Diagonaldi Very well executed

StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Matrixiole Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Rainey Dawn Well, maybe I had higher hopes for this one than I should have had. I mean the film isn't completely awful but it's not good. I'd say this is a film to watch ONLY IF there is zero else to watch or do.This story takes place right when King Arthur dies, Morgana takes over Camelot, Lancelot was banished and both Merlin & Guenevere are imprisoned - the rest of the knights must save Guenevere, Merlin and Camelot. It's new take on the old tale.I will give them an "E" for Effort, they took the film seriously and did the best they were able to do on a small budget. I normally love quite a few of the "B" films - but this one gets a bit boring (that is my reason for not rating it higher).4/10

Freelancer490 Being a big sword and fantasy fan, as well as being a fan of anything to do with King Arthur or Dragons I had to give this a look. It's not great, the budget must have been fairly small, the story is pretty formulaic, and it's pretty clear where things are going, and the characters thinly drawn, though the actors seemed to be doing the best with what they had. The battle scenes are basic, though I thought the final battle was quite lively. There were some nice looking castles showcased and I thought the Dragon CGI was pretty successful, though it's a shame they didn't have the budget to give them more to do. So kind of cheesy, but if you're a fantasy fan, it's okay way to pass 80 minutes if you don't expect too much.

kosmasp Not sure you want to learn about Camelot by way of this movie. So while the filmmaker might have chosen more wisely how and where to spend the little money he had (maybe it's the only story they gave him money for on the other hand), it's still a very low budget movie. So do not expect polished special effects or anything like that.There is a lot of over the top "acting" (if you can call it that), one not being able to act if his life (or that of the character he's portraying for that matter) depended on it - literally. The props are not really good either, but you can't blame them for trying. People do get killed in a sort of graphic way (there is blood "spilled", digital that is). Even if sometimes you get a bit of nostalgia with this trying to tap into 80s movies and their "group on a mission" mentality it never achieves that.

sschulteis First of all the "dramatic" acting with pointing fingers and hands, the body language of the actors was horrible. The plot simple and everything foreseeable. Let me put it this: I watched about five minutes of the movie and I thought, it might be a children's movie. Or grown-ups with simple minds. I don't want to waste more than these five minutes on the "movie". The fighting was awful.. some people running with their swords and looking into the air. Every movement or expression on their faces was just exaggeration.. if someone looked angry, it was REALLY angry looking, to show he was angry... I think it was acting from the twenties, when people didn't have much experience with movies and everything had to be theatrical to show what really was meant. I'm glad I didn't pay for this movie, but wasted only a few minutes of my life to this crap.