Vercingétorix, la légende du druide roi

I picked up this video with a free rental coupon, as part of a Klaus Maria Brandauer video marathon. I have been holding off on watching this one, because I had read some reviews and knew it had not been well-received. I have never seen anything so tedious. I tried to understand what made it so bad and I have a few ideas: C.L. has no personality on film. He was good in the "Greystoke" Tarzan scenes because he was young and lean and naked, once dressed and indoors, he had nothing to offer the viewer. In "Druids" he looks awful, so that only leaves us with his delivery of lines - which is also awful. Klaus was boring ( I am shocked to write it) and seemed to be killing time in every scene. The warriors seemed to spend their time waiting to be told what to do. Everyday as sunny, all the battlefields were smooth and grassy, the horses were never out of breath or foaming with exertion. It was totally unrealistic - NO BLOOD or mud on the battleground after a clash. One good aspect was the two female leads - the girlfriend and the warrior, who were portrayed as intelligent and capable. That's it.

A truly horrible movie, from the acting to the camera-work, to the editing. I only watched it because I got the VHS for 50 cents and absolutely nothing was on TV. It barely beat out doing housework! Ugh!

I already knew Christopher Lambert couldn't act (he got lucky and was carried by Sean Connery in Highlander) but he surpassed even my low expectations. And that hairdo! Like Frankenstein on a bad hair day.

For what it's worth, Klaus Maria Brandauer did a good job (if you envision Caesar with a German accent) and Max von Sydow was, well...Max von Sydow.

Oh, and one of the tribes (a little over halfway through the move) all had pink hair and looked like some type of mutant's escaped from a Wendy's restaurant! There was even a guy who looked like Pipi Longstocking. Scary.

Anyway, if you want to watch something while you get really drunk (or otherwise inebriated) this might work, otherwise, save your 50 cents!

Since the movie had the title "Druids," I was pleasantly surprised to find that the story was fairly historically accurate. That does not make it a good movie, though. It still pretty much stinks. Almost everyone in the technical credits had names that ended in "...ov." Were they all Russians? I thought this was a French - Canadian production.

Convoluted story line, poor to bad acting , mediocre sets, thin plot. Even Christopher Lambert (Highlander) took a long vacation form acting when he made this one. Even the music has no redeeming value. Sounds like some kid playing with a computer generation program. Rent only if it is the last one on the shelf.

Now I'm a great fan of historical epics, and I am willing to forgive a lot of historical inaccuracies in the name of cinematic expediency, especially with regard to a Celtic hero like Vercingetorix. However, as with all truly bad films, this film really can't decide what it wants to be. It makes a game attempt at historical accuracy (at least history according to Ceasar which is all we have to go on) by portraying Vercingetorix as someone who is willing to deal with the enemy then betray them, and there are some scenes such as the breast-baring women distracting the Romans which have a basis in writings of the time. OK - I'd be willing to forgive the historically inaccurate (and very un-scary) German connection until... ...we see Vercingetorix chatting with busty druidesses and gaining a magic sword and magic powers which he proceeds to twirl around faster than is humanly possible. Err, OK - so it wants to be a fantasy film. In which case why set it in a real historical time period with so many real events to build off - just go all out like Conan and be done with it. I mean - if he has magical power he should win at the end right?

The film proceeds to both destroy history and ruin one's enjoyment of all fantasy films with ruthless efficiency. So thats the screenplay written off, but perhaps it can be saved by some good performances?

Lambert. Never before has there been an actor made entirely of wood. Does this man have more than one facial expression carved on his trunk? Ceasar was passable, but lets face it, if he wants to make a name for himself by playing famous Romans he is in for a long wait for that phone call. The rest of the cast act like, and probably are, extras. Good for them for getting some face time I say.

OK - so the screenplay and acting are garbage. Perhaps the action and/or special effects can save the film. Err. No. Sorry. Joan of Arc and Gladiator-style battle scenes this does not have. I'm willing to even cut it some slack for its obviously low budget, but even taking that into account its a non-starter.

When you truly feel you could have made a better film with claymation figures and a shoebox camera then something is very very wrong indeed. However that is not the end of it. The awful, choppy editing and lack of timing and pacing combined with everything else makes for a truly painful viewing experience, one of the worst in my living memory. It is this which turns a merely bland and boring film into a bottom-100 dweller.

If the real Vercingetorix saw this he'd fall on his sword. Nul points as they say at Eurovision.