If there is only one small redeeming quality about Richard: The Lionheart, it's that they did get Henry II's sons' names right, the only bit of history in the movie that's accurate. Other than that, the low-budget shows in some of the cheapest and most vague costumes and sets there's been for any low-budget movie, the modified night-gowns comparison for the costumes is pretty apt and from the way the movie looks it is not clear what the setting is. The special effects never rise above crude standard and the sound constantly sounds as if it was recorded in an over-reverberant bathroom, which is really jarring. The music is the opposite of rousing, instead it's monotonous and sounds like a very, very pale imitation of Hans Zimmer in places. The dialogue sounds stilted and underwritten(especially in the very clunkily-written romance scenes), with a lot of the line delivery being very awkward, plus it has a weird mix of archaic and contemporary so you never feel as though you've been transported to the era of the Plantagenets. Richard: The Lionheart is flatly directed throughout that has the word inexperience all over it, and has uniformly bad performances from a largely unknown cast, most of them under-acting to the point of not looking as if they want to be there. Even worse is that the movie also wastes Malcolm McDowell who on paper seemed perfect and would elevate, but his performance is a mix of over-compensating and sleepwalking through and not helped by being hampered by having little to work with. The story is the biggest failing, it is often very difficult to follow, some scenes drag on for far too long and uses plot devices so overused already that it becomes very predictable as well. The action sequences are incredibly lazy, both in pace(like being in slow-motion) and choreography, school playground fights are honestly far more believable. In conclusion, just horrible in all areas, apart from that one historical accuracy, and unforgivably wastes McDowell. 1/10 Bethany Cox
