A ruthless mercenary renounces violence after learning his soul is bound for hell. When a young girl is kidnapped and her family slain by a sorcerer's murderous cult, he is forced to fight and seek his redemption slaying evil.
Michael J. Bassett
Max von Sydow,
It is the year 1215 and the rebel barons of England have forced their despised King John to put his royal seal to the Magna Carta, a noble, seminal document that upheld the rights of free-men. Yet within months of pledging himself to the great charter, the King reneged on his word and assembled a mercenary army on the south coast of England with the intention of bringing the barons and the country back under his tyrannical rule. Barring his way stood the mighty Rochester castle, a place that would become the symbol of the rebel's momentous struggle for justice and freedom. Written by
After the first attempt by King John's army to take the castle, King John (Paul Giamatti) can be seen eating a peach in his tent. When the real King John died in October 1216, his death was attributed to poisoned ale, poisoned plums, or a "surfeit of peaches". See more »
King John orders 40 pigs to make the fire in the tunnel. However, there are only two transports arriving. In each of these transports only about 5-6 pigs would fit. See more »
...And here's what I mean: The movie is absolutely watchable (if you are a fan of historical action, medieval theme and hack n' slash of course). The Battle scenes are shot perfectly. Costumes are not 100% authentic, but not so fantasy-driven as other "historical" movies tend to create these days, but: In places the movie raises the question: did the director any historical research prior to arm his team with cameras and lights or not at all? How, being English, is possible to not know own history if not in details, than at least to some degree? The case here is not about "artistic freedom", that sometimes demands to sacrifice realism or fact to make an art better. The inaccuracies occur here in places, where there aren't any necessity of them.
The rip-offs from the other movies were obvious as well. I don't know whether the authors really did intend to make "medieval magnificent seven" but if they did, they failed. Each character in Magnificent Seven is someone you deeply care. Someone you deeply know. Someone who you never forget. Each of them is unique.
Here: They are seven as well. They have one womanizer. They have on guy who throws knifes. They have one unexperienced youngster who asks for the trouble. They have one huge guy who chops wood when the group is approaching him... But that's it. That's where similarities end. Neither of these characters have any charisma.
Out of two main villains, one plays it's part really good, while other has not much to do except swinging the huge Axe.
Templar - the main protagonist of the movie, is played well as well... but again, his character is cliché as well and not as deep as writers could have imagined. (No fault of the actor here. He worked with what he had).
Plot is simple and somewhat unrealistic. 7 heroes, together with random 11 soldiers are guarding the castle from thousands of bad guys. (One English king and whining Danes who run at the first sight of blood among their ranks.
Bad guys need castle so badly because it's on the strategic spot on the English map and if King who regrets signing Magna Carta wants to rule autocratically once again, he must take it at all costs.
Here you will need all your suspend of disbelief to not raise the questions such as: why the rebels have sent only 7 men with questionable reputation to hold such an important spot...
Overall, like I said in the beginning of this review, the movie is watchable. If you're looking for some good action, blood and gore, you'll get what you paid for. If you're history buff though and easily offended about historical inaccuracies, you can avoid this one.
38 of 51 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?