Admiral - clip 2
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 лип 2015
- ADMIRAL
On digital platforms from 27th July, 2015
On DVD from August 3rd, 2015
Only one man is capable of leading the Dutch nation through its darkest period, see how when ADMIRAL sails onto digital platforms from 27th July, 2015 and DVD from August 3rd, 2015 courtesy of Signature Entertainment.
Charles Dance (TV’s Game of Thrones, The Imitation Game) and Rutger Hauer (Sin City, Batman Begins) star in this epic adventure about a 17th century Dutch admiral, who must lead his fleet to defend his homeland from the terrorising forces of England.
Admiral Michiel de Ruyter is the most famous, and one of the most skilled admirals in Dutch history, most celebrated for his role in the Anglo-Dutch Wars of the 17th century. He was held in the highest esteem by his sailors and soldiers, who used the term Bestevaêr (Grandfather) for him, as a result of his disregard for hierarchy and his refusal to back away from risky and bold undertakings despite his usually reserved and calculated nature.
Get swept away with this visually stunning, swashbuckling story of legendary naval battles, civil war, and one of the most fearless admirals of all time!
*** - Фільми й анімація
"I expect you to do your duty by your family."
The reference to Tywin Lannister in this scene is very strong, and I love it.
“Surely you don’t expect me to betray my country, do you?”
“I expect you to do your duty by your family, and don’t call me Shirley”
William: But aren't we supposed to be Protestant?
Charles: Ehh, details...details.
And William did in fact become King...of England!
Kameron Golden watch the hole movie
In which position the Netherlands would not become a province of England, which the film appears to establish as William's primary disagreement with Charles. It would appear that William is more opposed to the Netherlands becoming a monarchy rather than monarchism itself
The Dutch invaded England in 1688 on request of English protestants who opposed King James II who had become a catholic. It's called the Glorious Revolution.
And Ireland and Scotland
He wasnt as "Gay"as shown in the movie, he was actually pretty upset, and from records was walking in a "Disrespectfull way". Which ment confronting and aggresive.
Somehow, I see this as Tywin speaking to Prince Rhaegar...
King Tywin Lancaster
I can unsee him as Tywin anymore. "The house that puts family first will always defeat the house that puts the whims and wishes of its sons and daughters first."
William III didn't become King of the Netherlands. Instead he remained Stadtholder of the Netherlands. Then he led the last succesful invasion of Britain in history in 1688 (the Glorious Revolution) and became King of England.
And Scotland.
Joint ruler with his wife, she had a claim to the Throne as her father James was King, he was Catholic and unpopular . They didn't have any children so when he died, the Throne passed to his sister in law, Anne.
I wouldn't really call it an invasion, more like a coup supported by English nobels and backed by a strong armada and army. The conquest of scotland and ireland is a different story though.
@@lucas_westland4076 A coup and invasion are not mutually exclusive. William and his armdada paid by the Dutch Republic invaded England and took military control. The English fleet tried to stop it but couldn't. Parliament didn't want William as king but he forced them to accept it. Also London was under Dutch occupation for 18 months and English troops couldn't enter
@@5thMilitia I never knew the Netherlands conquered England. Well, one learns something new everyday.
What an actor. Brilliant.
Is this the William of Orange who would one day rule England?
Yes - and Scotland.
Charles the 2nd named his brother, James as his successer. James daughter was married to William, they became joint rulers, in the glorious revolution.
Coda Mission
Reign, not rule. He gave not a single fuck about England.
@@alexthelizardking He just wanted them to fight France what sounds easy in case of England but it did cause friction between monarch and country
Ah yes, the next time the Orange Order go marching down the Garvahy Road they might where pink sashes in memory of King Billy.
Ah yes... when hard and ugly realism meets energetic and youthful idealism... I like this scene. Good acting and content. I can relate to both here.
The idealism won though.
Not only did the netherlands keep its land and became a Republic.
This guy, William III. Lead the last successful invasion of England and became king of England.
