Druids (2001) User Reviews (137)

Average but spectacular storytelling about Vercingetorix and Caesar

[ma-cortes · 4/10 · 12 May 2018]

'Vercingetorix (2001)' or Druids by Jacques Dorfmann is a so-so recounting about Caesar and Vercingetorix , it boasts a nice cast with Chistopher Lambert , Ines Sastre , Max Von Sidow and Klaus Maria Brandauer . This is an inferior Sword and Sandals tale and a standard film from the 2000s . It's made in middling scale with some spectacular battles and Peplum style . Young Vercingetorix (Chistopher Lambert) came of age in 60 B. C., while soldiers of the Roman Empire ran roughshod over Gaul and his brave father was imprisoned and fired alive by Romans , then he seeks vendetta , as every battle needs a hero . A wise and philosophical druid called Guttuart (Max Von Sidow) , tells the avenger Vercingetorix that he should seek peace , justice and vengeance by winning freedom for Gaul from the Romans. It concerns angry Vercingetorix and conqueror Julius Caesar and their famous existence on Gaul , including feats , fights , political events , betrayal , wars and lover (Ines Sastre) . Vercingetorix provokes a general rebellion against Roman domination , he rallies his people and tribes when they are threatened by an army commanded by Julius Caesar (Klaus Maria Brandauer) , as an entire nation's destiny lies in the hands of one man. His people made him a leader, the empire made him a renegade , history made him a hero.

Although the deeds depicted are historically inaccurate , some events are vivid and authentic . The action is regularly done with middling interpretations and the story occasionally drags due to an uneven script by Rospo Pallenberg who previously wrote Excalibur , however to be liked by Christopher Lambert fans . The picture is partially based on real events . These are the following ones : Gallic chieftain Vercingetorix (dead at 46 B. C) was an insightful and heroic warrior , whose valiant father was captured and executed by Romans , he was leader a massive rebellion against Roman domination . He seeks peace ,order , justice and victory by winning freedom for Gaul from the invaders Romans , and soon he raises an army of his own to defeat Julius Caesar , but in time Vercingetorix is betrayed by a great leader and he joins a powerful army to vanquish Caesar and bring Guttuart's prophesy to life. Vercingetorix was definitively defeated in Alesia , where took place a long siege . He was taken prisoner and led to Rome . Then he's coerced to carry out a handcuffed parade throughout the Rome streets , being killed after six years in prison . Later on , Caesar, married Calpurnia, and is appointed Consul for life and he then crossed river Rubicon . His history is written by Julius Caesar himsef in 'Comments about War of Gaul' or 'De Bello Galico', also he wrote in brilliant and elegant style 'Comments about Civil War' or 'De Bello Civili'. The film contains a colorful cinematography by Stefan Ivanov and Plamen Somov , shot in Sofía, Bulgaria . As well as atmospheric and evocative musical score by Pierre Charvet . The motion picture was regularly directed by Jacques Dorfmann and shot both in English and French language . He's a good writer and especially producer , such as : ¨Quest of fire ¨ , ¨Bethune¨, ¨ Shock treatment ¨ , ¨ Army of Shadows ¨, and occasionally director as ¨Vercingetorix¨ and ¨Shadow of the wolf¨.

Other adaptations about Vercingetorix and Caesar are the following ones : Vercingetorix (2004) TV by Uli Edel with Jeremy Sisto as Caesar and Heino Ferch as Vercingetorix . ¨Julius Caesar conqueror of Gaul¨ by Americo Anton with Cameron Mitchell, Rick Battaglia , Raffaella Carra , Carlo Tamberlani . Furthermore , known Shakespearian renditions as 'Julius Caesar (1953)' by Joseph L Mankiewicz with Louis Calhern as Caesar and Marlon Brando as Marcus Antonius and " Julius Caesar" a Stuart Burgue version (1970) starred by Charlton Heston , Diana Rigg .

Passable Attempt at Historical Epic

[CelluloidDog · 4/10 · 18 September 2011]

I certainly don't think The Gaul, Druids or Vercingétorix: La légende du druide roi...(or whatever the alternate title is) is one of the worst movies ever. But it certain isn't a memorable epic. The storyline is a fairly historically accurate tribute to one of the great French ancients. Unfortunately, the French didn't make a worthy tribute to a hero.

Criticism falls all over, whether it's boring, poorly written, is a waste of Max von Sydow and Klaus Maria Brandauer (Christopher Lambert doesn't have talent to waste), has errors or is poorly directed. I'm not sure if any of the reasons given is really true.

