William the Conqueror (1982) User Reviews (3)

Historically in-accurate. But not as bad as it could have been.

[ashwetherall1 · 5/10 · 21 November 2012]

I'd herd rumour's of this film existing. But only recently have I been able to watch it. Unfortunately the copy was in french with no sub-titles. But I was able to follow the movie with my limited french.

Firstly this movie isn't historically accurate and to be honest is a bit of a mess. It follows Williams rise from Bastard son constantly under threat of assassination to feared/hero Norman duke. As you would expect this film is pro William and tends to gloss over the more controversial aspects of his life and character.

The film portrayal of Harold's character is strange. Harold is shown as charismatic yet ruthless, with maybe a touch of bi-polar.

I must point out there is a good scene where Harold fights a Norman champion. The Norman is on horse back with a spear,sword and shield and Harold uses just a large piece wooden railing to defeat him. This scene works because it dose illustrate the differing fighting styles. Its a shame that this isn't shown battles that follow later.

The battles shown in the film are not accurate. Stamford bridge is very badly staged being decided with champions. Stamford bridge was in-fact one of the bloodiest battles ever fought on English soil.

Hastings comes off slightly better. Unfortunately lack of budget in costumes and extras really shows. But we must remember that this was a low budget movie made in Romania before CGI.

The acting in the film isn't bad with a good performance from John(Hawk the Slayer) Terry.

All in all William the Conquer is not the best of films. But it is the first to try to tackle this story and it dose have a certain European charm that may make me want to see it again.

interesting but obsolete medieval epic

[ekisest · 5 July 2006]

Typical "Sergiu production", with the usual extras from the Romanian army fighting around, dressed like medieval Saxons/Normands. Most of the film is all right, although the presence of such great Romanian actors as Amza Pellea is simply decorative. The script is pretty good, despite of my initial expectations. The only moment worthwhile, in fact, is the ending. I didn't know that Wilhelm was crowned in an empty church, as all the attendants fled due to a Saxon rebellion that was taking place outside. There is a lot of fiction here, obviously, but the scene works almost as well as the "baptism" scene in "The Godfather - Part I". While his troops are hunting down the rebels outside the church, Wilhelm is having a philosophical argument with the priests, before taking the crown from their hands. An interesting approach on the crucial moment for the fate of the English people, a fate that is still in progress today.

decent work

[Kirpianuscus · 31 December 2018]

The memories of childhood, in my case, are the basic tool for define this film. As child, I was impressed by performances and story and atmosphere. Later, I saw this film as expression of the desire of Sergiu Nicolaescu to put his career in European circle. Maybe, with good result. It is a decent historical film. And that is enough in the context of period, as good proof of the measure of Romanian cinema.