Knights of Newgate (2021) User Reviews

Good try of Acting. Ignore all the Rest!

[nachtlager-10229 · 3/10 · 23 April 2021]

The Acting is ok so far for a B or C Movie.

BUT it looks like a try of " Example " to spare EVERY kind of Set. AND it FAILED!

Much sorry, but the whole Movie is NOT even 1 second true set. Its a 100 % Greenscreen thing.

AND the worst. The Grafik level is about Resident Evil 4 GAME ( not remastered and not even bit close to the Remake levels ) .

Even some Actuall Games, who dont need high End Computers have better look then this whole Movie in every scene.

It looks like a School 3D Rendering Program, at more or less beginner or light Advanced level Person, who did the whole " Scenes " and actors only added with Greenscreen.

According to the director, this cost over £600K to make!

[jewbo23 · 2/10 · 13 September 2021]

As this thing started and was clearly going to be an utterly embarrassing mess, I thought about how films like this not only get made, but get some kid of distribution. I made film many years ago that never got fully finished and have been planning to make another for many years. I'm plagued by the idea that I'd never be able to make something worth watching, so why bother. Then I see something like this and think, fuck it, why don't I give it another go. Then the strangest coincidence happened. A guy pops up in this film, who was actually in my unfinished film from all those years ago. A sign if ever there was one.

So onto this bloody thing. The entire thing was shot on green screen and then had CGI backdrops, monsters and even human actors added to it. It's basically a step above The Incredible Bulk. I found an interview with director W J Carter who talks about how this was both a budgetary and stylistic choice. Though why anyone would want to make this choice is beyond me. He also goes on to say "Total CG environments allow the viewer to become immersed in the world presented to them and accept it as 'normal'." They don't and it doesn't. At all. He also mentions in the interview, which is from 2016, that the film has been 9 years in the making, thus making that almost 15 by the time it came out. IMDB also mentions that writer, producer and director's dad Sidney Carter, sold his house to finance the film, which just genuinely makes me quite sad.

The CGI is somewhere between PS2 and PS3 level and horrible. The Story is as basic as they come and utterly forgettable. Acting is pretty bad, though the fact the poor actors had to do all their scenes in a room, presumably in the director's house, they can't be blamed too much. I know Daniel Jefferson, who was in my film, is a great guy and happy to work on this low to no budget stuff, so I can't say anything bad about him or any of the other actors. I don't like to say anything bad about the people who made it too as they obviously had ambition way beyond their budget and talent. From the interview, it seems that even making CGI as subpar as on show here was really time consuming and hard work, but it's near unwatchable in it's terribleness. I found an old Kickstarter that states that the film upto that point (in 2016) had already cost nearly £600K. That is a shameful waste of money as it is not on screen at all.

Extremely bad;

[ludokai · 1/10 · 13 April 2021]

I can overlook a generic, cliché story and I can overlook special FX that look like they were from the mid 90's but it's the acting and audio quality I just can't get passed. No-one in this movie comes across as an actual actor and the audio quality is beyond belief. One person speaking can sound like they're using a cheap headset whereas another sounds like they're in the kitchen with reverb hitting everywhere.

It's not often I come across titles this bad. It feels so lazy to the point that it's not worth going into. It's just a massive waste of time.

omg

[melmaslo · 1/10 · 14 April 2021]

Omg is this a schoolproject? It's almost fascinating to watch.

Hilarious how bad the movie actually is!

[lianfleckje · 1/10 · 14 May 2021]

This movie is just the worst one I've ever seen! It's so bad that It's actually good. It was a very funny movie I must say, I literally laughed my head off! The movie is just so bad It's hilarious! I wouldn't recommend it to anyone though.

its worse than 1/10

[wolfdusty · 1/10 · 1 May 2021]

Oh my lord, what a horrible excuse for a film. Bad acting, worse script, terrible story, ineffective sfx.

Bin collection

[goodalan-82191 · 1/10 · 17 April 2021]

I've watched some rubbish before but this movie has made it to number one. Nothing more to say really.

Lockdown movies are getting worse every time.

Made for nothing I think

[neil-douglas2010 · 1/10 · 18 March 2023]

What can you say when you've just seen the worst film ever, I certainly haven't seen on that looked so cheap. I feared the worst when I watched the first ten minutes and I was so wrong, it got even more terrible. With some of the worst special effects I've ever witnessed it almost made you feel sorry for the actors, but their awful acting is actually made watchable compared to everything else. Set in London it's a fantasy film set in Newgate about the search for an ancient amulet before an evil army of demons destroy Earth. Sounds exciting, but it isn't as it looks like a budget computer game from the nineties. AVOID.

