Kingslayer

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...

The story was kinda good and I liked the idea of the storyline , the whole Film had a bit of an amateurish feel about it, but was an interesting watch. I didn't really feel the romance from the two leads and found the whole thing a bit muddled took me a while to get to grips with who was double crossing who! The main actor seemed a little out of his depth and his beard was a bit distracting but my favourite part of the whole experience was the music it actually made it for me and I've downloaded some of the composers music. So in short my review is 5 for the film but a 10 for the soundtrack shame it's not available to download.

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.

I know its 2022 and we all expect a lil' wokeness as governed by the shadowy CEO from Blackrock and Vanguard, but the blatant rewriting of history to include sub-saharan immis is a fail. Do you wonder why the world hates your movies? Do you think you are doing justice to people by making up stories about a past King of England, who by the way, was a nasty piece of work. But I'm sure he wasn't as nasty as this movie, or its attempt to slip the public the misconception of Western history.

Beyond this, there are other bad elements, such as: -Bad character intro/development. What can I say about the non-introduction of characters? Its just not really there.

-Is the camera man infatuated with tree shots, or was he drunk? I don't understand why the director spent so much time filming the trees and bark. And near the end of each scene, the camera points up, giving the audience the view of the sky littered with branches obscuring the view, almost as obscure as the rest of this film.

-The plot is bad. Seriously, the non-king-yet Richard sneaks off to the woods to meet his horse trainer woman so they can get it on, but before that happens, the poor folk are there to assassinate him. Add the ugly man who rapes women, and the woman that cuts off his gnards. How liberating it must be, to emasculate all the men... how pathetic.

The acting is poor, but what does one expect when the director is bad at his/hers/theirs/whatever job? I mean, I could see the actors were trying, but I bet it was a hard job working with that director. So I suppose the actors probably put up with a lot of crap just to get paid; c'est la vie.

But is it? Is this what modern film making is now? Just the rewriting of history so that gobs of the population become woke?

We, the people, reject this attempt to rewrite history and also hate this movie.

Director is to blame for a lot of this, but the wokeness is disingenuous to say the least.

Low budget, badly acted, poorly directed, laughable editing.

Feels like a 'made during lockdown' type movie, and that's not good.

I gave it 2 because getting a movie made on this level of budget gets a thumbs up and the basic storyline (made up drivel notwithstanding) is at least passable. Low budget, badly acted, poorly directed, laughable editing.

Feels like a 'made during lockdown' type movie, and that's not good.

I gave it 2 because getting a movie made on this level of budget gets a thumbs up and the basic storyline (made up drivel notwithstanding) is at least passable. Low budget, badly acted, poorly directed, laughable editing.

Feels like a 'made during lockdown' type movie, and that's not good.

I gave it 2 because getting a movie made on this level of budget gets a thumbs up and the basic storyline (made up drivel notwithstanding) is at least passable.