Intensity	Stupidity:Nudity Ratio 7:2	Budget Medium

During the late 12th centaury, while good King Richard was off at the crusades, an evil tyrant ruled the land with only a small band of outlaws fighting for the common folk. Hmm, this sounds familiar.

We open with a confrontation between a lone swordswoman and a group of mounted warriors. After exchanging threats, we flash back to the crusades where we see Elizabeth of Cooke get stabbed. As she is waiting to have the wound cauterized with a branding iron, she has another flashback to just before she left for the crusades where we meet the dufus she calls her son. Upon her return to England, she finds out that a local ruffian has trashed the castle and kidnapped her son. Elizabeth gathers around her a small cadre of women and tracks down the evil Grekkor and eventually lures him back to the castle for a final confrontation.

I am going to start with this. Women did not fight in the Crusades. They did not own land. The surfs or thralls that lived in the safety of the castle walls were expected to help protected it. And they most certainly did not call the lady of the castle by her given name. We are talking 50 years before the Magna Charta was signed, there was a world of difference between the common folk and the lords of the castle. A peasant saying "No, Elizabeth" would consider himself lucky to only have the crap kicked out of him.

The second major problem with this film is that I like the bad guy more than the good guys. Not just because Rutger Hauer is a very solid actor but because when he tells Luke (Arnold Vosloo) about how he came to be an outlaw, I was enthralled. The calm, matter-of-fact rendition of Grekkor's life story was far more interesting than the "Charlie's Angels vs. The Sheriff of Nottingham" plot driving the rest of the movie. Apparently Grekkor's father did not much care for his son and after dad's "untimely death" Grekkor found out that dear old dad had left all the land to the church (a common practice at the time at least according to the Black Adder series). When the king went off to fight in the Crusades, Grekkor seized the opportunity to reclaim the lands he believed to be his. Upon the king's return he plans to switch from force to diplomacy to hold onto the land. We have already seen that Grekkor no longer favors his violent lieutenant and is currying Luke's favor as he is more intelligent. I know I am reading a lot into this speech, but Hauer gives you so much to work with. There is a little hint of humor about dad's "untimely death" and the contents of his will. There is nothing maniacal about desire to get his land back and while he is a hard man, he does not seem all that evil. The one break in the calculated control that Grekkor displays is when he kills the priest. He clearly would have been better off simply ignoring the priest, but you sense the quick flare of hatred and vengeance just before he slits his throat. His muttered "That'll get their attention" may be more directed to the Church than the locals.

On the other hand there is Elizabeth's (Joanna Pacula The Kiss) backstory is that while she was giving birth to her son she promised God that she would do anything for him as long as her son was born normal and healthy. So when the Crusades started up again she took that as a sign and it was off to the holy land for some pillaging and looting. I don't know if I would have considered the son she got to be 'healthy and normal" but that's just me. For all her time acting in English-speaking movies, you'd think Joanna would have a better grasp of the language. But no. Her accent remains really thick and obscures any shading she may have given her dialog. Also she quickly becomes part of an ensemble and by the time we get to the impassioned speech to rouse the peasants, all four lead actresses get pieces of it, none of which are delivered with any passion. Adding to all of this is the aforementioned son. The kid looks stupid, acts stupid and quite frankly I don't think I'd try all that hard to get him back if someone snatched him. Why they did not use the stunt double, I don't know. He was at least physically fit. At one point we clearly see him riding a horse and there is no mistaking the two.

I have real hard time with how different the two parts of this movie are. Hauer and Vosloo should be proud of their acting. They get some good lines and play off each other well. Frequently they are in the same frame for their dialog and there is a clear give and take. Their relationship seems real and, as mentioned, Grekkor has a great backstory. Luke's backstory of being some sort of Royal Bodyguard whose charge is murdered is best not mentioned. Still there is a realness to these two that I think is helped along by their physical size. The women's conversations are frequently shot in talking head style with cuts for reaction shots. Plus consider the characters; we have a gypsy (some 200 years before gypsies made an appearance in England), a hooker/thief whose clientele seemed to be the peasants (which means she was more likely to be paid in turnips than in gold), Hunter (a character who lives by herself in the woods and hunts, thus the name) and Elizabeth (who apparently owns a castle but no husband). These characters are not believable, they are out of place and they play like TV actors. Honestly, I don't know what the screenwriter was thinking. Well, that's not true, I do know. He was thinking don't let facts get in the way of a good story. Truth be told, it is not a bad B movie. It has good guys and bad guys and a clear plot. The story moves along pretty well and you do stay interested in it and the characters. At least until you have a chance to think about it.

Though I do wonder why Grekkor would attack a castle, force his way inside, overpower the local population, demand payment and then go back to his camp in the woods. Yes, our evil genius captures a castle (including the land and thralls that come with it) and then rides away from it to return to his tent in the forest. Isn't this exactly what he was working for? Didn't he want to reclaim his family's land? Wouldn't a big ass castle be a pretty good start?

So worth seeing? Yeah, I think so. Horrid historical mistakes aside, it is a decent B movie. I know I have taken the SciFi Channel's movies to task for being so scientifically bad (Anonymous Rex), but this one somehow seems more entertaining; perhaps is this were shown on the History Channel, I would be more inclined to dislike it. Clearly it is meant to be a retelling of the Robin Hood myth with Charlie's Angels playing the titular role and the writing rarely rises above that level. Still you don't want to play any drinking games involving this movie and historical gaffs. You would not risk just inebriation, but death due to alcohol toxicity.

Got a comment or different opinion? Send a message.