A Christian review

I'm right-handed, and I'm offended, too, on behalf of all right-handed victims of watching this particular little fecal bolus

p.s. I feel even a little sad for the Lefties who watched this, too

I should sue to try to get my 82 minutes back




Vanity plates; too expensive...I'll just change my name to: "Juliet Whiskey Tango 649"

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Here's a clickable link to the review in question: http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2003/druids.html

It's apparently "very offensive" (for Christians)...

This refers to its "Moral rating" and is from the basic-info box that precedes the actual review. Rating it "very offensive" obviously reveals to potential viewers the extent of the material in the movie that would be perceived as "morally offensive" and therefore not appropriate for family viewing where young kids are present. Keep in mind that mature Christians are used to morally offensive stories since the bible is full of 'em, like David committing adultery with Bathsheba and murdering her husband to cover it up.

...but still gets five stars for "movie making quality".

Actually the reviewer -- Danel Griffin -- gives it 4/5 Stars (although it's possible he came back later and adjusted his rating after re-watching it).

I encourage people to read the entire review via the above link, but here are some informative excerpts that reveal why Griffin likes it:

“Druids”... attempts to portray the Gallic War from an objective point of view, by simply stating the facts and letting the viewer come up with their own opinion of whether or not the war was necessary. Both the Gauls and the Romans are portrayed as having both selfish and reasonable reasons for fighting. There are only a handful of important characters, and both sides of the conflict are treated with about equal intensity. There are some amazing war sequences, but they are there simply to move the political story along. This is a much different approach to war than “Braveheart”, which uses the war scenes as a template to emphasze either that the evil Brits are getting what they deserve, or that the poor Scots are being mistreated again.

As a result of this neutral viewpoint, most viewers might find “Druids” boring, and perhaps uneven. They are used to being spoon-fed Hollywood sentiment, instead of being challenged to think about the moral implications of war, and that often, wars are fought more because of politics than for justice. By taking out the patriotism, Druids loses much of its potential audience...

Dorfmann’s direction is confident and swift. He has a good eye for battle scenes (especially their aftermaths, which are unforgettable moments), but he is more focused on telling a story than he is curdling our blood with realistic images of war. His movie is very dialogue-driven, and the viewer must keep their ears posted at all times, or else they will miss much of the film’s key plot points. Indeed, “Druids”’ momentum is in its characters, and Dorfmann effectively creates them.

Whether you like or hate this film, you gotta respect Griffin for his honest & evenhanded opinion and for going against the grain seeing as how the majority here at IMDb revile and mock it, which I tend to agree with. But it's worthwhile in a so-bad-it's-good way.


My 175 (or so) Favorite Movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/

reply share

add reply

formatting help