Sinbad: The Fifth Voyage

Honestly this movie was SO horrible that for most of it I kept telling myself "WHY AM I WATCHING THIS!!!?" but because of Patrick Stewarts name being on it, I gave it a shot.Why would such a great actor, like Patrick Stewart associate himself with his garbage waste of time? It looked like a movie made in the 50s but with color and horrible acting. HOW!? does this movie have a 6.6 rating on IMDb? did all the Iranians in Cali get on here and give it 10 stars? Bottom line: like another reviewer here said... "I'd rather sit and watch paint dry". Don't waste your time. I actually signed up for IMDb, JUST so I could put this review here.

When I see many 1- and 2-star reviews along with 5-star reviews my conclusion is that the movie is really bad and the 5-star reviews are written by the friends, family members and the people who made it.

I could force myself to watch only first 20 minutes of this 'masterpiece.' The animation is primitive like in the school movie, the acting is bad. I was surprised to learn, actually, that this is a US- made film. It looked more like some poorly made Bollywood flick, although they can make pretty good films there. I just wonder how such a fine actor like Patrick Stewart could lend his voice to such a trash. Well, money talks, I guess.

Don't waste your time on this one unless you want to see how a really bad B-movie looks like.

All I can say is this film, if you dare to call it that takes the "Sin" out of "Sinbad". Do yourself a favor and skip this one, this should go straight to DVD and then die.The acting is very poor and also the special effects are sure special, costumes aren't bad. I felt like I was watching something akeen to a bad remake of pulp fiction with all the jumping around between scenes and time line, I think the editor was asleep when cutting the scenes or maybe was watching pulp fiction at the time, then we get to the sound, the score isn't bad but once again poorly executed.So all and all someone's wasted a lot of money on this submarine of a film.

I would have given this three stars if not for the infuriating padded reviews. After reading the director/lead actor's bio, it is clear he is behind it. Shame on you!

Make no mistake, folks, this movie is bad. Bad acting: Our padding culprit is not the worst of them, but to put it in perspective it looks like casting was done impromptu at the food court of the local mall in the morning and shooting began that the afternoon. Directing: Not awful, average at best. Set design: hit and miss, mostly miss. Costumes: fair to good. Editing: awful. Gaps, gaps, gaps or was that just the bad screenplay? It skips from scene to scene. You have to have seen the oldies to fill in the blanks. It became too exhausting. Costumes: pretty good. Makeup: blah, but i think i saw a pal conversion so hard to tell. Special effects: Hmmm. At first I was like, what? This looks worse than the effects of Sinbad in the 70's. This drew me in a little. Nostalgia, I guess, but it got old fast.

Meh!

This movie has some uncomfortable faults owing to its low budget nature. If you go in understanding that, then you can enjoy the good things it has to offer: super handsome Sinbad and the beautiful actresses who are distinct from the typical Hollywood look, and imaginative creatures that are apparently made from real physical models. Also, another user here commented on the quality of the costume designs--some of them are really cool.

It's clear this was a work that took a lot of time and passion, but the movie is held back by some serious snags in the writing, editing, and even the acting in a couple scenes. Given more time and money, these could have been worked out. I want to see these actors doing greater things in the future.