IMDb रेटिंग
2.5/10
1.5 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंSinbad, the original Prince of Persia, must complete seven tasks in order to save the world from catastrophe.Sinbad, the original Prince of Persia, must complete seven tasks in order to save the world from catastrophe.Sinbad, the original Prince of Persia, must complete seven tasks in order to save the world from catastrophe.
- निर्देशक
- लेखक
- स्टार
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
I have seen good movies, bad movies, bad movies that become cult movies and then sadly a few like this where if I had the sense of a dead cat I would have stopped watching.
The only good thing was that the design of one of the monsters (bird type things) was quite good - everything else was BAD BAD BAD ...
No plot - well at least nothing that made sense. Characters - were as wooden and predictable as it would be possible to imagine. Special effects - on the whole plain bad. Acting - there were real tears from one of the actors - I think it was because they realised that once this turkey was released they would never work again.
I can't go on even remembering this movie (which I only finished watching ten minutes ago) as it's causing irreparable brain damage.
WATCH ANYTHING ELSE!!!
The only good thing was that the design of one of the monsters (bird type things) was quite good - everything else was BAD BAD BAD ...
No plot - well at least nothing that made sense. Characters - were as wooden and predictable as it would be possible to imagine. Special effects - on the whole plain bad. Acting - there were real tears from one of the actors - I think it was because they realised that once this turkey was released they would never work again.
I can't go on even remembering this movie (which I only finished watching ten minutes ago) as it's causing irreparable brain damage.
WATCH ANYTHING ELSE!!!
Seriously, people: If you don't have the money, don't produce movies that rely almost entirely on special effects.
I will not even comment on the quality of... well... everything. But let me just say this: If there were only $500k to spend (as one of the other comments mentioned), there ought to have been at least 500 Bucks to spend on a halfway decent script written by some English minor from undergrad school.
Cheap trash actually makes me smile every once in a while, but this here was just a pain. Really.
(Why can't I give 0 points for GODawful?)
I will not even comment on the quality of... well... everything. But let me just say this: If there were only $500k to spend (as one of the other comments mentioned), there ought to have been at least 500 Bucks to spend on a halfway decent script written by some English minor from undergrad school.
Cheap trash actually makes me smile every once in a while, but this here was just a pain. Really.
(Why can't I give 0 points for GODawful?)
I only watched this because it was on Showtime. Oh, OK, it was on Showtime Extreme. And extreme it was! Extremely BAD. I love the old Sinbads. I can take "hokey". I can handle stop-action animation. I can even take weak special effects. I could not handle this hot mess. No reason to break it down, every single part of this movie is awful. Here's a little though: Special effects- cheesy, awful. I think they they just gave up at some point and said, "whatever". Acting -what acting? The actors understandably looked bored most of the time. Writing- they winged it. Not sure anybody cared if there was a storyline. But hey, there's boobs! Watch a rerun, the news, or the paint dry. Anything but this.
I really think the voting system ought to allow negative scores, just to counter some of the positives given by people clearly connected with the film - either on the production side or acting side.
I guess I'm referring to Mr. "joemorph from United States" who wrote a ridiculously long and praising review that was clearly aimed at him getting some of his investment back.
Hard luck Mr. joemorph from USA. This film is appalling.
Even worse than the film was the acting of the lead actor. Apart from the ridiculous "crab" scene where he had a little tantrum, his face rarely broke into a smile, a frown, or gave any other indication of what he was feeling other than a look that said "I don't believe I'm in such a pathetic film".
I guess I'm referring to Mr. "joemorph from United States" who wrote a ridiculously long and praising review that was clearly aimed at him getting some of his investment back.
Hard luck Mr. joemorph from USA. This film is appalling.
Even worse than the film was the acting of the lead actor. Apart from the ridiculous "crab" scene where he had a little tantrum, his face rarely broke into a smile, a frown, or gave any other indication of what he was feeling other than a look that said "I don't believe I'm in such a pathetic film".
When I first saw the title of this movie and the poster, I thought it would be a newer take on Ray Harryhausen. Boy, was *I* wrong. Set in contemporary times (read 2010), this attempted "update" falls flat in many categories. It's incredibly disjointed - you will find yourself asking "Huh? How, when or why did THAT happen?" It doesn't maintain any of the flavor of the original. There are monsters as depicted in the poster, but this film doesn't explain, dwell on, or expand on them in any manner. From the opening shots of Somali pirates (remember, this is in the year 2010 that we are talking about) you will see this Sinbad is in name only.
Still, it isn't all bad. The female lead has an incredibly ripped body which is eye catching. The hokey special effects are reminiscent of the Sci Fi Channel from about ten years ago and are fun to watch. There are a couple of really vivid moments when the film comes alive. It's when the story strays from the monsters that it falls apart.
I wouldn't pan this movie completely, it's not totally worthless. Asylum has done a better job here than on previous efforts, but they seem stuck in the "Gotta get it into 90 minutes" mold. Just think, they could have completed a fairly good movie with a bit more time in the viewing and having done away with the dumb subplots.
Maybe.
Still, it isn't all bad. The female lead has an incredibly ripped body which is eye catching. The hokey special effects are reminiscent of the Sci Fi Channel from about ten years ago and are fun to watch. There are a couple of really vivid moments when the film comes alive. It's when the story strays from the monsters that it falls apart.
I wouldn't pan this movie completely, it's not totally worthless. Asylum has done a better job here than on previous efforts, but they seem stuck in the "Gotta get it into 90 minutes" mold. Just think, they could have completed a fairly good movie with a bit more time in the viewing and having done away with the dumb subplots.
Maybe.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाReleased on May 25th, 2010 to capitalize on Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010), which was released in the U.S. on May 28th, 2010.
- गूफ़The ship at the beginning of the movie is getting hit by a major storm with heavy waves. Yet inside the ship remains perfectly steady and none of the characters so much as sways.
- कनेक्शनReferences Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $5,00,000(अनुमानित)
- चलने की अवधि1 घंटा 33 मिनट
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.78 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें