Customer Reviews

Druids [VHS]

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(11)
2 star:		(13)
1 star:		(37)

 

 

This was a pretty good concept movie that didn't quite work in the end. While most of what Gauis Julius Caesar is noted for is his life after crossing the Rubicon (to face Pompey and start a Roman civil war) his accomplishments prior to that phase of his life were quite interesting as well. Among the most salient of these was his duel with the Gallic commander known as Vercingetorix.

It is fitting that the Gallic hero is played by a French actor, Christopher Lambert. I've always liked Lambert, although he's been in plenty of bad movies. This one is more of the mediocre variety; decent, but not great.

Contrary to the story depicted in the film, Caesar and Vercingetorix were never best-buddies. Of course, I understand that this brings a bit more pathos to the tale when they are said to actually know each other. Historically speaking, however, this is nonsense.

There are some components of the film that score points insofar as historical veracity is concerned, however. The siege of Alesia is pretty accurate. As is portrayed in the film, Vercingetorix had a substantial advantage in manpower. His problem was coordinating their attacks and focusing the firepower he had at his disposal.

A few other things I didn't care for on the DVD. One, the special effects showing the comet at the beginning seemed to be vintage 1960s. I've seen low-budget films from the 1970s with better FX. Also, the site of Caesar's very own 10th Legion advancing to a pseudo-rock drumbeat was something I found to be strange & inappropriate.

All in all, if you're a buff of historical / period movies, this one might be worth a look. To this day they have re-creations of the ramparts and palisades of the siege of Alesia in France, and there is also a statue of Vercingetorix that extols him as a freedom fighter. While far from perfect, this film does in fact re-tell an important epoch of European history.

I came, I saw, and I got a vomit bag! Horrible rendition of the life and death of Vercingetorix, chief of the Gauls who fought Julius Caesar and was defeated at Alesia in 51 B.C. A heroic figure of great courage and dignity whose historical persona should have never been dragged into this amateurish attempt at filming an epic!

Although much of the subject is taken directly from Caesar's 'Commentaries', the script, acting, and direction are appallingly bad. The casting is equally bad. Klaus Maria Brandauer is a good actor but his casting as Caesar was a poor choice: he hardly seems convincing as a Roman with his heavy German accent. Max Von Sydow is also a great actor but has nothing to work with in this film other than a bad script and the inept direction of Jacques Dorfman. The movie itself has little to do with druids and one comes out no more informed as to druidism than before watching the film: why call it 'Druids' then? The most horrible casting is Christopher Lambert as Vercingetorix. Lambert's age, shabby constitution, and lifeless acting hardly reflects a fierce and muscular 20-year old Gaul nobleman whose charismatic appeal and valor united all of the tribes of Gaul into one force against the Roman invaders: a feat that no other Gaul or Celtic chieftain had ever been able to achieve before, during, or after Caesar.

The film location and settings were equally bad in that it was filmed in Canada and Eastern Europe instead of France; probably because the French government was too embarassed to be associated in any way with this pitiful film. These locations hardly match the plains, oak forests, and plateaus of central France. Although the final scene of the battle of Alesia does a decent job of showing how the Roman legions prepared fortifications with pallisades, trenches, and spikes against cavalry, the direction and editing of these scenes were inept. The scenes and sets failed to show how vast of a siege this really was. There were over 250,000 Gauls fighting 60,000 Roman legionaires over a relatively small area! 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 surrounding the city and enemy camp. The hill town of Alesia in the movie looks more like what it is: bunch of stage props made out of particle board built on a reduced scale. In terms of factual errors, the characters and their dialogues are purely anachronistic. Historically, the film also makes the same mistake as so many other films covering antiquity: stirrups did not exist until the 7th Century A.D. Both Romans and Celts used a Celtic saddle to support themselves or rode bareback. The front and rear parts of the Celtic saddle curved inward near the thighs at the top to allow the rider to stand firm on the saddle. Stirrups were invented by Arabs. Although Celts often associated martial skills with female godesses as demonstrated in the film, the handling of this theme in this film is just tacky and meaningless. No one on the film seemed to really know much about the social and cultural details of their story. There is really nothing good at all to say about this film other than some minor glimpses of Roman fort and circumvellation/siege techniques. The soundtrack was equally horrible and a good example of what 'Conan' would have sounded like if Oliver Stone had chosen the music instead of John Milius and Basil Poledoris. 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."

