The dark plague of the Middle Ages. The bishop sent inquisitors to a village untouched by the plague in search of a sorcerer. On the way, they go to the monastery and take a novice as a guide, so that he leads them through the swamps.
The young monk, in addition to faith, has a personal goal - he sent his beloved girl to hide in the forest in the hope of saving her from the plague, and now wants to find her.
The path is not easy, morals in those days were very cruel, and it is very reliable and detailed shown, faint of heart it is better not to look - a lot of bloodshed, torture, death - not everyone will live to the final.
Magnificent cast: my favorite actor Sean Bean (Adventures of the Royal Arrow Sharpe, Game of Thrones) as a fanatical inquisitor, a young monk played by Eddie Redmayne (Stephen Hawking Universe, Fantastic Beasts), a very talented actor.
What movie? About faith - no matter what: in God, witch, devil or just in themselves - sometimes fanatical, sometimes inappropriate and not helping in the fight against the invisible enemy, about the cruelty of morals. There are no clearly good or bad heroes, everyone does his own deed and bears his own cross.
The style of the film corresponds to the theme - the gloomy plagued Middle Ages horrifies literally everyone, but thereby attracts the viewer.
Probably, any person will say that the darkest time in the history of mankind is the Middle Ages. All the dirty, stinky, dark and disgusting concentrated in the Middle Ages. Well, the most terrible thing that contemporaries of those times had to face is, of course, the plague. The plague pandemic was more terrible than any war and, having decimated half of Europe’s population, it was rightly considered the deadliest disease.
Actually, the title of the film - "Black Death" - it becomes clear what will be the narrative. The beginning of the film really well conveys the horror that was happening in the streets of medieval England. Everywhere rotting black corpses, which simply do not have time to bury. Outside the walls of the city burn funerary bonfires, in which, like a mass grave, there are dozens of dead bodies. Well, the main attribute of the film, and in general, anything about the plague, is the plague doctor. His mask with a long beak, as well as leather robe in the form of a long cloak, still excites the consciousness of mankind and causes genuine fear somewhere on the genetic level.
At the very beginning, we are introduced to a young priest Osmund (Eddie Redmayne), who is in love with a girl, which is already a crime because vows are a sacred matter. She gives him an ultimatum and he has nothing left but to go on a journey with a dubious appearance of a warrior named Ulrich, played by actor-spoiler Sean Bean. Ulrich wants Osmund to lead his army through the swamps in which the settlement is located, where, according to some reports, necromancy is traded, which, as is known, is not pleasing to the Church. Osmund, in turn, plans to meet his beloved on the way. Having lost a number of people in battle, Ulrich’s army reaches its destination. The friendly village looks quite calm, but this is only at first glance.
Against the background of the plague, in this film they try to convey to us that human faith in God is unshakable and only it can overcome all adversity. And this already raises many questions, because as we know, it is faith that has become a kind of catalyst for many social problems, because of which the devastation from the pandemic has become truly huge. But, to be fair, faith in the film is not so “holy”, especially in the end.
Questions also arise about the script. I still do not understand why it was to bother with the secret ritual and show it to Osmund. What does this village need him for? How did Ulrich last so long when we were shown that everything was sad and that he should have been lying in the damp ground long ago? And what is the evil in this village, if there is nothing unusual in the end? People sit quietly, hide from the plague and very successfully. Here comes a horde of some soldiers and everything goes not in the best way.
Basically, the movie isn't that bad. The main disadvantage of "Black Death" is that in some places it is boring and not logical, and the main plot twist, which is indeed a sin to hide, is guessed. But a huge plus is the gloomy "plague" atmosphere, which is well conveyed in this film and vividly shows the plague itself, albeit slightly. In general, a good film, which you can take your free time, especially if you are interested in such an attack as the plague.
6 out of 10
The Atmospheric Journey to Hell or the Death of Sean Bean
Thriller. I remember back in the thirteenth year, when I worked in a store selling discs, this picture caught my attention, first of all quite cheap price (given that Blu-ray discs at that time cost at least five hundred rubles) and Sean Bean naturally. I decided to look at it – it turned out to be a middle peasant, this is what I remember from the first viewing. I decided to reconsider, and it turned out that I had forgotten everything that happened in the picture. Why? Don't know. What is the final verdict after the second view - a strong middle peasant, but with a plus. That will be my brief opinion. Now we will examine the advantages and disadvantages of this picture.
So the virtues:
1. Sean Bean was the one who got me to see the picture, for the most part. We all know what they are doing, and they will not be able to do it. He actually holds this picture, because by that time he was the only one of all the actors who played here was very famous, and it is not surprising that the creators decided to bet on this - and did not lose (although the picture failed at the box office). Shawn didn't disappoint me here either.
2. ' Plague & #39; atmosphere - for this I am ready to shake hands with everyone involved in the creation of the picture. The fact is that the story takes place against the backdrop of the Black Death - a monstrous pestilence that claimed the lives of almost two-thirds of the population of Europe. Heaps of corpses, survivors with bandages, religious fanaticism, the general nervousness of what is happening and the oppressive atmosphere of doom, dirt, blood - all this managed to do perfectly, despite a fairly average budget. The viewer is literally imbued with this pressing atmosphere.
3. The story tells the story of a young novice and a cruel inquisitor who must find a village where, according to rumors, managed to cope with the disease. I have no right to go into details, but I will say that at first the script did not catch on, but starting from the middle I did not care what happens to the characters. It was interesting to see what was happening. Of course, a lot was obvious, but the interest from this did not diminish, that for such a sophisticated viewer like me - a rarity.
