ShangLuda
Admirable film.
BelSports
This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.
Portia Hilton
Blistering performances.
CelluloidDog
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.
Evariste Galois
First of all, I'm surprised that Max Von Sydow accepted a part in this film. He is one of my favorite actors (with Toshiro Mifune), he impressed me in the Seventh seal, and many other Bergman movies. I must say, this movie doesn't deserve an actor like him. I'm not a big Christopher Lambert fan, but I admit he did some great movies like Greystoke or Highlander. But come on....... once again the acting is awful. I mean he keeps the same expression throughout the movie, regardless of the feelings he's supposed to show. As concerns the film itself, I don't understand whether this is supposed to be a historical movie or a fantasy. I first thought it wanted to respect History and stick to the real story, but then they start using magical powers, so I don't get it. If they can use their powers, then why don't they win at the end ? Besides, some things are really not credible. For instance, when Vercingetorix comes out of the forest with the druid and finds out there is a Roman road being built. It was just next to where he lives and he never heard of it before ??? Right after that Julius Caesar comes, and asks him to fight on his side ! I just can't believe how stupid this is. So I would not recommend you this movie at all, unless you study cinema and want to know what you shouldn't do.
lord woodburry
The hero Vercingetorix epitomizes the persistence of the Kelts while their more sophisticated neighbors with Imperial airs and pretensions have faded away. Vercingetorix tells the story of Vercingétorix who led the Gauls against the West's first world empire. Christopher Lambert in the lead role captures the nihilistic spirit of the Keltic warrior: You want to live forever? Vercingetorix prince of the Arverni would unify the intensely factious Keltic tribes to resist Roman deprecations on the high druidic culture of Gaul with its ritualized harmony with nature. Crowned high king, Vercingetorix joins battle with Julius Caeser (Klaus Maria Brandauer) in endless marches, counter-marches and raids. While holding to a mobile, vicious hit and run strategy, Vercingétorix confounds Caeser. Unfortunately when Vercingétorix allowed himself to become bottled up in a fortified town, Caeser successfully executed a double encirclement. Could even the Vercingetorix crafted by the gifted Kelto-phile Morgan Llywelyn have foreseen such a day as St Patrick's Day when the Kelts may take occasion to deride the vanished empires of their conquerers ancient and modern? The magic Keltic duality surfaces just enough Vercingetorix to see the rationality in nihilism so essential to the Keltic mind willing to fight the battle far past a bitter end toward a victory in defeat. Vercingetorix would ask: You want to live forever? The Conquest of Gaul While Caesar's Gallic Wars are recounted from a Roman perspective, Caeser fairly appraised his adversary: too honorable to see the way out of the apocalyptic battle which led to the downfall of Keltic Gaul. The final battle scene in Vercingetorix accurately captures Vercingétorix' desperate attempt at break out. True to Caeser's account of Vercingétorix as a man of honor, Vercingétorix surrendered in exchange for the lives of the people. The story of Vercingetorix' last stand are re-told in magnificent costumes and scenery in the TV miniseries Julius Caeser with Jeremy Sisto in the title role. The Gaulish leader the wild haired and heavily tattooed Gaul Vercingetorix was splendidly acted by Heino Ferch. Rome met its match ultimately with the Germanic and Hunnic invasion; there is no place on earth that calls itself Roman legitimately. The Kelts endure.
joe_cool-3
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.'
