The Lion of Flanders (1984) User Reviews

Great example (how not to make a movie)

[robvanderaa · 5/10 · 18 July 2022]

I started out unbiased and neutral of this movie. I got through to the whole ninety minutes of it. And wow, this is a great example of a movie not to do this. Even at the 1984 pace and special effects it's bad, so bad that I had to cringe several time for the bad acting and effects.

The acting for nearly all actors is bad and the direction is even worse. I forgive the special effects team because the budget had to be extremely low. The cast is so few they can hardly muster any extra's during the battle or during the french royal scenes.

Please Hollywood and other movie makers, take note of this movie how to NOT do this kind of genre. I barely make any reviews, but this is a movie I had to review.

Don't waste time on this. It's 90 minutes you will never get back!

Our pride ruined.

[PeterKurten911 · 7/10 · 20 July 2004]

I'll probably have to explain my comment summary a little for those people not living in Flanders, i'd say over 99.9 % of mankind. The so-called Battle of the Golden Spurs, dated the 11th of June 1302, was one of the armed conflicts between the king of France and his landlord, the Count of Flanders. Discussing the principles of early 14th-century feudalism at length would take us too far : let's just state that at numerous occasions, both parties would stress respectively their power & independence on the edge of a sword.

19th century novelist Hendrik Conscience turned this battle into a symbol of oppression of the Flemish people, telling a heroic and passionate story how the nobility & craftsmen from all over the land joined forces against twice as many opponents, simply stating : if we each kill two of them, there is no problem to speak of. Thanks to their courage, the muddy Groeningenkouter stream which hindered the French cavalry enormously & the mystical yet inspiring appearance of the captured nobleman Robert de Bethune as a knight dressed in golden armour, Flanders triumphed. (I will save you all that happened before, it's basically more patriotic heroism and more bloodshed in a black versus white portrayal that makes "the Patriot" look subtle.)

Conscience was one of the founding fathers of the so-called Flemish movement, pleading for recognition and respect for the Flemish language & culture in a Belgium that was dominated by French. Now, effective nationalism needs a heroic tale, and besides a short period of kicking the Spanish invaders, there was little to choose from. It is what you get when you are part of various empires for seven hundred years. In that perspective, De Leeuw van Vlaenderen is quite enjoyable, plus it kills a few hours.

Now, about the movie. It is very ambitious. It has Jan Decleir, our best actor ever in one of his best roles ever(as popular hero & resistance leader Jan Breydel - for the Americans : he always has that sarcastic Jack Nicholson thing going )a unique amount of genuine medieval locations & the best ... whatever. It does not have any French dialogue, while it's the second language in these parts for Christ's sake, and in either case we have very skilled actors in the French part of the country. It does not have great views; the historical settings are so tied up inside modern city centers the camera wringles itself to keep the cars out, though probably spotted some nevertheless. It does not have decent special effects, even for the mid-eighties, simultaneously with all that Friday the 13th-like gore : maybe arrows don't give up much blood in some places of the human body, but swords surely do. The acting feels rather artificial. And most of all, you cannot fake 90.000 men fighting a ferocious battle with about 1000 clowns running around on a field, leaving 5 yards minimum in between when not fighting or being dead. The shortage of manpower & effects screwing up the battle really screws up any credit one would have been willing to give the rest of the film. And if even Conscience did not consider the golden knight equals divine intervention in an empty harness to be credible, why should we ?

All together : if i might have 150 million dollars and some SFX crews to do a faithful adaption with some disembowlings this time.

rebellion and war in early fourteenth century Europe

[myriamlenys · 7/10 · 29 August 2018]

French king Philip the Fair, and especially his vainglorious wife Joanna of Navarra, need money - again. Logically enough their attention turns to their richest vassal, the old count of Flanders. The venerable greybeard, who is not too pleased by the news, travels to France in order to make his case. He is accompanied by some faithful friends and by his son, a famous knight so brave that he is known as "The lion of Flanders". Contrary to the laws of hospitality and chivalry both, the little delegation is imprisoned by the king. Back home in the north, this fact strengthens the Flemings in their conviction that the French use them as slaves, work mules and whipping boys. Tensions grow and grow. Soon the blood will run red through the streets...

Hendrik Conscience's book "The lion of Flanders" was so important, so crucial, so topical, that it changed the very course of Belgian history. (Do look up the story behind the book on internet, it's riveting.) Here we've got a movie adaptation made by author, poet and all-round celebrity Hugo Claus, who was in charge of direction, screenplay and dialogue. Possibly he also fetched the sandwiches and pizzas.

I'm not too fond of the movie : in my humble opinion, it does not succeed in striking the right note. On the whole it boasts an admirable narrative clarity, I'll give it that, but it breathes a very different sensibility from Conscience's novel. Hugo Claus - at least I suppose it was his doing - also missed some opportunities. In the book, the adventures of young Machteld make sense and are woven into the larger logic of the plot. Here, Machteld is an afterthought, and a pretty weird one at that. Also missing : the love between Machteld and her faithful admirer, which might have provided a touch of poetry or human sweetness.

Other shortcomings were not caused by Claus. The music, with the exception of some songs, could compete for the coveted "Worst Music for an Historical Epic" award. The viewer also meets a male character who is introduced, with complete seriousness, as the most handsome man in Christendom. The actor playing the part looks nice, in an unremarkable way. It's a moment of pure and unalloyed silliness - and what's more, a moment which might have been prevented by a minimum of care by Casting. (While we're at it, Philip the Fair isn't an Adonis, either.)