4. A gloomy ending, how do you like it? There will be no happy ending. To be honest, this technique is very rarely used in movies now (and perhaps always). Personally, I was expecting a different ending, but I liked this one much more. I will say more – it is logically more correct, because the last third of the picture clearly indicated this. So the finale was grim and harsh.
So, the disadvantages:
1. Mysticism - why is it pointed out as a genre of this picture? It doesn't smell like anything here. Could it have been done to make the viewer go? Well, it's possible, but after you start watching, even the most stupid person will realize that there is no mysticism here. Deception of clean water.
2. Not the disclosure of the hero - how it so happened that the main characters, even with the help of just a few replicas, managed to reveal, but one of the main characters was forgotten - this is the hero of Eddie Redmayne. Why? I am still asking myself this question.
A bit about the main characters:
1. Osmund, played by Eddie Redmayne, is a novice of the monastery, set off on a dangerous journey with the Inquisitor, in which he will undergo a test of loyalty to his beliefs. It should be admitted that Eddie definitely knows how to play, because even here, even before the general recognition, he skillfully uses the emotions of his hero, so that the viewer would not care.
2. Ulric, played by Sean Bean, is a brutal and experienced inquisitor tasked with finding a cure for the plague. A man broken by a tragedy that turned him into a brutal killer. So, Sean here plays both a positive and a negative character at the same time, you sympathize with him and you hate him. It just happened. Well, I don't think you need to talk about his fate, because it is clear to everyone. Another good role for Sean.
3. Langiva performed by Caris van Houten is a herbalist of the village, but clearly with some terrible secret. I took a long look. She or not? This is Melisandre, but here with white hair. I think that’s what helped her get the role of Red Woman (as did Sean-Ned Stark). Here is the same piercing look, the same determination, the same willpower. Carys is beautiful!
As a result, we have an atmospheric thriller about the plague epidemic with good scenery, an interesting story, a dark and harsh ending and good acting work.
The film is a solid five, although it is a four. There are no fives for this content. However, the film is multi-genre, not just a story about a plague epidemic in the 14th century with Sean Bean as the leader of a group of warriors and Eddie Redmayne, a monk accompanying them. If you want, you can find anything here - an action movie, a detective, a thriller, elements of a horror film and everywhere the frightening realism of the Middle Ages, the savagery of that time. Not much has changed.
What I hate most about movies like this is always watching and I’m afraid that some far-fetched nonsense or mystical nonsense will start. It was the same here, it all started with foreboding, but the film was logically sustained, which was very pleased. Impressive girls will not be able to recommend it, here not only the plague is brutal, warriors led by Boromir cut each other to pieces, but the atmosphere as a whole is frightening, painful and leading to shock. Redmayne very organically fit into the landscape of fogs and thickets, his pale oval face extremely to the place, which enhances the effect.
In the end, I’m even glad that the film ended up being about faith, or, how to put it, in its applied expression. This topic has not interested me for a long time in itself, but it is better if some fantastic absurdity suddenly came out. The images are wild, strong, violent. Gross warriors who mock the monk turn out to be good Christians and their songs on the theme “our bulat will cut the way to hell” or “he sinned a lot with his beloved, after all she was devoured with ulcers” are no more than a defensive reaction. The film is live and real.
“Black Death” was filmed without Hollywood, which is probably a good thing, because it retained a certain personality under the English director and German involvement. Sean Bean is always convincing. Eddie Redmayne, whom I'm quite indifferent to, is even better. A fussy monk came out of him beautifully. I recommend it to all boys and girls who love boy movies.
8 out of 10
There are good or bad people. But most people are neither good nor bad. We're all somewhere in the middle. The film “Black Death” can be taken literally. The inquisitors of the Catholic Church followed necromancers and heretics. To destroy them. The village they found was exactly the place they were looking for. It turns out, despite all their cruelty, the members of Ulrich's squad were positive characters. And if they served the Lord, who are the people of the village who are the embodiment of evil?
However, it is not so clear. Before us is the world of the Middle Ages and the raging plague. There is a village that this disease has bypassed. A village that did not impose its will on others with fire and sword. A village without bandits and blood. Yes, the inhabitants did not worship Christ, but is it necessary to worship him if life is better without him than with him? Is it a crime to live without faith in God? Every religion is an instrument of power and money. She intimidates and punishes. It was for this purpose that the detachment came to the village. Not to give a better life, but to take the life that is.
Look at the residents – all cleanly dressed, all healthy, the highest level of medicine – the monk immediately admitted that the medicine worked quickly and effectively. Yes, the residents were necromancers. They raise the dead. Anyway, so what? Doctors also bring patients back from the dead. It is not always possible to return them fully capable. But that doesn't make doctors evil.
For the sake of resurrection, one person in this film is not killed by another. No animal has been sacrificed. No one worships even the devil.
Did anyone in this movie become a criminal? Killed for fun or gain? Turned into a fashionable zombie? Zombies are people who have the plague. They're the ones spreading the disease. In the Black Death, they are Christians. Even in the Inquisition, there were two of them, and both hid their illness from the others, putting others’ lives at risk. This is the strength and spirit and humanity of any religion. As one of them said, “I’m here for the money.” Do you think there are other reasons for this?
There is no Christianity in the village, no plague. Nothing bad. Not even your own weapon. The inhabitants used only the weapons of the inquisitors with which they came. That's why they died. Killing the inquisitors is the only way to keep the village quiet. Residents have no other choice. You can’t leave aliens with life. You let them go, they'll bring others. Then death and plague will begin.
