Yup, this is a bad film, made worse because it clearly had a decent budget, films with a quarter of the budget are better. First our lead speaks as if she has just left RADA, her make-up and hair are all neatly done. The clothes she wears are all machine stitched, not to mention always clean, surprisingly difficult living on a farm in 1665.
It carries on like that throughout the film. The dialogue is appalling, so bad you wonder if a child wrote it. As for the story, well it's laughable bad. However it's the acting that is cringe worthy, Charlotte Kirk is rancid bad and is only in the role as her other-half is director Neil Marshall. If the name does ring-a-bell, Kirk is the 'actress' who had affairs with the CEO of Warner Bros and Vice-Chairman of NBCUniversal.
To think this is the same director who gave us Dog Soldiers, how times change.
It carries on like that throughout the film. The dialogue is appalling, so bad you wonder if a child wrote it. As for the story, well it's laughable bad. However it's the acting that is cringe worthy, Charlotte Kirk is rancid bad and is only in the role as her other-half is director Neil Marshall. If the name does ring-a-bell, Kirk is the 'actress' who had affairs with the CEO of Warner Bros and Vice-Chairman of NBCUniversal.
To think this is the same director who gave us Dog Soldiers, how times change.