Dutch cinema is ofcourse not widely known as one of the world's greatest contributions to world cinema, but in Admiral we have a film that is not lacking in its ambition, and while it does a lot of things right, it doesn't really manage to capture the bottom line of making the audience care about it. I like slow movies. The reason i prefer slow movies over fast ones is because films are a cinematic experience which need to sink into and be absorbed by the audience which will only succeed if certain sequences are drawn out instead of rushed through. Unfortunately, this is exactly what did happen with Admiral, as it seems to choke on its own haste. I personally do not know much about the history of Mr. de Ruyter, but i understand the film is supposedly very historically accurate. However, in its ambition to create historical accuracy the film seems to suffer from trying to put too many important historical battles in its 2 hour 31 running time, which results in extreme gaps in timelines after which the audience gets the idea that we missed huge chunks of the story. What is essentially the story of Admiral is him setting out to sea, fighting some battles against the English or French, coming home for some dramatic political or family scenes, and setting out again. It is also a picture that seems obsessed with creating an incredible amount of drama in nearly every scene, with its grandiose music by Trevor Morris ( While the music is great, its epic parts are used far too much ) & stylish slow motion techniques. While this might seem great there really isn't much drama in the end because the movie's pace is too fast for the characters to be fleshed out.Admittedly the costume design, music & in certain scenes the cinematography is all very pleasing, but a lot of the greatest visual shots in the film are cut short because the movie always seems to be in a hurry for some reason. It seems to think it is in a race while wanting to get to the finish line as quickly as possible. If you create impressive visuals, director Roel Reine should atleast let the audience appreciate it instead of cutting it short so quickly. Most of the shots on the ships are basically slow motion shots of pieces of wood and splinters flying through the air, which is all ofcourse stylishly filmed, but in the end has little substance. Reine also simply moves the camera way too much all the time. Even the simplest scenes feature overly dynamic camera movements for no apparent reason other than to keep the modern low attentionspan audience interested. It also for some reason features a lot under hip height shots ( Especially on the ships ), so except for some of the wideshots of the naval battles we really don't see much of what is happening most of the time.Frank Lammers is a pretty bad actor, and his performance as M. de Ruyter is just laughable at best. It also quite possibly has the worst casting ever of the country's greatest actor Rutger Hauer, and the guy who played William the third was pretty mediocre in his own right. The only truly impressive performance was from Sanne Langelaar, who played Michiel's wife, as she seems to be the only person that seems to truly be emotionally connected to the events of the film. A lot of people die, including some of its protagonists, which ofcourse results in overly dramatic slow motion and orchestral music in order to invoke emotions in the audience. However, this doesn't work as well as it should because the film doesn't really make you care about its characters and its world, since all it seems obsessed with is haste. Without substance these dramatic scenes become melodramatic scenes which in turn makes the film somewhat pretentious. It's great ambition cannot be denied, but in the end it is quite devoid of relatability.While it is a valiant effort of creating a dramatic view of de Ruyter's life and at times it is visually great, it does not succeed in making the audience care that much because it seems to be obsessed with its own haste.

