I just watched this film and, honestly, I find the single review posted here to be wholly ludicrous - one star indeed.

There's a sizable group of talented actors and actresses in this film that give some very respectable performances. If fighting scenes are all you look for in a film like this then yes, it might feel boring to you. But for most others you'll find a well executed story that portrays honor in a time when honor was everything.

Production was accurate, continuity is good, and the story keeps you interested. It's not, by any means, a fresh story line - but there's a reason it's an old standard. Casting was well done, and Clive Owen, as always, does not disappoint. In fact, the entire cast did a commendable job and that can not be said for the majority of contemporary films.

So, to wrap up; if you're strictly an "action" viewer, you may not enjoy this movie. But if you enjoy a good story that isn't entirely predictable, you might just enjoy this film.

In an unnamed empire, a lord is being killed for political reasons and the greed of a competitor, his private army disbanded, his lands divided among the other nobles. A year later, his retainers, all loyal followers of the code of the warrior, take revenge.

This is actually a real and very famous and influential event that happened in Japan in the 18th century, also known as the Ako incident. I found it funny that the ending of the movie was changed to suit Western sensibilities, but the gist of the film is the same nonetheless.

The acting was good, with a real nice cast, the directing was good and the entire feel of the movie, from cinematography to costumes, helped get me in the atmosphere of the story. I felt the music was a bit too bombastic for the scenes, but it was also nice.

Bottom line: a UK and South Korea coproduction, it feels different than an American movie, and in a very good way, but it is not an exceptional film. Perhaps its greatest merit is the acting and the rather faithful depiction of the incident. The ending ruins that a bit, but not by much.

The first thing you look at when you consider to watch a movie are usually the actors.

Clive Owen, Morgan Freeman and upcoming Norwegian actor Aksel Hennie(Known from 'The Martian', 'Hercules' and 'Headhunters') are some of the actors this movie can offer.

As for the story. It's not the deepest story, but in this movie I feel that it's not rally necessary. The movie is a typical knight movie with some factors of the Asian samurai (But it works) and is ended with an epic battle no man can dare say is boring not original.

I really liked it. 8/10

Although not mentioned , the story results to be a remake of the the 47 Ronin and and it boasts a splendid cast . it is based on the Japanese folk legend . Middle Age , an Europen country , this is an epic chronicling an ancient legend .As a group of military led by Clive Owen set out to avenge the dishonor and death of their master at the hands of a ruthless , corrupt Prime Minister, Aksel Hennie . Commanded by a fallen knight who was tricked into commiting an ominous execution , he is called Raiden ,and along with their knights rise against a nasty , sadistic ruler to avenge their Master , as every battle needs a hero . They are banished and isolated but Raiden rallies again his bunch and reforces the team . As their entire destiny lies in the hands of one knight .His threatened people made him a leader , the empire made him a renegade , history made him a hero .

Features noisy action , strong rivalry , thrills , emotion , intense drama and a lot of sword-play . It is made big scale with some breathtaking and spectacular battles such as the final assault on the impregnable fortress . The plot is ordinary and simple , as a rough emperor : Payman Maadi sentences a powerful feudal lord who is condemned to death and then his soldiers become Ronin : warriors with no master , and planning a scheme to revenge their dishonored Master , subsequently seeking vengeance , justice and honor. The appropriate photography is generously laden with views of of palaces and castles as well as paronamic vistas .The action is well paced with adequate interpretation, though the story occassionaly drags for an uneven script by Dove Sussman . It is full of good values as bravery, knighthood, honour , comradeship , sacrifice and redemption . Cast and support cast is frankly fine , such as Owen , Freeman , Aksel Hennie , Ayelet Zurer as faithfull wife , Ihara as an upright knight and Cliff Curtis as btave lieutenant .



