Although I found the movie a little short, and some of the fighting scenes almost laughable, I found the acting incredibly well done..particularly by Gabriel Byrne (after seeing him in Little Women first I didn't know if he could pull of an evil character..he does!) I also found Christian Bales acting one of the best that I have seen in a long time..his knack for accents has been mentioned so many times it's getting almost annoying (not the accent..the mention of it..) but I was quite pleasantly pleased to find out just how good Christian Bale was at acting like a lunatic..with all the talent that he has, it's surprising that he doesn't have all of Hollywood chasing after him to be in their films!
Add a Review
-
Flame-109 March 1999
-
noah-1124 February 1999Call this Prince of Jutland, call it Royal Deceit, the only thing tragic about this film is the terrible waste of some very talented people. Christian Bale-heads in particular will be sad to see him in this retelling of the Hamlet legend from material presumably closer to the source, but stuck with a screenplay that hasn't an ounce of poetry and cinematography that wouldn't do for a TV movie of the week. Bale applies himself manfully, as does Gabriel Byrne, but one is embarrassed for them speaking thudding dialogue. Greatest embarrassment of all perhaps is rendered the great Helen Mirren who, like her co-stars, gives it her U.K. all, but is undermined by a tackiness of production and a cast of extras who mill around like location gawkers in medieval drag. Please. Spare us.
-
snarf-punk8 February 2007I'm not quite sure how an 85 minute version of Amleth's story can seem longer than Kenneth Branaugh's five hour Hamlet, but somehow it does. Sadly, most of the time is yawningly empty except for lovely panoramics of the Danish countryside. The script is atrocious, making the rather dynamic Viking story of Amleth into some sort of whack emo coming of age story for (admittedly super hot) Christian Bale. Narration runs over the entire story (perhaps Brian Cox's turn in Adaptation was some sort of penance for being in this movie), but the scenes present are so badly shot one becomes grateful for skipping the rest via obnoxious voice-over.
So what gets this movie four stars? A fabulous cast, even if they are completely and entirely under-utilized. Brian Cox alone pretty much makes up for everything else lacking in the viewing experience. Helen Mirren's part is especially thin, but she does manage to get her top off, so core audience will be pleased. Christian Bale does well with a few moments where there actually are lines written, but his 'acting mad' schtick is tiresome, and unlike Helen, he doesn't get to show off topless (he is naked in one scene, but you see nothing... sigh). Kate Beckinsale is barely in the movie, but at least one can see the old nose, the old eyebrows, and the now missing freckles, and remember how cute as a button she used to be before she went Hollywood. Gabriel Byrne is mehh, mainly just sounding like an odd ripoff of Sean Bean. The real fun is his henchmen, a veritable cornucopia of 'where are they now' - we have Spud, Gollum, and Mr. Weasley! I can't honestly say that any of them have a part as written, but it's definitely worthwhile to see all of them so young (and in Serkis' case, thin!!!). Lastly, Batman Begins fans will be amused to see Tom Wilkinson cast as Bale's father, and remembering Wilkinson's 'they say he begged... like a dawg' line made a minute or two of this movie very nearly fun.
Movie is recommended if: you think Christian Bale is hot (100% satisfaction) you have to watch Brian Cox's filmography (78% satisfaction) you want to see Helen Mirren's golden globes (50% satisfaction) you are a Hamlet completist (60% satisfaction) you are planning a trip to Denmark (31% satisfaction)
Movie is NOT recommended if: you thought Cars was 'kinda draggy in the middle' (99% hatred) you have a Viking fetish (77% hatred) you like watching movies with a budget (65% hatred) you think Gabriel Byrne's redheaded accomplice is that guy from Dodgeball and First Knight (21% hatred) you just watched Underworld and want to see more of that Selene chick (40% hatred) -
dmatthews0311 May 2001When I got over the initial surprise of what this movie was,(for some reason the writers of the blurb on the tape packaging don't want you to know), I found myself enjoying it.