Charles, who you are saying is the realist here got his ass handed to him.
@@xanderwusky3001 You seem to be offended by my comment. Never intended that. I merely pointed out the differences in view points. I am certain William became a realist later in his life. That's how it works... as a youth you are following dreams and ambitions of grandeur but as you get older and wiser, but also a bit cynical with the world, you start to act and react very differently. That has nothing to do with personal success. I recommend watching the debate scene in "The Patriot" with Mel Gibson: "I am a father, I cannot affored the luxury of principals." At a certain point in life most ppl look back and see that they could not follow the path they intended to because of circumstances and events which dictated their behaviour, even at cost of their "idealism". I could argue William was a terrible king because he did not provide a legitimate heir; in those days that was basically a disaster and nearly caused a civil war. And so he had to put a German on the English throne (House of Hanover). I don't think that was his idea of an ideal succession. Having said that... man... this is just a scene out of a movie... and I am a sucker for good dramatic acting. And this is how it works. You put two opposing opinions against each other and led them collide violently. One of the usual tropes is idealism vs realism. I am sure neither Charles nor William were at all like they were depicted here. This is no history lesson but entertainment.
@@Shroud83 not at all offended, just pointing out that the thing you claimed to be idealism didn't just happen, but exceeded what he even was idealising
@@xanderwusky3001 I am not sure I got that... could you rephrase that if possible.
"The thing you claimed to be idealism" ... I don't claim anything, I just saw the scene and William struck me as an idealist and his uncle as a cynical realist. Please tell me how you would interpret William's and Charles' struggle in this scene if not that of youthful idealism vs cynical realism?
"...didn't just happen," nothing happens in a vacuum so I don't understand what you mean.
"...exceeded what he even was idealising" ... what WAS he idealising? I am asking so we are on the same page. "Exceeding" what? How can you exceed your ideals? By definition ideals are the highest form of moral standards that you set for yourself. How can you "exceed" this maximum? As soon as you shoot past this set of ideals you are not living your ideals but drifting away from them again. Ideals are the zenith you are striving to reach and not to go beyond. Please correct me if I am wrong but do you mean by ideals the actual achievements William accomplished in his life? If so than that is the rub: I am focused on how he is depicted here: A young man with a set of high moral standards who is outraged by basically everything his uncle says. If you took my first comment as a snub at William, by all means, that was not my intention.
@@Shroud83 not really looking to get in a huge discussion.
But what you said at the start. Idealism meets realism. You claimed what William said was idealism
Yet not only did what he say happen more then that. William also became king of England. Which exceed the thing you already said was him being idealistic. My point is that it wasn't idealism. So yes, exceeding it wouldnt have been possible if it was idealism. Yet he did. And it wasn't idealism.
What you are saying in the first comment is that Charles was being realistic in saying that the netherlands should give the South up. Yet look at any map and it will tell you we are still very much there. As a matter of fact. We have more land then we did at that time.
All I did was point that out. That your original comment doesn't make sense as its not realism meeting idealism. How could it be if "realism" didn't close to happen and "idealism" was surpassed. As by your own explanation that would not be possible if it was idealism
"Couldn't keep his prick in his codpiece" 😂 🤣
He can talk. (sarcasm)
Great actor.💎 this attractive .❤️ Charles.❤️ , a cute , he is my favorite actor , I adore him !!! 😘💕😍
I think you can go now
This was a great movie!!!
"I expect you to do your duty by your family".........mmmmmh i wonder why i feel this sentence could have been said to one of his Lannister childrens.I also noticed how almost all Charles Dance charachters are all Family First kind of charachters
Why is the camera constantly moving? It’s actually irritating.
servants wear 18th century costumes. william's retinue also includes a late 16th century/early 17th century costume. so inaccurate
You sadly can't have everything in a movie. Historical accuracy costs money. A lot.
They had a € 5 million budget, had to cut a lot of corners.
By comparison: Bad Hollywood movies have a budget of $ 100 million+.
