Druids

2001 "You know his name. Discover his legend."
Druids
2.7| 2h4m| en| More Info
Released: 11 December 2001 Released
Producted By: CNC
Country: France
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

In the year 60 B.C. a group of Druids, including the arch-druid Guttuart (Max von Sydow), witness the passing of a comet and interpret it as the sign of the coming of a king for their country Gaul, which has not had a king for a long time. Guttuart goes to Gergovia, the capital of the Arvenes tribe, to attend a meeting of Gallic tribal chieftains. The young boy Vercingetorix, along with his friend the young girl Eponia, sneak into a large cavern where Celtill, Vercingetorix's father and chieftain of the Arvenes, hosts the meeting of chieftains with the intention of proclaiming himself king of all Gauls. When Celtill shows off the crown once worn by the old kings of Gaul, an arrow from two Roman spies (dressed as Gauls) hits Celtill in the back.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

CNC

Trailers & Images

Reviews

jamesgandrew Vercingetorix seeks revenge over the death of his father and also pursues to overthrow Julius Caesar after he has been betrayed.Druids is a horribly boring and dull "direct to video" movie from the early 2000s. It stars Christopher Lambert (Highlander, Greystoke) in the lead and I presume he was willing to do anything after those horrendous Highlander sequels. The film has a budget of $15 million but you would swear it was less than the thousands because everything in this film looks like garbage. There's one battle sequence where you can clearly see umbrellas and crew members hanging about under a castle. What will strike you in this movie is the lack of any continuity or coherence in the storytelling. Characters end up in places all of a sudden, confusing the audience. Christopher Lambert's wig also constantly changes and he also manages to grow a moustache half way through the movie for no rhyme or reason.What's most painful is the film goes for roughly two hours! So, it's even hard to enjoy this as a guilty pleasure. It's so bad it's bad.
Catharina_Sweden I had read some of the reviews before watching "Vercingétorix", so I did not expect much from it. But, on the contrary, I found this a surprisingly good movie! I cannot understand those who dislike it so! Maybe it has to do with how much pre-knowledge you have. I read Caesar's own account of the Gallic Wars recently, so for me it was very interesting to see the events of the memoirs acted out before my eyes, in very beautiful and - for the most part - historically accurate pictures.Everything is not right: Vercingétorix' wife was NOT Caesar's mistress in reality (at least nothing like that is taken down in the annals anywhere) - but this is not more odd than the fact that Spartacus' woman was Crassus' mistress in the highly approved movie "Spartacus" from 1960! The Gauls' helmets with horns on them are probably not right either. But these are small things.The Romans are depicted _very_ accurately, with their uniforms, weapons, and helmets, their fortresses and battle formations. The props in Caesar's tent are also just right: the hanging oil lamps, the papyrus rolls and feather pens, the small models of war machines... Also, there is beautiful and wise dialog - especially at the end of the movie. I listened to some of it several times just because it was so good. And _magical_ music...Christopher Lambert is always a little wooden, of course - he does not have very many facial expressions! :-) - but I think he was very believable in this movie. It was just right to use a french actor for the leader of the Gauls! I see nothing silly with his wig either - the Gauls DID have hair like that! :-) _But_ I would have preferred a more handsome man to play Caesar. This one was too short, tubby and broad-faced compared to the statues of Caesar. This was the only real mistake in the movie, I think, that there was no really handsome man to admire in it - with a "Rex Harrison" for Caesar I would have given it ten stars! There was a very beautiful woman for the male viewers to look at, though: Inés Sastre.A movie truly worth watching!
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.
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.'