For an epic, it is weak as it lacks visual beauty that most epics (e.g, Gladiator, Braveheart) typically have. Most modern epics have large doses of action and gore but this film lacks either. Without visual effects, it's more in the style of classic epics such as Spartacus but it also lacks fine cinematography necessary for an epic. Camera-work is also very mediocre. It seems the director Jacques Dorfmann lacked imagination and a flair for capturing the audience. It has the appearance of a made-for-TV film. The script actually has some fine lines (see the "quotes" on IMDb) but runs into inconsistent and awkwardness at times and some poor acting by the supporting cast.

It's dry lack of imagination, inability to captivate the audience, poor cinematography and poor supporting cast just stamp mediocrity all over it.

Bahhh...

[ridanielko · 2/10 · 7 June 2022]

Maybe it was intented for movie to be different, but the end result turned out to be as it is for who-knows-what reasons ... shallow, unconvincing, unrealistic, cheap, tedious ... Too bad because the topic is interesting. The action is at times inconsistent and illogical, the sequence of events incomprehensible. Some historical facts also do not seem to have been presented correctly. Among other things, why was it important for Vercingetorix to say " the die is cast " if those words were attributed to another moment and another man?

Relentlessly Bad

[everyones-a-critic · 1/10 · 24 March 2004]

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.

I can't believe it's a real movie

[AliquaSalix · 1/10 · 7 June 2003]

"Vercingétorix" is the worst movie I have ever seen. It's a catastrophe beyond your imagination. Christophe Lambert is ridiculous as young Vercingetorix, and as old Vercingetorix too. The dialogues are so bad even I could have done better. The costumes look like rags. The fights are boring. Some scenes are so inconsistent it's funny... Example: imagine you've been living in a forest all of your life, without seeing the world. OK. Now, you're going out of the forest (obviously not a very thick one), and what can you see? A "via romana", a roman highway. Yes. Just a couple of trees from your cave. And who's riding on it, with a couple of bodyguards and one extra-horse? Julius Caesar himself and its fierce army. And the emperor just gives you a horse, because he has an extra one. And this explains why, some time later in the movie, Christophe Lambert says, giving a horse back to a roman soldier: "I give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar."

I'd say the following things to people who have the opportunity to see "Druids" (by the way, what druids? Those white-clad weirdos jumping around with a sword?): If you are a cinema student, you might want to see this movie just to get what you should never do. If you are interested in bad movie experiments, don't miss it either (it's a cult movie for many people for that very reason). If you're just a normal person, don't lose 3 hours of your life. The first hour is very funny but the 2 following ones are long.

Poor Vercingetorix... he got dragged into infamy once again.

[jlpicard1701E · 19 July 2004]

The English title itself is stupid and misleading.

Unfortunately it should have been the story of Vercingetorix, King of the Gauls, but it falls short in its intent. Although the Cast is hard-working and professional the movie is a weak action-adventure nonsense. If you compare it to "Gladiator" it pales and fades away into nothingness.

My supposition being, that it was conceived for a TV audience and probably was intended as a mini-series (a 2x90min. TV movie), in which case some silent and motionless scenes could be explained away as being the remnants of what should have been an interesting plot-twist of the longer version, and instead some battle scenes (some of which we might never know to which battlefield they would belong... must have been a director's afterthought just to bring life to an otherwise boring film) could have been better organized to follow the plot.

"Braveheart" and "Gladiator" it ain't. What remains is oblivion.

Poor Vercingetorix, had he lived to watch this, he would have hunted down the director rather than Julius Caesar. The French didn't honor much their hero this time...

OMG! This was horrible!

[michaelnc-1 · 1/10 · 28 August 2008]

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!

Druids in the USA - a Stinker

[wmralls · 1/10 · 4 March 2002]

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.

Weeheeeheee!

[Polaris_DiB · 1/10 · 11 October 2006]

In the wonderful world of bad b movies, we have this. THIS! This. This is another one of 'those' movies, the movies that everyone begs you to see because it's THAT TERRIBLE! Oh my God you won't believe it, it's sooooooo baddddd... You know that type of movie.

Of course if you've seen other movies of this type, you may be asking, "But what sets this one apart from all the other bad movies out there? I mean I'm a Bela Lugosi fan, afterall. I've seen Plan 9 from Outer Space. Heck I'm a regular MST3K fan, only without the silly commentary by that dude and his robots!" So in answer to that question, here is what Druids has that other terrible movies hasn't: -A complete plot arc that ends fifteen minutes into the movie, leaving an hour and forty five minutes for nothing really to happen before the most anticlimactic ending in human history.

