Outlaw King

Outlaw King offers nice set decorations and a praiseworthy introduction to a historical personality who was remarkable for his achievements (though overshadowed by his political predecessor, William Wallace), yet remains less well-known in the world of film. Containing all necessary mainstream attributes, it is satisfactory as a genre movie, but what prevented me from fully enjoying it was its predictability and lack of narrative originality, particularly without any personal contribution from the director. What I mean are scenes and moments that would distinguish this movie from a large number of similar films. I would appreciate such moments even more than the carnage of war. And something better than the very average soundtrack wouldn’t hurt anything. (17/11/2018)

More than an unofficial sequel to Braveheart, Robert the Bruce and his journey resemble a half-hearted remake. There are betrayals, loves, and magnificent battles here too, but while Mel Gibson unnecessarily deviated from historical realities, he was forgiven because with every twist he tore the viewer's heart apart. David Mackenzie holds onto history more firmly and adds more gritty combat, but I can't shake the feeling that it's all too superficial. The opening interaction doesn't work for me as an introduction to the plot, but rather as a teaser taking the form of a scene without cuts. The exposed intestines don't make a point about the horrors of war, but just come out of a person in all their nakedness; warm feelings arise between newlyweds in just a single cut. And Chris Pine, an eternal charmer and rascal at first sight, is only just maturing into the role of thoughtful ruler. In this case, the king is a brave and pleasantly uncompromising figure, but his battle songs desperately lack heart. (14/11/2018)

A prequel to Braveheart, which ironically tells the story after it. Pine is an interesting choice for a medieval protagonist and it has to be said that he fits Robert the Bruce quite well, although it doesn't seem like it at first. Mackenzie makes up for the poor script and the lack of strong emotions with a slick medieval carnage, not quite good enough, but certainly above standard within the genre. Of course, in terms of epic, romantic line or directorial virtuosity, it doesn't even come close to Gibson. (19/11/2018)

100 minutes of alternating epic, bloody and generously designed scenes and dialogues, which are simply a bit of cheesy historical TV series. Mackenzie aspires to the dark medieval carnation, which he thrives on in luxury crowd scenes and some quadratures of Scots, but other times he uses superficial adornments and Gaelic kitsch. Nevertheless, I like Pine a lot. He's not an exaggerated macho caricature, but rather a guy who has been going after what he wants in a calm and steadfastness manner for some time. It may seem strange to some people that this is the leader people follow - I understand them. I would follow him, too. Btw, Aaron Taylor-Johnson seems to have a taste for raw beef for the first time in his career. (11/11/2018)

David Mackenzie is awesome and after Hell or High Water he serves up the best historical film of the decade with the excellent Chris Pine improving film by film. Absolutely everything works here, the accurate history, the spectacular production design, the impressive costumes and sets (gorgeous castles), the naked queen is not missing, the impressive milking of emotions throughout the film, and most importantly, the spectacular battles where blood and bodies are certainly not spared. The scene with the horses is an absolute highlight of the genre and will probably make horse lovers cry. High praise also goes to Douglas, who steals most of the scenes for himself and is horrifically brutal in them. A wonderful and near-perfect film and experience, where my only regret is that I couldn't see it on the big screen. One of the best films of the year. After a second viewing the enthusiasm has waned slightly, but still good. 80% (13/11/2018)