Ii contains a colorful and evocative photography shot in Czech Republic , though sometimes dark cinematography by the great Spanish cameraman Antonio Riestra who has photographed nice films as Mama , The bachelors , Katmandu , Lidice , Black bread, Stephanie , Eloise ,and The face of love . Rousing and thrilling musical score accompanying perfectly to action from Ramgotra and Martin Tillman.The motion picture turns out to be a British/South Korea coproduction well directed by Kazuaki Kiriya who has made a few movies as Goeman and Cassehern

This is the seventh cinematic adaptation of the 47 Ronin incident after 47 Ronin 1942by Kengi Migozuchi this is the largest version of the kabuki rendition of the story by Seika Mayama ; The loyal 47 Ronin 58 , Chushingura 62 , Ako jo danzetsu , 47 Ronin 84 , Saigo no Chushingira 2010 and the most popular retelling is 47 Ronin 2013 by Carl Rinsch with Keanu Reeves , Hiroyuki Sanada , Tanaka , Rinko Kikuchi , Cary Tagawa.And is really influenced in the Film " Ronin" 1998 by John Frankenheimer with Robert DeNiro , Sean Bean, Stellan Skarsgard , Jonathan Pryce .

It is unfair to be too critic about this film. Because it is a decent version of "47 Ronins" and a beautiful knights film. Because Clive Owens is perfect in his role and the story, not remarkable, is correct and interesting and well crafted. A film about revenge. In which the cinematography, the performances, the CGI are more than good. Impressive fight scenes, inspired end and the feeling to see an old fashion historical movie, technicall, at a better level. A real good film.

It's odd that a medieval fantasy movie with respectable cast nearly flies off radar. Last Knights is not an epic tale, in fact the plot heavily resembles that of 47 Ronin and considering even Keanu Reeves' journey is inspired by multitude of per-existing works, this plot is unoriginal at best. The pacing is slow, creating a rather bloated runtime. Still, the cast as well as cinematography produce nice atmosphere, especially in latter half, just making Last Knights a moderately enjoyable popcorn flick.

Raiden (Clive Owen) is a commander with a dark past, he was taken by his lord Bartok (Morgan Freeman) and granted opportunity to lead the knights. As a man of integrity Bartok openly opposes Minister Gezza Mott (Aksel Hennie), this doesn't end up well for him as he loses his land and riches, amongst other things. Thus the tale of coping and possible vengeance begins. The premise is far too predictable, more so if you have watched 47 Ronin, the screenplay almost mirrors one another.

Clive Owen has the rugged commander look, but he doesn't seem engaging. I can't help but seeing the solemn Keanu Reeves' persona as neither of them barely exhibits any meaningful expression. Morgan Freeman is as dependable as ever, he's charismatic and does pretty much what one expected. As for the villain, Aksel Hennie performs admirably. He does seem corrupt, conniving and slightly paranoid. The script gives him ominous vibe that audience would love to hate.

Supporting cast is oriented towards the mix of European and Asian, props for the casting department to pull off the eclectic assemble. They also have some experience in action movies and TV shows overall, so it's not all obscure faces. The setting puts emphasis on hybrid culture, architectures and costumes appear to be from ancient Persia with an oriental touch. It's a quaint atmosphere and presents a few lavish set pieces. Cinematography uses grayish filter for most of these areas and outfits, in exception of certain characters or definitive environment which are more vibrant.

While it looks presentable, the plot may deter some audiences. Its script tries to engage with intriguing lines, and it's mildly successful. Unfortunately, the film spends more than half of its runtime stuttering to find its rhythm. This is made worse by the outdated screenplay, the plot devices are not only foreseeable, they are also heavy-handed in execution.

The last act fares better as it offers more polished action sequences, although there is no surprise twist to be had here. Last Knights is made from tired elements of the genres, it doesn't do enough for a fascinating spectacle. However, with a presentable graphic and production design, it's barely sufficient for a light watch.

Good actors and they did deliver. Good camera work and OK action scenes. Director has done a good job with what he had to work with. Unfortunately the whole story was thin. If filmmakers can take a comic book issue and make a good movie based on the story, I wonder, was this script written on the inside of a matchbook? The story begins and ends but that's basically it. It's boring, slow and unimaginative. It does not hurt to watch the movie, it's a pretty beautiful illustration but it leaves no lasting aftertaste. Do not pass this movie if you like the genre but save it for a bad weather day. Feels awkward to say that I give this movie 4 because it was well made so I rather put it that this movie lost 6 stars because it was boring.

I am compelled to write my first review after 4 years on IMDb due to the bad reviews by critics. First off, I completely enjoyed this movie. I loved the initial setting which took about an hour which others complained to be too long but I felt that laid a good foundation for the plot to continue.

The second half could've been better but I'm not complaining. This was much better than Ridley Scott's Robin Hood when compared to a medieval story. What lacked in this movie was more character development and overall depth to both the story and characters. The details of storming the castle are also just gone through quickly without any importance. I feel like this could've been a 3 hour saga of excellent medieval story had the director gone with it. A fully developed story with multidimensional characters would've been perfect. Both Clive Owen and Morgan Freeman gave wonderful performances and as someone who loves their movies I felt satisfied just to see them in these particular roles.

Overall, don't miss this one just because of some harsh critic ratings. I felt entertained and this is one movie which did not let me down at all when compared with other medieval stories of the past few years.

Raiden (Clive Owen) must find a way to avenge the death of Bartok (Morgan Freeman) his master who was sentenced to death for challenging the Emperor's (Peyman Moaadi) Minister, Gezze Mott (Aksel Hennie). The reasoning is that a challenge to the Minister is also a challenge to the Emperor and must be dealt with by death. Bartok did have the opportunity to kill Gezze Mott and regretted not doing so. The Emperor rules that Raiden must carry out Bartok's death sentence. Well, this wasn't in the cards. (it was in the script, however)

It was never clear to me what country is involved in this. Who has Emperors? Japan, China, France? Hmmm…… I suppose it really doesn't matter as this is not a true story. It does, however, have elements of another movie: 47 Ronin (a good movie BTW).

This has inklings of being an epic, the cinematography was outstanding; the acting: excellent; the music signaled it being so; the fights: bloody, brutal and intense; the scene setups were masterful. You almost believed this was a true story. Kudos. (you're too easy)

The key to this movie is in the words above " Raiden must find a way to avenge the death of Bartok." Keep that in mind and you almost know how this will play out.

I was impressed with the actor who played the Emperor: Peyman Moaadi, who gave a very strong performance even though his screen time wasn't all that much.

Some of the fighting near the end, while good, was always in the dark, blurry, too fast and hard to follow who were the good guys vs the bad guys. (the bad guys wore black helmets)

All in all a well told story with Morgan Freeman and Clive Owen carrying the load in good fashion. (7/10)

Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: No.

"The code was simple: Possess an absolute devotion to one's Master." Last Knights is Japanese director, Kazuaki Kiriya's third feature film, but his first one with well known Hollywood actors. What he attempts to do here is blend the familiar story of the 47 Ronin and adapt it to the Medieval world of knights. Why would you want to trade samurai soldiers for knights? I have no idea because it actually doesn't work. You have these men living by a code of honor similar to the samurai, but there is nothing fresh or unique about the idea because the entire story becomes completely predictable and generic. During this feudal world, Captain Raiden (Clive Owen) is completely devoted to serving the house of Bartok (Morgan Freeman), his wealthy and caring Master. Second in command is another loyal knight, Lt. Cortez (Cliff Curtis). These knights live by a strong code of honor and respect for their Master, but when Bartok is dishonored by the Emperor's corrupt adviser, Gezza Mott (Aksel Hennie), the knights are dismantled. Will the knights be able to rise again and avenge their Master or will they fall into despair and go back to their old ways? If you've seen any samurai movie you probably know what to expect. The greatest issue I had with Last Knights is its lack of originality. We've seen the film played out many times before and that makes the pacing of the film feel incredibly tedious because we know what is going to happen next. Kiriya tries to take his time establishing the setting and building the characters, but since we've seen this world before it doesn't do anything for the audience. Clive Owen is a fine actor, but he's even played this role before in King Arthur, a knight who is completely devoted to the cause. Morgan Freeman is one of those actors who you could close your eyes just to hear him speak and that is basically why he's in this, to narrate the introduction of the film and set the premise. Last Knights can easily be divided into three acts, the first being the introduction of each character and the injustice they must face, the second which takes up most part of the film centers on the build-up of each character, and the third part of the film and by far the most exciting is the climax where vengeance is coming. The problem is that neither the introduction or the character development manage to engage the audience and everything is taken way too seriously for us to be entertained by it. The characters are completely one dimensional. Only Clive Owen gets to play a meaty role, but everyone else is simply playing a stereotypical character in a film like this. And even watching Owen on screen you can't help but feel the familiarity of having seen him play this role before. The villain is perhaps the best example of how stereotypical the characters in this film are. You couldn't have Aksel Hennie play a more evil or sadistic man than he is here: he beats his wife, abuses people, accepts bribes from other noble men, and to top things off he hurts animals. He's also a coward who surrounds himself with thousands of guards and a heavy fortified home. That is what actually makes the final climax scene quite entertaining. The action is delivered quite well and it makes up for some of the tedious pacing during the first 80 minutes of the film. Is it enough to recommend the film? Not even close.

After reading the initial reviews of this movie I thought it might be a bit of a turkey. However, I like these type of movies so I thought I would give it 15-20 minutes and see how it goes. Happily, it went well, I was hooked on the storyline and the acting. Clive Owen was fantastic as he usually is in these type of roles, Morgan Freeman, again one of his better movies, and the supporting cast all very well acted. The CGI was good but plot and acting outshone it, which is a really good thing in my opinion. Anyway, I really do recommend this film to those people who like this genre. So please do not listen to the negative reviews to much, watch it for 15 minutes and then decide for yourself if it's for you.

Here we have a tame and traditional knights and castle movie, nothing is done overly well but it is a decent enough movie with some minor political machinations and a small side story none of which add much; the larger scope which motivates this movie is lost. A dark world, with grim characters and no interesting stories even on the main character though a dark past was suggested we find nothing about it. The fight scenes are well choreographed but the lack of blood and gore, of the stark brutality which we've gotten used to, is not in this movie. Other movies have done this on a much grander scale such as Gladiator or indeed, 300 though the fight scenes are passable. I wouldn't call these fighters 'knights' as they act more like ninja at times but this might have something to do with the world they exist in as portrayed in this movie. I do not like Clive Owen as an actor, though he does a good job here this movie just plods along in places, I kept waiting for something interesting to happen but it nearly doesn't until the very end; but even though it does come together I wouldn't pay money to see this in a movie theatre. There is no high drama here, I'd say if this was an afternoon movie on TV you would be well rewarded for watching this but another HBO TV show does this on such a grander scale that one might grow bored with what is presented here. There are some long shots done for effect, but the musical score did nothing for me but I understand what the director was trying to do, create an emotional point. Perhaps there are too many of them. This movie tries too hard to be something that it's not. The simplified political backdrop we have no interest in as there is little perspective that sheds light on the bigger picture, though it is alluded to and forms an important part to what motivates the Knights we just have no interest in it because we end up knowing little about it. There seems to be elements of Asian culture, adding something to the costumes and decor, to the sense of honour perhaps which is fine. Again, nothing really stands out here, but nothing is really bad either. It's just 'tame' in setting, in scope, in characterization; there aren't even any interesting female characters. Worth a watch, but quickly forgotten.

Last Knight taps into the fantasy sword and sandals genre. Its set in a fictional empire with a medieval style hierarchy of Emperors, nobles and knights.

The film has a samurai flavour too, with notions of honour and sacrifice for ones liege lord. The sets are excellent and the acting is fair. Where this film fails miserably is in the story telling department.

The enjoyable portions of this film take place in the first and last twenty or so minutes. What happens in between, can only be described as long winded and excruciatingly dull.

As a consequence, whilst I liked aspects of this film, I can in no way recommend it. Four out of ten from me.

This movie had a bit too much buildup and not enough action for the first two thirds of the movie. And yet I was still drawn in and it held my attention. So when the action did come it was fast and tense. I think the "professional" reviewers have given this movie far too bad a rap. It isn't going to win it's actors any academy awards but for what it is, it does more than passingly well and a lot better than most that have come before it. Even though this movie is based on the Japanese legend of the 47 ronin and transplanted into a pseudo medieval European style fantasy film, it still manages to make the story feel somewhat fresh and the inevitable ending makes you wonder if it's the one expected or not. For me, when a movie makes me wish there was just five more minutes, then it has accomplished something and gets bonus points. This one did so.

The plot behind the last knights is really good, the emperor kills the lord of the manor and kick his retainers off the land. And a year later they decide to take revenge. Clive Owen plays his role as the commander very well, and his legions also do a good job. The epic fight scenes appear well choreographed and the plot has a good element of twists.

