Post by drystyx on Apr 27, 2020 2:21:48 GMT
I personally call this the "master piece" of Verhoeven, and that's a tall order, because most of his films would be master pieces for most directors. It narrowly beats out many of his "classic films", and he is the best of the modern action film directors, by a dillion miles.
I always thought this was an incredible film, mostly because supporting characters and motivation always played a big role for me, even when I was a little tyke, knee high to a grasshopper.
But recently, I got the uncut edition, and it's even more fantastic, because we get to see more of the supporting characters, who really steal the show.
On the surface, this medieval adventure is a series of battles that involve a greedy noble, his son, the son's fiancé, and the head mercenary.
It begins with the greedy noble using the mercenaries to win back a city that rebels took from him. Then, he betrays his promise to the mercenaries, who are led by Rutger Hauer as "Martin". The noble's son, a scholar, is angry about the betrayal, and even angrier that his father has arranged him to marry a woman he never met. Later, he meets the woman, and the mercenaries ambush the caravan the fiancé travels on, kidnapping the fiancé. Then the son, Stephen, sets out to get the woman back. Stephen was angry about the arranged marriage, but is fascinated by the innocence of his fiancé once he meets her. The story takes a lot of turns from there, as the two sides collide: the noble and his men, with the mercenaries on the other side.
But it is more than that. In fact, the characters we relate to the most are the other characters. Notably, on one side, the captain for the noble, who is forced to betray the mercenaries, and on the other side, two homosexual soldiers who are the easiest to empathize with on the other side.
The women are amazing, too. In fact, an interesting facet of this film is that the peasant women who entertain the mercenaries are all prettier than the fiancé who is kidnapped (although the fiancé does show a model body in her nude scenes, in her face she pales next to the common women). We see a bit of natural selection at work when necessary. The woman who is prettiest by far, exhibits the shallowest character, yet still remains likable and motivated, from her boasting about being a "whore" to her repentance and breakdown as she screams for mercy, appearing to be a "lunatic" to her comrades. In the end, after a great battle, she finds herself the center of attention of different soldiers.
The cardinal is a pivotal figure. He is very believable. In fact, if we look at the film as being an accurate portrayal of the times, we must realize that the mercenaries who were betrayed were the fighting force for the cardinal. Cardinals of the early church had such mercenaries.
The only weakness of the film is the "demigod" ability of the mercenaries, who wipe out entire forces of other soldiers quite easily. What this means is that we accept that the soldiers they wipe out aren't "professional" soldiers, but instead farmers who are used for temporary service. That's credible, of course. It's just that Verhoeven makes the temporary soldiers look a bit too professional, with perfect fitting warrior outfits. It makes for better spectacle.
In the uncut version, we see more of the supporting characters. In one scene, we see the anguish of one experienced mercenary who is the most loyal of the group, as he is speared to death, seeing the captain he trusted and served so valiantly, in charge of the attack. It's a very touching scene that is heavily cut when one sees this on TV.
We are touched by all the deaths, even those of characters we hardly know. One is killed by the cardinal for not being a believer in the superstitious nonsense the cardinal raves about.
I am told by a History buff that the captain who is the most likable character on the side of the noble, is based on a true historical character. I believe Verhoeven wants us to see most of the story through his eyes on one side, and the eyes of the two homosexual soldiers on the other side.
This is about as fascinating a film as you will ever find. 10/10, and in my top ten films of all time.
I always thought this was an incredible film, mostly because supporting characters and motivation always played a big role for me, even when I was a little tyke, knee high to a grasshopper.
But recently, I got the uncut edition, and it's even more fantastic, because we get to see more of the supporting characters, who really steal the show.
On the surface, this medieval adventure is a series of battles that involve a greedy noble, his son, the son's fiancé, and the head mercenary.
It begins with the greedy noble using the mercenaries to win back a city that rebels took from him. Then, he betrays his promise to the mercenaries, who are led by Rutger Hauer as "Martin". The noble's son, a scholar, is angry about the betrayal, and even angrier that his father has arranged him to marry a woman he never met. Later, he meets the woman, and the mercenaries ambush the caravan the fiancé travels on, kidnapping the fiancé. Then the son, Stephen, sets out to get the woman back. Stephen was angry about the arranged marriage, but is fascinated by the innocence of his fiancé once he meets her. The story takes a lot of turns from there, as the two sides collide: the noble and his men, with the mercenaries on the other side.
But it is more than that. In fact, the characters we relate to the most are the other characters. Notably, on one side, the captain for the noble, who is forced to betray the mercenaries, and on the other side, two homosexual soldiers who are the easiest to empathize with on the other side.
The women are amazing, too. In fact, an interesting facet of this film is that the peasant women who entertain the mercenaries are all prettier than the fiancé who is kidnapped (although the fiancé does show a model body in her nude scenes, in her face she pales next to the common women). We see a bit of natural selection at work when necessary. The woman who is prettiest by far, exhibits the shallowest character, yet still remains likable and motivated, from her boasting about being a "whore" to her repentance and breakdown as she screams for mercy, appearing to be a "lunatic" to her comrades. In the end, after a great battle, she finds herself the center of attention of different soldiers.
The cardinal is a pivotal figure. He is very believable. In fact, if we look at the film as being an accurate portrayal of the times, we must realize that the mercenaries who were betrayed were the fighting force for the cardinal. Cardinals of the early church had such mercenaries.
The only weakness of the film is the "demigod" ability of the mercenaries, who wipe out entire forces of other soldiers quite easily. What this means is that we accept that the soldiers they wipe out aren't "professional" soldiers, but instead farmers who are used for temporary service. That's credible, of course. It's just that Verhoeven makes the temporary soldiers look a bit too professional, with perfect fitting warrior outfits. It makes for better spectacle.
In the uncut version, we see more of the supporting characters. In one scene, we see the anguish of one experienced mercenary who is the most loyal of the group, as he is speared to death, seeing the captain he trusted and served so valiantly, in charge of the attack. It's a very touching scene that is heavily cut when one sees this on TV.
We are touched by all the deaths, even those of characters we hardly know. One is killed by the cardinal for not being a believer in the superstitious nonsense the cardinal raves about.
I am told by a History buff that the captain who is the most likable character on the side of the noble, is based on a true historical character. I believe Verhoeven wants us to see most of the story through his eyes on one side, and the eyes of the two homosexual soldiers on the other side.
This is about as fascinating a film as you will ever find. 10/10, and in my top ten films of all time.
