I enjoy watching period pieces, but this one was hard to get through. Poor acting, especially in the fighting scenes. The storyline was unclear and contrived. Some scenes seem to have been added for gratuitous reasons, such as love scenes. They can add to some stories, but in this movie, they were out of place. It took a long time to understand where the story was going. The audio quality was not very good and I imagine it was due to dubbing. Like another poster, I should have stopped it about twenty minutes in. However, I thought it would get better, which it didn't. Malcolm McDowell's talents were wasted on this piece.
Plot summary
The aging King Henry II has chosen his son Richard to lead England in the coming war against France. To test Richard's loyalty, honor and skill, Henry sends him to a hellish prison in which the captives must fight a never-ending stream of enemies in order to survive. As Richard overcomes each new challenger, his strength, ingenuity and character are proven, and the legend of Richard the Lionheart is born.
Uploaded by: FREEMAN
Director
Top cast
Tech specs
720p.BLU 1080p.BLUMovie Reviews
Nice idea, but poor result
Boring
Most boring movie I have watched in a,while. Lots of violence and kills but no real good story line. So don't waste your time
What did Malcolm McDowell ever do to get his talents wasted like this?
If there is only one small redeeming quality about Richard: The Lionheart, it's that they did get Henry II's sons' names right, the only bit of history in the movie that's accurate. Other than that, the low-budget shows in some of the cheapest and most vague costumes and sets there's been for any low-budget movie, the modified night-gowns comparison for the costumes is pretty apt and from the way the movie looks it is not clear what the setting is. The special effects never rise above crude standard and the sound constantly sounds as if it was recorded in an over-reverberant bathroom, which is really jarring. The music is the opposite of rousing, instead it's monotonous and sounds like a very, very pale imitation of Hans Zimmer in places. The dialogue sounds stilted and underwritten(especially in the very clunkily-written romance scenes),with a lot of the line delivery being very awkward, plus it has a weird mix of archaic and contemporary so you never feel as though you've been transported to the era of the Plantagenets. Richard: The Lionheart is flatly directed throughout that has the word inexperience all over it, and has uniformly bad performances from a largely unknown cast, most of them under-acting to the point of not looking as if they want to be there. Even worse is that the movie also wastes Malcolm McDowell who on paper seemed perfect and would elevate, but his performance is a mix of over-compensating and sleepwalking through and not helped by being hampered by having little to work with. The story is the biggest failing, it is often very difficult to follow, some scenes drag on for far too long and uses plot devices so overused already that it becomes very predictable as well. The action sequences are incredibly lazy, both in pace(like being in slow-motion) and choreography, school playground fights are honestly far more believable. In conclusion, just horrible in all areas, apart from that one historical accuracy, and unforgivably wastes McDowell. 1/10 Bethany Cox