This is not Shakespeare's Hamlet, with poetry, dramatic speeches and opportunities for showy histrionics but a steadily paced re-telling of the original Norse legend.
It's not for everybody but I found the combination of bleak Jutland scenery, calm voice-over narration and the momentum of the Royal intrigues fascinating and hypnotic.
Good acting by the principals. -
NBborn5 April 2014Before I watched this movie I quickly checked the user reviews, as I usually do, and was excited to see that it came from the source material for Hamlet. So I settled down with the dog and the popcorn. Half-way through I paused the movie and came back here to see if I could find out what the people who posted positive reviews were drinking or smoking because the movie I was watching was awful. From what I can tell it really, really, really, REALLY matters which version you are seeing. If it is not a very long movie, run away. Run. Very. Far. Away. The short version is a hacked up mess that makes no sense and the actors (except Byrne and Mirren and sometimes Bale) look wooden. And the 'crowd' scenes. Oh dear. (By the way this review would have been a lot shorter except for this odd length rule. Hope you weren't bored.)
-
André-720 August 2001If you have seen Babette's Feast and can appreciate the difference between a more European, understated style of film making and the slam-bang, in-your-face style the Yanks dish out year in and year out... Then this may be a movie for you.
Here is a small film by a director working in a language that is not his own. An experiment in story telling that succeeds on its own terms. Here is a film that is scored by one of the more highly rated, avant-guard classical composers in Europe. It re-tells a well beloved story by going at it by the roots in order to give it a fresh spin. The wonderful cast of British (and Irish) stars can be applauded for endorsing what must have been a modestly budgeted film.
Of course it is not Shakespeare. But it sheds new light on the Hamlet play by exploring the legend that inspired the bard to choose it as story material. For fans of history and drama. -
asyn92 March 2011A very strange film. It's main worth being to illustrate to those who make films that, despite having a enviable amount of talent, a recognised composer, a director with previous reputation, access to great locations and some significant budget a real turkey can still result. A look at the cast list reveals a true wealth of acting talent. From Helen Mirren, Gabriel Byrne and Brian Cox to Andy Serkis and Christian Bale. But with many others of note including Mark Williams, Tom Wilkinson, Tony Haygarth, Saskia Wickham, Ewen Bremner, Brian Glover, Kate Beckinsale and Freddie Jones one can be excused from buying the DVD in the belief that 'it can't be that bad with all these in it'. It can. It's worse. Plodding pace, clunky direction, a dreadfully incongruous musical score and some really woeful dialogue. The battle scenes, at best, resemble a poor historical re-enactment. Oh, and there's a man in a bear suit! It's reminiscent of an early 70's ITV drama but with better acting. Nobody acts badly, in fact some of Christian Bale's performance shows his promise, but the question should be asked of those who can so indisputably act 'why are you acting in this?' All in all you will find it a waste of time to watch it. You know the basic story anyway, so there's little to learn - unless you're studying media, especially with a view to entering the world of film making, then it may be truly of value to you.
-
trickie-7217222 March 2021Well...the opening scene/music nearly saw a quick departure, however, patience...and the nudie girls in the next scene stayed my hand..... Thats all so far...now I'll watch the rest of the movie....
Fast forward 3 days...no.. 2 hours...and I'm not sure what I just watched. As bad as it was...like pretty camp in many places, wooden acting yet inspiring to see Kate beckinsale as a 10 yo...ok maybe 16....and Christian bale about the same....I still felt compelled to stay to the end and see what happens to the bad guys. Quite an enthralling little romp into Vikonian Shakespeare...and camp ponies that seemed to be the horse of choice back in the day. Would I recommend watching it? Well....if you're like me and really scratching the bottom of the netflix/prime barrel by now, it's certainly not the worst...as long as you take it with a little tongue in cheek which I suspect it was made with. I mean seriously...I watched a Steven seagull movie the other day, things can only improve, right??👍 -
azanti002917 January 2014I saw this film recently, re-released under the title Thrones and Empires, no doubt to try and cash on the Game Of Thrones fan base.
Well Game of Thrones it ain't. Its even not a good version of Hamlet. All the more shame its made by a Danish production company, the production values, acting, script and delivery have to be seen to be believed.
What amazes me is how on earth they got such an amazing cast to sign on to this terrible piece of crap. Helen Mirren actually gets her boobs out again and I thought she was past doing all that by this stage. There are needless shots of female nudity thrown in, why I have no idea.
Christian Bale is probably really glad no one has seen this.
The finale is the big fight battle, filled with so many unintentional moments and just god awful staging along with needless smoke everywhere. The whole thing is truly dire. Avoid at all costs! -
Unless one is an especial fan of a person among the cast or keen on centuries-old legends, 'Royal deceit,' also known as 'Prince of Jutland,' won't necessarily stand out in a crowd among similar titles. Since the advent of cinema, and especially since the studio system has given way to productions outside it, there's no shortage of pictures of a medieval setting. That doesn't inherently make this any less worthy, however, and it still bears much to appreciate. Above all, the production design is outstanding. Every detail, every contribution of crew behind the scenes, is marvelous, and a feast for the eyes and ears. The filming locations, and set design and decoration, are wonderfully fetching, and great care went into the costume design, hair and makeup work, props, and weapons. The sound design and cinematography alike are lush and crisp, enriching the experience, while Per Norgard's original score is a bit surprising, in a good way - at many points rather discordant, coming across as unique relative to many comparable features. And so on down the line - substantial attentive thought went into this adaptation of the tale of Amleth (Amled), and it looks and sounds fantastic.
Sagas passed down in days of old could vary wildly depending on who was telling it; Greek myths, for example, boast multiple versions. So it is as well with the chronicle of Amleth, as any cursory perusal of the legend informs, and on that basis it becomes simpler still to accept an adaptation that would seem to distinctly reduce the source material to a more easily digestible form. If not absolute, what we get is certainly the spirit of that legend that would inspire Shakespeare's 'Hamlet,' more than the letter, and I admire the effort to shape the epic into a screenplay fit for a standard full-length film. On the other hand, I must note that the biggest issue I see in 'Royal deceit' is that the reduction was taken too far. Somewhere between Gabriel Axel's direction and/or the screenplay he devised with Erik Kjersgaard, each scene and story beat feels paced so as to remove them from one another, even as they are threaded together. Instead of subtlety and nuance, there's a discrete deliberation that makes the acting, and the execution generally of each moment, come across as stilted, like speed bumps inhibiting free movement as they encircle the parking lot of a shopping plaza. It feels like we get the most basic expression of each act of conspiracy, violence, or love, robbed of the sophistication and vitality that would especially engage viewers and elevate the feature to a higher level. With all this in mind there are times when the movie impresses as ham-handed, simplified as though, themes and nudity aside, it could feasibly be family fare; despite myself, I laughed at the last scene.
This is especially notable and unfortunate considering the extraordinary cast assembled here. Helen Mirren, Gabriel Byrne, Christian Bale, Brian Cox, Kate Beckinsdale, Ewen Bremner, Andy Serkis, Tom Wilkinson, and Freddie Jones, among still more beloved stars, claim deserved reputations, long lists of credits, and many awards and nominations between them all. It's a small delight just to see them all in one place. However, the rigid seeming structure of 'Royal deceit' rather restricts them at no few points, diminishing what we see of the tremendous skills we know they possess. And to that point, too - in any instance in which a scene guides a character into a more vibrant display of acting, for the disparity between that instance and the tone broadly enforced, fairly or not it feels like overacting.
