User reviews

Betrayed by his own men for a wagon full of gold a Knights Templar named "Lord Gregoire" (Paul Sampson) vows to return after 10 generations and avenge himself on their descendants. Fast forward to the present and a young man by the name of "Jake McCallister" (also played by Paul Sampson) has agreed to host a small group of people in a fantasy retreat at a castle. As he surveys the castle he begins to have strange hallucinations. After that the guests begin to die one by one at the hands of a man dressed in the uniform of a Knights Templar. Now rather than disclose any more of the details and risk spoiling the film for those who haven't seen it I will just say that this movie was built upon a very interesting concept. Unfortunately, whoever wrote the script and assembled the cast doesn't have a clue about making movies. First, Paul Sampson sounded like Elmer Fudd and was clearly not up to the task as the lead character. Likewise, having Billy Drago (as "Shauna the Chef") dressed in drag certainly didn't help matters. Additionally, the dialogue was terrible and some of the scenes appeared to be made up on the spot. On the plus side this movie did have four pretty actresses in Ingrid Sonray (as "Amy"), Lisa Gleave ("Ashley"), Sofie Norman ("Celine") and Mary Christina Brown ("Japoniko"). Unfortunately, their characters weren't developed as well as they could have been and their roles were choked out by other non-essential subplots. The bottom line is that this movie had a good idea but it was badly written and executed. Because of that I rate the movie as below average.

It does not worth it. Great actor playing but the story was more like fairy tale. I still can not get it at all. This movie is worth it only for hearing Norman moan till the cute chick doing her job on his little friend. It was extremely hot. Other things sucks. First - that macho man with split personality, not interesting at all. I can not understand why he was in that castle, why these guys came... Everything was so put up, the spectator can not use his imagination for details and everything. Second thing - church never raised killers, god never sent avengers and they with sure don't kill hookers. No matter how many stars you bring to a movie, you should know more for history before make them play they roles.

Now I know there are some people on here that loved this film due to the handsome male lead or whatever and there are also some (probably one) psycho(s) trying to trash this film under a variety of pseudonyms. Having seen all the controversy I decided to watch Night of the templar and see what all the fuss was about. So the plot was quite thin, I didn't engage with any of the gents or ladies that would be loosely described as having acted in this film. It was obviously done on a low budget which is fine if the tale being spun is interesting. I feel like the time I spent watching this movie was not time well spent, and I struggled to finish it. I'd describe it as being a sub-par si-fy effort and I'm appalled Carradine would put his name to it. Not the worst movie I've ever seen but its definitely up there.... Hope nobodies offended by my putting my ten pence worth in :)

I watched this movie some time ago, because I was in a Reedus-frenzy after TWD, but Oh My, nothing could prepare me for this movie! It is the most awkward movie I have ever seen, and I barely made it to the end, wanting to just turn it off way before. The only thing holding me back was my friend, who I had forced to watch this movie with me, who said: We have made it so far through this awful film, we might as well see if it stays bad 'til the very end. Nothing was good about it. I cringed,and laughed (not in a good way) and hid behind a pillow (to protect myself from the awkwardness), The story was shallow, the "history"poor, I felt bad for the actors, the females were horribly portrayed and treated, the production was bad..... The only funny thing about this, is the reviews, which I have a suspicion is written of or on behalf of the creator of the movie. But seriously - don't waste your time with this! You will never get that time back!

I have just endured this film, and frankly, found it to be one of the worst films I have ever seen. The knights in battle scenes are reminiscent of a local village re-enactment society performing to a bunch of schoolchildren. The main character constantly talking to himself was laughable and made him less than believable as a character.

Flashback scenes to times of the crusades were cringe worthy. The sudden dramatic music when showing scenes of the main house, made no sense at all, other than to advise the viewer that this was possibly a scary house, where nothing really scary happened.

My local dramatic society, comprising of pensioners and eager school children, could have done a far better job of the story, and made it more believable.

Saw that this film had a very healthy 6.5 rating on IMDb and so sat down to watch it at home with great expectations.This is a very,very bad film and does not deserve a rating anything like the one it has.It has obviously been hyped up by the Director's wife's cousin, the Producer's son's baseball team and the Best Boy's pet spaniel. A plot so convoluted as to be virtually incomprehensible,feeble acting and a script you wouldn't use to wallpaper your toilet await the unsuspecting viewer.This was apparently David Carradine's last film and the poor man must be spinning in his grave to have left this dross as his final legacy to the world or maybe he did it on purpose as his ultimate two-fingered gesture to the rest of us.My advice is that when you read the reviews of this film,you concentrate on the ones with a rating similar to mine and ignore the sycophantic ramblings of the camp followers.I managed about half an hour before I switched it off and darned a pair of socks which was infinitely preferable.

What a waste of time, money and resources. Gave it a go because of Norman Reedus, but even he is terrible. Tommy Wiseau put on an acting and directing masterclass in The Room when compared to this.

A narrated explanation of events at the beginning is an excuse for a lack of storytelling ability and I genuinely paused to check if it was a History Channel reenactment documentary before proceeding.

The male violence towards female characters was deplorable as was the passive acceptance by those characters; confusing and disturbing.

Woman wants to leave, gets choked out and the other people at the house start talking about the ladies liking the rough stuff? Poor at best.

This is the worst movie I have seen in a long time and I watched Grown Ups 2 recently.

Avoid.

Really, don't waste any of your time or money on this dreadful film. Implausible story Implausible characters Poorly cast Poorly acted Poorly directed. Dreadful accents Nothing redeeming at all. Very difficult to see how it's scored as highly as it has. Not helped by large amounts of knitted chain-mail. I have no idea how to fill 10 lines of text with relevant comment, nor do I have any idea why unnecessary length makes a review better. Surely a quick and concise review is more useful than a lot of twaddle?

Really, don't waste any of your time or money on this dreadful film. Implausible story Implausible characters Poorly cast Poorly acted Poorly directed. Dreadful accents Nothing redeeming at all. Very difficult to see how it's scored as highly as it has. Not helped by large amounts of knitted chain-mail. I have no idea how to fill 10 lines of text with relevant comment, nor do I have any idea why unnecessary length makes a review better. Surely a quick and concise review is more useful than a lot of twaddle?

A Paul Sampson Film.

Occasionally I watch a film that leaves me so dumbstruck that I go and look it up on the ol' net thingy. This is one such film. I watched amazed as this trope-fest unfolded in front of me, shook my head and went looking for the reviews. My amazement at the film was nothing compared with my amazement at the glowing reviews with their talk of fine acting and marvellous story, superb direction, lavish sets..

I was so amazed that I checked the profiles and review of a couple of the critics. Yep. it was the only film they'd reviewed. I checked a couple more, then another half dozen, then a dozen... Sure enough, in each and every case it was the only film they'd ever reviewed on IMDb. I gave up after just over half of the reviews. All were on-offs. Am I seeing a smoking gun here, anyone? Of course, my selection of reviewers was made blindly, though apparently with the sort of randomness that makes us all lightning-struck lottery winners. Maybe the ones I didn't look at were all seasoned critics who had never met Paul Sampson. You can do your own leg-work - or let your inner statistician decide.

A Paul Sampson Film.

The hilarity began with the opening credits.. A Paul Sampson film, handled by Sampson Enterprises. Produced by Paul Sampson. Directed by Paul Sampson. I think maybe Wardrobe by Paul Sampson, Catering by... I'm sure you get the picture. Starring wait for it... wait for it, it'll be a surprise... PAUL SAMPSON!!!

Rather like - Starring George Lucas as Darth Solo!!!-

Now I've absolutely nothing against vanity enterprises. Some great art has come our way thusly. This isn't some of it, unfortunately. This is to film what the Dave Clarke Five was to drumming - pretty boy with the business plan at the front of the stage. In this case, pretty boy with (it seems) a lot of friends with favours he can call in, in front of the camera. The whole premise is "look how handsome/cool I am.. how can I wrap some kind of plot around that to justify me mugging at the camera for an entire feature film?" Well, he's appealing enough in a caricature-handsome large-featured kind of way and he's in pretty good shape, but boy, he wants us to notice it. If anyone doubts this, check out the whole new genre of "Sword and Underwear" he seems to have invented as an answer to decades of chain-mail bikini fantasies. Unfortunately it presents as very dry parody, which is often a wonderful thing - but not when it's this clumsy and the thing being parodied is the ongoing film itself. Anyway, the acting, and "feel" of the entire film was that of a comedy TV series doing a sketch based on an early 80s porn film, without any of the porn. Not the Swedish/Dutch "I haff cumm to mends your vashink machine. It looks ferry vet down there, let me get my tool out while the funky guitar and keyboard play..." but the American/German "We have rented a place in the country and have only one reel of film. Let us party and think up a situation we can finish up by being naked and smearing each other with offal and ketchup" type of entertainment that my grandmother so likes to watch, but purely for the soundtrack.

I enjoyed the watching of the film, rather than enjoyed watching it if you see the difference. Sometimes I enjoy the process of watching the film-making, not necessarily the end result. Here the end result was risible, which is rather a shame because a couple of the cast were really putting something special into it and it was nice to see Carradine again though the parallels with Béla Lugosi in Plan Nine From Outer Space drew rather poignant grid lines. Sadly missed, both. Worth seeing as a curiosity, and if I must draw another parallel - in intent if not style or subject matter - I'd say Easy Rider for the focus on the ac-tors rather than the pseudo medievalism of Monty Python and the Holy Grail - which was far funnier on a smaller budget. Knights/Night Templar was not intentionally funny, and was not terrible enough to be really great as some truly memorable turkeys are, but it is an awful, fascinating train wreck of a movie which has no charm whatever. I feel the same cast could have pulled it off with more astute direction, but we'll never know for certain.

Oh - nice to see Mr Mxyzptlk again, playing The Butler.

3 out of 10 as it stopped me thinking about the overdraft and sciatica for the duration.

I selected this movie because Norman was in it, but I couldn't even watch it. After 40 minutes of cliché and meaningless dialogue I fast forwarded to the end.

The script is full of clichés, all characters are one dimensional stereotypes and the whole thing is a predictable snooze fest.

Lead actor is weak and weird - maybe that was intentional, I don't know. Strong actors like David Carradine and Udo Kier are wasted. I don't even want to talk about the big boobed ladies who run around in underwear who actually don't contribute to the story.

Don't bother to watch it.

I really enjoy these types of films and since I saw that up and comer Norman Reedus was in it I just had to check it out. Having really enjoyed his performance thus far in Walking Dead I knew I'd be in for a treat and I was right. The late Mr. Carradine makes his final role very poignant and witty and I full-heartedly enjoyed Mr. Sampson as a medieval Knight/modern day vigilante.

Bring the pain! The movie itself is funny, albeit dark and promises to deliver a warped tale to all of us who enjoy thinking out of the box. There are babes galore, epic sword-fights, gore, romance and a healthy dose of twisted humor.

Watch it, enjoy yourself and watch it again. A+ for effort!

Because this, ladies and gentlemen, is, as we used to say in the Navy, is a hurter. Terrible acting, terrible script, painful to watch from beginning to end. I truly wonder how they talked big name (if not big draw) actors like Udo Keir, Billy Drago and the late, great Carradine. I mean, I know that none of them command great salaries anymore, but I'd have thought they still had a little self-respect. They clearly were just here for the paycheck (I hope they cleared).

The only folks who should voluntarily watch this tripe are the good folks at Rifftrax. All else, steer clear. You have been warned, my friends.

