The Black Knight Returns

Easily the most awful movie made in years. Devoid of plot, good acting, intelligent writing, good action or even good-looking stars, one can only ask why this movie was made. With a threadbare plot based loosely on some kind of psychic rebirth of the Black Knight, who fights crime, the movie rambles on for nearly 90 minutes on nothing but the naked audacity of its makers. Any two clowns on the street could manage more realistic fight sequences than are staged here. The quality of this movie is not even bad-funny, just too bad for human viewing. As of this review, 7 viewers have, on average, managed to give this film just over 5 stars. I can only ask: are you kidding? A high school film class could easily best this effort. If I could have rated it zero, I would have. Do yourself a favor and forget you ever saw this title on IMDb.

A film like this was obviously great fun to make but to watch it you gotta be something special. The main points of note are the special effects, I have seen better from total amateurs on youtube. And the time dilation effect generated in your brain, this movie should be played to criminals in jail that way a 10 year sentence would seem like 100 years and with no repeat offenders. The writing is OK the acting isn't so bad, so if the budget was a bit higher this movie could have been worth watching but mostly its not. So if you have a choice of 90mins extreme torture or watching this movie think very carefully how you want to spend the time as its a close call between the two choices.

I could not make it through the first 2 minutes without turning it off. So this review is for the first 2 minutes only.

2/10 stars is sufficient to tell you:

1) The movie is not worth the time I just wrote this. But I am writing this so that you will not watch more than the 2 minutes.

2) If you believe this was a grade school assignment, then it is definitely merits 2 stars for sheer effort.

3) If anyone who was involved in creating, producing and selling this movie are to read this, please try doing something else for your own sake.

It is sad that so few have posted so little. The movie, while being far below A quality,still reflects a few simple things. They were able to find funding. The people poking jibes about their kids being able to do better,or clowns could do better,should seek better employment to back up their claims. The main reviewer should don his make-up and get to work. It is easy to point and cast insults when your sitting on your backside,parked in front of a comp, and fisting Cheetos,all in the name of FILM NOIR!

I found the movie lacking in several respects,but I also recognize that many directors have similar products,bad or poorly constructed, but still learn from such. Uwe Boll comes to mind.

I do feel the film could have benefited from a bit more computer enhancement to say the least,but I have never found a reason to talk down on a director or actor because they lack skill. I do not have the skill nor aptitude to do better,I am sure nor do the other derogatory posters.

I do hope the director has learned from his project and grows from it. It is sad that people who post responses to a movie cannot seem to do the same.

I wasn't going to write a review of this movie until I read some of the others and became incensed (for their benefit, that's a fancy word for very annoyed, by the way). You know, there are some very negative people out there who seem to expect a Steven Spielberg or Ang Lee masterpiece every time they insert a DVD (probably downloaded and burned for free in the first place) into their player. I would love to know what those people have hanging on their living room walls posing as "art"! I'll bet they don't have original Renoirs or Rembrandts or even Miro or Chagalls or, for that matter, original anythings! (in fact, I'll bet they probably wouldn't know any of those if they saw them!) As it is, they probably have a portrait of a green-faced oriental girl or a print of Constable's "Hay Wain" without knowing who painted the original!

OK, this is not an A-grade or even a B-grade movie if you are judging by Hollywood or Ealing standards. But let me ask you negative people, if you had a son or daughter studying screen production at university and this was their class's product for their final assignment being shown at the campus cinema, along with all the other assignments, wouldn't you be there crowing about how your kid had been part of it? And, if you do have a kid at uni, don't say you wouldn't because I can tell you, you're lying!

If you took the trouble to read the end credits, you would have noticed that several jobs were done by the same people which immediately tells us that this was (if NOT a uni assignment) someone's "have-a-go" effort at making a movie - which, I suspect, is something those negative critics wouldn't have the get-up-and-go to get off their recliners in front of their TVs and do!

As a university screen-production graduate myself, I can tell everyone who has anything negative to say about this movie that, if my class had produced this, we would have been quite happy to present it to our faculty for assessment. Yes, if I had been the director, I might have done some things a bit differently (although I can't readily give any examples). To be honest, I would love to know the story behind the making of "The Black Knight - Returns" because that would definitely colour my opinion of it.

Some have been just as critical of the cast but, again, I wouldn't mind betting that none of them got paid but did it just for the fun of it. Cheryl Texiera should seriously seek a career in acting as, in my opinion, with some professional tuition, she could become a star.

So, no, I cannot give this movie more than a score of 5 but that I WILL give it, because it is patently obvious that it was never made to be a blockbuster and the people who did make deserve some encouragement and credit!