Total trash, greenscreen style

[Leofwine_draca · 1/10 · 14 November 2022]

A new contender for the title of "worst film ever". This one's a fantasy adventure inspired by LORD OF THE RINGS which involves the hero battling a demon for possession of a key beneath Tybun which can open the doorway to hell. This one was filmed entirely on a green screen a la 300 and apparently took 9 years to make alongside swallowing £600k of budget. My question is...where did that money go? This is worse than your average episode of KNIGHTMARE without the "Simon....sidestep to your left" humour, with graphics resembling a Playstation 2-era videogame. Total trash in other words, with no redeeming features whatsoever.

First class fun

[danalvin-59174 · 10/10 · 17 April 2021]

Come on - ya don't criticise a black and white movie for not being in colour! This is low budget, harmless adventure and not a new Marvel movie! Enjoyed it for the well intentioned shlock that it was. First class fun.

Good, but...

[smnbee-11586 · 6/10 · 1 January 2023]

Okay, let's be honest 10/10 for effort of making what could have been a great movie on a limited, and I do mean extremely limited budget.

When the film opened, I thought it was the opening for The Elder Scrolls 2: Daggerfall, including the same hammy performances from the actors.

So let's break it down.

Plot. Fantastic ideas, great story. Love the fact it was set in London, my hometown. This covers 4 out the 6 score of what I scored it out of 10

Cinematography. Again, some very dynamic shots here. Excellent effort.

Special Effects. I would expect this from a 90s B movie, or a 90s video game. Obvious this was filmed entirely on green screen and no sets were used.

Acting. Not good, but not too awful. Some hammy performances but the action scenes wasn't that bad.

So. If this had a much better budget. Christopher Nolan directing it. Location filming and physical sets, a better cast (and extras, not CGI extras, good way of saving money though). Then this would have been spectacular.

Final verdict? Not a complete waste of time, good for a laugh. Quite entertaining.

Someone please remake this with a decent budget, it could be a hit.

absolute rubbish

[mccarragher-17808 · 1/10 · 1 May 2023]

Are you having a laugh mate i'd rate this 0 if i could but i feel sorry for the actors. Cgi worse than roblox looks like a bad video game trailer. Unrealistic and gravity doesn't seem to exist. Watch if you want a giggle. Background so bad and no emotion in characters they literally sound bored all the time. Me and my mates watched this for a chuckle it's giving knock off gta. Can't tell what's going on literally what is the plot it switches from medieval english dungeons to modern america in seconds. No other people even exist did they run out of willing actors or something. People also seem to be immortal they fell of a cliff in a car and weren't even scratched or nothing.

Better graphics, higher rating

[thomasfrancisjones-12-92365 · 5/10 · 19 April 2021]

This was a fun and interesting storyline with good acting. Although they could have shortened the pre-story; perhaps even animating that part with an animal style story board. The storyline of the main body of the movie grabbed my attention after almost loosing me on the former.

It amazes me that in 2021 the producers thought the background graphics would be suitable for entertaining an audience. I found the poor background graphics to be distracting as I tried to enjoy what I saw as the good points of this movie. I think it probably would have sold better with better graphics; don't they have computers to do all this? (JK) Next time spring for the software upgrade. Would better graphics saved this project, in a word, yes!

B movies should be banned

[rob_roy-4 · 1/10 · 30 October 2021]

Bad acting, bad sound track, 1990's computer game effects - horrible.

I couldn't tell at first if it was a parody, but reading other reviews I see that the director takes himself seriously. We don't.

Amazing

[P0gman · 10/10 · 15 April 2021]

Loved every minute of it. The special effects were especially amazing. Groundbreaking film.

I loved it

[bobgray-3 · 8/10 · 17 May 2022]

Great Story and use of CGI. I like when actors play against a cgi backdrop like Sky Captain. The acting wasn't that great but not that bad either. The pacing was good and kept me interested. I really liked this Movie. Great Job.

Good fun

[danielcarter-23328 · 10/10 · 20 April 2021]

Good fun. Prime material for Red Letter Media review. Really enjoyed it.

Knights of Newgate

[cedna-27335 · 10/10 · 23 April 2021]

Great fun film for kids...thought the characters were great... really funny scenes... The casting was first rate. The two brothers Lester and Addie carried the plot with constant humour throughout.