@@Jiskpirate Even Hollywood productions suffer from this. In Braveheart the Scots wore kilts which weren't invented in the same form yet in the 13th century and they wore blue facial paint which hadn't been used for centuries.
I’ve always had a hard time picturing Charles ii without the wig
Notice that William doesn't wear a wig. By then the wearing of wigs had become populare in England but not in the Netherlands. You can see this from paintings from the time.
In the movie he does, tho, in a later scene you can see him take this hairpiece off @@Ozymandias1
He he just refer to his girlfriend as his "little sausage?" It's a bit of an unusual pet name if my translation is correct.
That woman that just walked up to the king is a tart.
Excellent film, notice in the opening scene, there's a early union jack flying on the ship mast, which is over 50 years too early !
That's technically not a Union Jack, it's a Flag of Great Britain. The Union Jack includes the Cross of St Patrick. The Flag of Great Britain had been around since 1606 when James I & VI unified England and Scotland. Although it only became the official flag in 1707 it was in wide use before that.
They really went for historical accuracy in this movie.
very good movie just say it on Netflix
Tywin and his family
And you think you've got it bad? Haha, oh please. Politics.
Verdomme wat voelt het goed als je land Tywin Lannister heeft verslagen🇳🇱
good actor, bad actor... you decide who is what...
Panzer Raven dont really think the dutch guy is that bad..
And now mark rutta sell netherlands for free to European Union
Well we ate Johan de Witt in 1972, are you getting hungry:) Make it a tradition.
@@roadrage9191 And Rod Stewart was murdered near Dokkum in 1973.
One of the most historically inaccurate written scenes I've ever witnessed. Just plain stupid. This meeting never happened and if it had, it certainly wouldn't have happened the way it is shown here. Utterly ridiculous. Certainly the Dutch fleet kicked English ass all over the world in both the 2nd and 3rd Anglo-Dutch wars but would the Prince of Orange (who was already in effect the "King" (Stadhouder) anyway descended for generations from the great Maurice of Nassau and William the Silent - generations of immensely powerful, skillful, brilliant men who had defeated the super power of the day Spain in the longest revolution in history - 80 Years War) used the Irish slang word "Smithereens"? to describe an outcome in the 17th century. Really?
Indeed! However from studying Charles for many years I think he was a deep thinker and know that he read the works of the great enlightenment thinkers of the time. So I really think that he held religious beliefs regardless of his debauched libertine lifestyle. I think he was very confused and troubled. In many ways a weak man lead by his passions but also a strong thinker who knew and accepted some hard realities. He would go into long deep moody depressions where few were allowed to see him. I think he may have actually been bipolar. He is written about by his contemporaries as believing that he may have been being judged by God for the plague, the great London fire, and the loss of the Dutch wars.
One cannot say how much his family influenced him during his youth and there was clear resentment based on some of the things he is recorded as saying after the Restoration. Regicide is not something that happened often, and it was the most hardcore Protestants in the world of that time who took his father's head. The man despised the Puritans and his family had stayed Catholic for generations against the tide of Presbyterianism in Scotland and Anglicanism in England. We know he was a closet Catholic at any rate simply because of the Treaty of Dover. This was important enough of an issue to the men of parliament and to negotiating Kings that it could have meant his own ejection from the throne if things had gone a little differently.
Very proud and admirable lineage Sir. I am familiar with Howard. I always admire men who do(did) the right thing for the right reasons. We could use more honest men like that now who will take care of others before themselves when they see it is justly deserved. Most people are simply out to pad their pockets with no honor, pride or even shame.
Excellent post Sir. You certainly know your history. Very refreshing to see on You tube when the opposite is usually true. I rarely post these days because of it but will take the time considering your intelligent discourse.