-Poor editing even by bad movie standards, where in most movies the editing is just successful enough to not notice, but in this one every single cut sticks out like a papercut thumb.

-An obscenely ugly woman. Who appears in almost every scene. And causes retches of revulsion with each appearance. And even has a nudey part.

-'Druids' that cut down trees.

-A director who thinks he's making Braveheart when he's not even making Hercules vs the Romans.

-The experience of what it's like to see where a scene is going, and then have it not only not go that way, but not go anywhere at all... every single scene.

So there we go, ladies and gentlefanboys, go out and see the new cult classic of our generation! --PolarisDiB

„Kill me now" – I think Lambert improvised that line on the spot

[t_atzmueller · 1/10 · 16 November 2014]

I do admit, I was virtually lured into this film. Christopher Lambert, though never Acadamy-Award-material was often able to save a film by sheer virtue of his amiable self (and if you're a "boy" from my generation, you'll know that he was "the only one" to deserve the price). Then there was Klaus Maria Brandauer, one of the great (German-speaking) actors of his generation, right up there with Maximilian Schell, Bruno Ganz and Ulrich Mühe. In addition, I always had a soft spot for Roman history, grew up with the Asterix comics and, last but not least, I was conned with the promise of the "French answer to Braveheart".

Alright, put that dunce-cap on my head already, I deserve it! My eyes were glued instantly on Lamberts horrific hairpiece. What did it remind me of, was my constant thought? At first I thought: It's supposed to be Asterix (but that was just the mustache). Then it dawned on me: They borrowed Nigel Tufnels wig from "Spinal Tap"! Alas, poor Lambert! What will he have to star in next in order to secure a warm meal? A sixth installment of "Highlander"? Why not? Put a wig on his head, a little make-up and hey, who would ever notice that he's an eternally youthful 60-year-old? Can't say much about Brandauers performance. My subconscious has suppressed most of it, all that I remember is that Brandauer looked as bored and uncomfortable, as if he'd known that at the end of the day he would be paid in a mix of paper-money and coins (and probably Max Von Sydow was there to comfort him, telling him that that's how he's been getting paid for decades now).

But that's not the worst yet. The movie is two hours long and it felt like a lifetime! How do you remedy a two hour long, boring picture? You film the battles in slow-motion, was the first thought of the director.

I'm not into French-bashing (their food has improved since the days of Vercingetorix and Lutetia has transformed into an amiable city), but if that is how they honor their national heroes, there will come the day when they produce a film about Napoleon, in which the emperor wears a paper-hat, rides a mule and is followed into battle by a troupe of roughly 100 extras.

Yes, the experience made me a bitter person. I know it's morally wrong, but I truly hope that there is a lazy student out there who has to write a paper on De bello Gallico, who will watch this tripe instead of visiting a library, then hand in his paper (including the magic-sword-bit) and… well, you can imagine the sad rest.

You see that one point for "Druids"? Well, it's not from me – it's courtesy of IMDb!

Come off it, you gits! It's nowhere near that bad!

[sarastro7 · 5/10 · 29 October 2007]

Vercingetorix is not a great movie; it has serious structural and scenographical problems, and the plot is plodding along with little tightness or coherence, and some of the characters are made up to look rather ridiculous (particularly the Teutons, sporting neon-red hair-buns over naked torsos, making them look rather like half-naked drag-queens). And then it goes on a bit too long, becoming quite boring towards the end.

But that's it. Other than this it's not an especially bad movie. The story is fairly straightforward and the production values are fair and seem to be reasonably historically accurate. Again, no masterpiece, but certainly an effort that lives up to the (rather poor) commercial standard of mainstream movie-making, hence deserving a rating of about 5 out of 10. But I guess this is another of the many movies rated only by people who do not understand anything in between 1 and 10... I really don't know what you people expected from this movie...

Epic film that works on all levels

[drystyx · 8/10 · 17 August 2011]

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.

Definitely not a Hollywood epic

[monabassil · 6/10 · 5 December 2001]

First of all, I'd like to say that I saw the original version of the movie, the title of which was much more appropriate ("Vercingétorix"), as this movie focuses on the Celtic hero and not on Druids. The movie uses a lot of fancy French words, and their English translation might seem odd to you, but the French version is really not bad! Therefore, you might not enjoy this movie if compared to, say, Gladiator. For your viewing pleasure, forget you ever saw Gladiator and Braveheart.

