ever since I was little I was apparently a big bookworm,and Crusade in Jeans was the book I devoured the most. I think I must have read it over 40 times.... so you can imagine that I was very exited about the movie. However, that level of excitement went down when I heard that they where going to put 2 of the characters into a new one, and I was afraid what would happen to the rest of the film. Would it be a Harry Potter 1 for me, when I was annoyed throughout the whole film about everything they cut&changed, or would it be a Harry Potter 4, where there where also many things cut and changed, but everything was so wonderfully done and even replaced with some fab new stuff that it didn't matter? Unfortunately, it was a Harry Potter 1. On the whole, the look of the movie is great, and it has great actors.If you haven't read the book I think it will be a enjoyable yet confusing experience. However, for me there are 2 big disappointments. The first is all of the great characters they've cut. Yes, Jenna is a wonderful girl, great actress, but I'd rather have seen both Leonardo and Mariecke. They are not the only characters that are missing, Peter, Frank, Father Johannes and many others. I also don't see the point of someone as Vick. Anselmus is awful enough on his own, he doesn't need an evil sidekick. Also, Father Johannes opposite Aselmus showed exactly what a bad character the latter has. Johannes was on the bad side too, but he repented and the children always liked him. Also, I think the brotherly protective feelings Dolf has for Mariecke are a big part of why he's so concerned with the children of the crusade. The original characters where a big part of the book, and I feel they should have been in the film. The second is that you don't really see the change that Dolf made to the crusade. He reorganised the whole crusade, giving each child a task they themselves could choose, regardless of status. This was unheard of at that time, yet it changed the children from obedient slaves into people with self confidence and a sense of unity. In the book you can see it very well by the change in characters such as Mariecke and Peter. I think this was a very important part of the book, that Dolf brings 20th century ideas to the middle ages, yet I didn't see that in the film. Overall, visually it looked very good and the actors that do appear are very good, and even I must admit that I like the change of the "process" from before the alps too the genua shore, but I hoped they'd be more true to the book. a bit of a disappointment for a crusade in jeans fan...
23 Reviews
Pleasant and Entertaining Adventure
claudio_carvalho25 June 2011
In the end of the sub-seventeen soccer game between Holland and Belgium, the selfish teenager Rudolf "Dolf" Vega (Joe Flynn) does not assist another player and loses the goal and the classification of the Durch team. He feels bad and when he meets his mother Mary Vega (Emily Watson), who is researching a prototype time machine, in the laboratory, he decides to return in time to fix the game.
He steals the access card of his mother and during the night, he breaks in the laboratory. However, he does not fit the correct date in the display and he is sent to 1212. He is attacked by marauders but he is saved by the young Jenne (Stephanie Leonidas), who is skilled in sling and is traveling through the forest to join The Children's Cuzade to Jerusalem. Dolf puts a milestone on the spot and follows Jenne and her friends. Sooner they join the Cruzade that is led by Father Anselmus (Michael Culkin) and a group of young noblemen. Dolf names himself Rudolf, the Duke of Rotterdam, and is assigned to take care of the children. When Dolf misses the chance to return home and is stranded in the Thirteenth Century, he follows the Cruzade and discovers the treacherous plan of Anselmus of selling the children to slave traders. But how can he convince the children that their charismatic leader is a traitor?
"Kruistocht in Spijkerbroek" is a Dutch-Belgian-Luxembourgish-German production with a pleasant and entertaining adventure. The story has flaws, the conclusion is weak, the CGI and costumes are very simple but the film is highly attractive for children and also for adults. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "Cruzada, Uma Jornada Através dos Tempos" ("Crusade, A Journey through Time")
He steals the access card of his mother and during the night, he breaks in the laboratory. However, he does not fit the correct date in the display and he is sent to 1212. He is attacked by marauders but he is saved by the young Jenne (Stephanie Leonidas), who is skilled in sling and is traveling through the forest to join The Children's Cuzade to Jerusalem. Dolf puts a milestone on the spot and follows Jenne and her friends. Sooner they join the Cruzade that is led by Father Anselmus (Michael Culkin) and a group of young noblemen. Dolf names himself Rudolf, the Duke of Rotterdam, and is assigned to take care of the children. When Dolf misses the chance to return home and is stranded in the Thirteenth Century, he follows the Cruzade and discovers the treacherous plan of Anselmus of selling the children to slave traders. But how can he convince the children that their charismatic leader is a traitor?
"Kruistocht in Spijkerbroek" is a Dutch-Belgian-Luxembourgish-German production with a pleasant and entertaining adventure. The story has flaws, the conclusion is weak, the CGI and costumes are very simple but the film is highly attractive for children and also for adults. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "Cruzada, Uma Jornada Através dos Tempos" ("Crusade, A Journey through Time")
Kruistoch in Spijkerbroek
rajdoctor7 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was running in top 5 movies since 1 month in Amsterdam, and that interested me. It is made by a renowned Dutch Director - who has taken a big canvas and made a movie - based on a most famous Dutch novel.
