Witchville

To begin with, this is a TV movie, therefore you should not have a high expectation about it. However, given that fact, I have seen a low budget action movie which is way better than this one. The actions were very bad; there were some sword fight, but when you look at them, it is exactly the actions that were comparable to a play, not a movie. There were a lot of awkward moment where you can actually see that the actors were waiting for the hit to come slowly..... and then try to deflect them. And of course the details were terrible. The minaret for whatever reason was topped with a cross ? Normally; in this kind of movies, books are made of animal skins, but on this one, it is cheaper to use paper...

All in all, my suggestion is not to waste your time on this one. I've given a 2 vote for the effort of the actors, despite a very bad direction they still do reasonably well....

This reminded me a little of "In the Name of the King" (2007). Here instead of Jason Statham though, we have the completely out of his depth Luke Goss as the king "Malachy" and Ed Speleers as his hunky sidekick "Jason" as they try to save the kingdom from the clutches of the evil "Red Queen" (Sarah Douglas). It might have made for a perfectly watchable television movie had the acting been better, but Goss is frankly dreadful as he wields his broadsword with all the menace of a fairy liquid bottle. Speleers is always easy on the eye, but again he makes little impact as their set-piece escapades see them recruit new allies and head for a denouement with the vengeful monarch who breathes red smoke. The budget clearly wasn't huge, but to be fair the special effects folks, they have done a reasonable job at making the film look decent. The story, though, is weak and the writing does little to help overcome the obvious limitations of those delivering it on screen. It might kill ninety minutes on an aircraft somewhere - after a few glasses of something, but otherwise this offers nothing at all new or remarkable.

Another turkey! Should be rated Fantasy/Humour/Sleeping Pill. With due respect to a previous reviewer I don't agree with the mantra that it's a TV movie therefore don't expect the standards to be high. Why not? There are MANY TV movies which are probably better than cinema release stock.

The same old repeated clichés, jumps, twists turns, a storyline I've seen on numerous other occasions. Nothing that helps me to like OR dislike the characters.

The best piece of acting came from the witch who was burned in the first quarter of the movie.

Nuff Said

Though not especially bad, it really wasn't very good either. I only stuck it out because Luke Goss is in it. If they'd cast almost anyone else, this would have died before it even started.

Sadly, although Luke Goss can usually elevate pretty much anything he's in, he can't do it single-handedly. He needs someone to play off of, someone to help him carry the load. He has none of that here. What he's got is some guy named Ed Speleers, who I kinda feel like I should know from somewhere but I can't quite place him, and a guy who looks like he's trying to be that one dude who's name I forget but I know him from playing a slightly villainous love child of Richard E Grant, Charles Shaughnessy, and Wish dot com.

The script is terrible, too - Malachy (Luke Goss) plays a dude who is the grown son of the king. The king has just died, so some other dude comes looking for Malachy and says "Bruv. You're the king now. B T dubs your subjects hated your dad and they hate you. Now go be king". But his new subjects are starving because of witch-related malarkey so they go off to kill the witch/es.

Nobody can act, though. Not the witch, not the witch's 2IC, not the 'magician' (the lovechild dude), not Ed Speleers, not his mate, and apparently not even Luke Goss could act while this was being made. But again, I blame that squarely on the 'script'. IMO the best acting here was from the guy who played the dead king. And you never see him. Ever.

2 of the 3 stars I gave this are purely for Luke Goss' presence. I can't help but be a fan. Blame it on his boy-band days.

Now let me explain I'm giving this a 6 because when it comes to SyFy Channel movies they usually get a 2-4 yet this one had a bit of something different. While the actor I expected to deliver a good performance was only OK (Luke Goss who was so great in Hellboy II) acting by everyone was good, well not counting Sarah Douglas who was well just campy. Now as for the Movie some interesting action scenes & special F/X kept the movie going though dialogue bogged this movie way down. Not many movies are made of Swords & Sorcery so I had my pop and snacks ready watched the whole thing and found it a nice change of pace. Filmed in China some scenes are beautiful. Lots of visual F/X that play well even if they had budget constraints the director worked with what he had making the most of it. I never heard of him before but apparently he has a cult following with a film called Gene Generation. In an interview I googled he discussed putting himself well into the project determined to make a quality film to that end he did considering his budget and a poor script. A stand out was Eragon's Ed Speelers who has grown up a bit and was really kinda funny in the movie. The movie is a mixed bag (well what syfy movie isn't) at times slow, with odd fight scenes at times fun to watch and enjoyable overall if you can record it and skip the commercials you may like it more...until next week when Syfy will no doubt bless us with yet another Saturday Original flick Nuff Said