Could they have been more humane? Yeah. Could have killed quickly. But it's the Inquisitors and the ending of the film shows they're all guilty. They killed people in much worse ways. Guilty and innocent. Indiscriminately. Therefore, Ulrich’s detachment cannot be considered positive heroes. They are neither evil nor good. Almost everyone bragged about being a murderer, rapist or sadist. There is no pity for them, and there cannot be. Even Ulrich. It was not for the strength of spirit and faith that he refused Christ. He knew he would be killed anyway.
What did this trip lead to? Only to death. Had Ulrich’s detachment not reached the village, they would have saved their lives, just as the villagers and the young novice’s girlfriend would have survived. But a believer is not able to prevent others from living. He does not speak of the power of God and the power of God. The path of faith is the right path. There are as many ideals on paper as there are in the life of blood.
In reality, the world has never seen a necromancer or a happy settlement that could escape death. But there was an Inquisition that killed people indiscriminately and without a fair trial. Only to strengthen the power of his church and intimidate others. Religion has always been planted by force, fire and sword. And the servants of every god shed rivers of blood. As the young novice continued to do.
As for the film itself. He's not bad, but he's not good either. Like any of us, he is somewhere in the middle. Like life. There is no happy ending and no morality that will sum up the plot. The Black Death definitely asks a lot of questions about religion, but everyone will find their own answer.
6 out of 10
A year before the release of the Hollywood mystical blockbuster, which showed an incredible fantasy attraction for lovers of religious passions, the name of which I brought to the title of the review; the British, who do not have, unlike the Americans, the opportunity to show even in a big movie expensive action with chic graphics, managed even with a significant gap from the US cinema to remove their blockbuster on the the theme of the medieval plague and then religious prejudices, which gave rise to many cruel executions. “Black Death”, unlike “Witch Time” in 2011, is filmed without any special “ponts”, namely, in the modest (but not squalid) scenery of medieval Europe, without expensive extreme scenes and graphics in fiery tones, but with a fascinating story, which is a model religious thriller, as you yourself will understand, without mysticism, and therefore you can not wait for the appearance of magical acts and demonic creatures – just an entertaining story about what could take place in religious times, for example, when there was a terrible life in each person’s life, for example. This is the Middle Ages, in which none of us would like to live, but connoisseurs of historical cinema can look at this wild time with pleasure.
We are told about the plague epidemic in medieval England, and that some believe that it is the punishment of God, while others think that it is the machinations of the devil. In the center of the plot is a teenage boy and his girlfriend, from whom he goes to the village as a guide to find out why the plague did not touch this place. Along the way, they pass by a village that is half extinct, which the locals accused the woman and tried to burn, but one of the travelers saved her from a terrible death by stabbing her with a knife, after which he explained that sometimes it is impossible for a person to do more. One of the travelers told a terrible story about how in one village all the women were burned and began to engage in bestiality - the dialogues here are chic, although they are creepy. In a village where a few people have already gone missing, the main character is healed by a local healer, while one of the soldiers finds a medallion on one of the local girls, the same as was on one of the missing. How does a local healer actually perform miracles, and why does this village not recognize Christianity? The answers to these questions are shocking.
For watching such an entertaining film filled with graceful disclosures of secrets and intriguing dialogues, thank you to my older brother, who told about this film, savoring the cruel scenes that I used to be especially bad, but now I have a more meaningful attitude to brutal cinema, and, if many cheap horror films now cause shame for what they once liked, then Black Death did not disappoint at all when watching it again after 4 years, because this is not a banal bloody horror, but a smart movie designed for understanding. Even if this film – from beginning to end fiction based on the well-known fact of the plague in Europe, then to blame the film only for the invented characters and the whole legend would be foolish, because the author’s fiction has not yet been banned. The most exciting movie that can make you worry about the outcome of the action, despite the lack of action.
10 out of 10
I came across this film completely by accident, and decided to watch it solely because of Sean Bean, since films about the Middle Ages of European production are not my favorite spectacle because of the abundance of black. The second good reason, prompted to view, was Redmayne, in 2010, of course, was still a nobody, but by 2017 became a star if not the first, then the second magnitude for sure. In principle, I was not mistaken in my suspicions about the black woman, if not for one thing.
What did the authors say?
There's a plague in Britain. No one knows where it came from or how to confront it. The diversionary will wash under the leadership of the knight Ulrik, on the orders of one of the archbishops, goes to a village lost in the swamps, over which, according to rumors, the plague has no power, in order to investigate whether there is any witchcraft there, and if there is - this is witchcraft lime, and even better, neutralize and deliver under the light of the eyes of the archbishop, for further entertainment in the form of the Inquisition and a demonstration campfire. On the way, the detachment enters a monastery, the abbot of which gives Ulric to guide the novice Osmund, overwhelmed by a thirst for the salvation of mankind and lust for his beloved Averil, who, having escaped the plague from the city, appointed him a rendezvous at the fork of forest roads.
What did the authors say?
It was frankly boring at first. All my prejudices about European cinema about the Middle Ages were confirmed - mud, blood, shit. I mean, it's all natural. But when the squad arrived in the village, I was worried. First, the action went faster and it was difficult to break away from the screen because the action suddenly turned into an unlearned episode of Game of Thrones.
What did the authors say?
