Il regicida - Caccia a Riccardo Cuor di Leone

From the director of Wolf and The Necromancer, I was ready for another wild ride of bloodshed and grief in an isolated location, driven by a fantasy story. I certainly got that, and more. Each character distinct, colourful and purposeful. There comes a moment that is beautiful and cuts very deeply, returning later to cut some more, and it's so very effective and resonant. This isn't a huge budget epic of cgi armies battling, like the many countless number of other films in this kind of story, and I'm thankful- it's much more personal, thoughtful and soulful. I love the creativity.

Heavy lies the crown indeed.

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 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.

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.

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.