I honestly believe that bad banking practices on the part of the English is what really caused the loss of the Dutch wars. England had so much more man-power to call upon and greater natural resources. The Dutch had to import most of their resources from the Baltic and the German interior - but their industrialization and ship production FAR exceeded the English - with 25,000 trading ships globally at this time, when the English only had a tenth of that. Lord Clarendon's letters to the King reek of constant jealousy and sheer paranoia when referring to the Dutch. Clarendon was largely the catalyst for both the Navigation Acts and the wars - firmly believing that the English economy could be saved with the assets of a conquered Dutch rump state being achieved. These wars were all about economics - pure and simple.
Samuel Pepys letters to the king and his diary entries are dominated by the theme of being constantly short on funds to build ships, refit ships, maintain the dockyards and expand them, fund the training of professional officers, and pay the crews and support personnel. He also complained bitterly about corruption and embezzlement within the Navy board officials and the government. Many English sailors who went over to the Dutch side could be heard chanting after certain battles that they they were now "working for Dutch dollars - and not worthless English tickets".
Though the Dutch ships were faster and more maneuverable, the large English warships were superior to the Dutch in terms of firepower - especially in line. The 36 pounder bronze Dutch guns found on Holland's capital ships were far superior to the English, but they were 20 times more expensive and they didn't mount near as many as the English ships did. The Dutch on the other hand had their own central bank - TONS of good credit AND hard capital, and were able to quickly refit their fleet and add new warships to it after every battle - this was something the English just couldn't manage.
England's REAL rise as a great world power truly had its roots in the English central bank (Bank of England) that Dutch King William was the catalyst for - making it a reality a couple of decades later, even though many prominent Englishmen were fervently against the idea seeing it as - "too Dutch of an idea at a time when there were way too many Dutch ideas".
Very good points all. Yes you are correct. After the loss of the first Dutch War, De Witt put a program of naval reform in place. They started a codified professional education program for naval officers and they built large purpose constructed capital ships made for war alone. Previously Dutch warships were usually just well armed merchant vessels chartered or called up for naval use. The new largest class Dutch Warships mounted 80 to 90 guns and their entire lower decks mounted 36 pounders. However, these ships were still more lightly built two deckers with flatter bottoms than their English counterparts because of the many shallow harbors and channels in Dutch cities and colonial possessions. Because of this they were faster and more maneuverable than the English ships, but the English ships made better more stable gun platforms for more accurate gunnery - even if most English guns were the smaller iron 16 to 24 pounders. The largest English ships also still boasted three decks of guns and out gunned most of their Dutch counterparts by a factor of 20 to 30 guns - which translates to 10 to 15 more in a broadside engagement.
The Hollanders generally relied on better maneuverability and tactics and greater numbers of ships to win. It is a fascinating and very neglected subject of study. Good solid information is never dated Sir. I actually loathe most revisionism. If it is bringing actual new relevant historical information to be considered that is one thing - but so often it seems these days that they ignore much of the great body of knowledge compiled by excellent historians who were experts in their subjects - but who lived in the previous two centuries.
That book is part of my private library and I have indeed read it Sir. Excellent book. I would recommend the Scents of Eden by Corn and The Embarrassment of Riches by Schama My copies are dog eared and warn out I've read them so often. LOL
I much preferred John Malkovich's performance as Charles II in the Libertine. Much more believable as King Charles than Dance. I find it laughable that Charles' dialogue here makes fun of Henry VIII and jibes William - asking him if he doesn't like girls - when in fact Charles was probably the most debauched libertine king in English history LOL. Badly written scene with no historical research behind it.
I'm not so sure. Why wouldn't a debauched libertine behave like that to jibe at a younger person? Does it really not make sense?
I find Charles Dance appears to portray Charles II as more cunning and Machiavellian than I believe the real king was. The disregard for parliament is true enough, and Charles was more accommodating towards Catholicism.
He is portrayed as a debauched libertine here. I don't see your point.
Malkovich could play the low level snarky sinisterism. Dance has a tad bit of highbrow he can't hide.
Sean McManus
Charles II acted debauched but he's an absolute monarch at heart like all Stuart men.