Good story, Not enough for a whole film

The first must-see film of the year.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Lady Elizabeth (Joanna Pacula) has proved herself a more than capable warrior ,doing valiant service in the Crusades when she is wounded and compelled to return to England .There she finds that major changes have taken place on her manor.A local warlord ,Grekker (Rutger Hauer) has gathered together a formidable band of outlaws ,is exacting tribute from the local peasantry ,and has taken her only son prisoner ,raising him in the outlaw way.She tries to raise a force to tackle the outlaw and recapture her son but the locals are too cowed and fearful to take action .Instead she assembles a small group of women ,all outcasts ,who are willing to fight on her side .There is the formidable Hunter(Molly Culvert) a skilled archer and sword fighter ;the prostitute Eve (Charlotte Avery)and the gypsy Sybil ,an expert on spells and potions .Also in the brigand's camp -albeit reluctantly -is Luke(Arnold Vosloo) ,an enigmatic individual with a chequered past and who is uneasy at the actions of Grekker ,and his part in perpetuating his reign of terror.The action is lively enough ,although budget restrictions don't help ,and the cast is better than usual for such fare .Sadly,the movie does not follow through on its themes ; for instance in the clearly implied sexual attraction felt by Hunter towards Elizabeth .This movie could have been so much better given the talent on display but is mired in the "adequate time passer " category .Watchable but a missed opportunity

I saw this movie under the DVD title "Crusade of Vengeance" it was shot in Europe and has an authentic look and feel, despite some bad CGI. Joanna Pacula stars as Elizabeth of Cooke, who fought the crusades for God, only to return to England and find her son is captive of the evil and greedy warlord Grekkor, wonderfully played by Rutger Hauer.Assembling a rag-tag group of women warriors, Elizabeth sets out to stop Grekkor and reunite with her son. This isn't Shakespeare, but its well played by a professional cast and the movie has its fair share of humor too!Rutger Hauer plays a great villain and he imbues Grekkor with style. Arnold Vosloo,who I'm not familiar with, plays Luke, a down-cast knight who ends up aiding Elizbeth. Molly Culver is perfectly cast as the loner Hunter, who manages to be ultra-tough and yet completely appealing.Its great from start to finish and never gets to serious or too silly.

The defenders surrender and open the gates of the castle. Their enemies are riding into it. Only one person is left to fight them, a woman about 40 years old with a broadsword in her hands. The leader of the enemies, a huge guy in black armour, looks down upon her and says: `I've never seen such bravery – and foolishness.' She is staring at him, ignoring the whole army behind him, and replies stonily: `I'm going to kill you, Grekkor.'Great idea to open the movie with the final confrontation, as it makes every watcher curious. How did these two characters get into such a situation? The rest of the movie is a flashback which explains why it had to happen. Cheaply produced in Lithuania, `Warrior Angels' is a movie with pros and cons. On one hand, the idea to make Elisabeth, a woman over 40, the central character, is brilliant. Instead of the cute princesses you know from countless other fantasy movies or those Charlie's Angels (remember the title!) kind of girly fighters, we are introduced to a tired, but very experienced fighting lady here who goes into her last battle for personal reasons, trying to rescue her abducted son. The cast is marvellous. First we have Rutger Hauer as Grekkor (he looked old to me for the first time – but then I realized it was 20 years ago I saw him at the cinema in `Blade Runner', so I wouldn't mind him saying the same about me), a villain with a cause, not just evil for the fun of it. He explains how his land was taken from him and he wants to use the time while the king is abroad to steal it back. His motivation for the kidnapping of Elisabeth's son is plausible as well, since he wants to teach a boy how to become a warrior, which his father never did for him, he thinks. Second, we have Arnold `The Mummy' Vosloo who gets the best part. A permanently drunk loser at the beginning, he becomes Grekkor's right hand man, but then realizes he may be on the wrong side, so he thinks a lot over his loyalty, his duty, his inner feelings, torn between despair and reborn courage – not a plain cliché role at all! Last not least, we get a team of 4 ladies when Elisabeth teams up with a huntress, a thief and a witch. Their totally different characters make the movie entertaining. On the other hand, `Warrior Angels' makes a few mistakes. Every historian will burst into laughter at the introduction of Elisabeth as a woman who has been fighting as a knight in the crusades with Richard Lionheart. Just like Ivanhoe or Robin Hood, they are trying to give her a certain historical background. Now, a woman as an equal fighter in a Christian army didn't even exist 1890, let alone 1190. The writer must have watched too many Xena episodes and thought female warriors are a normal part of life in the middle ages. They should have omitted that reference to the year 1190 and make `Warrior Angels' a timeless fantasy movie. Also I wonder why the villain is named Grekkor, not George or James, as he is supposed to be British. Where did he get that typical fantasy name from? Apart from these inconsistencies, I also wonder why the people of the towns around (who outnumber Grekkor's bandits by far) never attack him. The movie simply suffers from the budget limitation, I suppose, hence there are a few not so spectacular battles and obviously cheap set design. Nevertheless, I think `Warrior Angels' is definitely a better choice than `Amazons And Gladiators' for example, since there are good actors involved and a couple of original ideas along the way. Voted 7/10.

Arnold Vosloo (from "The Mummy") and Rutger Hauer tried to revive this movie but failed, probably due to the director. This movie had a lot of new ideas going for it: a female main character (who was not young and sexy), a single mom in a medieval film, characters who are not simply good or bad... It even made good use of its low budget, particularly by using some realisticly cold-blooded "medieval" type horses rather than the cheap quarter horses miscast in such historical films. The acting was on a MST3K level with the exception of Hauer and Vosloo, but at least the scenery was nice and the unusual circumstances of the story compensated until--The ending ruined it all. The director made an obvious change at the end contrary to the way the screenplay built up the characters throughout the whole film. It leaves a plot hole you can drive a MAC truck through. What can I say? I guess the director figured Americans love happy endings, no matter what loose ends it leaves.