The Winter Warrior (2003) User Reviews

Some potential, but too cheap to succeed

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 24 February 2017]

You know what, I didn't hate THE WINTER WARRIOR, Scottish director Robbie Moffat's magnum opus, as much as some other reviewers. Sure, the whole thing is cheap and amateurish and poorly-staged, but I was expecting than in the first place so it didn't surprise me. The story is weak but at least the set up and template isn't bad. I appreciate Moffat taking an interesting, little-known part of British history (the Dark Ages following the Roman era) and exploring the melting pot of Celts and Angles left behind.

Being a Scottish film, this movie is chock full of fine landscapes and the director has a good eye for staging. The costumes are pretty cool as well. It's just a pity that the story is so long-winded and the script so bad, while the cast give totally unprofessional performances that makes the whole thing very difficult to take seriously. Having a huge interest in the era, I really wanted to like this, but sadly the whole thing was too amateurish for me to do so.

Inconceivably bad

[TrevorAclea · 1/10 · 1 February 2007]

There's a tendency for some people to give 1/10 to almost anything they dislike, just as there is a tendency for every film's IMDb board to have an inevitable 'Worst Film Ever!' thread. Sadly, that kind of over-reaction rather tends to dilute the very, very few films that truly do not merit even a single star or, in this case, deserve negative stars. But be warned that this film is quite possibly worse than you can imagine. When I saw this at its marketplace screening at Cannes in 2002, it emptied the theatre in less than five minutes. They were the lucky ones...

There's a germ of a good idea somewhere in this no-budget, technically shoddy disaster (shot on film it looks like it was made on a home video camera), but the utterly hopeless director Robbie Moffatt certainly couldn't find it even if it was signposted. It's fair to say that the result is one of the most inept efforts ever to escape onto DVD: if you were to hire a camcorder for the afternoon from Dixons in Edinburgh, cast the first few people you meet on Prince's Street and then go down to the local park and film for two hours with the lens cap on you'd probably come up with something better. With the honourable exception of Victoria Pritchard, the cast are incompetent and some scenes are utterly incomprehensible - exactly how one character dies a horribly agonising offscreen death climbing a small hillock is a mystery for the ages thanks to a combination of irrelevant camera-work, insane editing (with no reaction shots to cut to it simply intercuts shots of characters who aren't even in the scene) and terrible acting. Unwatchably bad - and that's putting it mildly.

One star is way too much for this garbage...

[burrobaggy · 1/10 · 9 August 2004]

...but the IMDb doesn't have a no stars facility for movies. After seeing this fiasco, maybe they should consider adding one pronto.

On paper it sounds good. A Roman soldier has finally done his service and is returning home, only for his wife to be kidnapped by a group of drunken Scots with beer bellies in the kind of dress-up costumes you can buy at toy shops. He and a girl he rescues do stuff, other stuff happens and finally, after way too long, the bloody thing ends. If that sounds vague, trust me, it's a lot more thought out than this DV disaster. Bad acting in every part, bad direction and the odd bit of spectacularly inept 'action' that looks like it's been choreographed over the phone by a civil servant make this film look like the out-takes from an Ed Wood movie - I kept on expecting to cut away to Criswell or Bela Lugosi ranting on about puppy dogs tails, but sadly that would be far too interesting. The video photography is terrible too: it looks like they borrowed their mate Barry's camcorder but didn't quite know how to use it.

While I'd like to applaud the initiative of no-budget filmmakers who try to get their stories on the screen by any means necessary, this utter drivel is just so irredeemably bad that it's hard to feel anything but contempt for those involved - it's a hideous waste of their money and your time. Sad to say, this is the very worst film I've ever seen, and I doubt I'll ever see anything worse. It's just absolutely inconceivable that anyone could ever do worse than this.

A Film Made By A Man Who Thinks His Audience Are Idiots

[MetalMiike · 1/10 · 19 April 2007]

I've seen some horrific pieces of garbage in my time and I never thought I would say this, but there is a film worse than Timbo Hines' The War of the Worlds. It's this one. The problem is it just doesn't have an ounce of entertainment value; whereas many terrible films have that so-weird-it's-fascinating charm, this just lacks personality. It sets itself up as an epic, but one shot on 16mm (which has been so badly shot it looks like mini DV) and with a cast of maybe ten people. Actually, the photography says a lot; there are scenes in dark woods shot with no additional lighting, grain screams out at you so badly that you think you're watching something shot on Hi-8 and night scenes look as though they were shot by use of car headlights or clip-on camcorder lights. Half the time there is so little light, the iris is wide open. Result? Much of the film is out of focus. Though some scenes do look striking, the look of the film is so variable as to be unwatchable.

Robbie Moffat, the director of this atrocity, has a penchant for reviewing his own films on here. In one review (of another film) he says, referring to the other reviewers, "Do they have any idea how hard it is to make a film?" Well, actually yes, we do but obviously Moffat doesn't. He is under the impression that his audience won't notice how little effort has gone into his productions. When one has little or no money to make a film, one is forced to spend one's only other asset: time. Had Moffat thought to do this, he might have been able to, say, organise at least one battle scene with the help of a Roman re-enactment society (such people are always willing to turn up for free). He also assumes that his audience are stupid. Populating the derelict countryside (which is free to shoot in) with as few actors as possible in the belief no one will notice the cheapness of it all.

His screenplay doesn't help either. It is aimless, as though after thinking up a story (which would have been a minor subplot in any other film), he decided to pan it out with nothing but padding and weird characterisations. People seem to do stuff with no real motivation behind their actions. We have to put up with endless repetition and reiteration. Moffat is currently holding a screenwriter's course at Pinewood. I shall not be going.

How he even got hold of professional actors is beyond me (and why they have worked with him more than once is also incomprehensible). I can only assume that they weren't getting any offers and looking at what they have done lately, that's hardly surprising. James Watson in particular seems pretty down on his luck. It doesn't matter anyway, because they're a complete shower. James Watson, Victoria Pritchard and Ilaria D'Elia are totally forgettable, much in the same way that plywood is forgettable, but the other actors are surely amateurs.

Oh yes. There's a title song. Why do these sorts of films think it necessary to always have a title song? And why do bad films contain so much walking?

Beyond bad

[cliveowensucks · 1/10 · 12 October 2004]

On behalf of the Scottish people, I would like to apologise to any unwary travelers who stumble upon this ruin of a film. We've produced some movie great talent - Alexander MacKendrick, Sean Connery, Robert Carlyle, Nigel Kneale, Alan Sharp to name a few - so don't judge us on this one. Please.

It's really terrible. There's no easy way to say it. I'll try to be positive and say that it's a Scottish film that's not about drugs and it's a shot on video film that doesn't want to be BLAIR WITCH. Trouble is it seems to want to be GLADIATOR, or maybe THE VIKING QUEEN but it's like watching a kid's first home movie. From a ten year old you'd be proud, but from grown-ups this really is painful to watch. Very painful. 0/10 - and that's being generous to a tee.

Why?

[electriconion99 · 1/10 · 24 April 2006]

I'll be honest, this was so bad I couldn't finish watching it - and I've sat through all of MY DATE WITH DREW, which should give you some idea of how poor this is. Looking at this, like DREW, I just wonder why this is on the IMDb. It doesn't look like a real movie at all. It's got one actor I recognise from the TV version of DUNE in it, but he's not very good and the rest of the cast look like friends of the director. Result? A badly acted badly directed barely written film that that looks like a home movie shot on a home video camera.

The biggest surprise is that there's a sequel listed, THE BONE HUNTER. No user comments, no release info, which makes me wonder if it was even made. Because after seeing this, you can't see why anyone other than Max Bialystock would invest in it.

Worse than a school project

[chrisjones-32700 · 1/10 · 24 July 2021]

Seriously, I'm sure this is part of a money laundering scheme or a investment fraud like The Producers.

There is truly not one single good thing to say about it.

Good Period Piece!

[tigermovies-theprod · 9/10 · 17 November 2005]

Seen this movie twice now and have to say it grows on you! Set in the 7th Century, it focuses on a Celtic warrior, "Fingal", who is trying to rebuild life after the Scottish Civil War, where so many Scots died. Of course the Angles from Germania arrive, aware of this, and set about raping and pillaging the land and indeed kill Fingal's wife; so the latter exalts revenge! Set in the Scottish Highlands with beautiful scenery, good camera work, and eye candy wenches, this is a good production in spite of its low budget. The actor who plays the villain, Jon-Paul Gates, is particularly menacing and the climax between him and the hero, Fingal, is electrifying. Not in the same league as Braveheart granted but an enjoyable yarn nevertheless!

Terrible... just terrible

[generationnexus · 2/10 · 17 February 2017]

Set in 537AD in Britain I thought I'd give it a go and felt but my verdict is that it's so abysmal it's offensive. I can't call her a redeeming feature but I'll mention Victoria Pritchard who plays Jessica, as she is a competent actor and is the only thing that made me not switch it off. If you were to chose this to watch with a friend or partner you would be deeply embarrassed. I've given it 2 stars because I've actually watched worse films, and there is a level below this... there shouldn't be, but there is. Avoid.

Listen To The Reviews (apart from the Directors one)

[retrogames · 1/10 · 16 October 2009]

If the Director/Producer/Writer is going to review his own movie he might want to try reviewing more than just all his other productions! This movie is as bad as the other reviews here at IMDb say, its got no budget, which in itself shouldn't make the movie bad, but on this occasion it really is bad. You can't make a Gladiator/Braveheart style epic with no money and only several cast members (who all seem to appear in every one of this Directors movies). The "Star" who according to the DVD sleeve was in Dune, did have a very small part in the TV series, which surprisingly was not as a Bus Driver (which seems to be his specialty in most of his other bit parts). Even the official movie website trys to download a Trojan virus, with both Firefox browser blocking it and Avast anti virus popping up warnings, its just a pity the same didn't happen when I picked up the DVD, it would have saved me a lot of wasted time!