And remember that the Celts were known for their eloquent wording and gestures, so do not rant about how 'fake' the acting was. The thing is, the movie is pretty realistic in this sense, so realistic in fact that it's almost a documentary, and a bit dull for those of you expecting attractive hunks driven by raging passion. Some of those who have seen it said the actors, especially Lambert, had bad hair in the movie, as though they were rock stars of the eighties. Hello, people, this is not a Hollywood film where the hero has to look cleancut and shaven and nicely dressed! This IS how the Celts living in Gaul looked like, so get over it! There were some nice scenery in the movie, though they were not exploited to add romanticism and grandeur. The one thing I'm really glad about is that the two 'love' stories in the film were NOT used to spice up the mood. They were discrete and original, though some may criticize the lack of emotion shown by the characters. The costumes were a bit fake, they were obviously made of cheap material, especially the uniforms of the Romans, but I figured that's more historically accurate than those shiny, clean, perfectly sown costumes in Hollywood epics. The soundtrack is beautiful, but I know that only because I have it on CD. Sadly, it's almost non-existent in the movie, and the best song on the soundtrack is not even used in the film! I fail to undertand why the soundtrack hadn't been exploited in the movie; it would have clearly played a major role in the (occasionally present) emotional manipulation of the audience! If you're interested in Celtic heroes, do watch it, it's the only film about Vercingetorix and it's not THAT bad!

High ambitions and low results

[SnoopyStyle · 1/10 · 22 May 2015]

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.

I'm starting to lose patience...

[Leigh L. · 6 March 2002]

Much as I generally enjoy watching good old Mr. Lambert messing about in the usual mindless, middle-of-the-road sci-fi shenanigans that he likes to frequent, I get no satisfaction whatsoever from seeing him jump up and down violently on what's left of his career in a sick-makingly irredeemable cinematic dog such as this.

Like so many reviewers before me, I just don't know where to begin.

Let's see: a shockingly bad soundtrack, editing the likes of which I've never seen, pointless, half-finished subplots, props and costumes that look like they were bought from the joke shop down the road (well, from some comedian in the nearest Bulgarian farming village, anyway), the criminal comparison to Braveheart on the video sleeve, dialogue that makes Hellgate and Slugs sound like they were written by David Mamet, and the most Austrian Austrian they could find to star as the most Roman Roman of all time, Caesar. Worst of all, the "kill me now" plea so obvious in Mr. Lambert's eyes (when you can see them through the hair) from start through to merciful finish.

Easily the worst film I've seen for years. And in the last few years I've seen Octopus, Spiders, Spiders 2, Ripper, Bats, Turbulence 3 and Deathstalker IV. Somebody tell Christopher Lambert that it's not funny any more.

Wow!

[FlorenZO · 1/10 · 8 February 2001]

I rarely come out of a movie theater that excited. Actually, I had a hell of a good time. I didn't know someone would have the ability, in 2001, to make a movie SO terrible it is hilarious from start to finish.

The main problem with Vercingétorix (Druids) is that EVERYTHING is a problem within it: there honestly isn't one thing to save. From acting to music, from set designs to costumes, from editing to focus, nothing here doesn't drown in a "n'importe quoi". As it is impossible here to talk about everything, let's concentrate on what matters: direction. And that may be the worse. Director Dorfmann shows a unique talent for not knowing what he's doing. You can feel he doesn't know what to do with his actors, his camera, his story. Dialogue scenes are boring (but you don't believe in the characters for a second anyway); action scenes have no strength, with battles without choreography nor fights and extras who stop running too soon... Shot in Bulgaria, you sometimes wonder if the 2 crews (french and Bulgarian) understood each other. Still, that would only explain the technical problems, not the entire mess.

The most embarrassing in the end is to see that the entire movie theater is laughing out loud while watching this chaotic nonsense and, then, to discover that this actually cost money (80M Francs) and may be shown overseas as a "piece of french cinema".... No, this has nothing to see with filmmaking, and it definitely is a piece of anything but cinema.

A great choice for "Bad Movie Night"

[grend · 1/10 · 26 July 2004]

My sides still hurt from the laughing. This movie goes well with large amounts of beer, but you should start the drinking before the movie ever starts.

I cannot imagine watching this movie sober. The storyline and "plot" were incoherently presented. Acting was horrible, with the exception of Max von Sydow. Christopher Lambert in that ridiculous wig, shamelessly reusing lines from Highlander. Battle scenes with no fighting.

