Warriors angels - Lame scintillanti

Well, I am a Joanna Pacula fan, so I did enjoy this film. While the whole plot was very predictable, the action and adventure were great. To see women in the Crusades actually fighting, even if it is fiction, is great! There should have been some romance rather than just a bunch of sex between the men of Grekkor's army and the ladies that they kidnapped, but that was the only real problem I had with the film. It was interesting enough and it had it's moments of being really funny, especially Eve's scenes, she was a total ditz! Luke was hot, need I say more? Grekkor hasn't aged as nicely as I think he would have liked to. And the kid, oh the kid...Well, he was just plain boring, and the whole movie is about him. So is the movie boring? Not entirely. The kid, Peter, is very cowardly and he has no idea whose side he should be on. His mothers, or Grekkor's...Grekkor begins to teach him how to fight and how to "be a man" while his mother abandoned him for a year to go fight in the crusades. When she gets back from fighting, her son is gone, she panics, and then goes on a quest to find him. The woman in the woods, Hunter, she seems like she is attracted to the ladies, which makes for a kind of funny feeling at moments. While Eve, the prostitute, is just stupidly funny the whole way through. Yes, it is a B movie, but it is worth renting if you need something interesting to watch just one night.

The defenders surrender and open the gates of the castle. Their enemies are riding into it. Only one person is left to fight them, a woman about 40 years old with a broadsword in her hands. The leader of the enemies, a huge guy in black armour, looks down upon her and says: `I've never seen such bravery – and foolishness.' She is staring at him, ignoring the whole army behind him, and replies stonily: `I'm going to kill you, Grekkor.'

Great idea to open the movie with the final confrontation, as it makes every watcher curious. How did these two characters get into such a situation? The rest of the movie is a flashback which explains why it had to happen. Cheaply produced in Lithuania, `Warrior Angels' is a movie with pros and cons. On one hand, the idea to make Elisabeth, a woman over 40, the central character, is brilliant. Instead of the cute princesses you know from countless other fantasy movies or those Charlie's Angels (remember the title!) kind of girly fighters, we are introduced to a tired, but very experienced fighting lady here who goes into her last battle for personal reasons, trying to rescue her abducted son. The cast is marvellous. First we have Rutger Hauer as Grekkor (he looked old to me for the first time – but then I realized it was 20 years ago I saw him at the cinema in `Blade Runner', so I wouldn't mind him saying the same about me), a villain with a cause, not just evil for the fun of it. He explains how his land was taken from him and he wants to use the time while the king is abroad to steal it back. His motivation for the kidnapping of Elisabeth's son is plausible as well, since he wants to teach a boy how to become a warrior, which his father never did for him, he thinks. Second, we have Arnold `The Mummy' Vosloo who gets the best part. A permanently drunk loser at the beginning, he becomes Grekkor's right hand man, but then realizes he may be on the wrong side, so he thinks a lot over his loyalty, his duty, his inner feelings, torn between despair and reborn courage – not a plain cliché role at all! Last not least, we get a team of 4 ladies when Elisabeth teams up with a huntress, a thief and a witch. Their totally different characters make the movie entertaining.

On the other hand, `Warrior Angels' makes a few mistakes. Every historian will burst into laughter at the introduction of Elisabeth as a woman who has been fighting as a knight in the crusades with Richard Lionheart. Just like Ivanhoe or Robin Hood, they are trying to give her a certain historical background. Now, a woman as an equal fighter in a Christian army didn't even exist 1890, let alone 1190. The writer must have watched too many Xena episodes and thought female warriors are a normal part of life in the middle ages. They should have omitted that reference to the year 1190 and make `Warrior Angels' a timeless fantasy movie. Also I wonder why the villain is named Grekkor, not George or James, as he is supposed to be British. Where did he get that typical fantasy name from? Apart from these inconsistencies, I also wonder why the people of the towns around (who outnumber Grekkor's bandits by far) never attack him. The movie simply suffers from the budget limitation, I suppose, hence there are a few not so spectacular battles and obviously cheap set design. Nevertheless, I think `Warrior Angels' is definitely a better choice than `Amazons And Gladiators' for example, since there are good actors involved and a couple of original ideas along the way. Voted 7/10.

Lady Elizabeth (Joanna Pacula) has proved herself a more than capable warrior ,doing valiant service in the Crusades when she is wounded and compelled to return to England .There she finds that major changes have taken place on her manor.A local warlord ,Grekker (Rutger Hauer) has gathered together a formidable band of outlaws ,is exacting tribute from the local peasantry ,and has taken her only son prisoner ,raising him in the outlaw way.She tries to raise a force to tackle the outlaw and recapture her son but the locals are too cowed and fearful to take action .Instead she assembles a small group of women ,all outcasts ,who are willing to fight on her side .There is the formidable Hunter(Molly Culvert) a skilled archer and sword fighter ;the prostitute Eve (Charlotte Avery)and the gypsy Sybil ,an expert on spells and potions .

Also in the brigand's camp -albeit reluctantly -is Luke(Arnold Vosloo) ,an enigmatic individual with a chequered past and who is uneasy at the actions of Grekker ,and his part in perpetuating his reign of terror.

The action is lively enough ,although budget restrictions don't help ,and the cast is better than usual for such fare .Sadly,the movie does not follow through on its themes ; for instance in the clearly implied sexual attraction felt by Hunter towards Elizabeth .This movie could have been so much better given the talent on display but is mired in the "adequate time passer " category .Watchable but a missed opportunity

Joanna Pakula as the leading warrior angel, home from the third crusade with Richard the Lionheart, finds herself at home bereft of her son, who has been abducted by the wicked Grekkor (Rutger Hauer), a perfect Hollywood villain, with no mercy and nothing but scheming cruelty. It is all made up, like a fairy tale, touching both fantasy, Tolkien, medieval romanticism and Hollywood swashbuckles and with a regular happy end, although the film is littered with casualties, mainly on the bad side, while Eve (Charlotte Avery) is a regrettable loss. The fighting is fierce and regular, while as usual in modern films like this it is impossible to grasp all details, since everything just keeps wildly flowing by like a fierce flood of havoc. Nevertheless, it is worth watching although but once, and the boy Peter's constant change of loyalties is not quite logical and understandable, which character is the only flaw of the film: a better director would have been needed. Another confusion is the many different titles the film has been shown under, like "Vengeance of War", "Crusade of Vengeance", "United in Vengeance" and others still, making it difficult to find it and look it up; but the best role and actor is Arnold Vosloo as Luke, who has a constant bad time surviving many hard blows.

Arnold Vosloo (from "The Mummy") and Rutger Hauer tried to revive this movie but failed, probably due to the director. This movie had a lot of new ideas going for it: a female main character (who was not young and sexy), a single mom in a medieval film, characters who are not simply good or bad... It even made good use of its low budget, particularly by using some realisticly cold-blooded "medieval" type horses rather than the cheap quarter horses miscast in such historical films. The acting was on a MST3K level with the exception of Hauer and Vosloo, but at least the scenery was nice and the unusual circumstances of the story compensated until--

The ending ruined it all. The director made an obvious change at the end contrary to the way the screenplay built up the characters throughout the whole film. It leaves a plot hole you can drive a MAC truck through. What can I say? I guess the director figured Americans love happy endings, no matter what loose ends it leaves.