But overall it felt a bit generic. Definitely low budget cgi work, the characters don't have a lot of depth, some of the scenes were a bit long. And the ending, while noble and stoic, left something to be desired.

When from time to time a good medieval movie comes out, you have to cherish it. While not the best out there, it still has a solid cast and really good set design. While there is not that much action, when it gets violent the stunt work is solid (do not think or compare this with Eastern action though, that's different sword play at work right there and would be unfair or unjust).

While we do expect the inevitable (and the movie is predictable like that), it's still a nice build up. Especially if you are able to "wait", you'll be rewarded. Heroism is clearly big in this, but that should be expected, right? Still the very last frame might be open for interpretation ... which is either a good thing or breaks the movie for you

A "historic" piece about knights, castles, emperors and power struggles, starring the likes of Morgan Freeman, Clive Owen and Cliff Curtis. Sounds pretty amazing. Except, it is a confusing mess of the most overused clichés.

Clichéd and wooden dialog, predictable storyline and overused effects. Everything is shown as pure good or pure evil. Complete waste of Freeman's talents. Little to no character development.

I get that it's a fictional place and time, but the main aim of the whole movie appears to be political correctness rather than telling a good story. Randomly putting people of different races in different roles, then randomly assigning them costumes and weaponry from different cultures is not political correctness.

Had to keep watching because of a friend who despite the obvious, couldn't guess how it would end. Would highly advise skipping this one.

I'll be short and blunt with this review, but please dont listen to the ridiculous 1* reviews. I enjoyed it for the entire run time of the film. Yes it's a variation on the 47 ronin story but stil thoroughly exciting and engaging all the same. Watch for yourself and you be the judge. Definitely wouldnt bother reading any review under a 7.

'Last Knights' is a story about... well, I kind of had to work out the premise as I went along. It's safe to say that it's set in a 'fictional' world of make believe. It's based on an old Japanese Tale and then imported to a sort of Western culture, only during medieval times, hence the use of 'knights' over 'samurais.' If you've seen the marketing then you can't fail to miss Morgan Freeman's face on the front cover. He's basically sharing top-billing with Clive Owen, only he's not really in it for the film's full duration, leaving any die-hard fans possibly feeling a little short-changed. The story focuses on Clive Owen, as the leader of a band of knights and their attempts to right the wrongs done to them and their people.

And that's about it. I sat through the whole film, watch Mr Owen and co generally chopping up all those who opposed to them and was left pretty neutral. There's not much wrong with the film, i.e. Freeman and Owen both turn in reasonable performances, but then there's nothing I can really say that's particularly positive about it either. Yup, there's action. The sets are decent and reminiscent of the time period. And it's a tale about good triumphing over evil.

The problem is that I've seen all that before. There's just nothing here that's original enough to really elevate it. I'm now struggling to find anything left to write. It's that mediocre. Not bad. Not good. You could check your emails or make a cup of tea at any time during the story and wouldn't miss a thing. Rent or watch for free before you buy.

If this whole movie were as fine as its third act, I would have given it another star or two and added it to my (very small) DVD collection.

Last Knights is a very different take on the story of the 47 Ronin. The director Kazuaki Kiriya's entire roster of films has been on my radar for quite some time, but due to limited availability this is the first one I've watched. Last Knights has the gritty, fantastical feel of a dark fantasy movie; it has no magic, but its diverse cast and vague politics give it an otherworldly feel that I greatly enjoyed. Clive Owen plays Raiden, a retainer to Bartok (Morgan Freeman). After Bartok is killed and dishonored, Raiden and his men form a plan to avenge their former master despite very real and sometimes fatal consequences.

As stated in the title of this review, the first act is interesting in its own right. We are introduced to the characters and the political game they play that sets up for the entire movie. It's not complicated and easily accessible. The second act (after Bartok's demise) slows the movie to a crawl, made worse by the fact that there are very few action scenes in the entire movie (only two worthy to really be called scenes at all, and the only one of length is saved for the third act). Without delving into spoilers, I can say that Raiden's darker character arc here dragged on for me. He became truly unlikable, and whether or not you can guess the "twist" leading into the third act, it was still a drag. Nevertheless, we are shown more insight into how things have progressed for both sides of this political divide.

