Dia de Ira

What can I say about Christopher Lambert?? He Starred in good films like Highlander films (OK not the second one) mean guns, Fortress Mortal Kombat and my guilty pleasure Beowulf. But there has been others like Point Men which was undoubtedly the worst film ever. Just look at the Christopher Lambert list of films in a word RUBBISH. But Day of wrath is different. It has a good Story, best part being all the twists and turns like disappearing bodies and conspiracies. Good acting OK violence is set in 16th century and Brian Blessed is in it!!!!!. Its very entertaining and is worthy of watching. Big Chris Lambert is (hopefully) back on track and I cant wait for MK Devastation.

7 out of ten

An awful script and terrible direction saved only by some decent local and imported actors. Lambert is fine but not given much to work with. Most of the time he seems to have the same slightly puzzled look on his face. Blessed, Faulkner and Law do the character work that they do best and the director should be glad to have had them in. Local Hungarian actors, including Szonja Oroszlany do solid work as well proving that the country has real talent available. Would have been good to see newcomer Ben O'Brien more in the role as Lamert's deputy. Unfortunately, the script sinks the boat and viewers don't have any time to develop a relationship with the characters much less care about any of them. Quick-pace editing means that the whole story moves much too fast.

What makes a B movie? Historically they filled the second half of the bill, were shorter, cheaper and generally inferior to A movies. Today the defining characteristic of a B movie, is budget. Those things which lend prestige to a film simply can't be afforded.

From scripts to costuming, todays B movies are all about improvising and simply making do. Day of Wrath is clearly a B movie but it did seem to have had a reasonable budget to work with. Costuming is impressive. Sets are credible. The script is OK. However when we get to aspects like the plot, well, things start to fall apart.

The plot is clumsy and disjointed. A hotchpotch of Catholic, Jewish, Spanish aristocratic interests mixed in with secret compartments, hidden identities, secret lists and buried family 'shame'. There is not much from the swashbuckler genre that hasn't been throw in to the pot.

There are other flaws. We are well over the half way mark when we discover the inn keeper is Lambert's oldest and dearest friend. He then promptly disappears from the narrative altogether! Phylida Law makes a much better fist of being Lambeth's mother than he does her son. (And this despite Law having but one costume for nearly the entire movie!) Brian Blessed has played one too many riotous and ribald monarchs and has fallen into shallow caricature. And on it goes.

Adrian Rudomin is a journeyman director and a writer unafraid of cliches or tired tropes. His depiction of the Catholic Church is particularly disappointing. All that James Faulkner, as Friar Anselmo, needed to complete his character was a black moustache to twirl and a floor length cap to swirl. He has played similar roles in the past but to much greater effect.

Rudomin sets several scenes in a scriptorium (transcribing room), the medieval workshops which saw rows of anonymous monks copy and decorate texts that were culturally invaluable but does nothing with such a rich setting, nothing at all. The events in the scriptorium could taken place anywhere!

Still, and despite being able to do much more than he did, Rudomin has drawn a tolerable and moderately entertaining movie together.

A final and sad observation concerns Christopher Lambert himself. He was 49 when he made this film and seems tired. He is leagues away as an actor from his 1984 Tarzan or even his 1986 Highlander franchise. This tiredness, along with Rudomin's limitations, confirms the movies' B grade.

I agree with the previous commenter about the script and the fast pace of the editing. It does the movie disservice. What would have made it better would have been to let the characters shine through a little more. I do think that for a low budget film it had an interesting, well thought out story. I was surprised by this, and despite the poorly choreographed fight scenes (why were all fighters, even henchmen, better than Lambert), I was still interested because of the historical engagement of the plot. I also agree with the previous commenter that the Hungarian actors were good. I think it is clearly a B movie, but not a bad one.

I was expecting a typical Christopher Lambert movie when I rented this, a pretty badly produced swashbuckling movie with some funny stuff. I was surprised to find that this movie was a little bit more....It is not a 'fun' movie but it is not meant to be. Technically the movie is pretty low quality and the script and editing is choppy but if you can get past those aspects it is worth watching. The international cast makes for a confusing variety of accents, but by the end of the movie you can see why various accents make some sense. This film is meant to inform the viewer of the history of the religious persecutions. It made an impression on me. If you have a social conscience at all, you can see a relevance to today's world events.