Richard the Lionheart: Rebellion

Firstly I'm a filmmaker, and I have nothing but respect for those that have actually navigated the gauntlet and succeeded in creating and finishing a film, so; good for the filmmakers.

Unfortunately that's where the praise stops. As they should be experienced enough by now to spot a terrible script. (Cheapest bit to get right, but so rarely done)

The Director ... There aren't words, just: casting: awful, simply awful... What's with the accents all over the place, half the English weren't, the French king sounded like no other 'french' (one heavily and horribly American, others eastern European) in his small theatre OTT. accent. The fights were needlessly unrealistic, tried to be cool, unlucky gamble. Really should have spent more time with casting, as none of the actors came off well and that tells me of a poor director that didn't rehearse with them enough. And didn't breakdown the script properly.

the cinematography: were there two conflicting DOP's?? Some shots were actually classy and well graded and framed and beautiful, making me believe the world. Then they were cut in with horribly framed, shaky hand-held pointless shots which made absolutely no sense. A DOP should be able to tell the story just with the shot selection, how you frame actors can tell a huge amount about their relations and emotions and so on.

The editing... Just... Wow. Equal to cinematography. So many shots were utterly pointless and just throw you out, they stand out for all the wrong reasons.

All goes back to the direction: did I mention BOOBS? Yeah because they helped the story... Maybe they were the story, three boobs decided to... Waste their and everyone else's time, all the way to this present day.

And I love that almost all the positive reviews on here are clearly from the same person, all around the same date, all written in the same flawed English and grammatical structure. That amused me greatly.

Don't get me wrong, I love this genre, but I really really want the filmmaker to grow, and learn from his mistakes. And I never even mentioned the sound... Obviously radio mics were above the budget which went on clean costumes (or were they via re-enactors?) and OTT/ unnecessary makeup.

I did however quite like the locations, when believable / historically believable.

Well done for trying.

Rarely are low budget films great...but sometimes they can be good. This offering is neither.

A script that was surely written by an able 10 year old, acting that will embarrass the actors for years to come and locations chosen by a blind illiterate moron with no sense of History or Geography. Where are the bloody mountains in Northern France? What were they thinking...Or were they?

(Just watched Vikings Season 4. They sail up the Seine and haul their longboats up cliffs and then pull them over 'the mountains' - WHAT cliffs, WHAT mountains!)

I managed just under 30 mins. There is a simple obvious rule. If you have a low budget, stick to themes that you can afford. Mass battle scenes are clearly out. Spend the money on the script...Or did the actors just make it up as they went along?

They did manage to save some money by not having a Director, well it appears that way.

All in all - a shame. A great idea for a movie...It just needed a budget, a director, a script, actors and basic intelligence choosing locations.

I literally quit after 5 minutes it was that bad - and I've watched some pretty crappy movies. It felt like a high school drama production with boobs.

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?"

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.