The story is about a boy - who due to his failure to pass the ball in a football game is taunted by his friends. Feeling guilty and wanting the re-live the football match again, uses the time-machine to go back by 12 hours. In a hurry instead of 12 hours he goes back to 1202 AD.
It is a fictional story - created on Bibilical theme, when Saint Nicholas is walking with thousands of small children from Europe to Jerusalam - hoping that when the sea will come - as it parted for Moses - it will part for them too leading them to Jerusalam. But in this game - there is an evil character whose plan is to sell the children in slave market.
Our hero, who is helped by the heroine - helps the crusade's walk and exposes the evil. He wants to come back with the heroine but is not able to come. The movie ends up when he with the permission of his mother going back to 1202 AD.
The movie is set perfectly - costumes are good. The problems are the actors - they look amateurish, right from the theatre - who try their best to act - but do not deliver as expected.
This movie is a children's fantasy movie and is very popular in Netherlands. It has also got an international release with English Dubbing. Luckily I was able to see the movie in English with Dutch sub-titles.
Overall the movie is okay - could have been better.
The story is about a boy - who due to his failure to pass the ball in a football game is taunted by his friends. Feeling guilty and wanting the re-live the football match again, uses the time-machine to go back by 12 hours. In a hurry instead of 12 hours he goes back to 1202 AD.
It is a fictional story - created on Bibilical theme, when Saint Nicholas is walking with thousands of small children from Europe to Jerusalam - hoping that when the sea will come - as it parted for Moses - it will part for them too leading them to Jerusalam. But in this game - there is an evil character whose plan is to sell the children in slave market.
Our hero, who is helped by the heroine - helps the crusade's walk and exposes the evil. He wants to come back with the heroine but is not able to come. The movie ends up when he with the permission of his mother going back to 1202 AD.
The movie is set perfectly - costumes are good. The problems are the actors - they look amateurish, right from the theatre - who try their best to act - but do not deliver as expected.
This movie is a children's fantasy movie and is very popular in Netherlands. It has also got an international release with English Dubbing. Luckily I was able to see the movie in English with Dutch sub-titles.
Overall the movie is okay - could have been better.
Nice, but the book was better
keesssie26 December 2006
I went to this movie with 3 of my friends, and I would lie if I said it was great. Though, most of the characters and story lines in the book had been replaced and I thought that was pityful.. For example, the character Leonardo doesn't appear in the book and the entire ending has been replaced. Let me explain; the movie ends at the most inpleasent timing when your really ín the movie, and that kind of sucks. Your expecting a hell of a lot adventures more, when suddenly the credits appear on screen (great credits by the way, they look great =D).If you read the book, I would be a fool to say you should not go to the movie, since my dad is the producer :-P. Take your time to watch it, just don't get to much expectations.
"Crusades : a march through time" is a passable and acceptable adventure/science fiction movie based on facts about 1212 Children's Crusade led by Nicolas
ma-cortes16 March 2020
A young teenager named Dolf Vega : Johnny Flynn, is transported by means of a travel machine, newly built by his beloved mother: Emily Watson, going to Middle Age , 1212, and there he sets out to join a children's crusade led by Nicolas : Robert Timmins, who formerly had a Christ vision that told him to carry out a divine expedition towards Jerusalem to defeat Muslims who invaded Holy Land . Along the way Dolf meets a beautiful girl called Jenne : Stephanie Leonidas. Dolf swears duty to protect them and decides that safety of the unfortunate children will be assured at whatever means. But the children are deceived when the organizer priest, Anselmus : Michael Culkin, attempts to sell them as slaves.
Adventure movie with a lot of time travels, feats, fights, action and spectacular battles, in which a contemporary teen wandering throughout a medieval scenario. There's another 1987 film concerning similar deeds, a Children's Crusade, it was "Lionheart" by Franklyn J Schaffner that resulted to be a real flop at boxoffice. This Crusade in Jeans is finely starred by Johnny Flynn as the adolescent who ends up in a Children Crusade where he confronts enemies by using modern techniques and learning the Crusade seems to be harder and trickier than he ever imagined . Being based on the succesful novel written by the Dutch Thea Beckman who gives a vivid character on the protagonist Dolf Vega well acted by Johnny Flynn . He is well accompanied by the valiant Jenne: Stefanie Leonidas with whom he falls in love, Emily Watson as his intimate mummy, Michael Kulkin as the nasty priest, Benno Furmann as a good friar, Herbert Knaup as a scientific, Robert Timmins as Nicolas, the cult actor Udo Kier, among others. This Netherland/ Belgium/Luxembourg was professionally directed by Ben Sombogaart.
The picture is partially based on historical events, succeeded after fourth Crusade, these are as follows : the historians tell about two possible Children Crusades, the first began in Germany when a German shepherd led about 7000 young people crossing Italian Alps and arriving in Genova, but many of them deserted or were abducted or sold as slaves, as in Europe as in far countries, as Alexandria, Egypt. Other history deals with thousands of children, around 20.000, led by a very young French shepherd called Esteban De Cloyes from Chateaudun and arriving in Saint Denis. Meant for kids, it turns out to be a decent, enjoyable and agreeable film. Rating 6.5/10. Worthwhile watching.
Other movies dealing with Crusades are the following ones : The Crusades by Cecil B DeMille with Henry Wilonson, Loretta Young, Ian Hunter. King Richard and the Crusaders by David Swift with Laurence Harvey, Rex Harrison, Virginia Mayo, George Sanders. Lionheart 1987 by Franklyn J Schaffner with Eric Stolz, Talia Shire, Dexter Flecher, Nicholas Clay, Deborah Moore, Gabriel Byrne. Kingdom of heaven 2005 by Ridley Scott by Orlando Bloom, Lian Neeson, Eva Greene, Michael Sheen, Bernard Gleeson.
Adventure movie with a lot of time travels, feats, fights, action and spectacular battles, in which a contemporary teen wandering throughout a medieval scenario. There's another 1987 film concerning similar deeds, a Children's Crusade, it was "Lionheart" by Franklyn J Schaffner that resulted to be a real flop at boxoffice. This Crusade in Jeans is finely starred by Johnny Flynn as the adolescent who ends up in a Children Crusade where he confronts enemies by using modern techniques and learning the Crusade seems to be harder and trickier than he ever imagined . Being based on the succesful novel written by the Dutch Thea Beckman who gives a vivid character on the protagonist Dolf Vega well acted by Johnny Flynn . He is well accompanied by the valiant Jenne: Stefanie Leonidas with whom he falls in love, Emily Watson as his intimate mummy, Michael Kulkin as the nasty priest, Benno Furmann as a good friar, Herbert Knaup as a scientific, Robert Timmins as Nicolas, the cult actor Udo Kier, among others. This Netherland/ Belgium/Luxembourg was professionally directed by Ben Sombogaart.
The picture is partially based on historical events, succeeded after fourth Crusade, these are as follows : the historians tell about two possible Children Crusades, the first began in Germany when a German shepherd led about 7000 young people crossing Italian Alps and arriving in Genova, but many of them deserted or were abducted or sold as slaves, as in Europe as in far countries, as Alexandria, Egypt. Other history deals with thousands of children, around 20.000, led by a very young French shepherd called Esteban De Cloyes from Chateaudun and arriving in Saint Denis. Meant for kids, it turns out to be a decent, enjoyable and agreeable film. Rating 6.5/10. Worthwhile watching.
Other movies dealing with Crusades are the following ones : The Crusades by Cecil B DeMille with Henry Wilonson, Loretta Young, Ian Hunter. King Richard and the Crusaders by David Swift with Laurence Harvey, Rex Harrison, Virginia Mayo, George Sanders. Lionheart 1987 by Franklyn J Schaffner with Eric Stolz, Talia Shire, Dexter Flecher, Nicholas Clay, Deborah Moore, Gabriel Byrne. Kingdom of heaven 2005 by Ridley Scott by Orlando Bloom, Lian Neeson, Eva Greene, Michael Sheen, Bernard Gleeson.
Might be fun for 8 to 12 year old kids
LazySod28 November 2006
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.
Ouch....
van_dijk_anne4 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
##Possible Spoilers##
Wow... how does one manage to totally s**w up the film adaptation of one of the most awesome and loved children's books (well in Holland anyway)? Basically by changing the story, leaving out all the best loved characters and turning it into a romance movie... Thea Beckman wrote a story about friendship, perseverance, hardship and love. The movie just left out all the characters that made this be. Where's Frank with his total loyalty? Where's Peter with his awesome toughness?? Where's Leonardo with his wry sense of humor? Where's Mariecke who became symbolic of Dolf's love of the other children, his need to protect them, his wake-up call to the hardships of medieval life? I mean where are my darn characters? Where's my darn story?? The budget was small yes, but that shouldn't have been a problem. This adaptation was never supposed to be about looks and special effects. Romance wasn't part of the friggin' deal. It should have been about a 15 year old who finds himself in an impossible situation. Who met honorable people and who gave something back. The whole point of the book was not that the 20th century rocked and how we've got all kinds of cool gadgets. It was about what we've learned from the past (like responsibility and individual talent) and what we've forgotten (a sense of community feeling, loyalty, togetherness). I guess I'm saying that for someone who's read the book this adaptation is just not the way it went down. Please if you haven't read the book don't let my review get in the way of enjoying it or hating it (like it could do that either way ;)), but i just saw my most beloved children's book get s***wd. Imangine if Charlotte got together with Wilbur at some point in the movie adaption. That just wrong and that's what they did with this movie!
Wow... how does one manage to totally s**w up the film adaptation of one of the most awesome and loved children's books (well in Holland anyway)? Basically by changing the story, leaving out all the best loved characters and turning it into a romance movie... Thea Beckman wrote a story about friendship, perseverance, hardship and love. The movie just left out all the characters that made this be. Where's Frank with his total loyalty? Where's Peter with his awesome toughness?? Where's Leonardo with his wry sense of humor? Where's Mariecke who became symbolic of Dolf's love of the other children, his need to protect them, his wake-up call to the hardships of medieval life? I mean where are my darn characters? Where's my darn story?? The budget was small yes, but that shouldn't have been a problem. This adaptation was never supposed to be about looks and special effects. Romance wasn't part of the friggin' deal. It should have been about a 15 year old who finds himself in an impossible situation. Who met honorable people and who gave something back. The whole point of the book was not that the 20th century rocked and how we've got all kinds of cool gadgets. It was about what we've learned from the past (like responsibility and individual talent) and what we've forgotten (a sense of community feeling, loyalty, togetherness). I guess I'm saying that for someone who's read the book this adaptation is just not the way it went down. Please if you haven't read the book don't let my review get in the way of enjoying it or hating it (like it could do that either way ;)), but i just saw my most beloved children's book get s***wd. Imangine if Charlotte got together with Wilbur at some point in the movie adaption. That just wrong and that's what they did with this movie!
Good for children 8 - 14, but if you read and loved the book: DON'T WATCH IT!
kes_is_lief12 April 2008
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.
A great variation on the book!
Joejoesan24 October 2006
Crusade in Jeans is one of the most popular Dutch children's books. There have been plans for a movie for several years now, but due to the budget it was never realized. Until now. Ben Sombogaart, Foreign Movie Oscar nominee for Twin Sisters, directed a solid, exciting and even moving version of the book. Even more praiseworthy: the budget was only about 10 million euros (12 million dollars)!
This English spoken movie is about 16 year old Dolf Wega (a great Joe Flynn). He just screwed up an important soccer match and wants to use the scientific experiment of his mother - a time machine - to go back in time to fix it. Unfortunately he types in the wrong data and arrives in the year 1212. He almost gets mugged by two thieves but he's rescued by Jenne (Stephanie Leonidas). He joins a children's crusade heading for Jerusalem and with his modern wit and responsibility he becomes the actual leader of the group. But what are the real plans of the people who organized this crusade? And why are they heading for Genoa in Italy instead of Israel?
Compared to the book director Sombogaart took the liberty of changing a lot. Jenna wasn't in the book for example. Neither was the soccer play. But all these changes work out fine. The Dolf from the book was almost a super being. But in the movie he's much more human: he's afraid, venerable and not that strong physically. If you filmed all the scenes from the book you'd have a movie that lasted about 4 hours. Now it runs a little longer than two. Although we were watching a version that wasn't 100 percent finished some of the special effects were lacking, the soundtrack needed more music I was pleasantly surprised by the scope of the movie. There were some SFX scenes with big crowds giving the movie an epic feel, but most of the time Sombogaart kept the action small. And that worked out fine because of the way the actors performed. Both Joe Flynn (Dolf) and Stephanie Leonidas (Jenne) were great. There's a real chemistry between the two, making you really care for the characters. And of course there's Emily Watson, giving a great performance as Dolf's mother.
So was it a flawless movie? No, some things could have been better. The building up to the end for example, realizing why the crusade was really organized. That could've used a little more suspense. The look of the streets in the Middle Ages: it all looked too clean to me. But then again, I have never been there myself.
But the piece de resistance was really the moving ending. It differs a lot from the book, emphasizing the fact that they're actually two different things. Unlike other films I know I will still pick up the book again to read it. This movie hasn't spoiled that for me. Crusade in Jeans is a great movie that everybody should see. I sincerely hope that it will also be released in the States and England, because this film deserves to be successful. Go check it out when you have the opportunity!
This English spoken movie is about 16 year old Dolf Wega (a great Joe Flynn). He just screwed up an important soccer match and wants to use the scientific experiment of his mother - a time machine - to go back in time to fix it. Unfortunately he types in the wrong data and arrives in the year 1212. He almost gets mugged by two thieves but he's rescued by Jenne (Stephanie Leonidas). He joins a children's crusade heading for Jerusalem and with his modern wit and responsibility he becomes the actual leader of the group. But what are the real plans of the people who organized this crusade? And why are they heading for Genoa in Italy instead of Israel?
Compared to the book director Sombogaart took the liberty of changing a lot. Jenna wasn't in the book for example. Neither was the soccer play. But all these changes work out fine. The Dolf from the book was almost a super being. But in the movie he's much more human: he's afraid, venerable and not that strong physically. If you filmed all the scenes from the book you'd have a movie that lasted about 4 hours. Now it runs a little longer than two. Although we were watching a version that wasn't 100 percent finished some of the special effects were lacking, the soundtrack needed more music I was pleasantly surprised by the scope of the movie. There were some SFX scenes with big crowds giving the movie an epic feel, but most of the time Sombogaart kept the action small. And that worked out fine because of the way the actors performed. Both Joe Flynn (Dolf) and Stephanie Leonidas (Jenne) were great. There's a real chemistry between the two, making you really care for the characters. And of course there's Emily Watson, giving a great performance as Dolf's mother.
