User reviews

This could easily be one of the best Dutch movies made so far. It is not only an amazing accomplishment because of the spectacular naval battles and special effects, but also because it manages to explain all of the historical context. And on top of that, it not only manages to tell De Ruyter's story, but also that of other important historical characters, such as Charles II, Willem III, Johan De Witt, and several others.

The movie struggles occasionally to fit all of De Ruyter's career in just one movie. And especially the first half of the movie suffers from misplaced patriotism that feels almost un-Dutch, with a lot of slow motion close ups of waving Dutch flags, and long winded speeches about freedom and liberty. It struggles with its dialog, and especially at the start it often indulges too much in spouting exposition, and in trying to remind the audience of the time period.

But those minor issues aside, this is a great film. It even takes some risks by showing Wilhelm III's blatant taste for boys over girls, and by showing the gruesome betrayal of the brothers De Witt. All of this is historically accurate, so that can't really be considered a spoiler to anyone who has bothered to read a bit of history.

The movie has a great soundtrack, and beautiful costumes, while using a lot of real locations (which have been made to look period-accurate with a little help of some CGI). At times the ships clearly look computer generated, but all of that can be forgiven because of the beautiful camera work, and an almost American-style of cinematography. This movie does not look Dutch. It looks like a Hollywood movie. And I think that makes it a lot more accessible to foreign audiences.

I recommend it.

I've always fantasized about this naval period. This movie gave me the chance to experience this strange deceptive era in theatrical form.

The young republic, striving to establish and maintain strong trading routes, are flawed by who they thought were their allies all along. Physically and mentally provoked and by three nations at once, it goes to show that a country can indeed establish itself through courage, determination and wit.

Long as the film was, I found it a wonderful experience to watch from start to finish. I didn't expect to see scenes in England, let alone ones containing the mad monarchist King James II. What a mentalist.

Many scenes featuring the Dutch King Willem II and admiral Tromp were simply captivating to the point that I felt I was actually living the moment in that era.

Michiel de Ruyter, has definitely won a place in my heart and I will definitely be watching this one again someday.

The general consensus is that Dredd is the superior adaptation of the Judge Dredd comic book hero, while the Stallone's Judge Dredd from 1995 is the inferior one. This is in part because Dredd, from 2012, gives us a more accurate and serious representation of the character from the comic books, and that much is true. The character of Judge Dredd is intended to be justice personifie: impartial, strict but fair. The movie gets that right. Karl Urban in the main role understood the character and did the comic books justice.

You can feel a big "butt" coming, don't you? The thing is, there is an assumption that the more faithful the adaptation is to the source material, the better, and that is debatable. If you're a fan of the original comic and of its main character, then this is movie will make you happy, but I think hate that mother f!@#er. As a stoic figure symbolizing justice in a world on the brink of collapse, Judge Dredd embodies the idea of "tough love" law enforcement. This raises two main issues.

1. That sure comes off as a far-right fantasy: a world full of criminals that can only be salvaged by the hard enforcement of a violent cop. You don't see this guy going around the hood trying to win some hearts and minds or try to understand the source of the problem in the society and do something about it.

The judicial apparatus employing him isn't shown building a new nursery in town. As the movie demonstrates, this guy walks issue a warning for the smallest violation (if you're lucky), and if you do not heed that warning, you're done for it.

The problem I have with the character of Judge Dredd is the same problem I have with the modern justice system as a whole: it is somehow both heartless and inept. It is a system that fails to recognize the complexities of human behaviour. It's the best solution we could come up with for a problem we can't solve.

I am not a leftist and I enjoy some right-wing fiction, but that fiction is usually based on very human principals of honour, unity, and strength. Judge Dredd comes off as a faceless creature, because that is what he is, and that is a character hard to root for.