This movie doesn't even meet the most basic requirements for an epic film. Amazingly, all of the crew are equally to blame for their incompetence: Lambert; the director; the editor; the cast selection; the composer; and the set/prop crew, were all equally inept in their collaboration on this film. An epic requires a director who can convey a lot of symbolism and grandeur. Such a task was definitely not one Dorfman was competent to handle. Such films require a director to the likes of Kubrik, Scott, or Wyler. Apart for devoted Lambert fans and history teachers who want to show their students very brief sections showing how the Roman legions built their forts and defenses, this movie is definitely a trash can candidate: it's not even worth renting.

It is a crime against modern cinema that this movie did not get theatrical distribution in the United States. Even so, internationally it has been to theatres across the globe and brought in a very successful bank, I hope to see more of Jacques Dorfmann in english in the future, though I understand in this film each scene was filmed twice, once in english and once in french.
DRUIDS is the story of Vercingetorix, the Gaul who united the tribes to give Big Julie Caeser the most trouble the Romans ever had.
Historically the only account we have from the Gaul Wars are from Julius Caesar himself, and even he admits Vercingetorix was an amazing leader. As for accuracy, this movie does stay away from the legend of Vercingetorix's beheading, which is fine with me, and it seems the essentials are all there. It seems other reviewers can't understand the movie, since some complaints are that the war is condensed, but it's obvious to me that time passes by the montage scenes and how Vercingetorix's hair gets longer and such, but, I guess that's too complex for some.
The story of Vercingetorix himself in the movie is of course mostly guessing and made up. His relations with the Druids I think may have some merit, though I'm not sure. Max Von Sydow plays the mysterious Arch-Druid, who is the Merlin to Vercingetorix's Arthur.
The movie is a marvel to look at, terrific scenery and great sets, some marvelous shots of the Roman Army and one great scene of Vercingetorix returning to the Druids to find only his skilled mentor left are the peaks.
The music is also great, and during the final quarter of the movie plays almost constantly as the end unfolds.
Max Von Sydow steals the scenes when he comes in throughout the movie, Klaus Maria Brandauer is subtle and harsh as Julius Caeser, Ines Sastre does fine for her part, and Christopher Lambert conquers the performance of his life as Vercingetorix, from his other two epics(Greystoke: Legend of Tarzan and The Sicilian) this shines far and beyond as his best performance, from beginning to end.

The basic story about Vercingétorix & Caesar is a great story and would make a great epic film given the right director & writer. The strengths of this film are the battle scenes and music, hence the second star. The weakness is the directing & writing. The occasional bad acting I attribute to the bad directing. The opening sequences are especially poor and the opening dialogue quite laughable. To me, it is inexcusable for the director to miss the basics like insuring that everyone pronounces "Vercingetorix" the same way in the same scene!

The "avenge my father's death" storyline was appropriate but could have been handled better. The "mystical Druid" storyline was poorly handled and should have been left out altogether. On the positive side, I was impressed with the large number of extras used...definately a plus in recreating the siege of Alesia.

As fans of Epic films (Lord of the Rings, Braveheart, Gladiator, 13th Warrior), my wife & I were extremely disappointed in this film.

.... But this movie was honestly a great disappointment. The acting was awful, the plot had little to do at all with Druids. One good thing that came from me getting this awful "b" movie, was that I was forced to get two really good books on Druids. Skip this movie, they compare it o Braveheart on the slipcase, but do not fall for that.

I've been a Celtic history buff my entire life, but it's taken me three decades to come to a very sad conclusion: the subject of Celtic antiquity will probably never be given a proper BIG SCREEN, BIG BUDGET treatment (which is quite surprising, given the fact that Hollywood is an American town and roughly half of all European-Americans are of Celtic descent...please see my review for the Hammer "classic" The Viking Queen). Braveheart doesn't really count, because it's from the late medieval period, but...

...on with this production. The GOOD Points: 1) The plot follows the account given in Caesar's book "The Gallic War" (De Bello Gallico) very closely; 2) Some of the dialog is taken right out of "The Gallic War" ("The only thing that the Gauls fear is that the sky itself will fall on them", and a few other lines); 3) Klaus Maria Brandauer (as Caesar) gives the best performance in the film (if you can get past his very thick German accent); 4) Max Von Sydow (a superb thespian) plays the Druid advisor to Vercingetorix, and his enthusiasm for the subject matter shows (but he was not given anywhere near as many scenes as he should have got); 5) the costumes, weapons, and hairstyles are right on; 6) Christopher Lambert (being a Frenchman) was a great choice for the role, BUT...now the BAD points: 1) The dialog that DOES NOT come from Caesar's account (which is the bulk of it) is incredibly wooden and stupid; 2) the budget was so low that the battle scenes pale in comparison to gang fights ("We've defeated three Roman legions!" exclaims Dumnorix, but I've seen more combatants in playground rock fights...the dearth of extras was a big minus); 3) the New Age, "world beat", "hip", "exotic" music is simply not appropriate for this movie...some real folk music from any of the Celtic cultures (Scottish, Welsh, Breton, Irish, etc.) would have fit much better...death metal probably would have worked much better, but the music and singing I heard in this production was so obviously of non-European origin that it distracted me and lessened the enjoyment of the viewing experience!; 4) the whole film looks like it was shot in the same field around a "re-created" Gaulish fort that I've seen in at least two documentaries on Vercingetorix...folks, we're talking bargain basement budget here; 5) Lambert, playing fierce Vercingetorix, does almost no fighting here...he mostly walks around fields covered with dead bodies with an outraged look on his face; 6) Why was this movie released under the title "Druids" in the USA when the film does not focus on druids at all? Sure, there are a couple of druids in the movie, but they play a minor role...it must have been a ploy to get all of the crystal gazing, tarot card reading, herbal tea sipping, Enya listening, history denying New Age freaks to rent the video...this makes about as much sense as making a movie about the Crusades and simply calling it "Priests".

All in all, a "so so" movie. I applaud the fact that a movie with this subject matter was made (it's about freaking time), but in a film with a catastrophically low budget, even the best actors can't save it...Hollywood is only interested in cranking out films about "hip" and politically correct themes apparently, and most of them SUCK, not surprisingly.

From the moronic script seemingly penned by a 12-year-old to the terrible music, horrible costumes and bad acting, this movie is fit only for an episode of Mystery Science Theater. Don't rent it, and certainly don't buy it; it's a complete waste of time and brain cells. Here's some lines from the movie: "Let's go invade Britain! Yay!" It's that bad.

Druids, brings to the screen the story of the Gaul chieftain Vercingetorix, as he seeks to protect his country and his people against Julius Caesar and the Roman legions.
The major setback is in relation to the acting (or lack of it); apart from Christopher Lambert who is his usual Highlander self, the rest of the cast are badly in need of acting lessons! Another weakness is in relation to the very poor dialogues.
Aside from that, the setting, the plot, and the costumes are pretty good!
The film combines drama, action, and adventure making it rather enjoyable, as long as you're in that kind of a mood.
In short, it is a movie worth watching, especially for those with a soft spot for History and all things Roman, though you might not want to go as far as purchasing it.

Steve Reeves made movies like this 40 years ago. While Reeves was no actor there would always be a great scene where he'd take one bad guy and hurl him into a group of bad guys. Christopher Lambert, who I really like, can't do this nor can he do much with this sorry film.
For all the raves of other reviewers, this is a poorly made film. Production values are shoddy, the battle scenes are so confusing that who wins is always a surprise. The script is badly written. In one scene a huge blacksmith at work inside Julius Caesar's tent (!?!) offers Caesar a freshly made, still smoking sword and announces he's discovered the "secret of the Gallic sword." Caesar nonchalantly breaks the wonder weapon in half. Where did this scene come from? What does it mean? The subject was never forshadowed earlier and it never comes up again in the rest of the movie. Max Von Sydow's character, the "Arch Druid" babbles such innane New-Age drivel that even Lambert's character responds by saying he can't understand what the old man is talking about. Klaus Maria Brandauer speaks his lines with such a lack of animation that he appears to be heavily medicated. Every time it pans across the ranks of the Roman Legions the extras can't resist looking directly at the camera. Lambert's fellow Gauls all live in neat, clean towns that appear to have been set up for the weekend. The guy Gauls are all refugees from Spinal Tap and their characterizations of Gallic leaders never go beyond the drunken, juvenile behavior you'd expect from a heavy metal band.
It would be OK to watch this movie while folding laundry but I certainly would caution people not to actually buy it themselves.

watch this horrid movie ever again. I like Christopher Lambert. I really do. Even in his awful, cheesy movies. But not this one. At one point during the movie, I turned to my husband and said, "Remember when Clint Eastwood went and made Spagetti Westerns? Well, this is a Spaghetti Braveheart." I actually sat through the whole thing. I truly don't know why, and would like to demand two plus hours of my life back, thank you very much. It wasn't exciting, it wasn't epic (well, except in the epic amount of time they took to draw out the most boring battle scene I've seen in my entire life). The best part of this movie (besides when it was finished) was when the townswomen got on the town walls and started baring their breasts to distract the Roman soldiers. Gratuitous breast shots always enlighten a dull movie. Even so, this film gets a rating of "what... did they think they were doing?" from me.