De leeuw van Vlaanderen

So the production values aren't great, but that wouldn't have been a problem if the screenplay had been any good.

I've read the novel (by Henri Conscience) on which this move was based, and in this case, again, the old cliché is true: the novel was better.

The screenwriter (by Hugo Claus, a prolific novelist, poet, and playwright) seems to make all the wrong choices. Imho this screenplay was one of the worst effort of the much-lauded author.

One of the main conflicts in the novel is the contrast between Jan Breydel, a violent butcher in every way, and Pieter Deconinck, a thoughtful strategist. Oddly enough, the screenplay makes almost nothing of this.

Central in the novel, is a love story (Machteld and Adolf). Granted, in the novel (published in 1834) it's a courtly and sentimental affair, but Claus the screenwriter chooses to leave it out.

So it you would condense the big novel this film was based on, you would probably concentrate on these two relatoinships. But Claus chooses to be an "artist", and the result is almost a confusing non-story. No contemporary Fleming would know what this is all about, and so he wouldn't care -- nor would anyone else care.

This is a shame, because the historic facts make a great story, and the novel has a great story, about the mightiest European state (France) trying to subdue one of the wealthiest regions of the world (Flanders) -- all this in the early 14th century.

The movie ends with the "Battle of the Golden Spurs", which is still commemerated in Flanders on the 11th july. This movie does not do it proud.

I hope that one day a capable screenwriter and ditto director will make this into a great movie.

I started out unbiased and neutral of this movie. I got through to the whole ninety minutes of it. And wow, this is a great example of a movie not to do this. Even at the 1984 pace and special effects it's bad, so bad that I had to cringe several time for the bad acting and effects.

The acting for nearly all actors is bad and the direction is even worse. I forgive the special effects team because the budget had to be extremely low. The cast is so few they can hardly muster any extra's during the battle or during the french royal scenes.

Please Hollywood and other movie makers, take note of this movie how to NOT do this kind of genre. I barely make any reviews, but this is a movie I had to review.

Don't waste time on this. It's 90 minutes you will never get back!

You know, this is a great Flemish war film! The story is set in the middle-ages, the 14th century (in the year 1302). Because all the gold reserves of the great French empire are gone, King "Filips De Schone" wants to have the complete power of a golden empire: "Flanders", which have ten times more gold, than there is in the whole French kingdom. The french army threatens the Flemmish people with slavery and death! City's get attacked, Woman's and Children are getting killed by soldiers and the whole Flanders is in the power of France. But the Flemish people don't want this, and a revolution breaks out. It all ends in a gigantic and bloody battle which is known as "The Battle of the Golden Spurs" (De Guldenporenslag!) This is a great and realistic film about: Love, Power, Death, Knights, Medieval and War. It shows one of the greatest victories of the Flemmish army in the whole History. Director Hugo Claus has done it well! The fight scenes are amazing and good. Even for a Flemmish film with a very LOW budget! I actually don't understand why everybody hates this movie.

Anyway, thanks for reading my comment!

De leeuw van Vlaanderen is a medieval movie about the Flemish resistance against the French invading armies in 1302. The Flemish peasants won the battle because of their courage and the helping hand of God, manifesting itself as a golden knight on the battlefield. A sort of Braveheart (1995), but without the skirts.

It could have been a good movie. But the director, actually a novelist who thinks he can direct, screwed it up BIG TIME, again. Everything is leading up to the battle, but the battle itself is poorly filmed. If you can't afford to put in hundreds of extras on the grass, you shouldn't use too much long shots. But concentrate on the dynamics of the battle. There were too many empty spaces, which made the whole thing look ridiculous. Even Monty Python in The Holy Grail (1975) was more convincing!

The rest of the movie is static and theatrical. The occasional bad acting sequences are followed by sequences of low dramatic value and pointless discussions, where you feel as a spectator the need to push the fast-forward button. Yes, thank God I didn't see this one in the theatre.

note: I am sorry if I kind of hinted that Hugo Claus is trying to be Ed Wood. Ed Wood is maybe the worst director, but has still something Hugo Claus will never have: PASSION.

Low budget doesn't have to mean a bad film but in this case it unfortunately does. Looks like a TV production, is (mostly) poorly acted and badly scripted, with only a passing attention to historical detail or any kind of accuracy. The subject matter deserves much better.