Home > Adventure >

Pendragon: Sword of His Father

AD:This title is currently not available on Prime Video
Free Trial
View All Sources

Pendragon: Sword of His Father (2008)

November. 01,2008
|
3.9
|
PG-13
| Adventure Fantasy Action Science Fiction
AD:This title is currently not available on Prime Video
Free Trial
View All Sources

Set in 411 AD, Pendragon tells the story of young Artos who is raised to believe that God has a purpose for each day. When his family killed and he is taken into slavery by the Saxons, Artos questions his God. Advancing through the military ranks, Artos begins to understand that his father's vision was not based on the strength of man, but on the plan of God. Further betrayal by his friends forces Artos to decide between following God's plan unto certain death or abandoning God to save his own life.

...

Watch Trailer

Free Trial Channels

AD
Show More

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Solemplex
2008/11/01

To me, this movie is perfection.

More
Nonureva
2008/11/02

Really Surprised!

More
Micah Lloyd
2008/11/03

Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

More
Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin
2008/11/04

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

More
John Watts
2008/11/05

Without a doubt I have never seen any movie as truly awful as this. This has to be an utter embarrassment to everyone involved unless somehow it got better after 40 minutes as I just had to turn it off, it was just too painful to endure any more. Not funny, not dramatic not anything but awful. I can't find a single good thing to say about this movie. I gave it a 1 as the DVD cover was pretty good. Pity what's inside is utter drivel. Lousy casting and the acting (honestly its like watching a high school play only you aren't related to any of the kids) the script writing - what were you thinking! The character development was almost non existent, the camera work made me feel nauseous in some parts due to the way they had the camera moving. Summary - an extremely bad, unpleasant and ugly movie, at least the Killer Tomatoes was a little funny.

More
Brucewh
2008/11/06

Okay, the Burns family and their hangers on managed to do something I have not experienced in a long time. They put together a movie so appallingly bad on every level that after an hour I just could not take any more. Between this and more than 40 years of community theatre experience, and I have never seen an ensemble cast so uniformly awful. The community leader/father character has all the dynamic presence and leadership potential of a failed amateur junior assistant apprentice library book sorter trainee. And I don't mean that in a good way. Fortunately for him, he is not overshadowed by any of his supporting cast. These people could not convincingly play talentless actors; I don't believe any of the actors could play themselves. They are quite simply as untalented as people with no talent. It is impossible to feel engaged with any character, care about whether any character in the movie succeeds or fails or lives or dies. Impossible to imagine that any of them had any impact at all on the other characters, let alone the future of Britain. It is really difficult to see how any of these people inspired enough passion in each other to produce children. They are less than boring.I was surprised to see that there were actually a handful of people involved in this movie not named Burns. It is not entirely unlikely to me that many of the people not named Burns are men married to women with the maiden name of Burns. Certainly none of the Burns family, extended family, and cluster of outsiders are any good at their respective jobs. About the only member of the production got anything right was the one who made sure that this Christian movie did not contain sex or profanity. It was obvious to me very quickly that whichever Burns was supposed to go to the library and do some research on fifth century weapons, tools, and so forth decided to look at some of the pictures in the Encyclopaedia Britannica and leave it at that.Inconsistencies and functional impossibilities abound. Anachronistic weapons, siege machines, materials, and construction techniques litter the first hour. There is no way the invaders brought back many siege machines from across the sea, and no way they mass-produced the nearly identical plethora of ballistas in the field, and no way they did all that construction work without word having spread far and wide for leagues in every direction; the invaders' attacks wouldn't of been a surprise, because the locals would have been sitting around waiting for them (bad strategy) for weeks or months. It is improbable that an invading army could have produced so many "fire projectiles" that could be hurled effectively, and most unlikely that they would even bother. Looking at the construction of the village walls and such, they'd if not the place down just by launching large rocks at the place. Which would've been wiser … based on the firefighting training and experience I had, that place would've burned to the ground first night, turning everything worth capturing into smoking debris and ash. Apparently the invading horde were fifth century Burns family sackers as well.One last thing. There are two roles not listed in the credits. One is the local tailor, who apparently buys modern fabrics from Kmart, and Owens a singer sewing machine. The other is the village hairdresser, who apparently owns a 411 A.D. model curling iron.My roommate checked this movie out from the library, misled by the title. The hope was to find an Arthurian legend film that's better than "Merlin." That BBC series was, by comparison, the documentary staged brilliantly by the Royal Shakespearean Company. I'm surprised the DVD actually got to the library. This has the quality of something that bypassed the "straight to DVD bargain bin" quality assortment, and instead achieved "straight to rubbish bin" status before release.Oh, and by the way, I didn't particularly like this film.

More
Faladh
2008/11/07

This is my first review in the IMDb, and I'm doing this just because I saw a terrible wasted film. In the beginning I really tried to see the best part of it. You think, "Oh, come on is a "C" movie, let's give a chance to this awful actor, or, the direction is not good but, let me just see it from another angle...." but is impossible. The main actor is simply worse then you can handle, you never see the face of the actors in front, the action take always more time then needed (is a problem with the cut), and it simply goes on ...The movie lacks continuity, it doesn't make you want to keep watching it, is sad, could be just a great film.I saw in the end, that was a family project, (that explain the non-convincing extras and other actors) but any way, a good director/ editor consulting would just be great. The idea is good, but is impossible to do a great film without a good protagonist (that was maybe the biggest mistake) and a good director.The soundtrack could be done with a really low budget, it would make the film flow better...

More
auz_122
2008/11/08

This movie is wonderful if u like low budget films where their accent is so annoying that looks like Roman's actually spoke with American accents. Apart from their voice acting everything else makes it look even worst no real effects used, i got up to the intro and even the Saxons look like bikers with plastic helmets on and carpets around them.... This truly awful film doesn't deserve the 1 out of 10 because that is only reserved for troll 2, You know the movie.... I don't expect any cult following for this film..... A lot of Roman movies are always awful and the last legion wasn't as bad as this but it could certainly do with lot more experienced actors even with little Latin would make it more interesting.....

More