Knightfall (TV Series 2017– ) Poster

(2017– )

User Reviews

Review this title
207 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Very Interesting.
npagkalos10 April 2019
The show begun very poorly. If I remember right the first 2-3 episodes were hard to watch. Poor performances by all the actors and it seemed as a very low budget production. But since that the show has made an huge leap forward and it is Safe to say that in second season now it is one of my favorite shows at the moment. Really give it a try up to second season.
25 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Here's the Fallout From Knightfall
lavatch6 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
In a most unfortunate approach to the exciting topic of the Knights Templars, the producers of "Knightfall" do not seem interested in the history of the legendary band of medieval brothers. Rather, the miniseries is a curious hodgepodge of events, tropes, themes, and memes from the Middle Ages.

First, the filmmakers start the series in the year 1291 at the time of the fall of Acre in the Levant. That moment marks the end of the Crusading era and the end of some of the greatest adventures of the Templars. There is no attempt to unfold the drama of how the unique brotherhood of warrior-monks came into being at the time of the Second Crusade.

Second, the story of the Templars in the post-Crusading period of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries is merged with the Arthurian legends of the early Middle Ages, nearly a thousand years before the establishment of the Templars! A major strand of the narrative is the legend of the Holy Grail with such characters as Parsifal and Gawain appearing completely out of context. There also appears to be a Lancelot-Guinevere love connection in the relationship of the Templar hero Landry and Queen Joan of France. For this boudoir romp, Landry breaks his religious vows, and Joan breaks her marital vows, in order to add some romantic spice to the series.

Third, a non-historical, quasi human rights subplot is introduced in which the Templars rescue the Jewish population of Paris that was about to be massacred. The small battle that takes place in the forest casts the Templar leader Landry in the role of Robin Hood, saving the Jews from a pogrom.

In sum, "Knightfall" was billed as a drama about the Knights Templars. But the only historical truth appears to be from the wardrobe department in the white robe with the red cross as the traditional garb of the warrior-monks. Even Dan Brown was able to conduct some research to weave a good yarn about the Templars in "The DaVinci Code." By contrast, "Knightfall" cobbles together a set of lackluster medieval clichés in a disappointing effort to bring the past alive for lovers of history.
144 out of 179 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Nothing to do with history
marius-bancila24 December 2017
For a series produced for the History channel, this series has serious historical issues. The events depicted in the series happen in 1306 (15 years after the siege of Acre in 1291). However:
  • Jacques de Molay was the Grand Master of the Knights Templar from 1292 to 1307 when the order was dissolved by Pope Clement V
  • Pope Boniface VIII died in 1303, 3 years before these events; in 1306 pope was Clement V
  • Joan I of Navarre, wife of King Philip IV, died in 1305
  • Isabella of France, was born in 1295, and therefore 11 years old in 1306, although some sources put her birth on 1292 in which case she would have been 15 at the times depicted in the series, which is probably her age in the series.

Most of the main characters in these historical series either didn't exit at all, were dead at the time of the events, or had little to do with the events depicted.

When it comes to historical accuracy this series fails miserably, like many others I have seen in recent years. History seems to be less interesting than the imagination of screen writers who sell fiction as facts to uneducated viewers.
212 out of 280 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Enjoyable series.
macfaefan23 February 2019
So what that the series is historically inaccurate. It's still entertaining to me. I loved Vikings and didnt know squat about their history. Point being,the writing is not the best but the acting is good. Put some quality writers with these actors,you'll have a top notch show. Knights Templar has always been a romantic story of men fighting for the good. So this woman looks at it from this angle.
25 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
This isn't a documentary
jtkirk16131 March 2019
It is However a very entertaining show loosely based on historical figures. Give it a whirl. I find it extremely entertaing and now that Mark Hamill has joined the cast I expect to be even more entertained.
31 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Two Edged Sword
rgme7 December 2017
I like a mystery and the fictional Universe doesn't really matter - when i saw a trailer about a the legendary Templar i thought to myself " This might be a show i might enjoy " The acting was great, but the story line for a first episode was a disaster. It felt like a was watching another disastrous Hollywood remake without a story line moving the story forward and instead an action filled driven narrative.

And the worst part - they raped mythology in the very first episode. They hired C-rated writers who pitched a concept, but without a storyteller.

Scenery, effects, actors and acting - *All great

Writers - *A total disaster
181 out of 254 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A crime against History
borismk-3894215 December 2017
When people say sad things like "historical accuracy doesn't matter in entertainment" shows like knightfall are the result. History is rich and vibrant, full of humanity's glories and misdeeds, by making knights that contradict historical knights you make characters that are less believable, a story that is less immersive and a plot that just feels poorly recycled. Even taken on its own merits the show is poor, but to do this to such a fascinating group as the templars is just wrong
191 out of 276 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Give this show a chance
juliomaguera24 February 2019
Very good show. Not sure why critics don't like it. The action is top notch, has high production values and a good plot to boot. Give it a chance and you might be surprised
27 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great show if you discount historical innaccuracy
griffon6521 February 2018
First of all, every negative review that's based on historical inaccuracy is correct. This show has absolutely nothing in common with the actual history of the Knights Templar. However, as a history buff and enthusiast I'm a bit perplexed by the outrage. The show and its commercials never tried to portray the show as historically accurate. So in my opinion, the negative reviews based on historical inaccuracy have no merit.

This show follows on the foot of vikings. Its supposed to be a show based on the Knights Templar but that's where the similarities end. What I judge a show by is cohesive plot, characters acting logically to drive the plot, entertainment value and acting. For the most part the show does a great job in all those categories. The only glaring negative point about the show is that the plot is a bit predictable sometimes. Otherwise, its great entertainment. I give the show a solid 8.5/10. The 10 rating from above is to balance out all the unjustified low ratings.
125 out of 180 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Way below expectations
ckeisu14 December 2017
From the trailer I expected good acting and scenery and already in the first episode I got it. However the story was too cringeworthy for me. The writing is bad - I mean, really bad. They make all plot events so incredibly overstated that any effort by the actors is ruined. I only watched two episodes, but that was enough for me to know this series is a lost case for me.

I don't want to spoil anything, but lets say characters are not historically believeable at all. Too many modern mannerisms in a historical setting just doesn't do it for me. Game of Thrones is a more historically correct example of the period than this charade. If this was written as a comedy (hurray Blackadder) I wouldn't mind, but the serious tone is instead totally ruined by this bad writing. Another thing that comes out as a result of this bad writing is predictability of course.

However I do applaud the ambition of trying to do a modern TV-series about the templars. I do love swords, armour and knights. With this series they targeted people who like Rome, Vikings and perhaps Spartacus and GoT - anyone who has a tiny bit of historical interest - but they completely missed the target.
109 out of 158 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Just sit back and enjoy...
smoats7413 January 2019
Sure, historians are pissing in their chain mail, but just enjoy a historical themed drama! Great attention to details in wardrobe and setting align with great plot twists. I did not watch for a history lesson, I watched it for enjoyment, some of the people commenting should have done the same. It is hard to find good period peices that bend the truth just enough to entertain, and for me Knightfall was just that.
15 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I do not care
heikki-4385729 March 2019
I do not care if it is historically correct. Nice show. Nice plot twists. Some nice philosophical and theological thought triggers.
17 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Fun to watch if you make it past the first episode
danielle-a-powers10 January 2018
The first episode is not the best. Too many characters, nothing explained, King Arthur's grail? But by the end of Episode 3, I was hooked. The plot moves quickly with action, intrigue, a mystery to solve, medieval France (set a bit earlier than Braveheart), so pretty fun and entertaining. This show is not deep and the "twists" are easy to see coming. But the actors really sell it and the sets are great. And I like that all the main characters have lots of "gray", not all good, not all bad. I'm a sucker for historical shows so looking forward to finishing the season!
78 out of 113 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Historical inaccurate but fun
yurifrentrop22 October 2018
Its ridiciously historical inaccurate, yet its still a good show. Great acting and a nice fictional storyline. Dont take all butthurt historicians to seriously. (Excuse my english, not my native language.)
14 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It's not history but it is is entertainment worth watching.
pensman8 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
If you are really interested history of the Templers then you might try The Templars by Dan Jones, if you like your "history" rolled about in conspiracies and arcane myths with questionable respect for accuracy but "insight into the secret history" and ways the Templars influence leaders today then go for The Knights Templar by Conrad Bauer.

I doubt if there are many people who know anything about the Knights Templar, but if you like the look of a handsomely produced period piece set among the early 14th Century, then this is great to watch. There is intrigue, betrayal, sex, gore and all the usual stuff that makes Game of Thrones popular. When I say sex, don't expect nudity as this is the History Channel not HBO; but the battle scenes are well done.

Casting looks good and acting is fine. I can't say I recognize the cast except for Jim Carter who was Mr. Carson in Downton Abbey and plays Pope Boniface VIII here. Don't watch because you are expecting a history lesson any more than you would watch The Big Bang Theory to become a physicist. Basically, it is a well-done show with great sets and solid acting. Set your DVR.
80 out of 122 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Historically inacurate and hijacked as such for contemporary political manipulation
carlogaviganimedio15 December 2017
Another review talks about how it is not history and more so entertainment, I fully agree with this statement.

Furthermore, there has been some political manipulation with regard to the Catalan independence movement. They talk about Catalan princes, queens, and monarchy which is completely wrong. Catalonia was a county under the rule of the Kingdom of Aragon.

Some people are trying to change history, do not really understand their purpose, it must be greed. With politics comes a lot of money (corruption), and the general public are being incorrectly informed through history TV shows that are not always correct.
122 out of 194 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
sdricportal30 December 2017
Yes, it is predictable if you overthink it while watching instead of enjoying the experience. So if you start watching it with the intention of wanting to think of it as bad like some people here seem to do you wont enjoy it.