To be clear, I don't think 'Royal deceit' is bad - I do like it, and find it enjoyable, and worth watching on its own merits. The cast is swell, all the hard work contributed behind the scenes is superb, and at large the narrative is complete and compelling as it relates a tale of so long ago. However, there's also no questioning that this is flawed in its storytelling, dampening the impact of what we see before us. If greater judiciousness meant padding out the length another twenty minutes or more, I think it would have been worthwhile. Still, while far from perfection, there's enough value here to earn a modest recommendation. You don't need to go out of your way for it, but if you chance upon 'Royal deceit,' it deserves a look; keep expectations mildly tempered, and just enjoy what it has to offer. -
kello26 February 2003So this was quite a waste of material and casting ( Helen Mirren, Tom Wilkinson and Brian Cox, why oh why did they take these roles?). The movie plays like a badly staged Hamlet without the benefit of Shakespeare's language and plot construction. In addition, the battle scenes appeared to be "re-enactments" from a low budget history documentary.
-
Danish director Gabriel Axel sets out to tell the real history of the sixth century King of Jutland(Denmark) moving away from the Anglesized version of the story by Shakespeare and giving a better feeling version. I, like many people was not sure what to expect when I ordered the DVD, having just seen the American title (Royal Deceit) and being fascinated by it. Little did I know what treat was in store. Gabriel Byrne again proves why he is one of our busier actors today as the malevolent Fenge, plotting treachery behind every smile. And Christian Bale is just outstanding as the supposed mad second son of the dead King of Jutland. Helen Mirren is up to her usual standards as the queen, and Kate Beckinsale is always a delight, especially in this role, so different than her characters in "Underworld" and "Van Helsing." It is also a pleasure to see Brian Cox ("X-Men II) in one of his rare good guy roles. It is not a big or a long film, but a well crafted, tightly directed gem of a film, especially for those whose tastes run to the historical.
-
barfog-161-40367326 October 2012I rarely write reviews, but having come to IMDb to see if others had been as appalled with the lack of craft displayed in this film as I was, I was shocked to see that some actually thought that this was a decent effort! Lest others conned into purchasing this abortion of a movie, let me redress the balance.
To give some background, I purchased a DVD of this film, (rebranded 'Thrones & Empires') based on the strong cast list. I watched it with a growing sense of disbelief and horror at how such a slew of excellent actors could be wasted in such a truly poor film.
OK, so it is clearly a film made with a very low budget but, boy, I can't recall when I last saw a film with such awful direction, editing, script (was there one?) and lack of cinematic vision.
The director, Gabriel Axel, should be truly ashamed of himself for wasting such acting talent: to a man (and woman), the performances either wooden or hammy - none inhabit their roles properly. The editing is simply laughable - probably at its worst when scenes start before actors have started moving/acting ... and as for the fight scenes - oy vey! Cliché after cinematic cliché - I felt I was watching a Mel Brooks pastiche at times.
A criminal waste of acting talent - and possibly the worst film I've seen, and I've seen some bad 'uns! -
kiwicarl17 October 2002I liked this. It was the only version of the Hamlet story I've ever seen that used the Saxo Grammaticus original, and I got a kick out of that. The costumes, sets and locales were authentic, for once. I particularly like the addition of a sauna. If you didn't recognize this as the Hamlet story, you might think it simple-minded, but I thought it was wonderful to see Hamlet's bare bones, as it were.
-
ThatsGoodInnit7 February 2006I went through the effort of hoping to find this on uk region 2 DVD, and shouldn't of bothered, the movie is simply awful! You'd expect a film starring, Gabriel Byrne, Christian Bale, Kate Beckinsale, Helen Mirren, Brian Cox, it would be excellent, but it's anything but excellent it's awful. the acting abilities of all these actors is just not there in this film, it's before they could act/before they were famous, in my opinion. The action scenes are so laughable, the plastic swords, the look and feel is totally unreal. It's shocking but seriously nobody can act, not 1 of these huge names nowadays can act in this early film. Christian Bale is completely unconvincing which is very surprising from him, easily his worst performance. I did start having doubts about this film with it's rrp being SOOO cheap to buy, but it was finding a place that stocked it. but if you must buy this, buy it for a laugh, and take it back! or if you simply collect Hamlet/Historic films or awant to see your favorite actor make a bad film. it was a waste of my money in all honesty, i liked the actors more before i saw this.
-
HAL9000-41 September 1998Soap opera quality production values, leaden writing, and a handful of extras standing around with nothing to do make this an exercise in boredom. The only thing keeping my interest was finding the differences between this researched traditional telling of the Hamlet story vs. Shakespeare's dramatic license. The characters all speak in contemporary English, delivering totally unmemorable lines. Occasionally, Hamlet gets in a barb or two against his uncle-now-father but you'll not find any soliloquies here. In an effort to keep viewers interested, naked breasts are flashed onscreen periodically. The viewer is expected to believe that there are king and queen, yet around them are only a dozen and half villagers in remarkably well built wooden huts. King of Jutland, yeah right.
-
richard-davis-987-6766151 May 2017It's awful.
Christian Bale in particular, and I know he's still only a young lad in this film - but compare this performance to that of Empire of the Sun where he was just a child. He was superb in EOTS - awful in this. It feels like a set of performances from people that haven't been acting for long, that are actually being positionally directed from off camera.
This feels like an AmDram school performance that has made it onto the screen with an uber low budget. The fight scene where Amled is in England is particularly awful - I've seen children at school stage a better "battle". Brian Glover - you should be ashamed of yourself.
Yes, the story is being retold accurately, but it's like Amateur hour. Just watch in horror, as you witness this all-star cast deliver a visual feast that can be matched in most village halls. Honestly - it was diabolical. I only watched it to save myself the time of reading Shakespeare's original play. I wished I'd read it instead of having watched this. I can't unwatch this travesty. -
roammd19 August 2011There is no reason for this movie to exist outside a film school senior project. I get that it's the original myth for Hamlet, but it wasn't the basic story that makes Shakespeare's Hamlet so great. The effect is like replacing the dialog in Romeo and Juliet with text of actual teenagers fighting with their parents and friends.
The performances are solid but as others have pointed out the dialog is awful, the "battle scenes" are amateurish and confusing and the costumes and set are dreary. I understand that drab costumes are more authentic but so is someone dying of cholera--that doesn't mean it belongs in the movie.
I was fooled by the cast--they can't save the film. -
pianys25 November 2003This was my first encounter with Christian Bale, and I immediately
saw him as one of my favourite actors. He simply hit the screen,
fresh face and mature acting, and I was hooked.
The film shows the original Hamlet-story, not the Shakespeare
adaptation, so perhaps there´s too much happening in too short a
timeframe. Director Axel Gabriel is not your most Hollywood-pleasing filmmaker; he will give you a different
perspective.
Brilliant actors throughout, and well worth a a watch. An unusual,
low-budget film that remains one of my favourites. -
When I started watching "Prince of Jutland" (aka "Royal Deceit"), I didn't know that it was based on the story that inspired "Hamlet". Well, the cast turns in fine performances, but the story has too narrow of a focus to give the viewer a true understanding of what went on. A real letdown after Gabriel Axel directed "Babette's Feast". We do get some impressive shots of the Danish countryside, though.
The cast includes Christian Bale, Helen Mirren, Gabriel Byrne, Kate Beckinsale, Brian Cox, Andy Serkis, Tom Wilkinson and Mark Williams. In other words, it stars Dick Cheney, Catherine the Great, a usual suspect, Selene, Hannibal Lecter, King Kong, Lyndon Johnson and Arthur Weasley (so that makes this a link between the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings franchises). -
tbolic20 June 2005I saw this movie twice on TV while I was back home in Europe. I just loved it! Even though it was a rather long movie (cannot remember now was it 2 or 3 hours long). The story, a spin-off on Hamlet appealed to me more than the actual Hamlet. To support that, all the actors did their best.
