Low-budget medieval romp by one man and showbiz chums.

I can't really leave it at ten words though, because this thing was utter utter crap, very much in the tradition of Tommy Wiseau's The Room. So, here are ten things about it:

1. One man wrote, directed, played the (or both) lead characters, cast it, co-ordinated the stunts, and so on.
2. It looks like he also wrote most of the high-rated reviews on IMDB and Amazon. You can tell by the writing style. These are more enjoyable than the film.
3. The plot is that in olden times, some Templars were betrayed for gold, and their leader threatened vengeance "ten lifetimes" later. Cut to modern times, when a murder-mystery weekend is about to take place...
4. The special effect to show which characters in Templar-Era are which characters in Modern-Era is hilariously bad morphing, made all the worse by some of the knights now being women.
5. The Modern-Era "castle" is obviously one of those awful American mansions built to look like an American's idea of what a castle is like by someone with a shaky grasp of history, architecture, defensibility and interior design.
6. It's one of David Carradine's final roles and the film was released posthumously.
7. Norman "Walking Dead" Reedus is in it. From reading the IMDB reviews, I understand that he and the writer/actor/director are old chums from their mid-90s male modelling days. His character has a scene where he enjoys auto-erotic asphyxiation. Yes, they went there.
8. Billy Drago, an actor you've probably seen in a million bit-parts without really recognising, plays the chef, who is a transvestite for no other reason than possibly to pun on the actor's name.
9. Other actors who you may or may not recognise include Jack Donner, Udo Kier and Max Perlich.
10. The female characters are all pretty much disposable, which is just as well, because they pretty much all get disposed of.

Anyway, it is/was one on many, many terrible films on Channel 5's on-demand player, and I watched it so you don't have to.

cf. Toronto's own "Casa Loma."

OMFG, trailer looks AWESOME  :-D

Keeping with the fact that the meta-aspects of the film are just as terrible as the film itself, I quite like that the description of the video is the publicist for the film asking YouTube not to delete it, because he actually does have permission to upload it.

Apologies for resurrecting this thread, but I saw your post while looking for something, read it, decided to investigate some of the reviews. I see what you mean. Films, even good ones, don't tend to get such gushing, OTT, praise as this one. Definitely worth a read 

"you'll see some weird guy who keeps posting garbage reviews over and over"

Yeah, I saw that. Not 100% sure who it was aimed at. Maybe, it was a general smear in the direction of the negative reviews to distract from the fact that, as one (negative) reviewer noted, It's also worth noting that there are many more than these 20 glowing, overblown, positive reviews, and that several of the negative reviewers are amazed by them, and suspicious. 

I may have to watch this now, because either it's on a par with the greatest work of directors like John Carpenter, William Friedkin, Stanley Kubrick etc. or as one reviewer said 
But then again, Mr K J Wingnut has deemed it "utter utter crap" and watched it so we don't have to. 
 

Well, this is why I never read online reviews except (rarely) for entertainment. I also don't take IMDB's rating system seriously (or Amazon's, or anyone's, really).