All in all, a horrible, HORRIBLE, muddled mess if you are trying to watch it seriously. Very funny if you plan on giving it a through MSTing.

Average Film

[joe_cool-3 · 5/10 · 10 June 2007]

I saw this movie on television for the first time. Overall, I'd say it was about average. Not a great film, but not completely terrible as the others have suggested. Actually, it increased my interest in the subject of Vercingetorix, Celtic Warrior King of the Gauls. Christopher Lambert could have been better. He looked somewhat tired, old and weak. The real Vercingetorix was a young lad of about 17 to 25. If Lambert had been the young warrior in Highlander, it would have been a better film. Contrary to the reviews here, the movie was somewhat historically accurate; more so than a movie like "The 300." I would have thought that people who are of Celtic ancestry (although I'm not) would have found this movie rather interesting. It coincides with the Roman invasion and subsequent conquest of Gaul. Actually, I came away thinking that the Romans must have been horrible tyrants, not unlike the Nazis in WWII. Julius Caesar was probably little more than an ancient version of Adolf Hitler. According to credible historical estimates, the Romans murdered over 1 million Gauls in their quest to create their pan-European empire. They didn't even need our modern weapons of mass destruction to do it. Just swords, axes arrows and shields. Their level of brutality must have been incredible. In modern terms, that'd qualify as genocide. If you figure that the entire population of Gaul was probably less than 2 million, then the Roman conquest must have wiped out most of their people. It's little wonder that the Celts in Gaul were unable to recover from the Roman invasion. We're fortunate that our modern 'Romans', the Nazis, didn't succeed in their quest for world domination. Otherwise, many nationalities would have suffered the same fate as the poor Gauls & become slaves for the 'Glorious Empire.'

horrible

[jonnydirt · 1/10 · 22 October 2005]

i haven't seen anything this horrible in quite awhile. there was a scene where i thought i may have actually understood what was happening , but i was wrong. from scene to scene i was constantly baffled. baffled at how someone could have actually said "ok, thats good, print it" from the first frame of the movie i was repulsed. a child of 13, who is our soon to be king, is trying to get some 10 year old to make out with him by a ravine. this guy who made this film obviously has some strange issues to deal with, as his obsession with cheating, children, and nasty breasted women permeated the scenes. the acting, script, direction, cinematography were all orchestrated by the same actress who played the ten year old fending off the advances of the nasty headed boy by the ravine. i find it hard to believe that they actually let a child control the production of this movie. as you will see though, the fact that a child did produce this movie is evident in the final product. the only one good thing about giving children free reign over a studio is the marketing. it must work, because my 11 year old son is the one who borough this horrible piece of crap home from blockbuster. thanks to those brats that made this film, now i have to go with my son every time he wants a movie, just to ensure i never have too see a movie this horrible again

Oh dear, dear me...

[amyloveslyt · 1/10 · 16 April 2006]

I believe for a movie to get a one-star rating, it must truly be cinematic diarrhea...this movie came hideously close to a one-star rating.

Not only is the dialog ridiculously cheesy and idiotic, it is poorly acted, directed, set, costumed, etc. etc. The "climactic" parts of the film are absolute rubbish, and make no logical sense whatsoever. There is random, pointless nudity in the film which is completely absurd, and I feel was added to the story, simply so the film would earn an "R" rating.

Please don't watch this movie unless you want a good laugh. If you do in fact want to laugh, watch it at the sheer hilariousness which is the plot, otherwise...carry on, and rent something with some real entertainment value.

Christophe(r) Lambert at his top: A movie at his worst

[sebeben · 1/10 · 17 January 2003]

If Vercingetorix had not been killed by the Romans, this movie definitely would do the job. It is amazing to see such a bad movie (so bad that that you watch it 'til the end to see what the next mistake is going to be). All in all a good laugh and a fair 1/10

It could've been something

[kai81 · 5/10 · 20 January 2005]