2. This brings me to the 2nd issue. A character with little emotional range and a perpetual scowl makes for a dull protagonist. Dredd is not a boring movie, but the thrill originates from the cycle of tension and violence. There is that whole scene with a minigun doing glorious destruction, and the drug effects sure do look sparkly. However, we always get back to this face that just goes around doing his job and doesn't have any eyes. Some people praise this movie exactly for the reason that the character never takes off his mask. But you folks do realise the eyes are the key part of human communication and are often at the centre of an actor's performance?

The 1995 version of Dredd catches a lot of flak because Rob Scneider is annoying, and while I agree, I also understand that the idea behind that character was comic relief. A comic relief was invented for a reason: to lighten the otherwise bleak mood and to make the movie more entertaining. People may strongly disagree with this, but Schneider's character ultimately worked for that purpose. Dredd's sidekick in the new movie, played by Olivia Thirlby, is just a psychopath in training, starting as a human who cares and then slowly getting rid of her humanity with Dredd's guidance (though thankfully not completely succeeding at that in the end?) The 1995 version had a certain playful charm that is completely absent from Dredd.

The looks seem to be the greatest improvement over the previous adaptations. Dredd has a dark but colourful atmosphere. It looks considerably better than the plastic paradise that is the 1995 version. Something about the look of this movie reminds of the sci-fi shows from the 90s. There is a certain washed-out shininess and occasional motion blur that make it look a little...cheap. But that's just a stylistic choice, I suppose.

There is a considerable amount of subtext and exploration of morality throughout the scenes and its little details, though I think that the fans have assigned more subtext and meaning to the various scenes than there actually is. The story structure is solid. Moments introduced earlier in the movie pay off later on. In short, it is clear why this film is praised, but memorable it is not.

After an impressive trailer of the movie I was very excited to see that this movie isn't one of those low-class comedy movies with dutch films usually are.

Michiel de Ruyter is a film in which we dive into history. we are in the 17th century and see The Netherlands in a totally different way compared to modern times which leads to beautiful scenes. The acting was pretty good and Frank Lammers was very strong in this film. The special FX were of a high standard and therefore, all sea battles were incredibly spectacular to See. Although I had something a feeling that after a while some of it gets boring. The film is long but it keeps being interesting because of the storyline. The plot could have been more powerful.

Michiel de Ruyter is a Dutch film that will not disappoint but should not be reclassified as "a masterpiece." It is a film with a nice original storyline and style. 7 as a final grade.

As an American, I'm not intimately familiar with Dutch history. And that's a shame, because our concept of individual freedom is a direct descendant of the Republic's.

I had heard of De Ruyter, but this film really opened my eyes. I know it's not strictly historically accurate (no film ever is), but it inspired me to read more on Dutch history, and more about this brilliant tactician in particular.

On a different tack, I appreciated this film's superior accuracy in depicting war in the Age of Sail. I've seen too many Hollywood movies with mysterious "exploding solid iron cannonballs." "Admiral" accurately shows that the greatest danger to life & limb came from the huge oak splinters that flew in every direction when a cannonball crashed through a wooden wall.

If you enjoy historical films, and nautical adventure in particular, see this one!

a story of courage. or a lesson about politics. portrait of a great hero . or introduction to the essence of Holland national pride. a film who could remind many classic historical frescoes.and who remains seductive for the great beauty of message. because IT has the admirable gift to be the right choice for a large public. not real surprising . only good way for an inspired form of propaganda, adventure and beautiful show.

There is very little to fault in this movie, I love foreign subtitled movies and this is now in my top 5.

This is an abridged version of the Anglo/Dutch wars in the 1700s, a period I know little about. It shows the obvious bully tactics of the Royal Navy being superior, but it shows that means nothing with a good commander in charge. It also shows the political ramblings that went on behind the scenes, and although the movie tries its best to not go on an all gore quest, when it needs to the film is shocking. Specifically the assassinations of the Witt brothers, the scenes are extremely gruesome and it horrifies even more that this happened in real life.

A majority of the movie in in Dutch, but the few British scenes are in English, simply to set the tone of the movie.

The acting was flawless especially Frank Lammers who plays the title role. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone.

