fab new stuff that it didn't matter? Unfortunately, it was a Harry Potter 1. On the whole, the look of the movie is great, and it has great actors.If you haven't read the book I think it will be a enjoyable yet confusing experience. However, for me there are 2 big disappointments. The first is all of the great characters they've cut. Yes, Jenna is a wonderful girl, great actress, but I'd rather have seen both Leonardo and Mariecke. They are not the only characters that are missing, Peter, Frank, Father Johannes and many others. I also don't see the point of someone as Vick. Anselmus is awful enough on his own, he doesn't need an evil sidekick. Also, Father Johannes opposite Aselmus showed exactly what a bad character the latter has. Johannes was on the bad side too, but he repented and the children always liked him. Also, I think the brotherly protective feelings Dolf has for Mariecke are a big part of why he's so concerned with the children of the crusade. The original characters where a big part of the book, and I feel they should have been in the film. The second is that you don't really see the change that Dolf made to the crusade. He reorganised the whole crusade, giving each child a task they themselves could choose, regardless of status. This was unheard of at that time, yet it changed the children from obedient slaves into people with self confidence and a sense of unity. In the book you can see it very well by the change in characters such as Mariecke and Peter. I think this was a very important part of the book, that Dolf brings 20th century ideas to the middle ages, yet I didn't see that in the film. Overall, visually it looked very good and the actors that do appear are very good, and even I must admit that I like the change of the "process" from before the alps too the genua shore, but I hoped they'd be more true to the book. a bit of a disappointment for a crusade in jeans fan...

Ever since I first read the book Crusade in Jeans I was hoping they would turn it into a movie. And now they finally did. Dolf Vega is a rather selfish teenager. Because of him a crucial soccer-match is lost. His mum is a scientist and she's working on a time machine. Dolf is seeking revenge for his shame and wants to use the machine to get a chance to get even. But things go wrong and he's stranded in the year 1202! The moment he arrives he's almost killed and saved by some children and a young lady. They take him to the children's crusade on its way to Jerusalem. Soon Dolf uses his modern day wit and knowledge for the good of the poor hungry and sick children. Will he ever get back to his own modern life? This is a great adaption of the book. Not completely faithful but very satisfying. The young leads, in fact, everybody is cast really well. The production looks great although some scenery is obviously computer enhanced. The story is captivating and the running time is just right. The only thing that did not satisfy me personally was the ending which was not like in the book and a bit vague. Highly recommended for children and their ( thirty-something ) parents.

I've read the book a long time ago as a kid and I remember loving it. It was exciting, it was adventurous, it had an excellent main character. It had, my favorite subject, time traveling. And it was very good and convincingly written by Thea Beckman. What more do you want?

This film is of course based on the book, thank god. It usually doesn't end up well with movies that try to stick to the story to much. I tried to imagine how this movie would be like to watch when I was twelve. I think I would have loved it! Great leading actor, I mean, which boy doesn't want to be him? Great adventures, and the story is convincing. And look at the beautiful settings it was shot in. I don't understand the 6,6. It deserves a little bit higher from my point of view.

I waited for ages to watch this film, because as a lover of the book (which is highly recommendable for both older children and adults, in Dutch or in translation)I was afraid to be disappointed - and I was.

The director (who made some very qualitative other movies) was aiming at a younger audience than the mid teens that the book was meant for, andfor that group, he did a good job. It's an adventure film which is at the same time quite historically accurate and informative for that age group.

For me and my contemporaries who read the book in the 70s, 80s and 90s, and who think back to it with great love, the film is an abasement.

Many plot lines were changed. Some choices are understandable: women get a bigger role than they did in the book for example, technology has changed, and some parts of the story had to be left out so that the film wouldn't be too long. Some choices are less understandable, but probably sounded good when they were argued for by the scriptwriter: the main protagonist Dolf's personality has been changed substantially, many characters have been written out, new plots have been introduced. None of it works. The plot is incoherent, very unbelievable and lacks suspense.

The acting is poor.

The costumes are completely unbelievable because they are just too clean and new. The locations are also too clean. But mostly, the props annoyed me, especially the medieval paper and books - somebody learned how to make paper by hand and then reckoned that was enough to make it look medieval.

But the thing that irritated me most was the fact that the two hundred odd extras playing the children in the crusade look like happy, well-fed, healthy children in a high budget school play rather than the ill, starving, dirty, wild, desperate children that Thea Beckman portrayed so powerfully in her book.

I'm not saying they should have starved the child actors, obviously that's impossible. Nor am I saying they should have stuck to all the original twists and turns in Thea Beckman's plot, that would also have been impossible. You see, making this book into a film... is impossible.

There were a lot of bad choices made when making this film. The casting director, costume director, scriptwriter, and of course the director himself all made some bad choices. Would other choices have made for a better film? Maybe. Would they have made for a good film? No. In the end, the only important bad choice for this film was the very first one: the choice to make it.