Still, the movie has qualities, too. Many of the locations are beautiful or historically important, creating a genuine sense of times past. The movie boasts an impressive cast and some fine acting, although not everybody works hard for his/her paycheck... It's a violent epic about violent times - no surprise there - and most of the fights, pursuits and battles are well-done. The finale consists of a striking depiction of the Battle of the Golden Spurs, complete with a large amount of extras, costumes and stuntwork. (And yes, it is indeed true that the Flemings won, against all established conventions of medieval warfare.)

Even if you're unfamiliar with Belgian or French history : it is very unlikely that, having seen the movie, you will ever forget the Battle of the Golden Spurs.

Ed Wood is for US, what Hugo Claus tries to be for Belgium.

[RichyRoman · 1/10 · 16 December 2003]

De leeuw van Vlaanderen is a medieval movie about the Flemish resistance against the French invading armies in 1302. The Flemish peasants won the battle because of their courage and the helping hand of God, manifesting itself as a golden knight on the battlefield. A sort of Braveheart (1995), but without the skirts.

It could have been a good movie. But the director, actually a novelist who thinks he can direct, screwed it up BIG TIME, again. Everything is leading up to the battle, but the battle itself is poorly filmed. If you can't afford to put in hundreds of extras on the grass, you shouldn't use too much long shots. But concentrate on the dynamics of the battle. There were too many empty spaces, which made the whole thing look ridiculous. Even Monty Python in The Holy Grail (1975) was more convincing!

The rest of the movie is static and theatrical. The occasional bad acting sequences are followed by sequences of low dramatic value and pointless discussions, where you feel as a spectator the need to push the fast-forward button. Yes, thank God I didn't see this one in the theatre.

note: I am sorry if I kind of hinted that Hugo Claus is trying to be Ed Wood. Ed Wood is maybe the worst director, but has still something Hugo Claus will never have: PASSION.

A failure.

[thesaurusuk · 3/10 · 23 November 2021]

Low budget doesn't have to mean a bad film but in this case it unfortunately does. Looks like a TV production, is (mostly) poorly acted and badly scripted, with only a passing attention to historical detail or any kind of accuracy. The subject matter deserves much better.

A great Flemmish Medieval War film!

[John1986 · 9/10 · 19 August 2010]

You know, this is a great Flemish war film! The story is set in the middle-ages, the 14th century (in the year 1302). Because all the gold reserves of the great French empire are gone, King "Filips De Schone" wants to have the complete power of a golden empire: "Flanders", which have ten times more gold, than there is in the whole French kingdom. The french army threatens the Flemmish people with slavery and death! City's get attacked, Woman's and Children are getting killed by soldiers and the whole Flanders is in the power of France. But the Flemish people don't want this, and a revolution breaks out. It all ends in a gigantic and bloody battle which is known as "The Battle of the Golden Spurs" (De Guldenporenslag!) This is a great and realistic film about: Love, Power, Death, Knights, Medieval and War. It shows one of the greatest victories of the Flemmish army in the whole History. Director Hugo Claus has done it well! The fight scenes are amazing and good. Even for a Flemmish film with a very LOW budget! I actually don't understand why everybody hates this movie.

Anyway, thanks for reading my comment!

What a surprise

[searchanddestroy-1 · 8/10 · 15 November 2021]

I was so well surprised by this obscure film from Netherlands and taking place in the Middle Age. It is a medieval tale so gritty, accurate, bloody and not to be watched by kids in matinees. I have rarely seen a so realistic medieval tale, except of course Paul Verhoeven's FLESH AND BLOOD, and maybe a couple of others, all recent films. But in the eighties, there was not many of them. Very few indeed. It looks like a Mel Gibson's feature, bloody, and the most accurate.

Shild and vriend (shield and friend)

[ulicknormanowen · 8/10 · 16 December 2021]

During the reign of Philippe Le Bel, France was at the peak of its power and its wealth in the Middle-Ages;the king imposed a centralized kingdom, which displeased the bourgeois as well as the nobles; he was not very popular and few movies were made about his reign. The most famous was the TV miniseries "les rois maudits" :the celebrated destruction.of the order of the templars who represented an international financial power ;burnt alive on the stake with other companions, Jacques De Molay ,the Grand Master would have cursed all the kings to come ;historians say that the master simply appealed to God's justice ;the fact that Philippe died within the year fueled the legend. The second subject concerns Philippe's daughters -in -law ,two adulteresses,filmed by Abel Gance in "la tour de Nesles " in which history was given a rough ride .

But no film about Flanders ,it was the first time a movie had been made about this aspect of the king's reign ; it's a gripping historical epic, with shakespearian accents (all that concerns Gui De Dampierre) , scenes which verge on fantasy (the battle of the golden spurs ) and generally good acting .

Like the French, the Flemish were overburdened with taxes ;Philippe 's rapaciousness knew no bounds (he expelled the Jews,after confiscating their possessions) in the movie he seems a little listless, encouraged by his wife Jeanne De Navarre the First (was she really the cruel woman who insisted even Flemish women and children be slaughtered too? Opinions differ ,she married the king at 11 ,when he was five years her senior and her political role did not seem so important ).

This war ,which turns "holy" in the king's mind in the second part,was David against Goliath ;although the French lost the battle of the golden spurs , Philippe had the last laugh and the poor province was finally defeated in 1304 and was part of the kingdom till 1369.

This is a very violent movie, a story which in the end is a plea for oppressed people , a rebellion against the high and the mighty .