In the Netherlands, this film is simply called "Michiel de Ruyter", but in English-speaking countries it's called "The Admiral". If you grew up in the Netherlands, you'd know the name Michiel de Ruyter just like the British revere Horatio Nelson and Americans know of John Paul Jones. (Jones probably is one of those figures who ends up in his own colored box in American high school history text books.) Three statues plus a marble tomb exist in the Netherlands honoring Michiel de Ruyter which is a large number considering the size of the country. He is probably the most famous naval admiral in the history of the Netherlands, and probably ranks among the top half dozen in the history of Europe and America. A pretty good case could be made he was the greatest prior to the 20th century. He is a figure Americans could admire particularly because he was not of noble birth and seemed to have decided lack of selfishness, uncommon in a period where advancement through connections and not always achievement was the rule and not the exception.The film begins with the death of Martaan Tromp during the Battle of Scheveningen, known by the British as the Battle of Texel. (Despite popular rumor, I don't think Martaan Tromp is an ancestor of Donald Trump, considering the latter's name probably comes from Germany, not the Netherlands, spelled Drumpf, and the family respelled their name to "Trump" when they came to America in the 19th century.) De Ruyter (Frank Lammers in an outstanding performance) is given an offer from the current grand pensionary (sort of like a prime minister) of the Netherlands, Johan de Witt (Barry Atsma), to become the new admiral of the Dutch fleet. De Ruyter declines citing his unfitness for the task. However, when it appears the English will attack again, de Witt asks de Ruyter to reconsider, persuading him by inviting him and his wife to dinner.During the film, other events are taking place in politics aside from the naval battles. This was both the film's strength and weakness. Particularly for Americans, this history is unfamiliar. The Netherlands was a young republic in the wake of having pushed Catholic-Spanish rule out of Spain by 1648. The seven provinces were supposed to be ruled by an elected stadtholder (a governor or prince); some of the provinces who were ruled by princes who inherited their positions rather than being elected. William of Orange (Egbert-Jan Weber) ruled as stadholder over five of the seven provinces. These statholders then met in the Hague with other members of their parliament to decide matters of state. Two opposing factions emerged vying for control of the government: Republicans (desiring non-noble house or non-monarchical rule) and Orangists, those who favored rule by monarchy, which also implied non-elected leaders like a king. The latter faction desired William of Orange (who would later become King William of the William and Mary co-monarchy of England) to become King of the Netherlands.While Michiel de Ruyter is trying to defend his nation from the English navy which had been attacking Dutch merchant vessels since circa 1650, the country was in a lot of political turmoil. The film juxtaposes two pieces of history: the Anglo-Dutch Wars of the mid-17th century and the political turmoil within the Netherlands. The only issue is that for those unfamiliar with the history this could get confusing. The Netherlands was attacked by ground forces from Germany which the Netherlands was unprepared to defend against. Johan de Witt and his brother Cornelis de Witt were scape-goated for the attacks and also blamed for a possibly secret plot to assassinate William of Orange.Still, this is a fantastic film about a period of European history which doesn't get a lot of cinematic treatment outside of the Netherlands. All the acting is superb. The portrayal of King Charles II of England is a bit over-the-top, but if there has to be a major baddie of the film, he's it. The other character, William of Orange, is shown to grow from a rather snooty young nobleman into a concerned statesman. He is at first worried about his own reputation as he feels there are unfair rumors about him. Towards the end we see him rise above his own political well-being and become more centered on the fate of his nation. He will eventually become King William III of England, a co-monarch with his wife Queen Mary II, the only co-monarchy in the history of England/Britain, and regarded as one of the finest reigns in the history of Europe.

As for the technical side, this film is spectacular. The editing, the story, the production value as a whole is worth the time. This is one of the "epic" films that did not get it's due. So well done and a fantastic soundtrack - this is where the we lose Academy worthy people in the mix. This production was phenomenal.As for the story, I found it a very worthy tale to tell (and surprised nobody attempted it at this level before). Due to the scope of de Ruyter's impact on this time period, the movie did move a bit quickly and (as expected) did not have time to encompass the importance and the intricate detail of the lives involved. So my only ding here is that it felt rushed in the aspects of the personal lives of Michiel and Anna. To give their emotional and political struggles justice, perhaps a mini-series would have been a more appropriate venue. You feel unsatisfied with the depth of their development. You are simply left wanting more from them.While based on historical "fact", there are many aspects that needed further development. I wanted so much more background and detail on the characters and the political struggle that, again, a sense of rush was left and it left me sad about that.When such an incredible production crew and and an insanely under- respected director (Roel Reiné) is given this type of budget and consulting, I feel like they were all let down by not being able to explore this topic and these characters further.Overall, this film was absolutely spectacular! The brutal moments (for those who know) were almost too brutal to fit into the context of the rest of the story's examination. But HOLY MONKEY this film was a great breath of fresh air and and a great view inside the filmmaking from this part of the world.A+ and huge kudos to all involved. You needed a better platform, but you made incredible value bleed from these limitations. An emotional and thoughtful ride on a side of history that needs more exploration. Cheers to you all!If you are a history buff, you'll get a lot out of this. If you are a film buff, you'll get even more. And if you're looking for some of the most under-appreciated talent in both screen and bts, then you've stumbled on a treasure-trove that all filmmakers should seek out.Disturbingly well done.

Simply put, Admiral has the makings of an epic film. I was immediately drawn into the script like a great novel - not wanting to put it down or skip to the end. Naval tactics, politics, social networks, weaved together to create a monarchy basket. Good drama - check; music - check; acting - check; dry humor - check; graphics - check; cinematography - check; heroes - check; heroins - check; villains - check; emotional roller coaster - check; entertainment - check. Frankly, this is one of the few films I would not care to compare to historical facts or details. Thus no points to distract from good story telling. After all, good story telling taps into one's imagination unless one has no imagination. As de Ruyter states, "All ships are unsinkable - until they sink."