So was it a flawless movie? No, some things could have been better. The building up to the end for example, realizing why the crusade was really organized. That could've used a little more suspense. The look of the streets in the Middle Ages: it all looked too clean to me. But then again, I have never been there myself.
But the piece de resistance was really the moving ending. It differs a lot from the book, emphasizing the fact that they're actually two different things. Unlike other films I know I will still pick up the book again to read it. This movie hasn't spoiled that for me. Crusade in Jeans is a great movie that everybody should see. I sincerely hope that it will also be released in the States and England, because this film deserves to be successful. Go check it out when you have the opportunity!
bad adaption of a good book
clytamnestra20 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
very bad adaptation of a very good book. the lady who wrote the book (Thea Beckman) said she did not like this movie and i can only agree.
in the book Dolf is a strong person who tries to do sensible things given that he is stranded in the middle ages. in the movie he's a totally uninteresting whiny little brad, mostly concerned with his own superiority over these primitive people.
in the book he eventually resigns himself to being stuck in the middle-ages for the rest of his life, in the movie it is clear all the time he will be rescued, taking away all tension (and i just want to forget about the ultra-clichéd Hollywood-style 'he has to take a pill every day and only has like 5 pills')
In the book Dolf makes friends with some of the people he meets. in the movie the only person of interest is some girl with the brains of a peanut. (it's a kid's movie dammit, which pedophile ever thought they really needed to cram some romance in it?)
in the book he goes back in time out of scientific curiosity, in the movie it's because he can't handle loosing some stupid socker game.
in the book he gets things done with his intelligence, being a leader because he has earned the respect of his comrades, in the movie: no intelligence, no hard earned respect.
I liked almost all of Thea Beckman's books and if this is the way the movie-industry treats them i just hope the rest of her stories will be kept of the screen and in the hands of people who do not feel like reading a book once in a while is to much of an effort.
in the book Dolf is a strong person who tries to do sensible things given that he is stranded in the middle ages. in the movie he's a totally uninteresting whiny little brad, mostly concerned with his own superiority over these primitive people.
in the book he eventually resigns himself to being stuck in the middle-ages for the rest of his life, in the movie it is clear all the time he will be rescued, taking away all tension (and i just want to forget about the ultra-clichéd Hollywood-style 'he has to take a pill every day and only has like 5 pills')
In the book Dolf makes friends with some of the people he meets. in the movie the only person of interest is some girl with the brains of a peanut. (it's a kid's movie dammit, which pedophile ever thought they really needed to cram some romance in it?)
in the book he goes back in time out of scientific curiosity, in the movie it's because he can't handle loosing some stupid socker game.
in the book he gets things done with his intelligence, being a leader because he has earned the respect of his comrades, in the movie: no intelligence, no hard earned respect.
I liked almost all of Thea Beckman's books and if this is the way the movie-industry treats them i just hope the rest of her stories will be kept of the screen and in the hands of people who do not feel like reading a book once in a while is to much of an effort.
Not even a Nice try..
popdrome14 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Has this movie been directed? Short answer: no.
Obviously the director tried, but failed miserably. This is a movie made by consensus and the result is the product of lack of leadership.
Worse. The result is an absurd piece of non-art. This movie is so full of mistakes that it's almost (I said almost) a joy to watch. It lacks coherence, probability, it lacks a proper cast, decent movie score, there's horrible editing, plot holes, visual mistakes and everything (I mean everything) seems out of place.
One of the most blatant mistakes is the casting. The main actor has the charisma of a shoe. He's supposed to portray a 15 year old but looks ten years older and there's no character development.
The story is about a crusade of 8000 children. One question: where are they? All I see is a handful of extra's. I assure you: that's pure ridicule.
In one scene there's ships on the sea, the next they're gone. The fighting scenes have the absurdity of monty python. There's daylight scenes with night scenes edit inbetween. I could go on and on.
A fifteen year old knows how to make dynamite? Out of bird poop? 13th century children sing Queen's "We Are The Champions"? A mobile phone battery lasting weeks? Three months worth of medicine in a tube the size of a pencil? One boy baking 10,000 breads? In one night? Is there any logic?
And I haven't mentioned the biggest problem yet: the marketing. First of all what market? Dutch? German? English speaking European countries? Secondly, who was this intended for? Children (don't think so because of the 9yo age limit). Teens? Doubt it, my grandma tells cooler stories. Bored housewives and -fathers? It's so obvious the producers had no clue what they were making, so they probably aimed it at all of the above.
Poor souls.
I'm sure they tried. They had meetings. Lots of meetings. They must have discussed everything, leaving the artists empty handed, or worse, "managed".
Tell you what, they didn't manage.
They failed. Totally.
Obviously the director tried, but failed miserably. This is a movie made by consensus and the result is the product of lack of leadership.
Worse. The result is an absurd piece of non-art. This movie is so full of mistakes that it's almost (I said almost) a joy to watch. It lacks coherence, probability, it lacks a proper cast, decent movie score, there's horrible editing, plot holes, visual mistakes and everything (I mean everything) seems out of place.
One of the most blatant mistakes is the casting. The main actor has the charisma of a shoe. He's supposed to portray a 15 year old but looks ten years older and there's no character development.
The story is about a crusade of 8000 children. One question: where are they? All I see is a handful of extra's. I assure you: that's pure ridicule.
In one scene there's ships on the sea, the next they're gone. The fighting scenes have the absurdity of monty python. There's daylight scenes with night scenes edit inbetween. I could go on and on.
A fifteen year old knows how to make dynamite? Out of bird poop? 13th century children sing Queen's "We Are The Champions"? A mobile phone battery lasting weeks? Three months worth of medicine in a tube the size of a pencil? One boy baking 10,000 breads? In one night? Is there any logic?
And I haven't mentioned the biggest problem yet: the marketing. First of all what market? Dutch? German? English speaking European countries? Secondly, who was this intended for? Children (don't think so because of the 9yo age limit). Teens? Doubt it, my grandma tells cooler stories. Bored housewives and -fathers? It's so obvious the producers had no clue what they were making, so they probably aimed it at all of the above.
Poor souls.
I'm sure they tried. They had meetings. Lots of meetings. They must have discussed everything, leaving the artists empty handed, or worse, "managed".
Tell you what, they didn't manage.
They failed. Totally.
not recommended to those who love the original book
poops-mcghee30 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I've read the book when I was a little boy, read it again when I became an adult and read it a few times more during my adulthood. After I read it again a few weeks ago, I stumbled on the DVD. Nicely packed, comes with a DVD containing extra's and a PC game. But after watching the movie I really felt like tossing it out again as quick as I can. It starts out totally different from what's written years ago. The main characters are quite far off the ones they are in the book also, which does change the whole story significantly. I couldn't find any sensible traces of how Dolf(coming from the future) actually used his nowadays knowledge to constructively help out the children's crusade on their long path to certain doom. There are hardly any signs of Dolf struggling with the authority of the Priest Anselmus (yet another crucial thing in the original story). This filmmaker would make Thea Beckman (the original writer) turn in her grave if she would be able to watch the movie in her afterlife. Dolf is not the kind of heroic boy in the movie at all, strange new characters pop up, filling in roles which aren't supposed to be there at all and mainly twist the original into an ugly looking toilet paper story. This is by far the most awful translation from book to movie I've ever seen. Simply horrible. I just wish I'd never seen it........... For all of those who really love the book (and know it from childhood like I do) steer clear from this production even though the package might catch your attention.
great adaption of classic dutch book
dutchthea16 November 2006
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.
why did I even waste my time on this.
Calibanhagseed20 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Yes, what a great adaptation. It really captured the essence of the book; long winded tedium. Well, at least it didn't have the kid wearing flair-pants jeans like you would expect from such drivel that finds it's macramé sensibilities from that inane decade; the seventies. If it wasn't for the appearance of Jan Decleir -Who is like the only classically trained Actor the Benelux has- I actually would have risen from my seat during the screening, and cried: What am I doin' here! (I viewed the movie-screening with some friends who asked me along) This book stole precious hours of my life, and now I murder time, that I could have spent in the pub. Oh, yes. Alsemus is a wimp by the way, I mean who gets himself killed by a bunch of kids. And if my kid would deliberately loose a soccer match, I would give him high praise.
Now I'm going to watch "Lionheart" which is a far superior film about a young man confronted with the harsh realities of the crusades.
Yes,of course it is a better film, it's not dutch.
Now I'm going to watch "Lionheart" which is a far superior film about a young man confronted with the harsh realities of the crusades.
Yes,of course it is a better film, it's not dutch.
Please, never destroy a good story again
duco-613 June 2008
Well, my vote says it all...
I read the book as a child, well, I listened and my parents read it to me... And it was a great, moving and touching story.
But the Dutch movie-industry did the same to it as what they have done with Floris the TV series , they made an awful movie out of it.
I hate it because: -The plot was changed -important characters were cut out -every excitement was banned -they even put a 15th century armour on the one of the villains...
I loved the artwork at the end of the movie.
Please, Please, Please never F****ck up a good story again, Dutch filmmakers.....
Now they are working on making a movie of "Brief aan de Koning" (Letter to the King) - another great book about a boy who got a mission, just on the evening before he would be knighted....
I hope Pieter Verhoef will make a decent movie for a change.
I read the book as a child, well, I listened and my parents read it to me... And it was a great, moving and touching story.
But the Dutch movie-industry did the same to it as what they have done with Floris the TV series , they made an awful movie out of it.
I hate it because: -The plot was changed -important characters were cut out -every excitement was banned -they even put a 15th century armour on the one of the villains...
I loved the artwork at the end of the movie.
Please, Please, Please never F****ck up a good story again, Dutch filmmakers.....
Now they are working on making a movie of "Brief aan de Koning" (Letter to the King) - another great book about a boy who got a mission, just on the evening before he would be knighted....
I hope Pieter Verhoef will make a decent movie for a change.
umm.... why?
amb1269025 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Im watching this as I type... and its dumb. I know it supposedly based off a children's book,and i never read it, but this does not stand as a good movie.
The characters are annoying. I don't know if its pushing religion through the female lead, or if its making fun of people who follow religion blindly.
And yes, i get it, he's from the present, he's a fish out of water. Its been done. Countlessly. Kid in King Arthur's Court, Bill and Ted, we've seen it. A lot.
Oh, and he trades in an MP3 player for bread supplies? and it plays We Are the Champions? Thats just... more dumb.
Kids look too healthy.
Acting is really dumb.
Cliché Characters.. REALLY cliché.
No one is likable.
Female lead is kinda cute. kinda.
The characters are annoying. I don't know if its pushing religion through the female lead, or if its making fun of people who follow religion blindly.
And yes, i get it, he's from the present, he's a fish out of water. Its been done. Countlessly. Kid in King Arthur's Court, Bill and Ted, we've seen it. A lot.
Oh, and he trades in an MP3 player for bread supplies? and it plays We Are the Champions? Thats just... more dumb.
Kids look too healthy.
Acting is really dumb.
Cliché Characters.. REALLY cliché.
No one is likable.
Female lead is kinda cute. kinda.
Awfull, cringing
Kushrenada19 April 2020
I've read the book, this was nothing like it. Just banking on the name recognition to get people to watch it.
The book story is about friendship, loyalty, growing up and so much more...
This film adaptation is incredibly bad. The characters are dumb and unlikable. The conversations are unbelievable, even the actors don't believe what they are saying. And you never get to see any of the characters grow into friendship or love. The storyline jumps from one shot to another, often overlayed with music that makes it even more unrelatable.
The worst part: a 5 second piece showing the crossing of the Alps by showing some kids struggling in the snow. Next image, we're crossed and the sun shines again. OMG, has anyone read the book? Even the scarlet death gets under 2 minutes of screen time. After all, who cares about sick children? There's no action there, right? Stop the march, heal, next scene.
They just took the 'action' parts of the book. Common deaths are brushed off in a few seconds, sometimes with some crying, just to cut to the next scene. But learning to swordfight and showing fights gets all the attention. Yes, that's important.
Worst adaptation ever. Director, get another job and stay away from film making, please!
Worst adaptation ever. Director, get another job and stay away from film making, please!
Great Children's story
tvalstar9918 June 2007
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.
Great movie, displays the potential of the Thea Beckman books for great movies.
Bernie-14118 November 2006
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.
Kruistocht in Spijkerbroek
hd-ml21 November 2006
Kruistocht in Spijkerbroek is filmed by a predominantly English cast and with a for Dutch standards large budget; although it is not a Dutch but an international co-production. The result is a film with an international look and feel, and has an appeal for both adults that have read (or not) the well-known book with the same name by the author Thea Beckman. As the book has a very short introduction as well as quite an abrupt ending, the movie has added both a genuine introduction for the lead character to go to the past and also dealt with the end being less abrupt. But also without having read the book the film itself is a very entertaining family film where both parents but also the children can be entertained. It's quite a long film with a total playing time of over 2 hours but never has a dull moment with good digital graphics.
Kid gets sent accidentally too far into the past and ends up helping an army of children.
italiansweetie19857 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I have read the other comments here and unlike most of the people who spoke up, I have not read the book. So, here's an unbiased opinion of the movie, by itself, as a movie.
First off, I loved the actors. They got across the right feel of their characters and I didn't even guess who the bad guy was until halfway through the film. Yes, this is more of a kids movie, a kind of fairy tale myth, but I felt that it was more than good enough to sit and watch, even with my views on religion.
Someone mentioned that the kids didn't look like they were starving, but I say that they did when they were supposed to. They stopped looking starved when Dolf was able to convince the people in charge to let him help. No, it didn't show him sectioning the kids into groups and teaching them what to do, and that disappointed me because they went to all that trouble, lying about who he was and standing up to the bullies, and we didn't get to see the immediate results. But, we do see the ending result of the kids looking healthier, happier, and better all around.
No show of Dolf's intelligence? He convinced Nicholas to let them do several important things, convinced the Lord to let them take grain enough to bake bread till sunrise. Traded his IPod to get the baker to help them, figured out who the bad guy was in the end. Remembered to put a marker in the spot where the time warp spot was. Do you really think all that doesn't show his intelligence and the respect he earned? He may not be the Dolf from the book, but for the movie he's a great character. Part of the point of a movie - of any story, really, but in movies its shown more - is the growing of a character. Dolf does start off a bit of a brat, a bit whiny. But he learns and grows, and in the process alters history for the better. What more could you ask for in this kind of story.
Considering that they used a relatively cheap budget - 12 million dollars (which is a great amount of money but NOT when it comes to movie-making nowadays) - The scenery and what few special effects they used were fantastic, and although SOME parts of the movie did look and feel too clean -- I don't think people bathed too too regularly back then -- on a whole because of the costume design, set dressings and set design (and the props, can't forget the awesome staff of Nicholas), I did feel like I was somewhere in the 13th century.
