Las aventuras del príncipe Valiente

The true star of the film, yes that right I'm talking about Chesney Hawkes! Without his brief but exquisite performance the film would just be a very disappointing with a lack lustre scrip and even worst over the top acting.' But your father gave me strict instructions to...' Arguable one of the best lines in cinematic history, do you not agree! I thank you Chesney Hawkes for one of the best performances ever!

Beautiful sets, great costumes and makeup.

Run of the mill script. Mediocre acting.

Bad special effects and stunts,and bad film-editing.

The special effects were truly terrible. Just stop-the-movie awful. Alligators that don't move and clearly are not alive. One alligator, clad in plate mail (huh?), shoots vertically out of the water into the air and descends down onto the stonework beside the water, where it doesn't move -while characters run about, pretending to be fearful of the clearly-lifeless, unmoving armor-clad alligator.

And lots of characters swinging Tarzan-like on ropes, slamming feet first into the villains. Except the actors are clearly hanging on ropes being moved by an overhead crane. And the ropes move slowly, as if there was great concern on the set about hurting the actors. In these scenes the villain conveniently stands in one spot until the slow-swinging good guy finally collides with him. This isn't a one-time screw-up; the slow-swinging Tarzan-bit happens over and over again.

The film editing is bad enough that it makes it hard to follow the story at spots. And the stunts and special effects kept blowing up the suspension of disbelief.

There is plenty of no-brainer action, though, and high production values on the sets and costumes. This could have been fun if it was better made.

This is a rather funny movie with all the right fantasy-ingredients in it. The actors are alright especially Ron Perlman and Katherine Heigl. It is well made and the camera photo is inspiring - I like the tempo-changes. But there is one thing I didn't like and that was the use of animated drawings tucked inside the movie which totally destroyed it. So because of the use of animation it only gets a 7 and not a 9.

For fans of Harold Foster's Prince Valiant it is a bit disappointing, but very suitable for children. Despite his homo haircut the original Valiant is very masculine, philosophical, and smart. He does not perform foolish acts or show inability with the sword, ever. In the movie he looks too young, shy, messy and foolish. The cast is inadequate, the camera trembles and the fight scenes are unacceptable... but again, not for the children, there are nice places to be viewed causing the correct time effect. There are not enough elements to make a good movie, lacks of art direction, continuity, actor performance and specially edition. The movie was pretty bad edited. Beside the gorgeous naked back of the princess coming out of the bad, the castles, the open air scenes make a very pleasant environment worth to be seen. Ron Pearlman's performance is great as usual but do not save the picture. Maybe i would like too much to see this movie under the view of Ridley Scott, stronger characters, something more close to the original personality and the meaning of Prinz Eisenherz.

With a so impressive cast, the story just matters ? It is the simple question after its final. Because its gift, after almost three decades, it is to represent the answer to inner children , nostalgics and lover of fairz tales and their not pretentious adaptations.

Sure, a king Arthur remindind Charles I Stuart, a young Stephen Moyer in a role not so comfortable ( not only for him ) but behind Prouix or Bill Compton , a young and nice Katherine Heigl behind Izzie Stevens and chain of romantic comedies and Warwick Davis more than seductive. And, sure, excalibur , near the impressive crocodiles. So, what expect more ?

The result, a sort of gratitude and nice veil of nostalgia, near some good smiles.