The Necromancer

Well that's 90 minutes I won't get back. What a crock of crap. I had high hopes for this film but was sorely disappointed.

Bad acting and weird accents. There were a few good bits but they were few and far between. I found myself questioning the production and costumes as the film was so poor. Not recommended.

Never normally bother writing an actual review but I feel it is my duty to warn others how absolutely awful this film was. Anyone who claims a film other than this is the worst of all time hasn't seen this. Lacks any sense of direction, often makes no sense, half the film is fuzzy out of focus twigs although that is better than the horrific acting the only scary thing about this film was that someone actually signed this film off as more than a failed gcse project

This reviewer took it for what it was (low budget and amateurish at times) and didn't mind it. Ambitious in spite of it's flaws. Another soldiers lost in the menacing forest film. Can't speak to the authenticity of the historic events, weapons, or garb (some of the dialogue seemed odd though). The plot makes more sense than The Terror (1963). Entire affair is minimal. Filmed nicely enough. Personally, I enjoy drone shots in the outdoors (every Horror film has one these days). The story is just OK. The acting was fine. Practical effects were passable. I agree with other reviewers about missed opportunities. I kept hoping for the story to move in a unique direction. It really didn't. The plot was the big let down. I can't actually recommend this film unless you are a war/horror film completest. I am...and don't feel any worse off for having watched it.

The premise in itself is interesting. The script, the utterly insipid, simplistic dialogues and the amateurish acting (on a level with that of a not-so-brilliant high school troupe), paired with special effects clearly inspired by Pan's Labyrinth (albeit the version you'd expect elementary school children to make for themselves for Halloween) soon make it hard to keep a straight face.

Add to that a complete disregard for period detail and wigs so visibly artificial that you expect a label sticking out of them saying '100% polyester' and you wouldn't be surprised if one of the characters were to check his messages on an Apple Watch on screen.

Makes you wonder what the jury's standards are at the Bristol Festival. The real horror is thinking about what the other films presented will have been like if this is the winner.

This was a potentially interesting movie. The acting is generally fairly good in spite of some horrible dialog the actors had to unnaturally stuff into the scenes. The special effects were pretty poor. The battle scenes had potential, but the low budget forced them to skimp on a critical plot element. Once in the forest the movie takes a serious nose dive. Instead of horror you get boredom. There are also some big flaws such as self reloading muskets that just pull you right out of suspension of disbelief. A remake that spent time on the horrors Napoleonic soldiers faced. Then redid the entire forest element and made it actually scary and you have a really good movie. I'm sure the lack of money is responsible for a lot of the ills of this movie. Some were just bad dialog and unlikable characters. I suggest a pass on this movie unless you are looking for inspiration for an interesting plot to remake.