Arn (TV Mini-Series 2010– ) Poster

(2010– )

User Reviews

Add a Review
5 Reviews
Sort by:
impressive
Kirpianuscus20 May 2017
it is one of series remembering the history lessons in the most inspired manner. because it contains all the pieces defining the Medieval life. because the heroism has a more subtle definition than the most historical novels and the love story seems be more a slice from the old epics. film of a character, it is not exactly an eulogy to the old virtues but a realistic portrait of ideal and price for become yourself, about the sins and theirs price, about social relations and about the Church . short, just a series who must see.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
A superb adaptation of the novels
sagrat15 August 2015
A librarian friend of mine at the Carnegie Library in Pittsburgh, PA recommended this historical fiction when I told her I was looking for some interesting and engaging to read. Boy! did she hit a home run with this suggestion. And, after reading the trilogy of novels of the life of Arn, from birth to death, following him to his time as a monastic, young lover-husband, penitential Crusader, to death, I truly felt I had to see the filmed version. It was most definitely a well-realized cinematic effort to bring the complex and engaging tale of Knight-Crusaders to life on the big and small screens. Well acted, photographed, costumed and just all in all a great film. Enjoy.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
a worthy effort
macduff502 December 2012
The miniseries reviewed here is actually a compilation of two feature length movies, which were very successful in Scandanavia, and as a result of that success, were shown on television in the form of a six-part miniseries. But the running time is pretty close to identical. The two films, minus opening and closing credits, run about 257 minutes; each episode (there are six) runs about 43 minutes, minus opening and closing credits, for a total of 258 minutes. So the reason it looks like a feature film is because it IS a feature film.

As to the content, it's a love story, but the lovers are divided by war and circumstance, so the bulk of it is devoted to how they cope even though they are divided. I thought the two leads had marvelous rapport (the two actors actually were in drama school together, and have acted together many times, on film and on stage), and I found their devotion to one another to be wholly believable. Of course, you have to remember that these were very different times. As the author of the original novels has said, this was an age of faith, and that extended to the faith that the lovers had in each other. Ours is a secular age, and so in order to fully enjoy the films, you have to be able to make a leap of faith, to believe that two people could love each other that much. I guess I'm a sucker for a good romance.

But don't go to this series or film expecting a re-run of "Kingdom of Heaven"; it's set in the same time and place, and covers some of the same historical events. The tone and feeling of the film, however, is very different. If it is an epic, and I'm not sure it is or was ever intended to be, it is what might be called an intimate epic. As with "Dr Zhivago," to some extent, history is the enemy of these two, and it constitutes a force that is very difficult to deal with. I can say no more without spoilers, but rest assured, all is not gloom and doom for these two.
22 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Sprawling epic.
Blueghost19 September 2011
As a young boy I wanted to see more knights on TV, but the only time you ever saw them was when one of the classic Hollywood films dealing with the middle ages came on. Occasionally someone would pay homage to the medieval genre, but little else. In the 90s I thought of doing a short film, but I had no access to props. Come 2005, and my hopes are re-sparked to do a short film, but six years later, with my reputation hopelessly smashed, and finances all but ruined, I'll have to bow to someone else.

And so they did. Only the country wasn't the US nor the UK, but Sweden of all places. The one country known for symbolic avant garde cinema, brings us a mainstream historical epic, completely with charges and clashing of armies in both the frozen north and in the heated wastes of the arid Holy Land.

Arn, raised by priests and monks, is challenged with events beyond his control, and that put him in the midst of a cultural clash he'd just assume forget. His beloved is likewise castigated as socially unacceptable, and also suffers a similar emotional fate.

This is a hard story about hard times in human history. It's almost a template of how true human love could not endure nor blossom at this point in history. And, true to Scandinavian form, there is much angst and weighty emotional stuff pervading the film.

There are two real problems with this "TV Series". The first is that it's shot like a feature film all the way through. Each shot is given care and weight as if the entire thing were going to be shown in one sitting. Second; this, along with the fact that it's a history piece, probably sent the budget skyrocketing (at least by the standards of European film interests) creating sets and costumes, as well as purchasing and renting animals and locations to bring not only medieval Sweden to life, but also Jersalem during the middle ages.

So, was it worth it? Well, you'd have to ask the investors who backed this project. You probably also know that Ridley Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven" came out before this film was released, but, from all accounts, it would seem the Swedish film was planned long before then, yet had trouble getting off the ground.

The story is solid, as are the production values, but the film lacks majesty and genuine intimacy. The length of the series seems to be an attempt to make up for that, but quantity can only substitute for so much quality. With all of the sets, costumes, panoramic vistas, throngs of medieval peasants and warriors alike of both sides of the Christian cross and Islamic crescent, there's a lack of genuine intimacy.

Arn and Cecile may be in love, but their chemistry is about as reactionary as a vat of water molecules and carbon. It ain't there. At least not genuinely. One doesn't get the sense that Arn longs for Cecile, nor Cecile for Arn. In the entire expanse of six hours plus of drama, what we're left with is a satisfying sense of emptiness, topped with a sense of marginal disappointment.

The one thing that it has over Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven" is that there is a sense of purpose there. There is a sense of something that's driving the story forward and needing to be done. Arn needs to get back to Cecile. But, beyond that, the film is essentially a budgeted and elongated version of Scott's film, even though "Kingdom of Heaven" was most likely conceived as the market competitor to Sweden's film.

An enjoyable watch all the same, if somewhat lengthy. See it once.
8 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Arn the Temple knight who has to endure much pain, before he can return to his family castle
mygster22 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Arn has to endure so much before he can get the love of his life Cecilie, who has been put away in a monastery. Arn has to fight he's way through hordes of Arabs, and he sees much suffering and wrongs, done by Richard lion Heart.

After 20 years of fighting Arn finally returns to his birth castle in Sweden, where a new war against the Danes begins.

When Arn returns to he's place of birth, he finds his dad sick and the clan on the brink of war.

But Arn has learned the secret art of modern warfare, and he starts to build defenses, to keep his clan safe.
1 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews