The 7 Adventures of Sinbad

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 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 really feel sorry for anyone who paid any money to see this poor excuse for a movie. The effects are outrageously cheap and nasty and unfortunately the acting is worse! Somebody spent money on making this move. It couldn't have been a lot but certainly some money and they were robbed blind. So are the people who are duped into seeing it. You could not even make a bad movie like this if you tried hard to. If you have not seen this movie yet, and you have the good sense to read reviews such as this....then still go and see it or watch it on DVD then you deserve everything you get. Which by the way, is nothing. Don't waste your time or your money.

To be honest I wasn't expecting much when I saw The 7 Adventures of Sinbad, but this was worse than expected. Granted it is not the worst SyFy has done, there is one decent special effect and that is the giant bird and Sarah Dessage breathes some life into her role. The rest though is atrocious. The rest of the graphics are best forgotten, a vast majority of them are crude particularly the cyclops and the cheap settings, costumes and photography don't fare much better. The story is also disjointed and predictable, the dialogue laughable and unintentionally funny, the pace sluggish, the soundtrack out of place and intrusive, the direction non-existent and the acting particularly the lead appalling. Overall, a big mess. 1/10 Bethany Cox

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.