Seeing Ned Stark and Melisandre in the same movie, about the same scenery, was damn interesting. I don’t know if Sean Bean and Caris van Houten owe their roles to this film, but I’ll note that the Boromir-Ulric-Ned Stark line is so clearly traced (although, like Longiva-Melisandra) that I wouldn’t believe it if they told me that the producers of “Game” made their choice not based on this film.
In a separate line, I want to highlight Redmayne. The experiences and rebirth of the novice Osmund are played above all praise. In terms of acting, I would say that this guy was stronger than Sean Bean himself.
How did you translate it?
Not bad. No obvious mistakes. Translation of the film does not spoil.
What should I do about it?
I think watching this movie is a good way to spend time. It is hardly worth watching it with a girl or family (see mud, blood, shit), but for a single thoughtful viewing - what you need. Well, watching the "Game of Thrones" I consider it necessary to watch the obligatory
Personally, I love movies about the Middle Ages, so I am happy to see any new film on this subject. “Black Death” is a good representative of this genre, which, in addition to its advantages, was endowed with a number of shortcomings.
I think I'll start with a good one. The Middle Ages are transmitted here in all “beauty”. Dirt, death, blood, sanitation, cheap fabric, religion. The creators tried and recreated the dark ages in their brutal blackness. The men with swords here are not valiant knights, but ruthless killers. People's minds are infected with religion and superstition. There are witches everywhere, there are supernatural explanations. And terrible things happened at that time: the plague took people by the thousands.
The backbone of the plot was not bad. A squad of mercenaries set out in search of the so-called "necromancer" who took over the entire village. The story itself seems simple, but inside it contains a couple of unexpected moments, somewhere leads the viewer by the nose with scripted moves. The events in the village are really interesting and thoughtful. But here we come to the main problem of the film.
Very slow storytelling. Heavy. And often boring. The atmosphere is somewhat reminiscent of the second half of Apocalypse Today, but there the director brought the viewer to the horrors of consciousness, gradually transforming the situation. That movie looked hard, but with great pleasure. Here the viewer is immediately thrown into an atmosphere of despair and slow gloomy saspins. Thus, the viewer must be prepared in advance (before the beginning of the viewing) for the slow pace of the narrative, and the probability of this is small. As a result, it turned out to be very boring, boring and protracted, especially in the first half of the film. Not save and action scenes, of which there are almost no.
And this is against the background of good camera work, good acting actors, high-quality scenery and, as I mentioned, an adequate plot.
Unfortunately, I venture to recommend only lovers of medieval themes, and among these fans only those who are ready for a leisurely viewing of a not very exciting film. It could have been better, much better.
Conditional English Middle Ages. Plague is rampant everywhere. And only, they say, among the swamps there is a village where the Black Death did not get. Why? Are they saints or sinners who conspire with the devil? To find out, a small armed detachment of bishop’s envoys, led by Ulrich, “a man more dangerous than the plague.” Knights-inquisitors take the young novice Osmond as a guide, who has his own reason to leave the monastery.
Christopher Smith’s work is reminiscent of a mixture of the cult “Waited Man” with the relatively successful film “Witch Time”. A bad place where “nothing is what it seems” and inverted concepts of good and evil are not background, but data from a complex equation. Before the heroes of history, there are temptations to go astray, turn back, take the opposite side.
Really interesting movies about knights is not so much. Black Death is an interesting movie. Cruelty is in moderation as is religiosity. Heroes do not seek theological arguments and edifications. Each of the characters has its own dark past, but each in its own way is pretty.
Sean Bean looks very courageous as Ulrich. Eddie Redmayne resembles the young Christian Slater in the movie The Name of the Rose, but plays better, without sagging. John Lynch (Knight Wolfstan) looks like Athos in the performance of Smekhov. Memorable types were obtained by Tim McInnerney and the charming Caris Van Houten.
There are, of course, mistakes that do not allow you to give the film a higher rating. But let's not talk about them. Much more important is the persistent aftertaste of viewing.
A gang of extremely religious people is going on a hike to the village, which the plague has bypassed, in order to figure out, and, in fact, why?
In general, the film is empty, flat, there is no content, saturation, everything is somehow too simple, fast, without depth and special thoughts, despite the fact that on the surface it is all there. But in fact, the movie seemed a little... naked. It lacked the zest. But I liked it anyway. It ends like that, uh. A little unexpected and rather cruel and sophisticated. Basically, it was a good thriller/drama. It's going to be late.
The acting game is very worthy, and for such a film / genre and generally at a height. Eddie Redmayne completely roamed his talent in one of the scenes. Sean Bean, as usual, played a persistent, hardy man-dry. The fanatic gang also had someone to look at. Well, Caris van Houten is incomparable. I think she's just made for those roles.
The film also provides some food for thought about religion in those ages and what wild things it did to people. Interesting and scary.
While fans are shedding tears for Jon Snow and waiting for the next Game of Thrones game, something real, genuine and devoid of intelligent silicone is quiet. You just have to notice and see. Christopher Smith will take us to the British Middle Ages, the time of plague and knights, witches and the Inquisition. A strange team of crusaders will go on an equally strange raid in order to calculate the necromancer. By the way, this is quite consistent with the aesthetics of the “thrones”, only more psychologically tense.
The same Ed Stark - Sean Bean, it seems that after this film was approved for his most starring role. In fact, the same image was played. And as for Melisandra, sorry, Caris van Houten, the differences between the characters are virtually nonexistent. Only here Eddie Redmayne brings true acting dynamics, differing favorably from the model-sweet Keith Harington.
