Richard the Lionheart: Rebellion (2015) HD online

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?"

Probably the worst film I have ever watched. Poor acting, directing, filming, & script. I have nothing against low budget films but this is incredibly bad. It is the type of film you would make at school. It is a great shame because it could have been so good. The one thing that is good is the costume & set. Still something is not quite right with this though. It is all a bit to clean! When the film starts you think once the intro is over it will turn into a normal film, it never does. The scene isn't set very well, the introduction to characters is poor a confusing. In summary this did reach my expectations of what looked to be a very good very. It didn't even come close.

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.

These producers must have thought : "Let us record the scenes and then put them in a chronicle order to watch."

So poorly directed and produced... The acting is OK, not great but because its poorly put together its as if you go from short movie to short movie instead of watching 1 movie..

The story line is a great one but because the producers made a mess I had to give this a 2 for the effort.

There are some good scene's in this video but overall it really stinks.

Acting depending on the actor ± 6,5, Director 5, Producers 2.

Just to get the 10 line rule I will write this sentence just to get it approved, This movie isn't worth 10 lines!

Don't get me wrong, this film is absolutely terrible. You really only need to look at the trailer to see that this is a very low budget production. But, to be honest, that's what makes it so entertaining. Yes the acting and directing was horrendous, and it has all the historical accuracy of a Year 5 textbook, but that's part of the charm. It's so bad, it's actually quite good. And so if you want a film with realistic and relatable characters, that keeps you on the edge of your seat and truly brings history to life, then this probably isn't the right film for you. But if you want to watch something just to poke fun at how hilariously bad it is, then this is perfect for you.

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.

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.

Obviously this is a B movie but the story-line is written really well and the performance was good! For all of those who wrote bad feedback I have something to say: Please go back to school and study, first study about geology, geography and after history ;) So, the wolf in the beginning doesn't make sense? You know wolfs were used exactly for that purpose, alert! Like many other small details in this film. But there is something else to say. From my experience some of the feedback sound like somebody which didn't agree with something, maybe actors that were not hired for this movie or the worst scenario, somebody against the crew. The film industry is full of flakes. Enjoy!

All the reviews fail to mention that for all its short-comings, there are a couple of redeeming features, in the first 5 minutes anyway, I didn't make it past the 2 man battle for the castle sheltering Queen Elinor of Aquitaine.

But in that 5 minutes the featured character is Queen Elinor. She does have a nice set of tits (they look natural, because they have a lot of natural sag, but good heft and healthy sized nipples that point in the correct directions, unlike a lot of fake ones).

Other than that, the movie is pretty much a waste of time. When she puts on some clothes it's time to close the VLC window and move on to something with better acting, plot and production values (and better nudity), like say The Room or The Canyons.

One of the worst films I've had the misfortune to watch. Two minutes in found me fiddling around in my handbag for entertainment.

There were a few minutes when the princes were introduced where I thought it might be worth watching just for the eye candy but they turned out to be corny and just as naff as everything else.

If a knight urgently knocks on a 6 inch thick internal castle door you don't expect it to sound as if its being done on a Formica topped school desk by a 5-year-old .... and when one of the princes need to escape instead of showing him doing it he is told 'there's a tunnel my father told me about' and then they are out! No budget for a tunnel - I like a good tunnel in a medieval drama.

Costumes were dreadful and although the Queens gratuitous nakedness was quite entertaining full frontal breast enhancements in 1173 is just wrong!

First of all. I love historical movie so when a friend show me this title I've said "why not?". So I've seen this movie after a hard day at work and I've founded it not bad. I'm falling in love with the queen's costumes and I wanted to be her just for try it. I don't know if this movie is close to the real story but of course is a well-made movie and there is a good research before the shooting. The costumes are realistic and if you know that period you agree with me and the young actors are prepared. Admirable work done by the director. After this title I've seen other movies directed by Milla and I think he grew artistically a lot. I've made some research about him, he's a young director movie and he won some festival around the world, in USA too. Beautiful locations and good screenplay have made the rest.

Usually I try to get track of all new releases about middle-age films. I came across IMDb from another website and reading the negative rating I was almost falling out with the idea of watching this. So, what is wrong with you guys? I really liked this film and it was made really well. HEY? Middle-age is not fantasy and is not the Pirates of the Caribbean, I think you guys have some issues with ages and historical geo-localization. Do you think that in the 1100 DC as a guardian of a castle there was a navy troop?

Good luck with your envy, and next time you can't get a movie because your limited budget don't come on IMDb to revenge your anger, you are delusional and cheap businessmen.

It was suggested by a friend of mine and I really enjoyed. It seems to be a low budget but doesn't look like at all, instead it is a good production and photography. Some actors are really good and editing is made really well. I loved the views of the yards and castles and of course it is made with a genuine prospective of what was about a crusade in the 1100 D.C. Also, the music was really good and it sounds like a Hollywood blockbuster score..

I recorded this movie 18 Feb 2017, it was showing on Fox Action Movies HD Channel. Today 30 Nov 2017, my mom wanted to watch some movie. So I went down the list and found the name Richard The Lionheart (without the word Rebellion).