The only reason it looses one star is because at times the flow of the film seemed a little uneven, but for the most part extremely entertaining and insightful.

Firstly , let me start of by saying i am dutch and therefore my opinion mite be slightly biased.Secondly , although the story is of grand importance to our history and epic of scope, i was worried (mainly by the choice of director, who's previous track record includes a whole lot of terrible sequels to B movies), and the choice of dutch movie producers to almost always (like 95% of the time) go for the safe picture, that being a not too artsy or original film (mostly being comedies, romantic comedies or family films). This film looked like it was going to be another Nova Zembla, the first big scale dutch epic (not counting of course Paul verhoeven en black book, but thats different, cos its verhoeven who is more known as a Hollywood director than of dutch films) that resulted in a total yawn fest. What a terrible waste

But this one turned out to be better than expected. Tho at times the over use of Bay-isms (such as over extended slo mo shots or using the story to support the visuals and action scenes rather than the other way around ,which did make it feel like a second rate pirates of the Caribbean at times) the flow and tone of the movie worked and it was never really boring at over 2 hours. Tho from time to time the story was obviously embellished for dramatic purposes, which resulted in it again looking more like a Disney adventure movie than a true historic epic. But , with overall good performances by the entire cast( and a gorgeous soundtrack) , the movie was quite good/worked well. A pleasant surprise.

Enjoy! Evil fred

A nice attempt at telling the story of the origins of a small nation that punched well above its weight and left an indelible mark on the course of European and world history.

There is plenty of room for improvement though and especially the accents. I didn't enjoy using modern variations of the Dutch language in what was supposed to have taken place in the 17th century.

Still, worth watching.

For a little country, The Netherlands, had a mighty sea faring punch in the middle ages, mainly because they could build ships faster than any other country. Holland has endured many attempted invasions and this movie is about Michiel de Ruyter, a sailor, who became the admiral of the fleet, when three surrounding countries, England, France and Germany planned to invade and carve up the country and divide the spoils between themselves.

A piece of history that is little known and this enactment is brilliantly done. Worth a watch!

It's not the three musketeers and I'm not even sure what this is based on. Though I reckon a bit of research here, will bring up a lot of that stuff, so I won't have to bore you with that. I was a bit surprised to see this coming from Holland. On the other hand, they are a bit more free when it comes to nudity (just in case you are prude or have a general issue with that, a heads up).

The general swords play and the effects are pretty good. Unfortunately the German disc only had the dubbed version on it, so I couldn't enjoy the real actors voice and environment noise of the production. But it's still made an impression on me and the movie is really rock solid (for some maybe even more than that). The set design, the ships, everything screams a bigger budget than they actually had. Not to mention some very serious acting talent at hand ...

I just finished watching this movie and I was truly amazed how good and powerful this is. It made me to go to Wikipedia and do some reading about Michiel de Ruyter, because the things this man was able to achieve is simply nothing short of spectacular.

It really feels like those big budget Hollywood movies it has huge sea battles, great and really believable acting also the CGI is pretty good. For those who liked the character of Tywin Lannister played by Charles Dance, well you'll find him here as a King Charles II of England.

I can't recommend this movie enough, just go and watch it and you'll be amazed as well. I never give anything 10 out of 10, but this one came very close to it. Let's say 9.7.

"Michiel de Ruyter" is a historical drama depicting the last 20-ish years of his life, between the "Battle of Scheveningen" and his death. This was a very turbulance period in Dutch history: the country had just finished a brual 80-years war against the Spanish, only to be attacked by the English (multiple times) and in 1672 by the English, the French and the Germans at once (the "Rampjaar"). Nevertheless the Netherlands survived, not in the least because of the military brilliance of de Ruyter.

As a movie, it quite accurately depicts the events of those years, although somewhat condensed (for example: his children hardly age in the 20+ years between the first battle and the last battle). For non-Dutch people (and even for many Dutch people) it may be quite difficult to follow the plot. The filming is quite good and many 17-th century houses were used as filmic locations.