When Druids/Vercingétorix came out on rental a couple of years ago, I thought this is a movie worth seeing. It had Christopher Lambert ("Highlander"), not one of the greatest but good enough, in the lead, with supporting performances by the always reliable Max von Sydow ("Minority Report") and mostly good Klaus Maria Brandauer ("Out of Africa"). For some reason I never got around to rent it, until now that is... Thankfully I didn't put my money on it earlier. I wouldn't say it is as bad as its reputation, but it's not much better either. What probably looked like a french version of Braveheart, turned out to be a boring and overlong version of something else than Braveheart. The script and direction, courtesy of Jacques Dorfmann ("Shadow of the Wolf") is missing all the excitement and grandiosity of an epic tale. For example, the battle scenes are supposed to be bloody and violent, but all we get to see is some arrows flying... Instead we get a slow-moving, badly directed incoherent mess that has a script that makes pretty much no sense at all. Let's not even start about the dialogue... What's worst about it, is that it seems like even the actors knew that while filming. How else can you explain the wooden performance from Lambert and Brandauer. Max von Sydow has the charisma to play the master druid, but the lines they give him are utterly useless, nobody could do anything good with that. It's certainly not a very good movie but it's far from being worst ever (for that we have Police Academy 7, Ski Patrol and Knock Off) ** (2 out of 5)

Hey, I liked it!

[artzau · 9/10 · 30 December 2001]

No, this is not classic cinema nor does it even approach being a superior film but when's the last time you saw a film about Galls and Gaul? Vercingétorix, as one reviewer notes, should be seen in the original French as too, too much gets lost in the translation over to being dubbed. If one is not familiar with Roman history and especially the military writings of Caesar, the story will have little relevance. All you have to do is read the scathing reviews herein submitted by indignant viewers who wanted a rerun of Braveheart. The betrayal of Vercingétorix due to the intrigues and shifting alliances among the Galls is well documented by Caesar in his Gallic Wars. This film does capture some of that. Having said that, I must observe that after having seen the dubbed version released as "The Druids," and seeing the stilted performances, I likely would have written a review like most of the others. However, the French version comes across very differently. I must add just one point to the one favorable review in the way of a slight correction: The film is about the Galls who were a loose association of tribesmen speaking a language, Gallic, which was related to the Celtic languages spoken today, namely Scottish and Irish Gaelic and Welsh. Manx and Briton are versions of Welsh. Unfortunately, while the Romans were great political historians and wrote extensively on the politics of the Galls, they did no language studies. Hence, no texts in Gallic survive today and we have only bits and pieces to reconstruct what those original languages were like. The same is true for Etruscan, which did not belong to the Indo-European family. My point is, this film attempts to capture some of the cultural features of those people who were eventually absorbed by Rome and eventually became the nation of France.

Destiny rules?

[steven-222 · 7/10 · 4 August 2005]

Is DRUIDS really a candidate for worst movie ever, as some reviewers declare? I don't think so. However, this French film, about ancient French history, does NOT follow the current mold for Hollywood epics; that is to say, it does not pander to an appetite for overblown action and bombast, and it does not feature a self-pitying, masochistic, macho hero-loser (suitable for casting Mel Gibson or Russell Crowe). To be sure, the zenlike attitude of the hero Vercingetorix is often obscure; but that is the point of the movie. More firmly grounded is the character of Julius Caesar, portrayed more intriguingly here than in almost any other movie; he is urbane, charming, and as deadly as an asp. Diametrical opposites, both men believe themselves to be at the mercy of something they call Destiny. One loses the war, and one wins it, but in the end, they share the same fate. Such fatalism is entirely alien to American movies, and probably hard for many viewers to swallow.

So, DRUIDS offends action/fantasy fans, and it may also disappoint hardcore history buffs, because of the liberties it takes with the details of Caesar's war against the Gauls. (However, the scene with bare-breasted women taunting and distracting the Roman soldiers is actually based on history.) The arch-Druid, played by Max von Sydow, is cryptic to a fault; Lambert is too old to play the hero in the early part of the action. But the film's faults are largely redeemed by its cosmic view, signaled by the comet that traverses space at the beginning of the movie and the matching pull-away into space at the film's end. The questions the movie raises about passive resistance in the face of aggressive war-mongering are both timely and timeless.

A Good Story, Poorly Told

[cbpelto · 5/10 · 26 March 2006]

This story is based on the historic revolt of the Gauls against Rome as lead by their charismatic leader Vercingetorix.

It's fairly accurate in the characterizations of Caesar and the Gauls. The Roman encampments, armaments and tactics are fairly accurate.

Where the movie fails is in its lousy dialog and even worse story development.

I'm sure that the French can follow it quite well. It's their history. However, most people who are neither French nor have studied Caesar's campaigns in Gaul would not know what's going on or why.

There is a truly great line in the movie, early on, while Caesar is planning his invasion of Britain:

Caesar: I need another four legions.

Roman Senator: To conquer Britain.

Caesar: I am sending the Gauls. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. I have to get rid of them.

Senator: What cynicism.

Caesar: Another word for politics.