Anyhow I started playing the movie and I first thought it was like an old version like from 80's 90's, I'm surprised it was made in 2015, also I noticed the cuts between scenes weren't normal but I thought it was done by the channel to fit the movie in the allocated time slot.

Anyhow, I noticed that it was kind of medium quality flick but kept watching since my mom loves movies and used to watch the TMC channel back in the states which used to show all these old movies. So I guess it felt normal, ha ha.

Anyhow, we kept watching and we enjoyed it. I know it is not a perfect movie but my point is that we enjoyed it and my mom even wanted more. She actually she was not convinced the movie ended when the father King said "prepare for war". So I started searching for a sequel and here found all these funny and harsh comments.

I know again that it is not the best movie out there, but please know that some people enjoy those movies even if they are not perfect. Not everyone is so detail oriented and a critic or a film maker like some of you here.

I really feel bad for the movie makers for the so much bad reviews here. but I know it is a learning step for all of them to become even better. But wanted to write this review to let them know that my mom and I enjoyed it even with some of those flaws listed by others.

Not just that, we're ready for the sequel please. May be the sequel will be much better since the film makers must have learned a lot from making this film.

This is my own statement and I'm not being paid by anyone. We are in Abu Dhabi in Nov 2017 and we've just watched and enjoyed Richard The Lionheart - Rebellion.

I guess some things are just loved by fans. Remember the T-Shirt that said Skiing is like Sex, when it's good, it's good and when it's bad, it's still good. I guess for me and my mom, we love movies so much, and I love this medieval genre, so even a mediocre medieval movie is still a good movie :)

I always enjoy movies about the crusades, medieval wars and vikings; therefore, when I saw this title, I checked the rating and couldn't believe that it would be so low. Maybe it was rated by members who did not appreciate this kind of movies. Man, was I ever wrong!

First of all, nothing makes sense. The whole premise is excruciatingly amateurish. At the beginning, someone sees a wolf, as if that has some meaning; however, it does not. Are they imitating Game of Thrones? At around 37:00 minutes, the lord and his imposed guest enter the castle from the main door. A couple of minutes later, the exact same scene is shown again with the same dialogue!! Was the editor smoking something? Towards the end, during the battle between Wilhelm and Richard, Wilhelm swings the sword around in preparation for the fight and you are shown the scenery around them in a crazy, twisted way FROM THE SWORD POINT OF VIEW as if the sword could see while being swung around!! All the female actresses showed their nudity, this had nothing to do with the plot. Was that to add sizzle? Finally, the volume of the music score. To give some depth(?) to the story, all of a sudden the volume is increased very loudly. Bottom line, a very confusing plot and dialogue. King Louis, trying to sound French, sounded more like he had a Jewish accent! I could go on and on.

I give this amateurish movie a rating of 2 for the many extras who wasted their time on this video (what else can you call it) and who I hope got paid.

Richard the lionheart rebellion is a good historical movie. Remember me other film with the same story and i founded it more beautiful than others. The costumes are great and the actors very talented. Everything in the movie-soundtrack, design, cinematography is on a very good level for this low budget film. It's clear that the director movie put all his passion here and he studied a lot before the shooting. Probably some dialogues are here just for show but the result is not bad. In my opinion, historical movie require their director to possess great filming skills and Stefano Milla has these requirements. I've appreciated some characters then other, but I suggest to see this title at least once. Italy and her castles are amazing as usual and as everybody know, a very beautiful locations made the rest.

I loved Richard more than i shoud have, but that doesn't mean it is perfect. The dialogues were brilliant and the screenplay good. Utlimatly the storical movie are flat and boring, istead this One is addictive. I really appreciate Chandler Maness and Andrea Zirio, The chemistry between them is Good. The prison scene was very good, i've loved that in particularly. The attention to details are admirable. And the job done during The fight scenes are absolutely great. The director movie use The lights and The colors in a very Good way, sign He knows what He did. I really appreciate The music and The acting. The power of The film is The passion of The characters and a great editing. This movie captured me until The end and I'm really curious For a next chapters. Good work Stefano, The last applause is For your work.

I love this film! I like it very much! The cast was good and Chandler Maness is a talent actor. I already know the director Stefano Milla and I think he's brilliant. His special view and the way he use to tell us the story is unique. I've bought this DVDs on Amazon and my vote is 10! I've appreciated the costumes and the locations were amazing. This title is a good way for a light and funny evening at home. I'll planning the next vacation to this movie's location. I'd like a story and the editing. I've seen this movie the first time during the Monrovia film festival and the critics were enthusiastic! I think you should watch this movie. And I hope you enjoy it.

OK. This is my first review. I felt morally obligated to warn others. I admit I have wasted a lot of time in my life, but the 15 minutes I wasted watching this move...I truly regret. I actually felt embarrassed for everyone involved -- myself, the actors, the director, cast, crew, innocent bystanders, and all the anals of history (yes anal, as in 'anal orifice,' for who deserves the title more than war-mongering madmen?) Please, please, please...learn from my mistake. Don't waste your time and money on this jolly band of Ren-Faire flunkies with a camera, iMovie and iDeas. You will be as sorry as I am right now.