As for the technical side, this film is spectacular. The editing, the story, the production value as a whole is worth the time. This is one of the "epic" films that did not get it's due. So well done and a fantastic soundtrack - this is where the we lose Academy worthy people in the mix. This production was phenomenal.

As for the story, I found it a very worthy tale to tell (and surprised nobody attempted it at this level before). Due to the scope of de Ruyter's impact on this time period, the movie did move a bit quickly and (as expected) did not have time to encompass the importance and the intricate detail of the lives involved. So my only ding here is that it felt rushed in the aspects of the personal lives of Michiel and Anna. To give their emotional and political struggles justice, perhaps a mini-series would have been a more appropriate venue. You feel unsatisfied with the depth of their development. You are simply left wanting more from them.

While based on historical "fact", there are many aspects that needed further development. I wanted so much more background and detail on the characters and the political struggle that, again, a sense of rush was left and it left me sad about that.

When such an incredible production crew and and an insanely under- respected director (Roel Reiné) is given this type of budget and consulting, I feel like they were all let down by not being able to explore this topic and these characters further.

Overall, this film was absolutely spectacular! The brutal moments (for those who know) were almost too brutal to fit into the context of the rest of the story's examination. But HOLY MONKEY this film was a great breath of fresh air and and a great view inside the filmmaking from this part of the world.

A+ and huge kudos to all involved. You needed a better platform, but you made incredible value bleed from these limitations.

An emotional and thoughtful ride on a side of history that needs more exploration. Cheers to you all!

If you are a history buff, you'll get a lot out of this. If you are a film buff, you'll get even more. And if you're looking for some of the most under-appreciated talent in both screen and bts, then you've stumbled on a treasure-trove that all filmmakers should seek out.

Disturbingly well done.

The good: the leading role by Jan Lammers is the best part of this movie. His portrayal is simultaneously down to earth, real and sympathetic. A people's favorite, admired by all, this Dutch Admiral bonded adversaries in time of political upheaval and revolution.

More good; the technical details are well taken care of, with beautiful ligthing and photography. Exquisite sets and replicas of old ships further enhance the impressive visuals. The soundscore is a bit on the heavy side, but quite functional.

Any bad? Some of the supporting roles are miscast in my opinion. They dont perform bad, but simply are lacking in charisma.

All in all a really well made period piece, with enough intrigue, drama and impressive sea wars to entice anybody who loves these kind of movies.

I saw both versions (12+ and 16+) back to back in the cinema very close (just a few hundred meters) from where a lot of the history really happened (which made me go and see the parts of buildings shown in the film). I don't like Dutch movies anymore these days but this one was very moving for me and watching it twice for a total of 5 hours did not bore me for a second. It's quite moving, with great acting, powerful music and great story. There are some historical inaccuracies but it is a film so I didn't care. It makes one curious to read up on what really happened. Strange is that never was there any mention of the year in which something happened. One just had to know by heart when the "rampjaar" was and the 2-day and 4-day war with the Bitish (a trade war, not territorial). Comparing the 2 versions, it has to be said there is very little difference, just about 5 or 6 seconds cut from the 16+ version, so that there is not the one second of nudity and the final end not so bloody. That's all. I think both versions can be watched by everybody (on TV) but in cinema there are strict age limits. Go and see this for a wonderful, thrilling 2 1/2 hours! All actors are great, especially Charles Dance.

After watching this movie I was surprised to find out most reviews are positive. I guess that, if you are not a native speaker (this is a Dutch movie), it is a bit more difficult to spot the terrible acting. As a native speaker, I could hardly watch this movie without cringing. It is not for a lack of budget, every shot looks very slick at first sight. However, the delivery is awful, the acting is mostly amateurish (with the exception of Charles Dance), and the way this movie is shot (camera positing) is rather distracting (often you can't tell who is talking in a scene, because the camera angle is off). I watched this movie as a comedy: a showcase for completely impotent filmmakers and the worst set of Dutch actors The Netherlands has to offer. On behalf of the Dutch, I apologize for this movie.