I read the very first review of this title written in the middle of the last decade that noted by the reviewer that many of the "10s" rating appear to come from one source. I wager that source would be Paul Sampson. Only a narcissist who wrote, directed and starred would think this B-exploitation movie was worth more than a "3". The exploitation comes from the fact that the director has a model's physique which he brandishes in several scenes. The acting extremely stiff from the cast, despite the fact that several well-known actors camped it up along side the star. The story-line is very confusing, jumping back and forth from present day to 700 years ago in the past. Of mild interest is the mystery of who is the killer and the amount of bloody dispatching of the characters (that's where the "horror" comes in), who the lead thinks reminds him of the Crusaders he fought with in another century. To the film's credit the art direction and cinematography are better than expected. The sets and village locales (other than the many scenes deep in a forest) are impressive. Let me conclude with "I've seen worse" when it comes to B movies. This one was worth the time spent watching it, at least.

Don't waste your time! OMG, what a pile of ****. Sorry, but it's bad.

Other than the soundtrack, this was one, if not the worst movie I watched. Poorly written, acting was terrible, and the story was, plot was poorly executed, to the point it really made no sense. Just bad!!!

Billy Drago in drag… its an image and a concept my brain is still to comprehend. Why did this happen? How? To what purpose does it serve and does it even matter? Perhaps it's just one of those things, a random occurrence in the cosmos sparked by dense imagination and/or slight comic perversion and displayed for our hesitant amusement.

Let's face it, our brains are only so big and we can only use so much of them… and while it is sadly a fact that I may never understand the grand concept of John Bly as a cross-dressing chef who before too-long has his/her life ended by a Knight Templar in a modern American manor, I strongly advise using yours to track down this awkward, bizarre, perhaps knowing or perhaps serious (I couldn't tell) small-budget oddity. Your inner critic may not thank you for it, but sometimes its better to tell that cat to scram while you groove with your inner 12 year old instead.

If you succeed in that, you'll have a lot of fun here.

The plot revolves around great medieval knight Lord Gregoire, who having been betrayed by his own adviser and warriors for an abundance of gold and riches, vows that after these traitors revel in 10 lifetimes of excess he will exact his bloody revenge. How this happens and the situations that arise from it are too confounding to detail here, especially concerning the true identity of the damsel our (anti)hero hooks up with at the film's end (this is simply brilliant) and what exactly the core group of characters have gathered for so this foretold 'night of the templar' can begin. Among these characters is an unfit deviant fittingly named Henry Flesh, played by none-other than The Walking Dead's Norman Reedus, who engages in a particular scene that he will one day be able to show to his kids with pride.

Other notable actors supporting this original material include the simply legendary Udo Kier (Flesh for Frankenstein, Blood for Dracula, Suspiria, Europa, Shadow of the Vampire) who, while spending a large portion of his screen-time walking and starring, pleasantly progresses into a vital role come the third-act and elevates the camp proceedings with his thick accent and undiminished persona, and equally legendary David Carradine (Death Race 2000, Kill Bill) who sadly passed away in 2009 after post-production. Given the subtle lunacy here its obvious that these great actors signed up not just to pay the bills, but because they could sense a journey that an open-minded viewer could truly revel in; featuring, as the tagline reads, passion, loyalty, deceit, betrayal…and revenge. They were right.

I sat watching this movie prepared to enjoy it, thanks to the promise of swordplay, violence and performances from two of my favorite cult actors; what I wasn't prepared for was the brazenly ridiculous script peppered with cues that certainly succeeded in making me chuckle when I wasn't wincing, and of course Billy Drago in drag… … that one tangible element of creative abandonment.

That one element that should prove to you, ladies and gentlemen, that while this isn't perfect, it's a rickety barrel-load of fun that can be savored for all the wrong reasons, and will no doubt cause you to involuntarily smile when bored at work or frustrated at school in the following days. Sometimes we are simply not meant to know how things are, a side-effect of our limited minds, so instead of wondering exactly what would inspire someone to make this film, wonder instead how many times you can watch Sampson as the "events coordinator" intensely comforting a distressed, shy girl by kissing her on the forehead and bravely declaring that Henry Flesh will never touch her again.

And there's that involuntary smile.

3 random trophy-filled shelves out of 5

For more movie reviews and opinions check out -

www.jordanandeddie.wordpress.com