IMDb RATING
5.5/10
888
YOUR RATING
A tale centered on the Battle of the Golden Spurs in 1302 where the Flemish rank and file won a major victory over the glorious French knights.A tale centered on the Battle of the Golden Spurs in 1302 where the Flemish rank and file won a major victory over the glorious French knights.A tale centered on the Battle of the Golden Spurs in 1302 where the Flemish rank and file won a major victory over the glorious French knights.
Hans De Munter
- Adolf van Nieuwland
- (as Hans de Munter)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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!
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.
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.
During the reign of Philippe Le Bel, France was at the peak of its power and its wealth in the Middle-Ages;the king imposed a centralized kingdom, which displeased the bourgeois as well as the nobles; he was not very popular and few movies were made about his reign. The most famous was the TV miniseries "les rois maudits" :the celebrated destruction.of the order of the templars who represented an international financial power ;burnt alive on the stake with other companions, Jacques De Molay ,the Grand Master would have cursed all the kings to come ;historians say that the master simply appealed to God's justice ;the fact that Philippe died within the year fueled the legend. The second subject concerns Philippe's daughters -in -law ,two adulteresses,filmed by Abel Gance in "la tour de Nesles " in which history was given a rough ride .
But no film about Flanders ,it was the first time a movie had been made about this aspect of the king's reign ; it's a gripping historical epic, with shakespearian accents (all that concerns Gui De Dampierre) , scenes which verge on fantasy (the battle of the golden spurs ) and generally good acting .
Like the French, the Flemish were overburdened with taxes ;Philippe 's rapaciousness knew no bounds (he expelled the Jews,after confiscating their possessions) in the movie he seems a little listless, encouraged by his wife Jeanne De Navarre the First (was she really the cruel woman who insisted even Flemish women and children be slaughtered too? Opinions differ ,she married the king at 11 ,when he was five years her senior and her political role did not seem so important ).
This war ,which turns "holy" in the king's mind in the second part,was David against Goliath ;although the French lost the battle of the golden spurs , Philippe had the last laugh and the poor province was finally defeated in 1304 and was part of the kingdom till 1369.
This is a very violent movie, a story which in the end is a plea for oppressed people , a rebellion against the high and the mighty .
But no film about Flanders ,it was the first time a movie had been made about this aspect of the king's reign ; it's a gripping historical epic, with shakespearian accents (all that concerns Gui De Dampierre) , scenes which verge on fantasy (the battle of the golden spurs ) and generally good acting .
Like the French, the Flemish were overburdened with taxes ;Philippe 's rapaciousness knew no bounds (he expelled the Jews,after confiscating their possessions) in the movie he seems a little listless, encouraged by his wife Jeanne De Navarre the First (was she really the cruel woman who insisted even Flemish women and children be slaughtered too? Opinions differ ,she married the king at 11 ,when he was five years her senior and her political role did not seem so important ).
This war ,which turns "holy" in the king's mind in the second part,was David against Goliath ;although the French lost the battle of the golden spurs , Philippe had the last laugh and the poor province was finally defeated in 1304 and was part of the kingdom till 1369.
This is a very violent movie, a story which in the end is a plea for oppressed people , a rebellion against the high and the mighty .
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!
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!
Did you know
- TriviaTo check who is French and who is Flemish, people were asked to say the phrase "schild en vriend". That way, the Flemish knew only to kill those who pronounce the phrase with a French accent. This doesn't really work in the film though, seen as the French people in the movie speak Dutch with perfectly normal Flemish or Dutch accents.
- GoofsThe eyes of a dead French knight follow the pitbull in front of him.
- Alternate versionsThe restored and DVD version is slightly different than the earlier cinema and TV versions: The close shot in which Robrecht van Bethune decapitates De Chatillon with his sword, has been cut down with a couple of frames in the restored and DVD version. In the earlier releases you could clearly see that it was a dummy head being chopped off.
- How long is The Lion of Flanders?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box office
- Budget
- BEF 65,000,000 (estimated)
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content