My eyes were glued to the screen for the entire third act. We are treated to a wonderfully long action-oriented build-up as Raiden's men infiltrate and fight their way through a fortress utilizing stealth and finesse. Some recognizable characters die heroically here, but as wonderfully as these death scenes are handled, they would have made me far more emotional had the second act delved more into character development for these men (rather than focusing on Raiden). Other than that criticism, I can totally see myself re-watching the third act for this entire sequence alone; if you like watching takeovers, sieges, or infiltration missions in general like I do, Last Knights is not a movie to miss.

All the actors do a fine job here. Payman Maadi sounds a little stilted as the Emperor, but his accent usually sounds stiff (I recently saw him in the film Camp X-Ray and I think this is just the way he talks), and at least he ain't bad to look at. Speaking of which, there are a surprising number of actors here who I'll be looking out for based on eye candy alone (Ihara Tsuyoshi, Michael Lombardi, Noah Silver, among some others). Aksel Hennie plays the sneaky snake Geza Mott, who is a delight to watch (and hate). There are two gorgeous decapitations to look out for, neither of which I saw coming (and neither did they, ha). It's rare that a movie portrays mutilations with such swift beauty, but this one does it twice. Finally, the winter vistas and gritty atmospheres on display here just sucked me right into this world and didn't let up until the credits rolled. Bravo.

Overall, Last Knights has flaws that some won't get past, but that its critic Metascore is so low reinforces my distrust of critic reviews. It may not be the most original story put to film, and viewers may disagree with the creative changes made to a well-loved story. Yet, I enjoyed it immensely and will put some of its finest clips on my favorites list on YouTube to watch repeatedly. Lovers of dark fantasy and/or dark historical films: don't miss this.

Movies plot was terribly slow....Period of knights ended in late 1500 century...name me just 1 black/japanese lord or knight from this period of time. At least in Robin Hood from 1991, Morgan Freeman´s role, was well explained, well played and trustworthy In the last knights, multietnical persons are sprinkled into the story, as a terrible excample of political correctness..

-Last Knights (2015) movie review: -The latest in big budget films starring well-known actors that only made it into limited release, Last Knights follows a group of dishonored knights who attempt to rise up against a heartless ruler. Decent budget? Check. Good cast? Check. Quality filmmaking? Check. I don't get the whole 'limited release' thing sometimes.

-I am usually a big fan of medieval pics like this, and this one is no exception! It does have its flaws though, making it not quite on par with films like King Arthur.

-The story is good, and it has an ambiguous setting, which helps it have more room for an original story. I will say that the film takes a large chunk (the middle third) of the film and does nothing with it. It leads the way for a plot point that is very forced, but it gathered itself for the last third of the film. The first third, being the set-up, is also really good.

-The pace suffers much like the story in the middle. It has a great start, compelling first act, and action-packed final act that makes it worth it.

-The acting is pretty great! Clive Owen is right for these roles and he pulls it off very well. The villain, Aksel Hennie, plays his evil, Wormtongue-dislikable villain very well. And who doesn't live Morgan Freeman? He has been going through a patch of generic performances for unnecessary characters, but he does a really good job in this and offers much to the film.

-I liked the characters for what they were, which is subject to the film's missing segment of plot development. Morgan Freeman's character has values that are incredibly easy to respect, making his character just very likable. The villain is a bit cliché, but the more dislikable you make a villain, the more cliché you need to be. At least in more cases. Clive Owen's character takes a really odd turn during the middle that make him less likable than the first act, but the finale act makes up for it.

-I really liked the music. None of it was fantastic, but it was good.

-The film's production value was good. There were a few shots where I just know the background was fake, but small things like proper sword sounds or realistic fighting totally make up for those.

-The film also breaks a few clichés by having lesser villains that are likable, realistic medieval politics, and a few turns near the finale that make you think, "Yeah, that's how it would happen." -Aside from the middle of the film that slows down and takes its eyes off the main story, Last Knights is a well-made, well-acted, somewhat unique medieval film that I enjoyed. Without any further adieu, I will say that I would totally but Last Knights in a $5 bin.

-I was puzzled for most of the film why Last Knights help an R-rating due to a lack of language, only some suggestive content, and realistic non-gruesome violence. And then some extra got stabbed violently, and I was like "Oh! Wow. That's why." So Last Knights is Rated-R for violence.