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...

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.

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.

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.

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.