Way too bloody.

Rating: Null/10 (5 December 2010)

For me the blood and gore over shadows the rest of the film. I simply had a hard time watching this thing with all the squib work and excessive gore and blood splatters.
Well shot, there was some cliché acting and story telling involved. The story itself seems to be recycled material from King Arthur with lots of blood, which to me says that the target demographic was probably misread to cater to a more bloodthirsty audience, which probably wasn't all that blood thirsty in the first place, but perhaps more interested in seeing "realistic action". Blood gushing from bodies is not realistic.
I'm sorry to say that for all the high production values that went into this film the realism gets tossed out the window, and is replaced with pornographic blood letting. Regrettable, but there it is. It seems like five minutes don't go by without someone getting hacked up and spilling a gallon of blood. Is that real? No.
The acting is a bit melodramatic, but fits with pacing and overall film. Even so I'd be hard put to call it likable.
I guess the best way to sum up this film is that it will appeal to those who have a thirst for grotesque hack-and-slash violence, but not much more. There's nary a love story, little of the politics of the time, little true realism (even little grittiness, as everyone seems very clean, save when they fight), but the film does deliver on incredibly high production values. Watching the deleted scenes one wonders why the first scene in the collection wasn't added (in spite of the director's commentary), because the film needed a few contemplative moments.
If you want a true Roman sword and sandal epic, then look elsewhere, though if you're a die hard fan of the genre, then you may want to add this to your collection (which I may begrudgingly do... but more likely not).
Not really a film I would recommend.
Definitely watch at your own risk.