De vliegende Hollander

Good acting, really, this Picture contains chiefly truly creditable performances. The one who experiences 'De Vliegende Hollander' cannot be narrow-minded of course, it's a long journey which You should enjoyed, because it's a vast emotional realm - filled with anger, trembling pain, fear, unspeakable beauty, laughter, treason, hopelessness and hope in the very same piece. You might love it or loathe it, some find it a trifle odd, but there's one thing that You must consider as a plainly wrong one - NOT GIVING IT A CHANCE. You'll catch Yourself being completely transfixed my dear Fellow. Thumbs up for this synonym of the fabulous gem which gets You closer to the secret of dreams, this ambiguous and artistic piece will show You what dreams are made of. I hope, it doesn't sound too indistinct. It's a long time now, since I've seen 'De Vliegende Hollander' and I am afraid that I am not... exaggerating, right now with my bloody, oh but how sincere fascination! I am Still able to recall 'tears of joy' after watching this One. Okay enough...! See You, Enjoy / Check It Out!

Quote of the day: The Way Is Made Clear When Viewed From Above.

One has really to fit in the widely accepted image of a bull-headed American, to classify this film as "ugly" (I address one of the previous comments). In this film, Stelling, in my opinion, really succeeds to recreate the "look and feel" of the 18th century western Europe, which one can get a grip of by looking at the paintings of the great artists of the epoch. The characters are "painted" equally well, the acting is more than "just" good, and the story is solid, mesmerizing, and above all human (in the real, "old", sense of the word, which has little to do with contemporary liberalism). The film has ideas and images borrowed from the art and literature of the period, but it prefers to build upon them rather than to use them as they are, and the result is interesting, thought-provoking and sometimes amusing (e.g., the "breugelian" dwarf, Campanella). It is tragic and revolves around the basic spiritual symbols of the Christian civilization. As such, it can be interpreted as an allegory (which had a fundamental meaning in those ages society). And I found this allegory to be very appealing.

P.S. Sorry for possible grammatical or syntactical mistakes in the text. I'm not a native English speaker.

It's not for nothing this film is in the top 100 best movies of all times, but IMHO that's still an understatement; I personally would place it more like #2 or #3. It's basically a magic-realism slice of life, set in medieval Europe, complete with naturalistic scenes of human indifference and cruelty.

The previous reviewer is absolutely right, the film has nothing to do with the traditional Flying Dutchman story of a ghost ship. IT IS NOT THE GHOST SHIP STORY!!!! Probably, the filmmakers should have known better and come up with a more appropriate title.

It's a bit like The Seventh Seal, very much in the same vein (a philosophy-packed piece of magic realism set in the Middle Ages) but more rough and atmospheric, and you only need to watch it if you're in need of a strong emotional experience. Don't attempt to look for a "plot": it's there all right but it's not supposed to stick out like a sore thumb,the way Hollywood "stories" do.

Just follow the life story of a poor homeless bugger who thought (whether he was right or wrong) that he could fly. You'll never be the same person again.

First of all I would like to point out that this film has absolutely nothing to see with the Dutch folklore story of the ghost ship that is also called THE FLYING DUTCHMAN. In this film, you will not see a single sailing boat. You will not see sailors, ghosts, or anything remotely exciting. It is not the story of the ghost ship, and I wish they had notified it in the main credits or I wouldn't have watched it, because I really thought it was the film about the legend. It seems many people think the film has to do with the legend of the ghost ship, since the film is listed on the Wikipedia page for the "Flying Dutchman" legend... I don't understand why. It is maybe based on the resembling legend called "The Wandering Jew"? Or maybe did they just adapt the worst parts of the legend? The film begins with a fight sequence that would let anyone hope the film will have battle scenes. Unfortunately, it is the only battle scene of the film. Then you see Daniel Emilfork (who was Krank in City of Lost Children) for about two seconds, and that would let anyone hope the film will have good acting. Unfortunately he is very bad in the film. The same thing can be said about Italian actor Nino Manfredi, who was one of Italia's best actors ever, and who here is condemned to embody a crazy bird wrangler with no back story whose only purpose is to seem to be the "wise man" of the film. And boy, does that film need wiseness! Every other character of the story seems to enjoy swimming in excrement, yelling, torturing others (in excrement), fornicating (in excrement) or laying in excrement some more just for the fun of it. It seems to be such fun that each character of the story gets to have his or her turn being dumped in feces at a point or another. Coming from a Dutch director, you might think that extreme dirtiness and shockingly real filth are necessary elements in a period piece, elements which contributed to make Dutch filmmaker Paul Verhoeven's film, "Flesh + Blood", such a great film. The thought of "Flesh + Blood" would let anyone hope that a film similarly filthy and visually straight-forward would be good. Unfortunately, and unlike "Flesh + Blood", there is no dramatic progression, no fights, no good acting, and put simply, no "Flesh and Blood". The photography, as the opening sequence unfolds, is well-done and enticing. This too, stops very early in the film. The music, from Nicola Piovani (of "La vità e bella" fame) is repetitive and annoying, when not irrelevant (it sometimes implies that there is grandeur in a sequence, while on screen the actors are splashing in liquid dung). Throughout the first "act" of the film, which lasts nothing less than an hour (!), the film takes place within the same perimeter, which is around the farm where the main characters live. The characters play with excrement a lot, drown in it, play in it. A long period of time elapses through numerous ellipses to allows the main character, a young boy who loves to play in excrement, to become older and play in excrement some more. The bird-man talks a lot to say foolish things in Italian. Spanish conquistadors speak French. Nothing makes sense. Everything is confused and takes hours to happen. Then there is a second act called "the Ship", in which we see what might have been a ship, a long time ago, but which is now remains of a ship (covered with excrement did I mention?). The main character, while walking a bit further away from the farm, just happens to run into it, and decides it's really cool so let's live in it. The hunchback who lived in it before is trying to kill him, but he doesn't really mind because (did I mention?) he's not very bright. He thinks the ship can navigate and hopes to sail on it, until more conquistadors show up (at least they seemed to be conquistadors because of the Don Quixote style hats but as I've said it's really confused who's who), make the Dutchman a prisoner, along with the retarded hunchback, and they burn the ship to the ground. The last part of the film, which is really hard to bear for the spectator because it just consists of even more excrement with even more retarded middle-age peasants fighting in it, takes place in a mad asylum. Yet more torture and drowning each other with feces. Yet more loitering for the director, who seems to have definitely given up on his job, or passed onto the second crew camera assistant to do the rest of the job. In the end, a lot of the mentally-challenged new "friends" that the Dutchman made die. The woman he had sex with who was his brother's wife to begin with tries to have him meet his son. The Dutchman and his son talk. The film ends after two hours of dungy images and calamitous acting and technical performances. Then the credits roll and the spectator fells immensely free from having to watch atrocious films with no plot that pretend to be something exciting like fantasy films based on legends, while they are nothing but a mere catalog of how full of excrement some films can get when they don't have enough financing powers to put battles instead or even horses.

Slow paced movie, brilliant acting by Groothof. This is one of those rare movies that leaves you watching a blank screen for 7 minutes after the end-titles. That leaves you speechless long after you left the theater. I rediscovered it 10 years later and like a real classic it still has not lost its strength.

If you want adventure the Spielberg or POTC-way, skip this one. If you want to learn anything, are curious about things and have patience this is an overwhelming epos. This is an action-movie of the heart and of the mind.

And don't nag about the goofs. Not everyone has a vain absurd budget that could save a small country from starvation.