Sword Of Vengeance Reviews

  • Jan 15, 2020

    Sword of vengeance is such an awful film that halfway through I shut it off. The editing is so bad so choppy everything feels like it was done on a soundstage. The acting is almost unbearable. The use of slow motion is nauseating. This movie tries to be so cool and so hip it comes off as embarrassing.

    Sword of vengeance is such an awful film that halfway through I shut it off. The editing is so bad so choppy everything feels like it was done on a soundstage. The acting is almost unbearable. The use of slow motion is nauseating. This movie tries to be so cool and so hip it comes off as embarrassing.

  • Mar 25, 2017

    I can see why people would not enjoy this movie, but I was in the mood for it when we crossed paths. I felt it was very dark. the first third seemed as if it was filmed in black n white. If you like medieval and sword fighting check it out. It might be a pass for you if you only get down with serious type films. I saw it on Netflix. It is what it is.

    I can see why people would not enjoy this movie, but I was in the mood for it when we crossed paths. I felt it was very dark. the first third seemed as if it was filmed in black n white. If you like medieval and sword fighting check it out. It might be a pass for you if you only get down with serious type films. I saw it on Netflix. It is what it is.

  • Jan 20, 2017

    awesome movie story fight scenes death excellent portrayal

    awesome movie story fight scenes death excellent portrayal

  • Nov 25, 2016

    the error is the script. Poor at best but well shot with good action scenes

    the error is the script. Poor at best but well shot with good action scenes

  • Jun 09, 2016

    Uufta! A wannabe cross between GOTs and Gladiator. Pretty bad. But if you like predictable gore, this maybe the one for you. I feel sorry for the actors whose names will be forever tied to this stinker on IMBD.

    Uufta! A wannabe cross between GOTs and Gladiator. Pretty bad. But if you like predictable gore, this maybe the one for you. I feel sorry for the actors whose names will be forever tied to this stinker on IMBD.

  • May 25, 2016

    This is my favorite medieval movie; I don't know understand why people wouldn't like this...maybe bunch of beliebers and rebbecca black fans. so stupid

    This is my favorite medieval movie; I don't know understand why people wouldn't like this...maybe bunch of beliebers and rebbecca black fans. so stupid

  • Apr 24, 2016

    Sword of Vengeance is a revenge story. That's pretty much it. It isn't complicated, there are no real twists and turns in the road as you watch. To be honest, it's completely predictable. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad movie, but it doesn't lend much to the viewer. Jim Weedon's cinematic entry is a short piece about the Normans and Saxons after decades of war, violence and death. Stanley Weber plays the lead character; Shadow Walker, a swordsman on an path of retribution for the death of a loved one, and honour bound not to break his oath of revenge. Not much happens in this movie. It's very A to B to C, and the flashbacks throughout don't lend much to the overall plot. It's simple, and some viewers might like that, but in my opinion it's a little too vague throughout. It's unclear, and it may entirely turn off the viewer by the end. Although there is some decent swordplay and some well choreographed fight scenes to keep the viewer entertained. But the dialogue is seriously lacking and several actors seem very untrained at best. What is interesting is they visual aspect in this movie. There is a nice contrast between very light and very dark in every frame. A lot of close up visuals of their faces really lend to the grit and violence that the men and women in the film endure. There are some very nice shots full of such visual beauty, that it really surprised me at times. A rather forgetful little film, but I believe Jim Weedon has a lot to offer in the future. 2.5/5

    Sword of Vengeance is a revenge story. That's pretty much it. It isn't complicated, there are no real twists and turns in the road as you watch. To be honest, it's completely predictable. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad movie, but it doesn't lend much to the viewer. Jim Weedon's cinematic entry is a short piece about the Normans and Saxons after decades of war, violence and death. Stanley Weber plays the lead character; Shadow Walker, a swordsman on an path of retribution for the death of a loved one, and honour bound not to break his oath of revenge. Not much happens in this movie. It's very A to B to C, and the flashbacks throughout don't lend much to the overall plot. It's simple, and some viewers might like that, but in my opinion it's a little too vague throughout. It's unclear, and it may entirely turn off the viewer by the end. Although there is some decent swordplay and some well choreographed fight scenes to keep the viewer entertained. But the dialogue is seriously lacking and several actors seem very untrained at best. What is interesting is they visual aspect in this movie. There is a nice contrast between very light and very dark in every frame. A lot of close up visuals of their faces really lend to the grit and violence that the men and women in the film endure. There are some very nice shots full of such visual beauty, that it really surprised me at times. A rather forgetful little film, but I believe Jim Weedon has a lot to offer in the future. 2.5/5

  • Apr 01, 2016

    wrost movie ever ... very low budget

    wrost movie ever ... very low budget

  • Jan 30, 2016

    If you are going to base a story on a historical event at least make an effort to get the facts right. Yes I know there is the usual disclaimer in the credits but: 1. Bad start. In the opening intro it says William the Conquerer ordered "The Harrowing" of the North. No, it was called "The Harrying of the North" in 1069/70. 2. There were no stone castles with concentric walls and round towers. The Normans built "Motte and Bailey" Castles eg A large mound with wooden fortifications surrounded by a wooden curtain wall. The Tower of London (known as "The White Tower) was built after the period of this film and all stone castle followed this. They all had square towers for the next 150 or so years. 3. In the film the soldiers appear to be dressed in silver foil instead of mail. They look like turkeys before the oven. I know real mail is expensive but really!! Nice try Messrs. Weedon,Read and Unthank - 2/10 Must try better next time. History is far too important to treat like this. Perhaps a true telling of the Norman Conquest itself?!! But can we trust you?

    If you are going to base a story on a historical event at least make an effort to get the facts right. Yes I know there is the usual disclaimer in the credits but: 1. Bad start. In the opening intro it says William the Conquerer ordered "The Harrowing" of the North. No, it was called "The Harrying of the North" in 1069/70. 2. There were no stone castles with concentric walls and round towers. The Normans built "Motte and Bailey" Castles eg A large mound with wooden fortifications surrounded by a wooden curtain wall. The Tower of London (known as "The White Tower) was built after the period of this film and all stone castle followed this. They all had square towers for the next 150 or so years. 3. In the film the soldiers appear to be dressed in silver foil instead of mail. They look like turkeys before the oven. I know real mail is expensive but really!! Nice try Messrs. Weedon,Read and Unthank - 2/10 Must try better next time. History is far too important to treat like this. Perhaps a true telling of the Norman Conquest itself?!! But can we trust you?

  • Jan 27, 2016

    A very bleak representation of post Norman conquest England. It's low on plot, and high on fighting in a lot of mud, which clearly makes the set design very simple.

    A very bleak representation of post Norman conquest England. It's low on plot, and high on fighting in a lot of mud, which clearly makes the set design very simple.