I don't know what others on here see when they watch films, but its sure not what I see! I have just read a few reviews, who claim this is great or magnificent, it can't be the same film I watched.
The main problem is the acting,Sean Connery is the best, but by his standards, he was going through the motions, Richard Gere looked and acted like a donkey with a smacked arse, Julia Ormond was trying, but seemed immature (She was young) and acted immaturely, the supporting actors just seemed to be there for the money, direction was poor, as was photography and continuity, the sets looked borrowed from a B movie, the castle looked like a model, the battle scenes looked staged, they cannot have spent much on it, I gave it a 3, for the horses, at least they made an effort, and were real.
Actually the best thing about this film was the beer I had whilst watching it. RIP Sean.
The main problem is the acting,Sean Connery is the best, but by his standards, he was going through the motions, Richard Gere looked and acted like a donkey with a smacked arse, Julia Ormond was trying, but seemed immature (She was young) and acted immaturely, the supporting actors just seemed to be there for the money, direction was poor, as was photography and continuity, the sets looked borrowed from a B movie, the castle looked like a model, the battle scenes looked staged, they cannot have spent much on it, I gave it a 3, for the horses, at least they made an effort, and were real.
Actually the best thing about this film was the beer I had whilst watching it. RIP Sean.