Richard the Lionheart: Rebellion

It is clear that this title received little funding, but given that it has some pretty good sets, locations, weapons, costumes and sound design.

The actors are amateurs, and whilst there are some terrible performances (including a few bad attempts at the French accent) many of the actors are pretty good, and the camera work is well framed on the actors and their motions.

There clearly is a plot although I couldn't tell you what it was.

As far as films go this is an amateur production, but as far a amateur films go this is a pretty good effort.

OK. This is my first review. I felt morally obligated to warn others. I admit I have wasted a lot of time in my life, but the 15 minutes I wasted watching this move...I truly regret. I actually felt embarrassed for everyone involved -- myself, the actors, the director, cast, crew, innocent bystanders, and all the anals of history (yes anal, as in 'anal orifice,' for who deserves the title more than war-mongering madmen?) Please, please, please...learn from my mistake. Don't waste your time and money on this jolly band of Ren-Faire flunkies with a camera, iMovie and iDeas. You will be as sorry as I am right now.

Probably the worst film I have ever watched. Poor acting, directing, filming, & script. I have nothing against low budget films but this is incredibly bad. It is the type of film you would make at school. It is a great shame because it could have been so good. The one thing that is good is the costume & set. Still something is not quite right with this though. It is all a bit to clean! When the film starts you think once the intro is over it will turn into a normal film, it never does. The scene isn't set very well, the introduction to characters is poor a confusing. In summary this did reach my expectations of what looked to be a very good very. It didn't even come close.

Bad direction, bad script, bad production, bad research and acting. This is very low budget (nothing wrong with that) but it shows. According to this the Battle of Devil's Bridge was fought by about ten people. The scenery around the North West of France is snow capped mountains (it isn't) and the first castle they battled in was defended by one knight.

Had to give up after just fifteen minutes (if that but it felt like longer) and walk out. Felt to me like they were just mugging me off.

Apparently I need ten lines of text for the review. Which is ten more than the film merits. Originally, all I wanted to say was "Oh dear. Why?"

All the reviews fail to mention that for all its short-comings, there are a couple of redeeming features, in the first 5 minutes anyway, I didn't make it past the 2 man battle for the castle sheltering Queen Elinor of Aquitaine.

But in that 5 minutes the featured character is Queen Elinor. She does have a nice set of tits (they look natural, because they have a lot of natural sag, but good heft and healthy sized nipples that point in the correct directions, unlike a lot of fake ones).

Other than that, the movie is pretty much a waste of time. When she puts on some clothes it's time to close the VLC window and move on to something with better acting, plot and production values (and better nudity), like say The Room or The Canyons.