The problem with reading something for years and years and finally seeing that childhood favorite turned into a movie, is that it's never the same. Most often the movie is based on the book, but loosely. I have learned to take the movie as itself and not as a copy of the book.
My only REAL problem with this movie, is the ending; Dolf goes back to save Jenna, but you don't see it happen. It's a let down. All you see is him changing the outcome of the game, and her being there. It doesn't show him triumphing over the bad guys and bringing her home. I was very disappointed, as throughout the entire movie I had enjoyed every moment.
Oh, and one more thing. There was a comment on here about why'd they have to add romantic interest into a kids story. He's 16 years old, and this isn't JUST aimed at kids, it's aimed at teens too and even some adults, such as myself, would watch it. 16 year old boys tend to have at least SOME interest in girls (or boys, depending), you should have expected it.
To sum up, the movie was great up until the ending... Which was a disappointment, but not all that BAD. I liked the movie for itself, and now I plan to find the book eventually and read it. Voted 9 because of the slightly too clean settings, clothes, and people, and because of the horribly disappointing ending.
First off, I loved the actors. They got across the right feel of their characters and I didn't even guess who the bad guy was until halfway through the film. Yes, this is more of a kids movie, a kind of fairy tale myth, but I felt that it was more than good enough to sit and watch, even with my views on religion.
Someone mentioned that the kids didn't look like they were starving, but I say that they did when they were supposed to. They stopped looking starved when Dolf was able to convince the people in charge to let him help. No, it didn't show him sectioning the kids into groups and teaching them what to do, and that disappointed me because they went to all that trouble, lying about who he was and standing up to the bullies, and we didn't get to see the immediate results. But, we do see the ending result of the kids looking healthier, happier, and better all around.
No show of Dolf's intelligence? He convinced Nicholas to let them do several important things, convinced the Lord to let them take grain enough to bake bread till sunrise. Traded his IPod to get the baker to help them, figured out who the bad guy was in the end. Remembered to put a marker in the spot where the time warp spot was. Do you really think all that doesn't show his intelligence and the respect he earned? He may not be the Dolf from the book, but for the movie he's a great character. Part of the point of a movie - of any story, really, but in movies its shown more - is the growing of a character. Dolf does start off a bit of a brat, a bit whiny. But he learns and grows, and in the process alters history for the better. What more could you ask for in this kind of story.
Considering that they used a relatively cheap budget - 12 million dollars (which is a great amount of money but NOT when it comes to movie-making nowadays) - The scenery and what few special effects they used were fantastic, and although SOME parts of the movie did look and feel too clean -- I don't think people bathed too too regularly back then -- on a whole because of the costume design, set dressings and set design (and the props, can't forget the awesome staff of Nicholas), I did feel like I was somewhere in the 13th century.
The problem with reading something for years and years and finally seeing that childhood favorite turned into a movie, is that it's never the same. Most often the movie is based on the book, but loosely. I have learned to take the movie as itself and not as a copy of the book.
My only REAL problem with this movie, is the ending; Dolf goes back to save Jenna, but you don't see it happen. It's a let down. All you see is him changing the outcome of the game, and her being there. It doesn't show him triumphing over the bad guys and bringing her home. I was very disappointed, as throughout the entire movie I had enjoyed every moment.
Oh, and one more thing. There was a comment on here about why'd they have to add romantic interest into a kids story. He's 16 years old, and this isn't JUST aimed at kids, it's aimed at teens too and even some adults, such as myself, would watch it. 16 year old boys tend to have at least SOME interest in girls (or boys, depending), you should have expected it.
To sum up, the movie was great up until the ending... Which was a disappointment, but not all that BAD. I liked the movie for itself, and now I plan to find the book eventually and read it. Voted 9 because of the slightly too clean settings, clothes, and people, and because of the horribly disappointing ending.
Emily Watson is Wasted But Still Magnificent
JohnLeeT18 July 2013
This film is a disappointment and especially due to the fact the director did not use one of the great treasures of modern cinema to the very fullest by ignoring Emily Watson. However, when she is on screen the picture is alive and fascinating. Her performance is certainly superb but it is a mystery why she was not used to raise this film to a higher level. She certainly does all she can to instill life in the movie but it remains limp and dull in spite of her fiery performance. Even the greatest actor working in film today can not save a motion picture if the director is a simpleton and the rest of the cast stunningly awful. It does rate a 10, however, because for the brief time she is on screen Ms. Watson is dynamite as usual and proves once again she is the most talented and insanely gifted woman to ever step before a camera.
Nice movie, about secretly hidde real-life pregnancy of Emily Watson
lylaanne22 June 2019
I know why Emily had a reason to play a smaller role than the main one. Because she was several months pregnant with first child. You could see her growing belly. She hid her pregnancy all the time. Her daughter was born in November 2005.
Filming date began in June 2005.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
