Sinbad and the War of the Furies

If you love B-movies, you might like this, but even as a 'B', it is missing the amusing 'cheese factor'. Bad acting, bad directing and bad editing. If this movie was intending to be tongue and cheek, this doesn't work either.

I would usually not bother to have watched it until the end, but I did want to see if there would be any redeeming features.

Cheap films these days are not the crap they used to be. There are some very talented people out there and even a movie made without all the bells and whistles can be entertaining.

This movie really misses the mark for me.

If you feel I am being too harsh, remember, this is my opinion, which is the only one I am qualified to give.

Let's be clear here, Sinbad and the War of the Furies is no great film making. Pretty much anything that can be wrong with a film is wrong with this one. But for all that it does not suck. The casting is poor, the acting highly uneven, and the directing terribl The production was ridiculously cheap - Sinbad is filmed almost entirely indoors, most of those indoors limited to two rooms - with very few real action scenes. But the writing is reasonable enough to carry it along and if you're a film lover your curiosity will do the rest. Because there is something oddly sweet about this movie with its bare bones cast and its rationed sets, especially as you realize its makers clearly thought it had franchise potential. Folks clearly punched above their weight with this one, but kept going anyway (though I don't know if they ever noticed they were out of their league) and I respect that. So, no, I did not hate this movie even though we all made fun of it throughout, maybe even enjoyed it a bit.

When "WWE's John Morrison" gets top billing for this film, there's only one way the film can go and that is downhill at alarming speed. You may be asking yourself "who the hell is John Morrison?" and you wouldn't be wrong for asking. He's a third tier pro-wrestler at the WWE which increasingly believes that it's pro-wrestlers can become A-list actors but for every success story like Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Dave Bautista (Guardians of The Galaxy), Roddy Piper, or Jesse Ventura (Predator) you've got...ehhh....ten John Morrisons, the generic angry tough guy. In all fairness, he does a really good job at being a generic tough guy. He snarls. He growls. He grimaces. He flexes his muscles and jumps and kicks and punches and frightens bad guys. He does everything a generic action movie tough guy should do. It's just that, he's not a good actor at all. It's not entirely his fault. The dialogue in this movie sucks hardcore. It's terrible. It's like the Expendables meets Indiana Jones except without all the good actors, or the good writers, or the good budget, or the good studio, or the good director. IF you take away all those things, I mean, well I guess you've still got a movie, right? But hey, it also stars that one girl with that bit part from Thor: Dark World. The Asgardian Waitress, Chloe Farnworth. That's something right? No, no, it's not. You want my summary? Here it is: This movie is terrible. Absolutely terrible. The premise is stupid: Sinbad the modern adventurer. What? They couldn't get Attila The Hun, Wall Street Banker? Don't watch this unless you enjoy torturing yourself. However, even if you did, there are better ways to do so. May I suggest licking a hairless cat? I'd rather do that than watch this.

It left me feeling utterly amazed. Every aspect of this experience raises questions about how other films can even exist. Why is this not a higher rating? Other films have gaslighted us into thinking we know a good film when we see one, but we dont. This is a perfect storm of acting talent and masterful writing!

Playful made for TV looking of Sinbad film set in modern times, much of it in L.A. It was sort of cute at times a bit funny if you don't take it too seriously. The acting were adequate I suppose for what it was. I enjoyed watching it for its playfulness, but its not a good movie. 3.5 stars out of 10.