But, after I came to US, I wanted to see it again and I rented the "Royal Deceit". First when I saw that it is 89 minutes long I was surprised because I remembered it as a long movie. Then more surprises followed - bad ones. The 89 (or 85) minute versions are just simply butchered! The 89 min version starts with the narrative in which they explain what happens before we get in the village and see the Amled acting as he does. Narative is a pretty sorry substitute for a superb acting at the beginning of the 3 hour long movie - and in that version no one gives you on the plate what is going on. It is not only the beginning that was cut - there are scenes cut out in all the important parts of the film. The 3 hour version has an additional charm that one discovers for him/herself what is going on.
In short, if you can, find the 3 hour version to see it. The 89 minute version is just a big time spoiler of a very good film - everything that weaves the story together is cut out. Another example how editing can undermine great acting and a script. -
thefan-23 June 1999This is a retelling of the Hamlet story that tries to show it as realistically as possible in its actual historic setting. The "noble" princes and kings of the Shakespearean stage were a grubby lot in real life. The average suburban American lives more regally than they ever dreamed of. If you can get past that, and ignore Shakespeare's ghost, you might enjoy this movie on its own terms. Something else you might have to get past, and a major problem facing any director who wants to do something like this, is Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The giggles you hear in the audience are people being reminded of their favorite scenes from it. Unfair, but there it is.
-
hyperhenry20 June 2005This is certainly not a film for you if you prefer Hollywood productions. It has absolutely nothing to do with Shakespeare. Nor is it a film about Hamlet. It is, however, definitely a film about Amled, Prince of Jutland and follows, as such, the narrative by Saxo Grammaticus. The director has fully understood this and has carefully adjusted the tone and atmosphere of the film to match the ancient Viking saga. Life was simple in those days, as were the words. There is no melancholy, brooding and doubting prince in this film, there is only a prince with his heart set on calculated revenge with more than a spot of quick wit and humor. So, if you want to dive in and give this film a chance, you have to keep an open mind. If you do that, you're in for a unique experience that will broaden your horizon and teach you to appreciate alternative film making. IMO, one of the best saga films ever made.
-
Draconian_Clown28 February 2006I loved this movie! It is for all of us who suffered through compulsory Shakespeare in school. The needless suffering of intentionally disastrous endings marked Shakespeare's tragedies. Those stories were so horribly sad on every level that they reduced life and all its ambitions to an expectation of sorrowful failure. Everyone dies for little or no reason. I totally hated that crap! This is apparently a story related to Hamlet. I never knew it existed. I noticed the similarities straight away and kept anticipating needless tragedy. Needless tragedy never came. I don't know if I would have liked it if not for my knowledge of Shakespeare's Hamlet and my general contempt for needless tragedy.
The story followed an almost fable-like formula. It was production on the fly with a great economy of scale. That is to say the scenes had just enough to carry the story and no more. The fight scenes and swordplay are very different from today's carefully choreographed, terribly graphic violence. During one of the fight scenes, I wondered if this scrappy, badly improvised fighting was actually more realistic than what we normally get from big productions. All the real fights I have seen looked nothing like a movie fight due to the considerable clumsiness of the fighters.
This movie had witty and clever moments. I thought they fit well within the main context of a revenge plot. Of course, they could have spent more money and had a larger production but why bother? I think it would be cool if Royal Deceit could run this summer in place of Shakespeare in the Park's Hamlet. It could make people happy for a change.
This reminded me of some delightful Viking tales I discovered decades ago. Tales of individual heroism, conquest, love and so on. Fables are fun! And finally something not completely nihilistic from IFC. What a relief that was. -
diegofeduchi30 January 2007I first watched this film a late Friday night. Spanish version of BBC2 used to show some good films on their original version between 1 and 3 am (still wonder why).
The fact is I watched this film. It is meant to be the real Hamlet, based in Denmark (Jutland). I have the feeling it is a great portrait of its era, the clothes, the huts, the little hamlet in which they live are what you would expect.
Being mainly a British film, the actors are great. Gabriel Byrne then became one of my favourite actors, something he confirmed in 'The Usual Suspects' Of course if you know Hamlet you'll know the story, but if you have to read Hamlet for a school project, this will not fully help you. The plot is slightly different and so is the end.
Watch it. It may surprise you as it did me.