Pluskylang Great Film overall

Glimmerubro It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

t_atzmueller 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!

michaelnc-1 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!

ZeTallGerman I'm usually quite "easily amused", but this movie is one of the worst things I've seen in years. I wasn't expecting much, but as the movie was released during the initial "Lord of the Rings" and "Merlin" Craze that swept the world, I thought I was looking forward to 90 minutes of entertaining fantasy, and maybe a few bloody battle scenes. I couldn't have been more wrong: Pathetic acting, even by the background extras - ridiculous dialog - illogical storyline & plot - not even a "Has-Been" like Monsieur Lambert could save a single scene. After an hour of optimistic hope ("it HAS to get better soon... any moment now.... soon.... now...?") I gave up, and joined the 50-or-so people that had actually already walked-out of the cinema.

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.'