In other words, from the point of view of the audience, we get a completely adequate spin-off of the reality of “thrones”, without direct references to the related origin of fictional worlds. Hard bloody sketches will look even brighter in the cold plein air. Questions of faith and magic will be decorated with a tense suspense.
Actually, Christopher Smith is not debating with the adaptation of Martin (it simply did not come out at that time). Intellectual interaction is based on Anno’s The Name of the Rose. At the same time, the film is devoid of boring attributes of the author's cinema, meaningless passages and pleasures "the flow of time". Here it was so easy to slide into vulgar ordinary action, but the creators of the tape carefully approached the details. That is why watching the film is so relaxed and interesting. That's why the aftertaste is so spectacular. It's worth watching.
An uncomplicated plot gloomy film novel, which has little relation to the real English late Middle Ages and ethnography, but very beautiful and dramatic filmed.
Since the only drama of the film is connected with the conflict of church faith and common sense of life, “The Name of the Rose” immediately comes to mind, the main conflict of which is about the same thing.
The action in “Rose” takes place in 1327 (although in Italy), in “Black Death” is quite close – in 1348. And there, and here the main character, the monastery nun, desperately tossing between the discrepancy of religious dogmas and, so to speak, the fervent call of a young heart.
Good, this case does not end here or there, but if in “Rose” this storyline is only one of many, then in “Death”, alas, this is almost everything.
Of course, if we project our modern beliefs onto this simple movie, we may mistakenly assume that its main message is anti-Christian. But this is not so, if only because the manner of civilizational expansion of Western Christianity has not changed in the last seven centuries. Unless purely technologically, previously lost souls were introduced to the divine order with a cross and a sword, and now with medium and long-range missiles.
Yeah, and the real story.
The year 1348 is taken in the film because the plague was really raging in Europe (also known as the Black Death, atra mors). But the law against witchcraft was adopted in England only in 1542, and torture was prohibited, and witches were not burned, but hanged.
Have filmmakers ever cared about historical authenticity if it contradicted a beautiful picture?
Who is the worst judge here?
Who is the best of God?
In the XIV century, good old England waged the Hundred Years' War with the French, experienced the decline of the domain economy and suffered from a monstrous plague epidemic that reduced the country's population by almost half.
One day in a distant plague town arrives a squad of witch hunters led by the knight Ulrik. Their mission is to find and deliver to the court of the bishop a sorcerer who settled somewhere among the surrounding forests and swamps. To help, they take a guide from the local - a young novice Osmund. The next day the soldiers of the Lord will begin their journey.
It is no secret that in the world cinema good films about the Middle Ages are not enough. The special effect revolution gave a powerful impetus to the revival of the fantasy genre, as well as spectacular historical blockbusters, whose task was rather to impress the audience with the breadth of scope, rather than carefully and scrupulously reconstruct Time. In fact, who will care about the question of what people of bygone eras lived, what they breathed, what they believed when thousands of men in shining armor converge on the wall.
That is why the release of any film, even somehow asking such questions, is always an event. Even if it failed at the box office, and for the mass audience passed almost unnoticed.
In the filmed on a more than modest budget, "Black Death" there is nothing from the lush aesthetics of plume-taken films with powerful fortresses, princesses, dragons and other paraphernalia associated with the genre. Everything here is extremely poor, dirty and naturalistic. Minimal extras, stingy scenery, simple costumes.
But who said that medieval Europe was different? Here a knight differs from a simple warrior not by the wealth of armor, but by the presence of a war horse and the ability to fight. After a few minutes of waving a sword in the frame, the characters get tired, begin to breathe hard and move slower. On their deathbed, they do not utter beautiful and important words, but, trying to say something, they die drowning in their own blood.
On the stars, the picture is also not rich: of the famous actors here Sean Bean, da Caris van Houten. Funny that both in a year will continue their roles in the wonderful “Game of thrones”.
Perhaps the main success of the film is that its creators managed to convey as reliably as possible the stuffy atmosphere of despair, horror and despair, which, along with the “Black Death”, settled in the huts and castles of Europe.
But where there is despair, there is faith. God, he was still very close in the XIV century - in bubonic and indulgence, in the pinch of land brought from Jerusalem, and in the stone from the foundation of Charles University.
The horsemen of the Apocalypse are getting closer: from the heat of the inquisitorial bonfires, the brain melts, the saints fight in paroxysms of piety, the cities are empty, in the forests the pagans celebrate the bloody Trinity. Nothing new, as usual - the Middle Ages Classic (100%). I'll take it, wrap it.
After reviewing the film 5 years later for the second time, I decided to share my opinion. After reading the description of the film that we are talking about the historical events of Medieval Europe, I immediately had a desire to watch a movie, and the topic of religion, faith in God, in black forces, in the afterlife was always interesting to me.
The plot of the film takes place in the dark and dark ages of Europe, when people were so deeply loyal to God that their actions became unreasonable and unreasonable. Were the dark due to the "Black Death", in other words, a disease called the plague, or due to the fanatical belief of people in the power of the Church, I can not answer, although both make times cold, unpleasant and gloomy.
And here's the story of a young monk. On the occasion of his life, or perhaps by the command of God, he got the chance to get out of the church where he grew up and lived to this day. And it is not easy to get out, to get out into another life, where his beloved was waiting for him. With few wars sent by the bishop, he volunteered to lead them to a village. There are rumors that witches and warlocks live in the village, that the dead are revived there, that God has left the villagers. And then they went on their way... and then you have to see everything yourself.
