Kingslayer

The appalling acting is this movie is only matched by the equally appalling editing along with a plot so full of holes you could sieve pasta through it. It's as if a bunch of amateurs got together in a wood behind their homes and had the idea of making a movie.

Supposedly set in late 12th century England 2 days before his coronation as King Richard decides to go deep into a forest to spend time with his lover. Without horses seemingly. Why? No explanation. Without guards too. Why? England was in turmoil and about the only fact the movie gets right is that Richard's hold on the throne is tenuous indeed. His major competitor is his brother John as anyone familiar with the Robin Hood movies will know.

The plot, such as it is, comprises Richard and his lover trying to make their way home through the forest fighting off attackers. Had they not inexplicably left their horses at home they would have had no problem. But then there would be no movie. Deus ex Machina in reverse.

The acting is dreadful and the editing worse. You can almost see the joins. As for the acript I don't think there was one - they just made it up as they go along.

I gave it 2 stars since I actually sat through it on a long flight. Otherwise please do not waste your time.

Jarring cinematography coupled with poor direction, acting and script makes for a tedious experience. The scene where the woman is accosted by the group of armed women and men was particularly bad. The acting from the bearded guy that gets interrogated by the main protagonist at knife point while laying on the ground was amateur and devoid of truth.

Jarring cinematography coupled with poor direction, acting and script makes for a tedious experience. The scene where the woman is accosted by the group of armed women and men was particularly bad. The acting from the bearded guy that gets interrogated by the main protagonist at knife point while laying on the ground was amateur and devoid of truth.

Terribly cheaply produced B-movie about knights, which is so bad that it becomes laughable.

In all sincerity this shouldnt be called a movie and I bet it was intended for television only and that shows, because everything about this "movie" is inferior, from the story, to the direction, to the actors.

Walk on by folks, dont expect a knight movie, this is a laughable cheap surrogate...

Only the title is kinda interesting and it was the title hat fooled me into thinking this could be of some interest, BUT ofcourse it wasnt.

Fool me once...

Not any good then? NO NO NO. But if you wanna have a laugh go ahead and watch it...

Low budget yes, but bad acting? No. It's ok. Better than some big budget films. Not an implausible story. The plot isn't bad given the subjects discussed. The presence of Anslem and William Marshall doesn't need explaining. Others have critisised wokeness but for the life of me, I didn't see this. That not all characters are white doesn't make the film historically inaccurate. Race and ethnicity was much less of an issue in medieval times than it is now. It is enjoyable, uncomplicated, so easy to follow. At last a film from the medieval period that does not feature a dragon, wizards or Michael Caine.

Kingslayer is an incredibly tedious and frustrating watch. Nearly the entire film takes place in the King's Wood, which quickly goes from your local walking trial to *Yawn* extremely dull and monotonous. The plot, which loosely centers around a young Richard the Lionheart (referred to here as Richard for most of the film) and his romance with a common stable hand, feels disjointed and cheap.

The villains are surprisingly timid and unthreatening, leaving no real sense of danger or tension. Even with the occasional twist, like a mention of poison (Hemlock, in case you miss it) or a tragic and surprising fate the narrative never really lifts off.

Credit where it's due: the romance has its occasional moments, and Carolina Carlson who played Lea was quite good, the action sequences are passable if unremarkable, and while the accents are strong, the acting is decent enough to keep things watchable.

The priest or monk wielding his mace ends up being the most compelling and important character, which probably says a lot about the script's priorities.

John Rhys-Davies as William Marshall feels like a local pub patron that's running the kings guard, and even the castle keeps interior looks like a stage play.

Compared to something like Guy Ritchie's 2017 King Arthur, this feels like a backyard reenactment with a fraction of the budget. While it's not the absolute worst medieval film (I think) I've sat through, it's definitely an absolute shocker.

2/10.