If you however start watching it without prejudices you'll enjoy a great and well acted show with beautiful detailed costumes and settings that feel like they're straight of of the time itself.
79 out of 124 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Do not listen to history preachers
jan-jankovic-jahoda7 January 2018
Hi guys

First of all Im not the movie or TV show critic and I sporadically write a review on IMDB. But I am one thing I am a TV show fan I love TV shows. Mostly because the story does not end after 2 hours like in movie. And as a TV show fan I have to say that I love Knightfall. I simple do not get all the hate in reviews. OK it is not historically accurate. So what?. Im a huge history nerd but I do not care if it is historically correct. It is a TV show about templars. How many more are there ?. Good acting, good story, middle-age settings, knights in shiny armor swordfights, kings and queens. What not to like.

Dont listen to those history preachers in other reviews. I love Knightfall its a very good show and I did purchase HBO go for it. I cannot wait for another episode. Characters are strong and interesting there is a lot of intrigues and killing to match standards of these days. Only thing I dont like is the title. I think that Nightfall is more like clickbait. It follows the mainstream of strong titles. I would go with Gral or Gods will, or something more religious.

Long story short guys. Dont listen to the negative reviews. Nightfall is good and entertaining Tv show the definitely deserves your attention. Watch it you will thank me later.
92 out of 158 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It doesn't get better, it gets worse
trondshagen19 October 2018
I never care if a show is historically accurate or not as long as the show tells us. At the start of any episode they tell us that it is NOT historically accurate; so I see no reason why people complain about it that specifically.

However; the writing is utterly atrocious. All characters almost without exception are incredibly stupid. Shockingly stupid in fact so that you will keep wondering how they manage to find the correct end of a fork when they eat.

Whenever a new plot device appears you will probably also be facepalm at the stupidity of every single ludicrous detail they manage to add to the story. I watched the whole first season because people said it would get better. It doesn't, it gets worse because the writers keep on painting themselves into a corner and have to invent previously unimagined and foolish plot devices just to keep the story running.

Much of the acting is quite well though. I especially liked Jim Carter as the Pope, Ed Stoppard as King Philip and Pádraic Delaney and Simon Merrells as templar knights. That doesn't mean that all their characters are well written.
45 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Dreary, trivial exploitative drivel passing itself as "historical"
toadyblegh6 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The series opens with Templar Knights escaping the siege of Acre with the Holy Grail, which is a real thing. There's some manly chest thrusting, lots of blood, some suitably villainous middle eastern types, a fair amount of bodice ripping... It's basically Dan Browne meets Mills & Boon with a little American bigotry thrown in for special effect. The acting is dire, the pacing poor, the story line forgettable. I suspect that they're trying to emulate the success of pseudo-historical products like Vikings with less money and a product-line approach to pumping out generic content. Whatever the excuse, it's unwatchable.
100 out of 188 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
horrible, stupid and boring
mapanari18 December 2017
Eagerly anticipated, and crushingly disappointed. Written for people who watch Jerry Springer, Panel discussions on "news" networks where everyone is a shouting ignorant partisan and people who whistle and scream in concerts. Knights without helmets so we can see their unshaven manly faces; I'm just surprised they don't all have cigarettes dangling from lips and quafing Budwieser beer in obvious cans prominently displayed. Story is idiotic, actions are unbelievable, charectors are written by 14 year old Harry Potter fans. Absolutely horrible.
85 out of 160 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Second season better than the first one
cristystan-1338520 April 2019
It s not the best , but it is fun to watch and interesting . The acting is ok . I see the most people complain about this show not following the history . It is true , but who says it should ? Other series like Vikings don t follow history as well . Good show , deserves a watch !
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A lazy writing
katish77 December 2017
A very lazy pilot. You could guess every phrase in a cliché ridden dialog, and a few "twists" could be seen from a 10 minutes ahead. I'm just wondering why waste budget if your story is a trope? Early 90s just called and asked for this primitive drivel back. Such a disappointment especially comparing to the far superior Vikings they air after...
69 out of 129 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Such a waste...
evren-yanak15 December 2017
Gave a second chance, in contrast of my first impressions from the first episode...Unfortunately it was worse. How come a producer let such good material spoil?

They have mediocre actors of potential(which is not uncommon nowadays), good locations, good sets and good costumes. However story is cheesy and predictible and biased.

Such a waste...
52 out of 95 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Please change the name of "History Channel"!!!!!!!!
charlesxabier31 December 2017
I'm ashamed to see the word "History" (H logo) alongside this tv show.

-Many of the real historical characters were dead when the narrative takes place in 1306. Joan I of Navarre, Pope Boniface VIII...

-"Catalonia kingdom"or whatever didn't exist, and there was no "Luis Miguel" King . I hope the Catalonian separatists paid well for this. :D

-There were no pregnancy tests in the XIV century

-There was no real holy grail, sorry it was a myth.

-Acre was not conquered in a few minutes...

-Casual sex, was not so common in medieval europe.

The rest of the tv show is the typical low budget production, with boring scrypt.
47 out of 85 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed