Betrayed by his own men for a wagon full of gold a Knights Templar named "Lord Gregoire" (Paul Sampson) vows to return after 10 generations and avenge himself on their descendants. Fast forward to the present and a young man by the name of "Jake McCallister" (also played by Paul Sampson) has agreed to host a small group of people in a fantasy retreat at a castle. As he surveys the castle he begins to have strange hallucinations. After that the guests begin to die one by one at the hands of a man dressed in the uniform of a Knights Templar. Now rather than disclose any more of the details and risk spoiling the film for those who haven't seen it I will just say that this movie was built upon a very interesting concept. Unfortunately, whoever wrote the script and assembled the cast doesn't have a clue about making movies. First, Paul Sampson sounded like Elmer Fudd and was clearly not up to the task as the lead character. Likewise, having Billy Drago (as "Shauna the Chef") dressed in drag certainly didn't help matters. Additionally, the dialogue was terrible and some of the scenes appeared to be made up on the spot. On the plus side this movie did have four pretty actresses in Ingrid Sonray (as "Amy"), Lisa Gleave ("Ashley"), Sofie Norman ("Celine") and Mary Christina Brown ("Japoniko"). Unfortunately, their characters weren't developed as well as they could have been and their roles were choked out by other non-essential subplots. The bottom line is that this movie had a good idea but it was badly written and executed. Because of that I rate the movie as below average.
56 Reviews
Absolutely sick movie
Aries_Primal25 April 2014
It does not worth it. Great actor playing but the story was more like fairy tale. I still can not get it at all. This movie is worth it only for hearing Norman moan till the cute chick doing her job on his little friend. It was extremely hot. Other things sucks. First - that macho man with split personality, not interesting at all. I can not understand why he was in that castle, why these guys came... Everything was so put up, the spectator can not use his imagination for details and everything. Second thing - church never raised killers, god never sent avengers and they with sure don't kill hookers. No matter how many stars you bring to a movie, you should know more for history before make them play they roles.
Pointless
brulenewhall-419-89926810 July 2012
Now I know there are some people on here that loved this film due to the handsome male lead or whatever and there are also some (probably one) psycho(s) trying to trash this film under a variety of pseudonyms. Having seen all the controversy I decided to watch Night of the templar and see what all the fuss was about. So the plot was quite thin, I didn't engage with any of the gents or ladies that would be loosely described as having acted in this film. It was obviously done on a low budget which is fine if the tale being spun is interesting. I feel like the time I spent watching this movie was not time well spent, and I struggled to finish it. I'd describe it as being a sub-par si-fy effort and I'm appalled Carradine would put his name to it. Not the worst movie I've ever seen but its definitely up there.... Hope nobodies offended by my putting my ten pence worth in :)
so...thats 1.5 hours of my life wasted...
lenebert1 March 2016
I watched this movie some time ago, because I was in a Reedus-frenzy after TWD, but Oh My, nothing could prepare me for this movie! It is the most awkward movie I have ever seen, and I barely made it to the end, wanting to just turn it off way before. The only thing holding me back was my friend, who I had forced to watch this movie with me, who said: We have made it so far through this awful film, we might as well see if it stays bad 'til the very end. Nothing was good about it. I cringed,and laughed (not in a good way) and hid behind a pillow (to protect myself from the awkwardness), The story was shallow, the "history"poor, I felt bad for the actors, the females were horribly portrayed and treated, the production was bad..... The only funny thing about this, is the reviews, which I have a suspicion is written of or on behalf of the creator of the movie. But seriously - don't waste your time with this! You will never get that time back!
Cardboard acting with a terrible script.
Bob_Harris_UK21 July 2013
I have just endured this film, and frankly, found it to be one of the worst films I have ever seen. The knights in battle scenes are reminiscent of a local village re-enactment society performing to a bunch of schoolchildren. The main character constantly talking to himself was laughable and made him less than believable as a character.
Flashback scenes to times of the crusades were cringe worthy. The sudden dramatic music when showing scenes of the main house, made no sense at all, other than to advise the viewer that this was possibly a scary house, where nothing really scary happened.
My local dramatic society, comprising of pensioners and eager school children, could have done a far better job of the story, and made it more believable.
Flashback scenes to times of the crusades were cringe worthy. The sudden dramatic music when showing scenes of the main house, made no sense at all, other than to advise the viewer that this was possibly a scary house, where nothing really scary happened.
My local dramatic society, comprising of pensioners and eager school children, could have done a far better job of the story, and made it more believable.
I have watched many bad movies, but this one is unwatchable
demetrius1131 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
For some unknown reason my previous review on this title was "reported" and deleted. I hope that the IMDb reviewer this time, will see before allowing this to go public that I have no ill intentions towards anyone, and only the best intention towards potential viewers of this movie.
Nuff said, off to the review... I can only begin by saying that this is a very bad film. Even though they use some good actors like Carradine the final result is way bellow average. The direction makes it obvious from the first 5 seconds that this movie is not only low budget, but also very poorly made. The script is lacking and the actors do not have the proper material in order to act and produce something good. The leading role is performed by an actor that can not really act the part. I was astonished to look up the names of these three people(director - lead actor - writer), and find out that they were all the same person! Anyways, this is one of the worst movies I have watched this year(and the previous), and I am shocked to see all the misleading 10* reviews on IMDb, when the general rating is 3*.
My intention is not to "trash" this movie. What I write is my personal and professional opinion as an art director.
Nuff said, off to the review... I can only begin by saying that this is a very bad film. Even though they use some good actors like Carradine the final result is way bellow average. The direction makes it obvious from the first 5 seconds that this movie is not only low budget, but also very poorly made. The script is lacking and the actors do not have the proper material in order to act and produce something good. The leading role is performed by an actor that can not really act the part. I was astonished to look up the names of these three people(director - lead actor - writer), and find out that they were all the same person! Anyways, this is one of the worst movies I have watched this year(and the previous), and I am shocked to see all the misleading 10* reviews on IMDb, when the general rating is 3*.
My intention is not to "trash" this movie. What I write is my personal and professional opinion as an art director.
Nights in White Polyester
dunfincin8 March 2016
Saw that this film had a very healthy 6.5 rating on IMDb and so sat down to watch it at home with great expectations.This is a very,very bad film and does not deserve a rating anything like the one it has.It has obviously been hyped up by the Director's wife's cousin, the Producer's son's baseball team and the Best Boy's pet spaniel. A plot so convoluted as to be virtually incomprehensible,feeble acting and a script you wouldn't use to wallpaper your toilet await the unsuspecting viewer.This was apparently David Carradine's last film and the poor man must be spinning in his grave to have left this dross as his final legacy to the world or maybe he did it on purpose as his ultimate two-fingered gesture to the rest of us.My advice is that when you read the reviews of this film,you concentrate on the ones with a rating similar to mine and ignore the sycophantic ramblings of the camp followers.I managed about half an hour before I switched it off and darned a pair of socks which was infinitely preferable.
Toilet
rahs-al-ghul25 November 2014
What a waste of time, money and resources. Gave it a go because of Norman Reedus, but even he is terrible. Tommy Wiseau put on an acting and directing masterclass in The Room when compared to this.
A narrated explanation of events at the beginning is an excuse for a lack of storytelling ability and I genuinely paused to check if it was a History Channel reenactment documentary before proceeding.
The male violence towards female characters was deplorable as was the passive acceptance by those characters; confusing and disturbing.
Woman wants to leave, gets choked out and the other people at the house start talking about the ladies liking the rough stuff? Poor at best.
This is the worst movie I have seen in a long time and I watched Grown Ups 2 recently.
Avoid.
A narrated explanation of events at the beginning is an excuse for a lack of storytelling ability and I genuinely paused to check if it was a History Channel reenactment documentary before proceeding.
The male violence towards female characters was deplorable as was the passive acceptance by those characters; confusing and disturbing.
Woman wants to leave, gets choked out and the other people at the house start talking about the ladies liking the rough stuff? Poor at best.
This is the worst movie I have seen in a long time and I watched Grown Ups 2 recently.
Avoid.
Reviewed from a parallel universe, far, far away
Ivan_Bradley8 June 2013
A Paul Sampson Film.
Occasionally I watch a film that leaves me so dumbstruck that I go and look it up on the ol' net thingy. This is one such film. I watched amazed as this trope-fest unfolded in front of me, shook my head and went looking for the reviews. My amazement at the film was nothing compared with my amazement at the glowing reviews with their talk of fine acting and marvellous story, superb direction, lavish sets..
I was so amazed that I checked the profiles and review of a couple of the critics. Yep. it was the only film they'd reviewed. I checked a couple more, then another half dozen, then a dozen... Sure enough, in each and every case it was the only film they'd ever reviewed on IMDb. I gave up after just over half of the reviews. All were on-offs. Am I seeing a smoking gun here, anyone? Of course, my selection of reviewers was made blindly, though apparently with the sort of randomness that makes us all lightning-struck lottery winners. Maybe the ones I didn't look at were all seasoned critics who had never met Paul Sampson. You can do your own leg-work - or let your inner statistician decide.
A Paul Sampson Film.
The hilarity began with the opening credits.. A Paul Sampson film, handled by Sampson Enterprises. Produced by Paul Sampson. Directed by Paul Sampson. I think maybe Wardrobe by Paul Sampson, Catering by... I'm sure you get the picture. Starring wait for it... wait for it, it'll be a surprise... PAUL SAMPSON!!!
Rather like - Starring George Lucas as Darth Solo!!!-
Now I've absolutely nothing against vanity enterprises. Some great art has come our way thusly. This isn't some of it, unfortunately. This is to film what the Dave Clarke Five was to drumming - pretty boy with the business plan at the front of the stage. In this case, pretty boy with (it seems) a lot of friends with favours he can call in, in front of the camera. The whole premise is "look how handsome/cool I am.. how can I wrap some kind of plot around that to justify me mugging at the camera for an entire feature film?" Well, he's appealing enough in a caricature-handsome large-featured kind of way and he's in pretty good shape, but boy, he wants us to notice it. If anyone doubts this, check out the whole new genre of "Sword and Underwear" he seems to have invented as an answer to decades of chain-mail bikini fantasies. Unfortunately it presents as very dry parody, which is often a wonderful thing - but not when it's this clumsy and the thing being parodied is the ongoing film itself. Anyway, the acting, and "feel" of the entire film was that of a comedy TV series doing a sketch based on an early 80s porn film, without any of the porn. Not the Swedish/Dutch "I haff cumm to mends your vashink machine. It looks ferry vet down there, let me get my tool out while the funky guitar and keyboard play..." but the American/German "We have rented a place in the country and have only one reel of film. Let us party and think up a situation we can finish up by being naked and smearing each other with offal and ketchup" type of entertainment that my grandmother so likes to watch, but purely for the soundtrack.
I enjoyed the watching of the film, rather than enjoyed watching it if you see the difference. Sometimes I enjoy the process of watching the film-making, not necessarily the end result. Here the end result was risible, which is rather a shame because a couple of the cast were really putting something special into it and it was nice to see Carradine again though the parallels with Béla Lugosi in Plan Nine From Outer Space drew rather poignant grid lines. Sadly missed, both. Worth seeing as a curiosity, and if I must draw another parallel - in intent if not style or subject matter - I'd say Easy Rider for the focus on the ac-tors rather than the pseudo medievalism of Monty Python and the Holy Grail - which was far funnier on a smaller budget. Knights/Night Templar was not intentionally funny, and was not terrible enough to be really great as some truly memorable turkeys are, but it is an awful, fascinating train wreck of a movie which has no charm whatever. I feel the same cast could have pulled it off with more astute direction, but we'll never know for certain.
Oh - nice to see Mr Mxyzptlk again, playing The Butler.
3 out of 10 as it stopped me thinking about the overdraft and sciatica for the duration.
Occasionally I watch a film that leaves me so dumbstruck that I go and look it up on the ol' net thingy. This is one such film. I watched amazed as this trope-fest unfolded in front of me, shook my head and went looking for the reviews. My amazement at the film was nothing compared with my amazement at the glowing reviews with their talk of fine acting and marvellous story, superb direction, lavish sets..
I was so amazed that I checked the profiles and review of a couple of the critics. Yep. it was the only film they'd reviewed. I checked a couple more, then another half dozen, then a dozen... Sure enough, in each and every case it was the only film they'd ever reviewed on IMDb. I gave up after just over half of the reviews. All were on-offs. Am I seeing a smoking gun here, anyone? Of course, my selection of reviewers was made blindly, though apparently with the sort of randomness that makes us all lightning-struck lottery winners. Maybe the ones I didn't look at were all seasoned critics who had never met Paul Sampson. You can do your own leg-work - or let your inner statistician decide.
A Paul Sampson Film.
The hilarity began with the opening credits.. A Paul Sampson film, handled by Sampson Enterprises. Produced by Paul Sampson. Directed by Paul Sampson. I think maybe Wardrobe by Paul Sampson, Catering by... I'm sure you get the picture. Starring wait for it... wait for it, it'll be a surprise... PAUL SAMPSON!!!
Rather like - Starring George Lucas as Darth Solo!!!-
Now I've absolutely nothing against vanity enterprises. Some great art has come our way thusly. This isn't some of it, unfortunately. This is to film what the Dave Clarke Five was to drumming - pretty boy with the business plan at the front of the stage. In this case, pretty boy with (it seems) a lot of friends with favours he can call in, in front of the camera. The whole premise is "look how handsome/cool I am.. how can I wrap some kind of plot around that to justify me mugging at the camera for an entire feature film?" Well, he's appealing enough in a caricature-handsome large-featured kind of way and he's in pretty good shape, but boy, he wants us to notice it. If anyone doubts this, check out the whole new genre of "Sword and Underwear" he seems to have invented as an answer to decades of chain-mail bikini fantasies. Unfortunately it presents as very dry parody, which is often a wonderful thing - but not when it's this clumsy and the thing being parodied is the ongoing film itself. Anyway, the acting, and "feel" of the entire film was that of a comedy TV series doing a sketch based on an early 80s porn film, without any of the porn. Not the Swedish/Dutch "I haff cumm to mends your vashink machine. It looks ferry vet down there, let me get my tool out while the funky guitar and keyboard play..." but the American/German "We have rented a place in the country and have only one reel of film. Let us party and think up a situation we can finish up by being naked and smearing each other with offal and ketchup" type of entertainment that my grandmother so likes to watch, but purely for the soundtrack.
I enjoyed the watching of the film, rather than enjoyed watching it if you see the difference. Sometimes I enjoy the process of watching the film-making, not necessarily the end result. Here the end result was risible, which is rather a shame because a couple of the cast were really putting something special into it and it was nice to see Carradine again though the parallels with Béla Lugosi in Plan Nine From Outer Space drew rather poignant grid lines. Sadly missed, both. Worth seeing as a curiosity, and if I must draw another parallel - in intent if not style or subject matter - I'd say Easy Rider for the focus on the ac-tors rather than the pseudo medievalism of Monty Python and the Holy Grail - which was far funnier on a smaller budget. Knights/Night Templar was not intentionally funny, and was not terrible enough to be really great as some truly memorable turkeys are, but it is an awful, fascinating train wreck of a movie which has no charm whatever. I feel the same cast could have pulled it off with more astute direction, but we'll never know for certain.
Oh - nice to see Mr Mxyzptlk again, playing The Butler.
3 out of 10 as it stopped me thinking about the overdraft and sciatica for the duration.
Ho Ho Ho It's Magic
nogodnomasters12 March 2018
Warning: Spoilers
The story starts out giving us a Cliff Notes version of the Knights Templar. Lord Gregoire (Paul Sampson), the leader of the Templars is betrayed and killed by some of his own knights. He vows revenge in the 10th generation of the reincarnated souls or descendents or something. The story starts in 1095 or so and then jumps 700 years to the "present."
The reincarnation aspect is most interesting since this is the tenth film that David Carradine as been in since he has died in 2009. Shouldn't someone be questioning this? To add to the plot continuity issues, only Lord Gregoire looks like his 700 year old self. Some of the people remember who they were 700 years ago, while others do not. Many of the men from long ago are now women. The film jumps back and forth between the present and 700 years ago. In the present day Jake McCallister is Lord Gregoire. He has anger management issues that makes our hero unlikeable. Isn't 700 years a long time to hold a grudge? Get over it!
The present day cast reminded me of something that one might see from a modern "Canterbury Tales" line up including a cross dresser (Billy Drago), Priest (Udo Kier), shopkeeper (David Carradine), a fighter (Mary Christina Brown) and a prostitute (Sofie Norman). Much of the killing is done off screen. I liked the characters they created, they just did nothing with them.
There is some mild humor in this film, some which may not be intentional. The 700 year old grudge script was just so bad, there was nothing this group could have done to save it other than to walk away from it. Not as good as "Scorpion Kings 3" for you Drago fans.
Parental Guide: F-bomb, brief oral sex, brief nudity (Sofie Norman.)
The reincarnation aspect is most interesting since this is the tenth film that David Carradine as been in since he has died in 2009. Shouldn't someone be questioning this? To add to the plot continuity issues, only Lord Gregoire looks like his 700 year old self. Some of the people remember who they were 700 years ago, while others do not. Many of the men from long ago are now women. The film jumps back and forth between the present and 700 years ago. In the present day Jake McCallister is Lord Gregoire. He has anger management issues that makes our hero unlikeable. Isn't 700 years a long time to hold a grudge? Get over it!
The present day cast reminded me of something that one might see from a modern "Canterbury Tales" line up including a cross dresser (Billy Drago), Priest (Udo Kier), shopkeeper (David Carradine), a fighter (Mary Christina Brown) and a prostitute (Sofie Norman). Much of the killing is done off screen. I liked the characters they created, they just did nothing with them.
There is some mild humor in this film, some which may not be intentional. The 700 year old grudge script was just so bad, there was nothing this group could have done to save it other than to walk away from it. Not as good as "Scorpion Kings 3" for you Drago fans.
Parental Guide: F-bomb, brief oral sex, brief nudity (Sofie Norman.)
Give this one a miss
carpwrangler17 July 2015
Really, don't waste any of your time or money on this dreadful film. Implausible story Implausible characters Poorly cast Poorly acted Poorly directed. Dreadful accents Nothing redeeming at all. Very difficult to see how it's scored as highly as it has. Not helped by large amounts of knitted chain-mail. I have no idea how to fill 10 lines of text with relevant comment, nor do I have any idea why unnecessary length makes a review better. Surely a quick and concise review is more useful than a lot of twaddle?
Really, don't waste any of your time or money on this dreadful film. Implausible story Implausible characters Poorly cast Poorly acted Poorly directed. Dreadful accents Nothing redeeming at all. Very difficult to see how it's scored as highly as it has. Not helped by large amounts of knitted chain-mail. I have no idea how to fill 10 lines of text with relevant comment, nor do I have any idea why unnecessary length makes a review better. Surely a quick and concise review is more useful than a lot of twaddle?
Really, don't waste any of your time or money on this dreadful film. Implausible story Implausible characters Poorly cast Poorly acted Poorly directed. Dreadful accents Nothing redeeming at all. Very difficult to see how it's scored as highly as it has. Not helped by large amounts of knitted chain-mail. I have no idea how to fill 10 lines of text with relevant comment, nor do I have any idea why unnecessary length makes a review better. Surely a quick and concise review is more useful than a lot of twaddle?
A New Legend
dravenphotography15 November 2012
I really enjoy these types of films and since I saw that up and comer Norman Reedus was in it I just had to check it out. Having really enjoyed his performance thus far in Walking Dead I knew I'd be in for a treat and I was right. The late Mr. Carradine makes his final role very poignant and witty and I full-heartedly enjoyed Mr. Sampson as a medieval Knight/modern day vigilante.
Bring the pain! The movie itself is funny, albeit dark and promises to deliver a warped tale to all of us who enjoy thinking out of the box. There are babes galore, epic sword-fights, gore, romance and a healthy dose of twisted humor.
Watch it, enjoy yourself and watch it again. A+ for effort!
Bring the pain! The movie itself is funny, albeit dark and promises to deliver a warped tale to all of us who enjoy thinking out of the box. There are babes galore, epic sword-fights, gore, romance and a healthy dose of twisted humor.
Watch it, enjoy yourself and watch it again. A+ for effort!
Awful movie even Norman Reedus couldn't save
Rainbow8starfish30 December 2016
I selected this movie because Norman was in it, but I couldn't even watch it. After 40 minutes of cliché and meaningless dialogue I fast forwarded to the end.
The script is full of clichés, all characters are one dimensional stereotypes and the whole thing is a predictable snooze fest.
Lead actor is weak and weird - maybe that was intentional, I don't know. Strong actors like David Carradine and Udo Kier are wasted. I don't even want to talk about the big boobed ladies who run around in underwear who actually don't contribute to the story.
Don't bother to watch it.
The script is full of clichés, all characters are one dimensional stereotypes and the whole thing is a predictable snooze fest.
Lead actor is weak and weird - maybe that was intentional, I don't know. Strong actors like David Carradine and Udo Kier are wasted. I don't even want to talk about the big boobed ladies who run around in underwear who actually don't contribute to the story.
Don't bother to watch it.
The 9 & 10 Reviews MUST be by Director
Dirkmaster8 December 2022
Because this, ladies and gentlemen, is, as we used to say in the Navy, is a hurter. Terrible acting, terrible script, painful to watch from beginning to end. I truly wonder how they talked big name (if not big draw) actors like Udo Keir, Billy Drago and the late, great Carradine. I mean, I know that none of them command great salaries anymore, but I'd have thought they still had a little self-respect. They clearly were just here for the paycheck (I hope they cleared).
The only folks who should voluntarily watch this tripe are the good folks at Rifftrax. All else, steer clear. You have been warned, my friends.
The only folks who should voluntarily watch this tripe are the good folks at Rifftrax. All else, steer clear. You have been warned, my friends.
Knight with a temper
nightroses2 May 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Oh no, I feel bad for not posting a review ages ages ago. I've watched "Night of the Templar" from start to finish. Paul Sampson worked magic on the medieval scenes with the shields, kind of. We know the Templars were all butchered at the end in real life. A true medieval Templar would have prayed before a killing but he certainly would never have used dental whitener. The modern setting was funny and pantomime, as these people were sitting there wondering whats going on, as the viewer does too. I watched it because it was made by Paul Sampson alone and I was curious. RIP David Carradine who starred in this film. Sir Gregoire himself couldn't rest, because he's an angry spirit wanting revenge so he ended up butchering innocent people including women, and during the wrong century. Also a shame that his horse didn't come back to life.
Confusing? Definitely. Bad? Perhaps...
yoshi-whitby1 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I do love myself a good horror movie.
So when I was at the second hand DVD store and saw what claimed to be a crusader themed horror movie, I thought that it was definitely worth splashing 50p on.
Boy, was I wrong. Or was I? This film was long, confusing, and very, very low budget. The box claims that it is only 85 minutes long, however IMDb says that it is a whopping 101 minutes long. I didn't take the opportunity to time it, so I don't know if my copy is abridged or not.
Either way, calling this a good movie, even a decent movie, is an exaggeration, and to see an actor that played Daryl in the walking dead reduced to this, well it stung a little.
The first two halves of this movie were quite confusing. A string of weird, confusing characters that didn't say much. Weird props that never seemed to lead anywhere or be used, and overall it had a bizarre mood. The constant flashbacks to crusader times were overly long and quite confusingly used.
It wasn't until the final third of the movie, that these props and characters do anything, and you go 'ohh, thats what that is'. Not much makes sense until the very end. If you can stand the confusing boredom of the first half, the payoff is just about worth it. Someone I was watching it with did walk off during this section however, so it is rather a testing movie to watch.
One of the most strange things however, was the direction choices that had nothing to do with the budget. At the very end, as the 'baddie' is about to be killed, the high tension moment is interrupted with very strangely forced in comedy lines and quips, then straight back to seriousness. It was a very odd and unexpected change of pace that left me giggling with confusion and surprise during the tense ending.
Will I watch this movie often? No. Will I watch it ever again? Maybe? Give it ago for 50p, but there is a good chance that you will not enjoy this movie.
So when I was at the second hand DVD store and saw what claimed to be a crusader themed horror movie, I thought that it was definitely worth splashing 50p on.
Boy, was I wrong. Or was I? This film was long, confusing, and very, very low budget. The box claims that it is only 85 minutes long, however IMDb says that it is a whopping 101 minutes long. I didn't take the opportunity to time it, so I don't know if my copy is abridged or not.
Either way, calling this a good movie, even a decent movie, is an exaggeration, and to see an actor that played Daryl in the walking dead reduced to this, well it stung a little.
The first two halves of this movie were quite confusing. A string of weird, confusing characters that didn't say much. Weird props that never seemed to lead anywhere or be used, and overall it had a bizarre mood. The constant flashbacks to crusader times were overly long and quite confusingly used.
It wasn't until the final third of the movie, that these props and characters do anything, and you go 'ohh, thats what that is'. Not much makes sense until the very end. If you can stand the confusing boredom of the first half, the payoff is just about worth it. Someone I was watching it with did walk off during this section however, so it is rather a testing movie to watch.
One of the most strange things however, was the direction choices that had nothing to do with the budget. At the very end, as the 'baddie' is about to be killed, the high tension moment is interrupted with very strangely forced in comedy lines and quips, then straight back to seriousness. It was a very odd and unexpected change of pace that left me giggling with confusion and surprise during the tense ending.
Will I watch this movie often? No. Will I watch it ever again? Maybe? Give it ago for 50p, but there is a good chance that you will not enjoy this movie.
Rubbish!
julie-ann2409674 April 2019
Indie masquerading as a mainstream movie
Leofwine_draca15 May 2018
Warning: Spoilers
The positive reviews for NIGHT OF THE TEMPLAR did make me chuckle as this is by no means a decent film. It's an indie horror film that masquerades as a mainstream movie thanks to the presence of a number of familiar faces in the cast. The only thing you'll be wondering is how they roped in so many big names. An old warning advises to watch out for films that are written by, directed by, and starring the same person and this film follows that proviso: I don't know who Paul Sampson is, but he's nothing much to write home about. The film is a mish-mash of cheaply-staged historical scenes and a few lame slasher-style moments as assembled characters are murdered by a maniac. Cast-wise, we get turns from old-timers David Carradine (what a film to end your lengthy career on!) and Udo Kier, alongside a randomly cross-dressing Billy Drago and poor old Norman Reedus on hiatus from THE WALKING DEAD. He must have been wondering what he walked into...
Film fetish for fantasy flicks!
takeemalive9999 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Nights Templar is magic.My girlfriends and I had a sleepover and watched it. I loved it because of the murder mystery storyline and the actors in it!I am especially intrigued by movies starring Paul Sampson and Norman Reedus. I've seen all the films they've done. I guess I am somewhat obsessed with these two. I liked that sexy Paul Sampson had a dual role-the knight and the events coordinator (his ancestor many lifetimes later). OMG! My favorite scenes were between Lord Gregoire and Lord Renault, and a scene in the kitchen with Jake and Shauna.I really love the weekend getaway inn-so pretty. I had to look away during the girls getting murdered not that I liked any of them! Mostly nasty types. What was super interesting was that some of the knights were reborn as women.Shape shifters maybe?
An overly-generous 3 star rating.
ras014518 January 2020
I read the very first review of this title written in the middle of the last decade that noted by the reviewer that many of the "10s" rating appear to come from one source. I wager that source would be Paul Sampson. Only a narcissist who wrote, directed and starred would think this B-exploitation movie was worth more than a "3".
The exploitation comes from the fact that the director has a model's physique which he brandishes in several scenes. The acting extremely stiff from the cast, despite the fact that several well-known actors camped it up along side the star. The story-line is very confusing, jumping back and forth from present day to 700 years ago in the past. Of mild interest is the mystery of who is the killer and the amount of bloody dispatching of the characters (that's where the "horror" comes in), who the lead thinks reminds him of the Crusaders he fought with in another century.
To the film's credit the art direction and cinematography are better than expected. The sets and village locales (other than the many scenes deep in a forest) are impressive.
Let me conclude with "I've seen worse" when it comes to B movies. This one was worth the time spent watching it, at least.
Not great... but not terrible either
ashleynwaldron4 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
While this wasn't a bad way to pass an hour and a half, Night Of The Templar is definitely nothing I would waste my time watching twice. While the acting was good, the setting good, the idea behind it was good... The problem lay in the very obvious reveals. A few reviewers commented on how the 'suspense' will keep you guessing, and trying to figure out 'who dun it'. I strongly disagree. It was quite obvious from the beginning who the 'good guys' were; so obvious that, for the first half of the film, I thought that they had made it so obvious as to fool to the viewer. Unfortunately, this wasn't the case. The only 'suspense' or 'guessing' I did was wondering which one of the 'bad guys' descendants was which. And even then, it was only for the first few minutes of the films, until their deaths revealed who they'd been.
Everything fell into place in very obvious ways. There was no suspense, no build-up, no twists. And it's sad, because this easily could have become a great movie. Again, a few great actors, believable settings, and an original idea gave this movie every opportunity to be great. But the obviousness of the entire thing ruined it.
Several people commented on the film quality; personally, I liked the older look. I've always preferred older movies to the new HD. Maybe it's because I'm an Indie fan, and that's mostly what you get with Indie movies. Dunno.
One final thought... Paul Sampson really needs to lay off the Botox. His lips looked they were going to explode.
Everything fell into place in very obvious ways. There was no suspense, no build-up, no twists. And it's sad, because this easily could have become a great movie. Again, a few great actors, believable settings, and an original idea gave this movie every opportunity to be great. But the obviousness of the entire thing ruined it.
Several people commented on the film quality; personally, I liked the older look. I've always preferred older movies to the new HD. Maybe it's because I'm an Indie fan, and that's mostly what you get with Indie movies. Dunno.
One final thought... Paul Sampson really needs to lay off the Botox. His lips looked they were going to explode.
So wrong that it's oh so right
eddie_baggins27 February 2014
Billy Drago in drag
its an image and a concept my brain is still to comprehend. Why did this happen? How? To what purpose does it serve and does it even matter? Perhaps it's just one of those things, a random occurrence in the cosmos sparked by dense imagination and/or slight comic perversion and displayed for our hesitant amusement.
Let's face it, our brains are only so big and we can only use so much of them and while it is sadly a fact that I may never understand the grand concept of John Bly as a cross-dressing chef who before too-long has his/her life ended by a Knight Templar in a modern American manor, I strongly advise using yours to track down this awkward, bizarre, perhaps knowing or perhaps serious (I couldn't tell) small-budget oddity. Your inner critic may not thank you for it, but sometimes its better to tell that cat to scram while you groove with your inner 12 year old instead.
If you succeed in that, you'll have a lot of fun here.
The plot revolves around great medieval knight Lord Gregoire, who having been betrayed by his own adviser and warriors for an abundance of gold and riches, vows that after these traitors revel in 10 lifetimes of excess he will exact his bloody revenge. How this happens and the situations that arise from it are too confounding to detail here, especially concerning the true identity of the damsel our (anti)hero hooks up with at the film's end (this is simply brilliant) and what exactly the core group of characters have gathered for so this foretold 'night of the templar' can begin. Among these characters is an unfit deviant fittingly named Henry Flesh, played by none-other than The Walking Dead's Norman Reedus, who engages in a particular scene that he will one day be able to show to his kids with pride.
Other notable actors supporting this original material include the simply legendary Udo Kier (Flesh for Frankenstein, Blood for Dracula, Suspiria, Europa, Shadow of the Vampire) who, while spending a large portion of his screen-time walking and starring, pleasantly progresses into a vital role come the third-act and elevates the camp proceedings with his thick accent and undiminished persona, and equally legendary David Carradine (Death Race 2000, Kill Bill) who sadly passed away in 2009 after post-production. Given the subtle lunacy here its obvious that these great actors signed up not just to pay the bills, but because they could sense a journey that an open-minded viewer could truly revel in; featuring, as the tagline reads, passion, loyalty, deceit, betrayal and revenge. They were right.
I sat watching this movie prepared to enjoy it, thanks to the promise of swordplay, violence and performances from two of my favorite cult actors; what I wasn't prepared for was the brazenly ridiculous script peppered with cues that certainly succeeded in making me chuckle when I wasn't wincing, and of course Billy Drago in drag that one tangible element of creative abandonment.
That one element that should prove to you, ladies and gentlemen, that while this isn't perfect, it's a rickety barrel-load of fun that can be savored for all the wrong reasons, and will no doubt cause you to involuntarily smile when bored at work or frustrated at school in the following days. Sometimes we are simply not meant to know how things are, a side-effect of our limited minds, so instead of wondering exactly what would inspire someone to make this film, wonder instead how many times you can watch Sampson as the "events coordinator" intensely comforting a distressed, shy girl by kissing her on the forehead and bravely declaring that Henry Flesh will never touch her again.
And there's that involuntary smile.
3 random trophy-filled shelves out of 5
For more movie reviews and opinions check out -
www.jordanandeddie.wordpress.com
Let's face it, our brains are only so big and we can only use so much of them and while it is sadly a fact that I may never understand the grand concept of John Bly as a cross-dressing chef who before too-long has his/her life ended by a Knight Templar in a modern American manor, I strongly advise using yours to track down this awkward, bizarre, perhaps knowing or perhaps serious (I couldn't tell) small-budget oddity. Your inner critic may not thank you for it, but sometimes its better to tell that cat to scram while you groove with your inner 12 year old instead.
If you succeed in that, you'll have a lot of fun here.
The plot revolves around great medieval knight Lord Gregoire, who having been betrayed by his own adviser and warriors for an abundance of gold and riches, vows that after these traitors revel in 10 lifetimes of excess he will exact his bloody revenge. How this happens and the situations that arise from it are too confounding to detail here, especially concerning the true identity of the damsel our (anti)hero hooks up with at the film's end (this is simply brilliant) and what exactly the core group of characters have gathered for so this foretold 'night of the templar' can begin. Among these characters is an unfit deviant fittingly named Henry Flesh, played by none-other than The Walking Dead's Norman Reedus, who engages in a particular scene that he will one day be able to show to his kids with pride.
Other notable actors supporting this original material include the simply legendary Udo Kier (Flesh for Frankenstein, Blood for Dracula, Suspiria, Europa, Shadow of the Vampire) who, while spending a large portion of his screen-time walking and starring, pleasantly progresses into a vital role come the third-act and elevates the camp proceedings with his thick accent and undiminished persona, and equally legendary David Carradine (Death Race 2000, Kill Bill) who sadly passed away in 2009 after post-production. Given the subtle lunacy here its obvious that these great actors signed up not just to pay the bills, but because they could sense a journey that an open-minded viewer could truly revel in; featuring, as the tagline reads, passion, loyalty, deceit, betrayal and revenge. They were right.
I sat watching this movie prepared to enjoy it, thanks to the promise of swordplay, violence and performances from two of my favorite cult actors; what I wasn't prepared for was the brazenly ridiculous script peppered with cues that certainly succeeded in making me chuckle when I wasn't wincing, and of course Billy Drago in drag that one tangible element of creative abandonment.
That one element that should prove to you, ladies and gentlemen, that while this isn't perfect, it's a rickety barrel-load of fun that can be savored for all the wrong reasons, and will no doubt cause you to involuntarily smile when bored at work or frustrated at school in the following days. Sometimes we are simply not meant to know how things are, a side-effect of our limited minds, so instead of wondering exactly what would inspire someone to make this film, wonder instead how many times you can watch Sampson as the "events coordinator" intensely comforting a distressed, shy girl by kissing her on the forehead and bravely declaring that Henry Flesh will never touch her again.
And there's that involuntary smile.
3 random trophy-filled shelves out of 5
For more movie reviews and opinions check out -
www.jordanandeddie.wordpress.com
An Hour and 42 Minutes You Can't Get Back
rebeccawilliams-2505312 April 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this because David Carradine was in it. David, Norman Reedus and Billy Drago couldn't save this movie.
Paul Sampson who wrote, starred, produced and directed must have a rich daddy or won the lottery and thought he could buy stardom.
The script is bad so very bad. A few unnecessary snide remarks against Catholics and those that believe in Heaven and Hell.
I have been a fan of Billy Drago since Delta Force II. I can't imagine how much they had to pay him to put on a dress and kiss another man on the lips.
Norman Reedus wasn't given much to do but laze on a couch and play with an orange.
David Carradine was believable as the shopkeeper. I was sad to read this was his final film. He deserved better for his swan song.
Paul Sampson who wrote, starred, produced and directed must have a rich daddy or won the lottery and thought he could buy stardom.
The script is bad so very bad. A few unnecessary snide remarks against Catholics and those that believe in Heaven and Hell.
I have been a fan of Billy Drago since Delta Force II. I can't imagine how much they had to pay him to put on a dress and kiss another man on the lips.
Norman Reedus wasn't given much to do but laze on a couch and play with an orange.
David Carradine was believable as the shopkeeper. I was sad to read this was his final film. He deserved better for his swan song.
"Bury the body in the brush...and the head"
hwg1957-102-2657044 January 2022
Warning: Spoilers
A betrayed Knight Templar takes his revenge ten generations after he is betrayed by some of his fighting companions, mainly by killing their descendants. (?) What a dreadful film. It doesn't make any sense. There are more plot holes than a colander. It drags on and on but because I don't like to review a film without seeing it from end to end I persevered but received no pleasure or excitement. The script is laughably incompetent and the directing is just dull. Fast edited action sequences always look underwhelming. The quality of the acting is partly salvaged by Udo Kier and David Carradine but the rest of the cast don't seem like real human beings. The film is pretty much dead on arrival and not even the great Billy Drago in drag (?) could bring it to life.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