As far as acting is concerned, it is good. The image of Sean Bean - Ulrich, fearless, experienced in his work, who has seen many things in life, faithful to his faith to the end, is given to him easily, well, we all know his other works. Eddie Redmayne, who recently received a gold medal, played that novice monk who walked just for his love, eventually turned into a murderer. On the way to the finale, we see his torment, doubts, pain, the loss of a loved one, anger at himself, repentance and later the frail Osmund becomes cold and merciless, so to speak, the devil for girls. And all these emotions that broke the whole worldview of his hero showed well. Caris van Houten played a mysterious female necromancer. Strong in spirit, the leader of her people, she perfectly conveyed the image. I note that a similar image she embodies in the fantasy series, everyone’s favorite and famous “Game of Thrones”.
The director showed the atmosphere of those terrible years. Few people want to live where, everywhere, an incurable disease lurks, when you see people dying and suffering every day, when the sight of corpses on the streets is no longer uncommon, in a world where there is no elementary medicine and science, where they say “your fate is in the hands of God”, where people on the herd principle listen to other “sacred” and consider their words “true”.
Yes, you can look at the fate of people in those times in a variety of ways, and not only in those, for some religion is an opium, for others it is the whole meaning of existence, for others it is business, for fourth, who understand that faith and religion are different concepts, it is just extra fanaticism, etc.
But I can only say that everyone has their own truth.
9 out of 10
If we talk about the plot, it tells about the curse of all Europe of the 14th century – the plague. Cities are dying right before our eyes, funerary bonfires are all around, people are going mad with their powerlessness, and pray to God for their forgiveness. Influential people of that time, or rather clergymen, are also powerless and are trying to save at least the souls of parishioners!
As in war, time dictates its rules and people survive as best they can. Some are given to robbers, some to looters.
And in this dark time, the head of the Catholic Church hears rumors that, they say, there is a village that was not subjected to the plague because of the deal of the inhabitants with the devil! On a crusade, knights are sent to administer justice to the chief sorcerer. Here is a plot, actually not bad, in my opinion, as it is filled with a number of characters that expand the main storyline.
The main thing is probably a plus in the film, as I thought it was scenery and costumes. In most historical films, we see costumes, armors – which sparkle and shimmer as if they had just come from a blacksmith, and in those days everything was not so cheap. In the "Black Death" you can see just on the reverse worn cuirasses, leaky dresses, and all this happens against the background of ordinary people's homes with shops, straw and hearth. If we see oxen, they also look tired and worn from a long road, I do not know how they achieved this, I hope the animals were not injured.
In addition to everything, the operator made the picture bright colors but the background is mostly gloomy, which conveys additional alarm in the tape.
The film, of course, is not very optimistic, and there are quite a few scenes of cruelty. But nevertheless, at the end of it I want to reflect on the action of the characters of the film and analyze them.
6 out of 10
It is rare to see quality historical films, but I was lucky!
Medieval England fell under the shadow of the Black Death. A terrible burden has fallen on ordinary people, HALF (source unconfirmed)" poor, poor, urban populations across Europe have died of this infection, under such circumstances you can easily lose your mind. The rich managed to escape due to the fact that they bribed the guards and violated the quarantine because of this mainly the poor suffered. Historians rarely focus on the fact that the victim of the bubonic plague was also Rus, her plague, like everyone, did not regret it.
I want to list the main advantages of this – the medieval atmosphere, it is surprisingly qualitatively worked out, and you feel this cruel, bloody era. Nor did the cast disappoint, Sean Bean is always great! The rest of the actors are quite colorful and have charisma, but inferior to the main star.
Everyone after watching the film tries to think about its meaning, in this film it will not be found by everyone. In my opinion, the creator wanted to show that people are afraid of what they do not know.
All those who want to watch a cruel, realistic drama without excessive pathos and pomposity. All those who are not afraid of purulent ulcers, blood, violence, will be able to observe inhuman conditions, unsanitary conditions. This movie is for you.
It is a pity that this film was not advertised, and no one rewarded the director for his work.
It’s an amateur movie, but if you watch it, you won’t regret it!
10 out of 10
The title of the film is not original in principle. Only that you can take into account the fact that any person can think about different things - someone about a maniac, a new weapon, a war, a knight and so on. But no, in fact, in the far, far beginning of the sixteenth century England was struck by a terrible plague, which popularly received the publicity of the Black Death. The film, in fact, tells about the horrors of that sinister time, when people did not yet have sufficient knowledge in the field of medicine, so all such plagues and diseases were considered for God’s punishment, which they received from the Lord for disobedience.
The main person in the film is a young monk Osmund, played by Eddie Redmayne, who volunteered to conduct knights-inquisitors, led by the god-dependent Ulric. The task of the Inquisitor is to track down and kill the evil spirits that are found in a nearby village. According to rumors, there lives a necromancer, allegedly because of which the plague defeated the homeland. And now, armed to the bone, the main knight on a raven horse, and next to it - his dogs, take quite "green" in these matters Osmund and go on this difficult path. In fact, I was very happy that Osmund was not played by anyone else, but by Redmayne, because he was kind of born for such roles. Youth, stupidity, ignorance - all this can be said by Redmayne's appearance. And with that, he's a great actor. With his role in this film he coped one hundred percent.
The whole film, from beginning to end, is kept in a very dark, mysterious, viscous atmosphere. And the scenes are full of gray tones of the Middle Ages. England is shown, so to speak, in all its beauty - dirty, black, dying, consumed by a crisis of faith. People pray and die immediately. Throughout the film, there is a tense atmosphere - does the necromancer really exist?
