Ivanhoe
- TV Mini Series
- 1997
- 4h 30m
IMDb RATING
7.3/10
1.2K
YOUR RATING
After returning from the Third Crusade in the Holy Land, Ivanhoe discovers that England is under the rule of the corrupt Prince John.After returning from the Third Crusade in the Holy Land, Ivanhoe discovers that England is under the rule of the corrupt Prince John.After returning from the Third Crusade in the Holy Land, Ivanhoe discovers that England is under the rule of the corrupt Prince John.
- Awards
- 1 nomination
Browse episodes
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaThis was Christopher Lee's first acting role for the BBC since 1947.
- GoofsIn the final showdown between Ivanhoe and Brian de Bois-Guilbert, Ivanhoe cuts Brian de Bois-Guilbert's shield in half. In the next scene we see Brian de Bois-Guilbert turn his horse for a new charge, and his shield is undamaged. But when he reaches Ivanhoe, the shield is broken again.
- Quotes
Brian de Bois-Guilbert: [lying defeated on the ground, whispering to Ivanhoe] In Austria, I was not brave enough to die for Richard... but for her...
[turning his face to look at Rebecca]
Brian de Bois-Guilbert: [to Ivanhoe] Do it!
- ConnectionsFeatured in Omnibus: Sir Walter Scott: Wizard of the North (1997)
Featured review
Poorly shot, decent art direction, and not enough money.
There was an effort here to put forth a more rugged, more down to earth, more gritty and earnest version of Sir Walter Scott's tale, than previous incarnations. The co-venture between A&E and the BBC is successful on this point, and seems to stick closer to the book than say the version with Elizabeth Taylor. There's a lot of positive aspects here, including the acting.
The downside is that it's just not very well shot. There're a lot of camera tricks used here to give an epic feel to what is undoubtedly a moderately budgeted mini series. I applaud the effort, but there just aren't the number of bodies needed to really make this production shine.
Portions of it are kind of neat and endearing, but the lack of exposition, and the occasional over the top performance (particularly by a couple of the female leads), in my opinion, makes this production some what lacking.
The camera is simply not used to its fullest, and there's little in the way of dressing the sets, though there seems to have been a lot of effort gone into costuming.
I like the production for what it is, but it's not my favorite, and could've been so much more had the funds been there to see through the production. One of the highlights was the jousting sequence, but even here we're treated to confined views, and are not given the full scope of the tournament. The nail in the coffin is the use of a swish pan to show the number of spectators at the event. It's somewhat jarring to see this, and is visually unsettling.
I can understand why people rate this so highly. It's striving for a kind of authenticity that would've been heresy in Hollywood's golden age, where sets, actors and story were sanitized and given a bright color gloss, but for all the effort that went into making this version more "definitive" and supposedly authentic, visually, it's just very narrow. This visual confinement and lack of scope brings down what could've been a much more sterling production.
Minor quibble; the actor who plays Friar Tuck wears a skull-cap prosthetic that looks like a bad hat. Fortunately his character has limited exposure, and the makeup isn't too distracting because of that. It's nearly the final nail in the coffin of a borderline production.
To the BBC and A&E both, the next time they launch another such joint venture make sure the money is there to do visual justice to the piece, or don't embark on the project at all. Adequate acting and art direction can only hide so many sins, especially for a project that's shot on a made for TV movie schedule.
In the meantime I'd recommend the 1952 version over this mini series. For all its Hollywood gloss it's actually more appealing than this version on a number of levels.
RESCREENED, Sept 2005
I'm sorry some folks didn't appreciate or like my comments, but after re-screening this two disk set I can firmly stand by my convictions and observations regarding this title. The acting for the supporting cast is hit or miss, the "action" sequences look very staged, and it appears this film was shot in the low season to cut down on costs of renting locations (namely the castles). That, and as I stated earlier, the cinematography is very confining. I like the story, but this presentation, however thorough, misses a few marks.
The downside is that it's just not very well shot. There're a lot of camera tricks used here to give an epic feel to what is undoubtedly a moderately budgeted mini series. I applaud the effort, but there just aren't the number of bodies needed to really make this production shine.
Portions of it are kind of neat and endearing, but the lack of exposition, and the occasional over the top performance (particularly by a couple of the female leads), in my opinion, makes this production some what lacking.
The camera is simply not used to its fullest, and there's little in the way of dressing the sets, though there seems to have been a lot of effort gone into costuming.
I like the production for what it is, but it's not my favorite, and could've been so much more had the funds been there to see through the production. One of the highlights was the jousting sequence, but even here we're treated to confined views, and are not given the full scope of the tournament. The nail in the coffin is the use of a swish pan to show the number of spectators at the event. It's somewhat jarring to see this, and is visually unsettling.
I can understand why people rate this so highly. It's striving for a kind of authenticity that would've been heresy in Hollywood's golden age, where sets, actors and story were sanitized and given a bright color gloss, but for all the effort that went into making this version more "definitive" and supposedly authentic, visually, it's just very narrow. This visual confinement and lack of scope brings down what could've been a much more sterling production.
Minor quibble; the actor who plays Friar Tuck wears a skull-cap prosthetic that looks like a bad hat. Fortunately his character has limited exposure, and the makeup isn't too distracting because of that. It's nearly the final nail in the coffin of a borderline production.
To the BBC and A&E both, the next time they launch another such joint venture make sure the money is there to do visual justice to the piece, or don't embark on the project at all. Adequate acting and art direction can only hide so many sins, especially for a project that's shot on a made for TV movie schedule.
In the meantime I'd recommend the 1952 version over this mini series. For all its Hollywood gloss it's actually more appealing than this version on a number of levels.
RESCREENED, Sept 2005
I'm sorry some folks didn't appreciate or like my comments, but after re-screening this two disk set I can firmly stand by my convictions and observations regarding this title. The acting for the supporting cast is hit or miss, the "action" sequences look very staged, and it appears this film was shot in the low season to cut down on costs of renting locations (namely the castles). That, and as I stated earlier, the cinematography is very confining. I like the story, but this presentation, however thorough, misses a few marks.
- How many seasons does Ivanhoe have?Powered by Alexa
Details
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content