VALUTAZIONE IMDb
6,1/10
3970
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaAfter using his mother's newly built time machine, Dolf gets stuck in the year 1212. He ends up in a children's crusade where he confronts his new friends with modern techniques. However, th... Leggi tuttoAfter using his mother's newly built time machine, Dolf gets stuck in the year 1212. He ends up in a children's crusade where he confronts his new friends with modern techniques. However, the Crusade turns out to be even trickier than he first imagined.After using his mother's newly built time machine, Dolf gets stuck in the year 1212. He ends up in a children's crusade where he confronts his new friends with modern techniques. However, the Crusade turns out to be even trickier than he first imagined.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 6 vittorie e 2 candidature totali
Johnny Flynn
- Dolf Vega
- (as Joe Flynn)
Recensioni in evidenza
Ever since I first read the book Crusade in Jeans I was hoping they would turn it into a movie. And now they finally did. Dolf Vega is a rather selfish teenager. Because of him a crucial soccer-match is lost. His mum is a scientist and she's working on a time machine. Dolf is seeking revenge for his shame and wants to use the machine to get a chance to get even. But things go wrong and he's stranded in the year 1202! The moment he arrives he's almost killed and saved by some children and a young lady. They take him to the children's crusade on its way to Jerusalem. Soon Dolf uses his modern day wit and knowledge for the good of the poor hungry and sick children. Will he ever get back to his own modern life? This is a great adaption of the book. Not completely faithful but very satisfying. The young leads, in fact, everybody is cast really well. The production looks great although some scenery is obviously computer enhanced. The story is captivating and the running time is just right. The only thing that did not satisfy me personally was the ending which was not like in the book and a bit vague. Highly recommended for children and their ( thirty-something ) parents.
I've read the book a long time ago as a kid and I remember loving it. It was exciting, it was adventurous, it had an excellent main character. It had, my favorite subject, time traveling. And it was very good and convincingly written by Thea Beckman. What more do you want?
This film is of course based on the book, thank god. It usually doesn't end up well with movies that try to stick to the story to much. I tried to imagine how this movie would be like to watch when I was twelve. I think I would have loved it! Great leading actor, I mean, which boy doesn't want to be him? Great adventures, and the story is convincing. And look at the beautiful settings it was shot in. I don't understand the 6,6. It deserves a little bit higher from my point of view.
This film is of course based on the book, thank god. It usually doesn't end up well with movies that try to stick to the story to much. I tried to imagine how this movie would be like to watch when I was twelve. I think I would have loved it! Great leading actor, I mean, which boy doesn't want to be him? Great adventures, and the story is convincing. And look at the beautiful settings it was shot in. I don't understand the 6,6. It deserves a little bit higher from my point of view.
Or, Crusade in Jeans, as the international title goes. Based on a book by a Dutch writer this film tells the story of a young Dutch guy that ends up in the middle ages after a strange incident involving a time traveling device. He ends up in the middle of the German forests and found by a group of people from a crusade. A crusade of children that is heading towards Jerusalem.
I haven't read the book and as it is a children's book I probably won't get around to doing that now so I can only comment on how it is as a film. The film plays as a children's film: little rough action, no intense drama that gets more than a few seconds of screen time. I guess I might recommend it to kids between 8 and 12 years old. Anywhere outside that range will probably be bored by it. As was I.
Being Dutch I must say I was annoyed by the fact that everyone spoke English instead of the languages that were spoken in these countries back then: Dutch and German. I was even more annoyed by the fact that quite a few actors spoke the typically heavily accented English that non-native English speakers speak. I feel the film would have been better if the spoken language had been Dutch/German. That would probably mean even less chance in other countries though.
Altogether it isn't an entirely bad film, but it is meant for a rather narrow group of people. What makes it better is the way the scenes were worked out - most of them rather attractive. Getting the amount of children they were using to do what they needed to do is a true feat that I have a high amount of respect for. Still, it isn't an attractive film that I would ever pick to watch again.
6 out of 10 kids crusading for the better world.
I haven't read the book and as it is a children's book I probably won't get around to doing that now so I can only comment on how it is as a film. The film plays as a children's film: little rough action, no intense drama that gets more than a few seconds of screen time. I guess I might recommend it to kids between 8 and 12 years old. Anywhere outside that range will probably be bored by it. As was I.
Being Dutch I must say I was annoyed by the fact that everyone spoke English instead of the languages that were spoken in these countries back then: Dutch and German. I was even more annoyed by the fact that quite a few actors spoke the typically heavily accented English that non-native English speakers speak. I feel the film would have been better if the spoken language had been Dutch/German. That would probably mean even less chance in other countries though.
Altogether it isn't an entirely bad film, but it is meant for a rather narrow group of people. What makes it better is the way the scenes were worked out - most of them rather attractive. Getting the amount of children they were using to do what they needed to do is a true feat that I have a high amount of respect for. Still, it isn't an attractive film that I would ever pick to watch again.
6 out of 10 kids crusading for the better world.
I just saw crusade in Jeans, and have to say it really impressed especially if you take in to account the low budget (12 million dollars) that the production had to deliver the epic feel. I truly hope that this movie takes of internationally so that the 2 trilogy's that she wrote can be made into really extravagant and big productions that can truly deliver the epic feel that I had when I read those books.
But back to crusade in Jeans even though some adaptations where made for the big screen it still stays very true to the original story and also delivers a great feel of the middle age period. I truly liked the way the ipod is used in the movie but also the gradual change from modern western clothing until the complete change towards middle aged clothing. There not much to improve about the movie although a thought that a couple of effects could have been done a bit more believable.
All in all a great movie to see, go see it or get it on DVD when it's released.
But back to crusade in Jeans even though some adaptations where made for the big screen it still stays very true to the original story and also delivers a great feel of the middle age period. I truly liked the way the ipod is used in the movie but also the gradual change from modern western clothing until the complete change towards middle aged clothing. There not much to improve about the movie although a thought that a couple of effects could have been done a bit more believable.
All in all a great movie to see, go see it or get it on DVD when it's released.
I waited for ages to watch this film, because as a lover of the book (which is highly recommendable for both older children and adults, in Dutch or in translation)I was afraid to be disappointed - and I was.
The director (who made some very qualitative other movies) was aiming at a younger audience than the mid teens that the book was meant for, andfor that group, he did a good job. It's an adventure film which is at the same time quite historically accurate and informative for that age group.
For me and my contemporaries who read the book in the 70s, 80s and 90s, and who think back to it with great love, the film is an abasement.
Many plot lines were changed. Some choices are understandable: women get a bigger role than they did in the book for example, technology has changed, and some parts of the story had to be left out so that the film wouldn't be too long. Some choices are less understandable, but probably sounded good when they were argued for by the scriptwriter: the main protagonist Dolf's personality has been changed substantially, many characters have been written out, new plots have been introduced. None of it works. The plot is incoherent, very unbelievable and lacks suspense.
The acting is poor.
The costumes are completely unbelievable because they are just too clean and new. The locations are also too clean. But mostly, the props annoyed me, especially the medieval paper and books - somebody learned how to make paper by hand and then reckoned that was enough to make it look medieval.
But the thing that irritated me most was the fact that the two hundred odd extras playing the children in the crusade look like happy, well-fed, healthy children in a high budget school play rather than the ill, starving, dirty, wild, desperate children that Thea Beckman portrayed so powerfully in her book.
I'm not saying they should have starved the child actors, obviously that's impossible. Nor am I saying they should have stuck to all the original twists and turns in Thea Beckman's plot, that would also have been impossible. You see, making this book into a film... is impossible.
There were a lot of bad choices made when making this film. The casting director, costume director, scriptwriter, and of course the director himself all made some bad choices. Would other choices have made for a better film? Maybe. Would they have made for a good film? No. In the end, the only important bad choice for this film was the very first one: the choice to make it.
The director (who made some very qualitative other movies) was aiming at a younger audience than the mid teens that the book was meant for, andfor that group, he did a good job. It's an adventure film which is at the same time quite historically accurate and informative for that age group.
For me and my contemporaries who read the book in the 70s, 80s and 90s, and who think back to it with great love, the film is an abasement.
Many plot lines were changed. Some choices are understandable: women get a bigger role than they did in the book for example, technology has changed, and some parts of the story had to be left out so that the film wouldn't be too long. Some choices are less understandable, but probably sounded good when they were argued for by the scriptwriter: the main protagonist Dolf's personality has been changed substantially, many characters have been written out, new plots have been introduced. None of it works. The plot is incoherent, very unbelievable and lacks suspense.
The acting is poor.
The costumes are completely unbelievable because they are just too clean and new. The locations are also too clean. But mostly, the props annoyed me, especially the medieval paper and books - somebody learned how to make paper by hand and then reckoned that was enough to make it look medieval.
But the thing that irritated me most was the fact that the two hundred odd extras playing the children in the crusade look like happy, well-fed, healthy children in a high budget school play rather than the ill, starving, dirty, wild, desperate children that Thea Beckman portrayed so powerfully in her book.
I'm not saying they should have starved the child actors, obviously that's impossible. Nor am I saying they should have stuck to all the original twists and turns in Thea Beckman's plot, that would also have been impossible. You see, making this book into a film... is impossible.
There were a lot of bad choices made when making this film. The casting director, costume director, scriptwriter, and of course the director himself all made some bad choices. Would other choices have made for a better film? Maybe. Would they have made for a good film? No. In the end, the only important bad choice for this film was the very first one: the choice to make it.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizThe film takes place in 2006 and 1212.
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Crusade in Jeans?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paesi di origine
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Crusade in Jeans
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 11.000.000 € (previsto)
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 4.782.551 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione2 ore 5 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti
Divario superiore
What is the English language plot outline for Dolf e la crociata dei bambini (2006)?
Rispondi