Criticism ... but not of the film itself

Rating: 10/10 (28 May 2004)

I must admit that I was prepared to see just one more vampire and/or werewolf film filled with wanton blood and gore. Instead, I was left in both awe and circumspection.
The filmgoer has become so used to the "2-hour-format" (give or take a few minutes) that films which don't please them within that format are panned. But, this film like others (ie., 1984's "Dune") appeared to be better suited to a 4-hour or longer format ... spread over 2 separate films, perhaps. In short, attributing weaknesses of this film to acting or writing might be unfair. To me, the weaknesses seem more attributed to editing or perhaps budget constraints put upon the production company.
This film would have had all the earmarks of epic quality had it been filmed as an epic. But epics are rarely crammed into a 2-hour timeslot with success. The acting by largely unknown actors was riveting and allowed me to suspend disbelief entirely. The camera work was breathtaking. And the choreography of battle scenes was on par with or better than that found in "The Matrix" trilogy.
I gave this film a 10-out-of-10 rating on effort alone, despite my reservations over the rushed nature of the storyline which detracted from a filmgoer's ability to appreciate it more fully.