SoTrumpBelieve Must See Movie...

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

SnoopyStyle In 60 B.C., druids led by Guttuart (Max von Sydow) witness a comet and prophesies the coming of a king to oppose the Romans. Vercingetorix (Christopher Lambert) lost his father when his uncle Gobanittio conspired with the Romans. Guttuart nurtured him to be the king of Gaul. Julius Caesar (Klaus Maria Brandauer) befriends the unknown young man as he kills his uncle to avenge his father. He joins Caesar to invade Britannia for half of the booty. The Gaul tribes are double-crossed by Caesar after one of the leaders revolted. Vercingetorix raises an army to battle Caesar.The opening of a comet traveling in space lays out the movie's high ambitions. At times, this is a big production. It's the hubris that makes the fall so much greater. The dialog is horribly clunky and laughable. The dubbing is terrible reminiscent of the bad dubbing from earlier time. Lambert is not a particularly subtle actor but he could fit the role. His hair is so ridiculous that it's almost hopeless to take him seriously. There are great actors in this and it's so sad to see them in this. Director Jacques Dorfmann is simply over his head. Even the extras look uncertain. Dorfmann has no sense of cinematic style. He is more or less being one of those weekend re-enactors. I'm not even going to dig into any historical inaccuracies. I don't really care about that if this is a good movie. It's not.

drystyx Just saw this film, and came here to do a review on an epic style film with some pretty good historical accuracy, certainly more than most films about historical characters. Here, we are given an account of Julius Caesar's excursion into Gaul. Of course this is 60 BC, so we don't know if French men all sounded like Maurice Chevalier.Nothing should surprise a person on the world wide web, and certainly nothing on IMDb should shock a person, but the ridiculous reviews that abound here are embarrassments to the people who wrote them.This epic film worked on all levels. I am not easily entertained. Yet this smacked of old style epic directing, of de Mille, Lean, Ford, and others who knew how to sustain an audience's interest, who made films for the audience instead of insisting the audience be made for the film.The film was well structured, full of action and drama, full of interesting characters. In fact, this is probably the most realistic looking representation of a couple of specific historical characters I have seen in film. To say more would be a spoiler.The film had a few flaws. The child who plays the young hero is very wooden, and sounds like he is reading words. A few lines look contrived, particularly early. There is no real comic relief.But the film flows very well, and has epic proportions. It is undeniably more entertaining than 90% of movies made after 1965. The characters seem alive and believable.Of the famous modern directors, only Verhoeven and Jackson can rival this one with keeping an audience interested. They would have known the value of comic relief, too.Now, for the real kicker. The ridiculous pans of this film that flood this site are a total humiliation for IMDb. This is an very good film. The low ratings make IMDb lose what little credibility it has.And it reveals what we already know. That the main trouble with IMDb is that it is not representative of intelligent critics or of the populace. The fact is that IMDb, by its nature, is a site for many in the Entertainment business, and their relatives.What we see here is "sour grapes". Some one in the cast or crew really got under the skin of a few people. And honestly, we do see proof to any rational mind that most of these "pan" reviews were written by one or two people with multiple fake user names.How do we know? Because this film makes two mistakes in getting good reviews. First, it alienates the control freak. This is not a "control freak's" film. The control freak characters come across as control freaks. Look at IMDb's top 250, at the top 10. Most of them glorify and mollycoddle control freaks.Don't underestimate the psychotic persistence of the control freaks. It's unfortunate that "mature" oriented films with "mature" and credible characters have to deal with this ridiculous rabid obsession of morons.The other major reason for unprovoked poor reviews is that the film is very risk taking and iconoclastic. To say more is to be a spoiler again. Low ratings from the "sheep" of the world is inevitable for risk taking film makers.The low ratings bespeak of IMDb users with severe psychotic conditions.This is a very good film.

Xaositect_Crayon This is one of those strange movies, that despite being in the "so bad it's good" category, it's really not bad enough to be in there. It's a mediocre straight to video movie that can be enjoyable. Ultimately it fails but in quite a few good ways. Definitely a must have for the bad movie crowd. Decent enough rental if you want a popcorn movie you don't have to think about. A few things that keep it from breaking past a 5 is the extremely tired acting. I prefer to see people have fun with bad performances, not have the "oh my god we ran out of money" look on their faces. Also, I don't think they captured the rivalries between the Gallic groups (tribes?) very well. They came off as petty children and not trained warriors with too much pride. Though it's probably a subjective complaint I just generally don't like "childish brutes" in place of warriors. Definitely better than most Steven Seagal movies anyways.

Langlois Stef Why is there is not a 0/10, 1 is far too generous.The Director has destroyed the image of the first National hero to unit my country against a common enemy. Christophe Lambert is as credible in Vercingetorix as Paris Hilton in Mother Theresa. You are tired of life, you think about suicide? Watch this movie, you will see there are things worse than your life, it will cheer you up. In technical class nowadays my little cousin does better film editing than the director with better special effects. Bad acting + bad directing + bad historicity + bad costuming + bad weather (oups) + bad hairdressing + bad acting (doh! already said that one) = Vercingetorix/DruidsNothing can redeem the movie in my eyes and certainly not the lamest troops moral boosting speech that C.Lambert/Vercingetorix does to a bunch of underpaid eastern European bystanders who have no clue about what he is talking about and have been told to wave their arms angrily with determined looks in their eyes at the end of it....Bollywood Movies (India's business) does 1000 times better for 0,0001% of the budget, it may be time for some French director to rethink their career, leave Blockbusters to Hollywood, leave Historical inaccuracy to Hollywood and go back to romance, sex, cheating and dark humour movies....