Sean Bean did his best, too. We used to see him in The Lord of the Ring, where he played a tragic role. But nevertheless, Sean blended into that atmosphere and did a great job, so to speak. It's commendable.
In general, Christopher Smith tried for good reason, the Black Death has a good plot, good camera work, and in general - this is a very long and difficult work, with which Smith coped to fame.
I suggest. Especially lovers of historical films.
In fact, there is no mystery in the film. Which for some reason disappoints many. On the contrary, I like it. It's just the Middle Ages - a gloomy world, shown without embellishment. And a world without right and wrong, without white fluffy good and absolute evil with diabolical horns. And this is an essential attribute of a good movie.
Both zealous Christian fanatics and notorious pagan pragmatists have their own truth. I'm closer to the latter. For faith, by and large, is a personal matter of everyone. But personal hygiene, iron discipline and the ability to protect your village from the universal plague are much more attractive than the senseless and ruthless religious fanaticism that clouds the mind and hardens the heart.
Both the Middle Ages and our days desperately need sane people without prejudice. Reckless devotion, desperate bravery, faith in one’s destiny, certainly command respect. But if we look at Ulrik’s actions with an open mind, what will we see? The devastation, devastation, and death he brought with him—in every sense of the word.
The film tells about the events of medieval England, namely the plague. The story has already been told in brief before me, so I will share only my impressions. The film, personally, made a great impression on me. One name can be interpreted in two ways - this is the plague - a terrible disease that claimed thousands of lives, and the faith of the main characters (or disbelief, decide for yourself).
I really liked Caris Van Houten in his role. It is both beautiful and terrible at the same time. The scene on the wooden bridge can be revisited endlessly, this is a very bright culmination of the film.
Sean Bean, my favorite actor, has fully justified himself: a sullen, introverted warrior, so unlike his companions. His faith is strong, for him nothing is more valuable than this, even human life he puts lower.
Eddie Redmayne - it is clear that the actor tried very hard, but he played a young man in love better than a monk.
And then there was Avril, the monk's girlfriend. I only saw Kimberly Nixon in The Cherry Bomb and only found out she was the same actress after watching it. She very successfully fit into the cast, the only minus - it was not enough.
Overall, the film is very, very good. Sometimes I was annoyed by the jumping camera, but these are small things. I wish there were more pictures like that.
One of the most anti-religious films. When the plot unfolds, it seems that the film is about faith as a positive character. Someone here compared it to the films of Lungin, and Br. Wachowski. But the film is made by atheists. The ending turns 180 grams, and not in the direction of faith. Now you see that the heroes you admired and valued fortitude were ordinary fools. Positive and negative characters change color. Mountains of corpses in the village where Christians came - the apotheosis of war and death. The idea that the authors are trying to tell us is that people lived calmly, without death and plague, but believers came and brought death and destruction.
The film is not about faith being a hood and renunciation being bad. The film is about the fact that there is no God, and faith brings misfortune and creates monsters, like Osmand, who goes crazy to become a fanatic maniac.
It's certainly not a bad movie. But I do not agree that there is no God.
What does blind fanaticism lead to? The Witch Hunt and the Holy Inquisition
The Middle Ages can be called the most vile and most tragic historical era in the history of mankind. There were religious fanatics in power, people were killed and tortured for unfounded suspicions of witchcraft, denunciations, lack of normal medicine, the bubonic plague and the complete decline of science and art.
The film captures this era completely. It is removed without embellishment and rounded corners. And most importantly, he's not stupid. A great demonstration as blind fanaticism can lead to tragedy. A clear demonstration of the fact that the masses will take at face value any nonsense presented with the necessary degree of persuasiveness. Notice that the chief witch in that settlement was not a witch, but what is now known as an illusionist. And she achieved her power through simple tricks. There are no positive characters in the film. Ulrik and his men are sure that they are doing good by torturing, killing those whom everyone considers witches and sorcerers, but they are all just slandered because of superstition and obscurantism people.
This is hardly a good thing. But like every fanatic, they are deaf to reason. And the inhabitants of the village, which was bypassed by the plague under the leadership of a witch, just want to survive and do no harm to anyone, but they do not believe in God, which already makes them enemies in the eyes of the Church. There are no black and white characters in the film. The film itself is shot hard with blood. The actors play just great, there are no particularly complex special effects, but what is done is done on a professional level. It’s a dramatic and logical ending.
Excellent pseudomystical and not stupid thriller in medieval scenery.
10 out of 10
Although I am a fan of this genre, unfortunately, this picture did not please me. Here's why.
The main disadvantage is the monk. Not only does Eddie Redmayne look ridiculous in this role, but 70 percent of screen time is devoted to him! I was not touched by his feelings about his beloved, so I would give him 0 out of 10.
The next drawback is the complete absence of military battles. In the whole film there are only two small skirmishes for a couple of minutes.
Sean Bean didn’t play badly, but he didn’t show anything special either.
The only intrigue in the film is a mysterious village, which did not reach the plague. In short, when watching, you can safely roll the film floor, or even more.
The Black Death is Smith’s last film to date. This director is very interesting to me, so I could not miss his most unusual film. This time, Smith didn’t even write the script for him (the film is entirely based on Dario Poloni’s material). Is that good? Is it bad? Probably good. After all, a director who does not develop is a dead director. Atypical films enrich creativity, it is 100%. And “Black Death” in addition to the fact that it is not a completely author’s film, is not yet a horror in the usual sense (despite a decent amount of rigidity). Smith grew up as a director and realized that creativity needs both style and a strong foundation – meaning. In the previous Triangle, there was a meaning, although not so global; in Death, the story of the priest was the basis of everything. Probably, many viewers, one way or another, are touched by the topic of religion - someone believes / someone does not.
I understand those who are not touched by religion. I don’t know how to live without faith. Not necessarily in God, but in general in something. It's wildly difficult unless you're an alien and a biorobot. Humans are suspicious creatures. Someone said that “atheism is less of an insult to God than religion” and it is “grain” because even in the movie the plague is a disease of Christians. However, in the end it turns out that this is the disease of “all” and the hermits led by the sorceress (against whom the main characters of this wonderful film are fighting) understand that they were saved only thanks to their solitude. There are wonderful episodes with the Inquisition in The Black Death, and since I am very interested in this topic in my eyes, this is a big plus. Cinema, we can say, has the most ordinary form (although in technical terms, the film is decent), but it differs favorably from the same "Crip" and "Corporate" by the presence of a big thought. And not one, but several.
If primitively and essentially, Black Death is a plague movie starring Sean Bean. And about how the ancient priests became cruel and cool inquisitors.
Medieval Mercy! or the Deadlock of the Inquisition!
1348. England. The plague is raging. A group of inquisitors with a “doubtful” young monk make their way to the village, which, for unknown reasons, has been bypassed by a deadly disease. And shed light on the “good health” will be able to witch healer, who heads this small settlement. The result is a complete failure of this mission. And the young, later, inquisitor on a humiliated soul and cloudy eyes - a stigma until the end of days, to see only the root of evil in all women, that one, the only "chief culprit of all ills." And this curse is terrible because personal revenge can not be saturated even with honest confession. A kind of dead end, as a result of walking in a circle!
Great answer to the question posed in the film. "Why did you believe this witch?" An answer that completely exposes the very essence of a godless life. "Because she's beautiful and she's real!" The right choice! Still, it is better than blindfolding your head in the guillotine of church charlatanism. These executioners of free-thinking cultivate only one quality in a person - submission, which destroys any manifestation of one's own self!
As it turned out, a person must die strictly according to the law, and it is impossible to break the law, oddly enough! If you are sick, take a non-interference position. He's healed by God's will. God's will is dead. Any self-medication other than conciliation will be seen as a protest against God’s will. Cruel absurdity! Under this win-win tactic, you can bring any life situation. The ideal concept of fanaticism, there is no point in digging into it, everything is protected by an iron frame of fear. Any "flying look" and you're already on fire like an apostate! The religious regime has always infringed on human thought and hindered both the development of civilization and the formation of man as a person. It is enough to weave a web of superstition and those who want to get confused will line up an endless queue.
In order to somehow keep a person in check, there are social norms and laws. They are not much more effective than “heavenly rules”, but they are “grounded”, and the fear they inspire is no different from the fear of being overtaken by faith.
I think there was less faith in those “hiders of the sacred tribunal” who carried out the “hammer strikes” than in the accused people who chose their own spiritual path.
But it is obvious that one should not bury oneself in the earth during life in order to gain insight in heaven after death. No witnesses! No guarantees! And so that reality does not turn into one complete delusion, you need to live Life now, not later!
1348. A group of medieval commandos led by Ulrich (Sean Bean) and a tentacle monk guide Osmund, go to a village among swamps and forests to execute the local necromancer for his far uninfant sins. There are a lot of reasons for brave guys; there are rumors that the sorcerer is brazen, and without asking anyone, he raises the dead. Plague walks on the ground, and mows a lot of people, and the survivors kill each other at the stake, burning, as a rule, women, without thinking at all about procreation. And meanwhile, nothing in the village! - her plague, in some incomprehensible way, bypassed, and everyone there is alive and rosy-cheeked, and this is very suspicious - this is two. All this, to the point of heartburn, infuriates God-fearing Ulrich and his bearded friends, and they decide to go, urgently! Crushing a strange village, remnants and residents to the fire, and chaining a sorcerer and bringing him to a fair trial, thereby fulfilling a sacred duty - this is the plan, and fifty percent of the scenario. With this begins a strange, at least our journey through the film “Black Death”!
I wanted to finish, but I can’t stop the fingers printing the following lines – the film “Black Death” once again proved that; the shortage of interesting scripts, this is not a joke; the director, whom I sympathized with after “Triangle”, made a bet on a clearly banal and boring drama in this work, and lost; acting, this is quite and nowhere a game, sorry for a pun; the ugly and creepy times of the Middle Ages, the time of fires, witches, executioners and the plague, it is very difficult to show in a film with such a small budget, the viewer is now sophisticated, and wants more.
And in particular. For the first time on the screen saw Eddie Redmayne, and instantly turned off the movie. But then he did, and in vain; I have no idea what he was doing to himself, but I have never seen so much tension, suffering and torment in one person. It was a terrible impression that the young man, sorry, indigestion. A clear overkill with the game, and a clear removal of the brain, at least I have.
And finally, Sean Bean. I'm starting to worry about him - will he ever take off the props from The Lord of the Rings? It's a serious matter. There is a suspicion that at home he sleeps in armor, with a sword at the top, on horseback. And it is necessary to remove not only mail, but also a gloomy mine from the face, and then the heart with blood for him... as if Sean’s soul hurts from the time of the same “Lord”. Do not forget the popular series with his participation, the minor on Sean's brow is incredible. And yet! – the film watched to the end, and the merit of Sean Bean, his charisma acts on me like a boa constrictor on a rabbit, whatever the film is. Thank you for that.