This actually looks like a porn movie without the porn scenes.

This movie came out in 2001 with Christopher Lambert. I have not been able to find it anywhere under the title of "The Gaul" and I found out that the reason for this is because its actual title is "Druids". People come to IMDb to find information on a particular movie or a particular actor or character and if we are unable to find what we are looking for under the name we know it to be, then that becomes a problem. I came here looking for information for a movie titled Druids, and was not able to find it. So I looked for it under the actors name and could not find it. It was not until I tried to add the correct credit for this actor based on the character played in the film, that I was able to find it at all and that was because when I tried to add it, it was rejected and the site then came up with the movie the character was associated with. This being the case, i really feel that someone needs to do some checking and get this corrected.

This is one of those strange movies, that despite being in the "so bad it's good" category, it's really not bad enough to be in there. It's a mediocre straight to video movie that can be enjoyable. Ultimately it fails but in quite a few good ways. Definitely a must have for the bad movie crowd. Decent enough rental if you want a popcorn movie you don't have to think about. A few things that keep it from breaking past a 5 is the extremely tired acting. I prefer to see people have fun with bad performances, not have the "oh my god we ran out of money" look on their faces. Also, I don't think they captured the rivalries between the Gallic groups (tribes?) very well. They came off as petty children and not trained warriors with too much pride. Though it's probably a subjective complaint I just generally don't like "childish brutes" in place of warriors. Definitely better than most Steven Seagal movies anyways.

Its not a great film, but its one of the most historically accurate films about ancient wars I've seen. The incident is right out of Ceasars wars and it is one of the greatest military victories of all time.Vercingetorix's deserves recognition for his heroic actions. But how do you make a heroic last stand that failed completely into a decent movie. With the 300 Spartans or the Alamo, you can say the defeat lead to ultimate victory, but for Gaul, Vercingetorix's defeat meant the end of Gaul's independence. So how do you do a bio pic of Vercingetorix; a man who was heroic, and noble, but defeated.In the film Vercingetorix sets himself up as bait to a trap, but then becomes the victim of the trap and the bait for the entire Gaulic nation to kill itself against Roman fortifications. There is a moment when you realize that Vercingetorix's strategy could work, but is doomed to fail because he cannot co-ordinate the army outside of the town from inside a besieged town -- if only. Vercingetorix with one large Gaul army inside a town and they are running out of food. There is another Gaul army on the outside. Together they outnumber the Romans several times (4 to 1 perhaps, Ceasar claimed the odds were even worse, for him). But the Romans have built an double encirclement where they are simultaneously besieging Vercingetorix and being besieged by another Gaul army. Rome wins and the Gaul capitulate. Just watching the respective strategies makes the film worth watching. No other army but a Roman army could have pulled off such a victory.I think a lot of the problems people have with the film have to do with dreariness of the ending. I felt genuinely sad at Vercingetorix's failure to accomplish anything. I was wishing there was a secret passageway where the Gauls could have escaped, but alas, they were doomed. Even if they had won, Rome would have been back... and Rome typically punished countries that defeated legions very severely.But I enjoyed it, and I'd watch it again.