The King has sent his best Knights to defeat the Dragon besieging his castle. Along their epic adventure they encounter malicious sirens, warrior women on a mission of revenge and an unstopp... Read allThe King has sent his best Knights to defeat the Dragon besieging his castle. Along their epic adventure they encounter malicious sirens, warrior women on a mission of revenge and an unstoppable army of the undead. Can they survive?The King has sent his best Knights to defeat the Dragon besieging his castle. Along their epic adventure they encounter malicious sirens, warrior women on a mission of revenge and an unstoppable army of the undead. Can they survive?
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
Kate Speak
- Isabel
- (as Kate Marie Davies)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
well it hard to describe but the acting is atrocious, the CGI is as good as the acting, and the sound effects is as good as the CGI dragon. best description for this movie i can think of is a bunch of D&D LARP players with an actual script running around on bad mushrooms. good luck and may Cthulhu watch over you.
I love a bad movie, this is a bad movie, but not the sort to be enjoyed. It has taken elements that are currently popular and shoe horned them in to a movie very poorly. Even a porno version of Game of Thrones or Walking Dead (Series that this is trying to be) would have more story to follow than this.
I was initially hooked in by how awful the first scene was, it's truly awful but is funny. Slo mo was used on everything, someone had brought a camera that can do 120fps and they were making sure they were going to use it. There is a clip of the guy slipping on a rock in super slow mo only for it to turn out to be nothing slipping on a rock . totally pointless. This is how I felt about most of the content of this movie thereafter, it shows us something only for it to be pointless. There was loads of stock footage of bears and wolves in completely different environments adding nothing to the story (if you can call it that), just put in there for the trailer perhaps.
It feels like every part of this film was done on the cheap, like it was some sort of 'Challenge Anika' attempt, where they have 24 hours to make a film from start to finish with just the contents from an old garage to use as props and GCSE students to help out.
I did feel very sad at one point upon seeing the old Blue Peter presenter Tim Vincent had lowered himself to acting in the film. Part of me feels he was only brought in to exploit Blue Peter skills to make some of the paper mache props.
The biggest moment and shock in the film was that it's the first in a trilogy or at least it thinks it is. If they get the funding for another one of these, then everyone should buy themselves a camera with slow-mo functionality and have a go at making a truly terrible movie of their own.
In summary, it's bad, really really bad seriously, just terrible.
I was initially hooked in by how awful the first scene was, it's truly awful but is funny. Slo mo was used on everything, someone had brought a camera that can do 120fps and they were making sure they were going to use it. There is a clip of the guy slipping on a rock in super slow mo only for it to turn out to be nothing slipping on a rock . totally pointless. This is how I felt about most of the content of this movie thereafter, it shows us something only for it to be pointless. There was loads of stock footage of bears and wolves in completely different environments adding nothing to the story (if you can call it that), just put in there for the trailer perhaps.
It feels like every part of this film was done on the cheap, like it was some sort of 'Challenge Anika' attempt, where they have 24 hours to make a film from start to finish with just the contents from an old garage to use as props and GCSE students to help out.
I did feel very sad at one point upon seeing the old Blue Peter presenter Tim Vincent had lowered himself to acting in the film. Part of me feels he was only brought in to exploit Blue Peter skills to make some of the paper mache props.
The biggest moment and shock in the film was that it's the first in a trilogy or at least it thinks it is. If they get the funding for another one of these, then everyone should buy themselves a camera with slow-mo functionality and have a go at making a truly terrible movie of their own.
In summary, it's bad, really really bad seriously, just terrible.
This was terrible! The cover looks amazing, really was hoping to have an amazing movie with my family but we were all disappointed. If you were thinking of watching it, I would say if you like shitty CGI, horrible acting, a shitty plot then this is for you but if you're not into that then do not watch it!!!!!
Here's the thing. The main/lead actors were god awful. No effort put in and sounded/looked as though they were reading the script for the first time there and then! Maybe they were? Clearly this was a money grab which is a shame because maybe this film could have been something had they put the effort, time but most importantly passion in. A fellow reviewer mentions the "bar scene". Yes, it was pretty awful but I thought the supporting artists (or extras) did a better job than the main cast. In fact, in all the scenes the extras did better. That's saying something. The main actors should be embarrassed of their panto- style acting. Why they were cast, who knows?! The camera work was shoddy and this whole film is offensive to indie film and passionate film makers. I'm only giving it a 4 because I know some (not all) of the extras actually put the work in and cared about the film.
Anyone who can independently fund, produce and release a film using a small budget deserves huge respect. Especially given the fact they have so little talent at their disposal.
I saw the 2.5 rating but I weighed that up against the idea of potentially seeing some "hot" amazon warriors fighting dragons. Who wouldn't like that?
Unfortunately those amazon warriors were about as convincing as the UK's current response to the Covid pandemic. I would urge people to avoid this film and frankly I've been too generous with my rating.
Why is it bad? Awful, awful sound, criminal acting, terrible script, painful and at times childlike direction and a meandering storyline that is just banal at best. Give it a miss and definitely under no circumstances pay to watch this.
I saw the 2.5 rating but I weighed that up against the idea of potentially seeing some "hot" amazon warriors fighting dragons. Who wouldn't like that?
Unfortunately those amazon warriors were about as convincing as the UK's current response to the Covid pandemic. I would urge people to avoid this film and frankly I've been too generous with my rating.
Why is it bad? Awful, awful sound, criminal acting, terrible script, painful and at times childlike direction and a meandering storyline that is just banal at best. Give it a miss and definitely under no circumstances pay to watch this.
Did you know
- TriviaSimon Wells: villager banging on the castle door.
- Crazy creditsNo animals or dragons were harmed in the making of this film.
- ConnectionsFollowed by Reign of Fire (2018)
- How long is Knights of the Damned?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Lanetli Şövalyeler
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- £6,300,000 (estimated)
- Runtime1 hour 24 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 2.39:1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
Top Gap
By what name was Knights of the Damned (2017) officially released in Canada in English?
Answer