Benutzerrezensionen

40 years in the future Global Warming has submerged most of the Earth underwater and a Father (James Brolin) and his two Sons (Ian Solmerhalder & Jamie Thomas King) salvage treasures from sunken buildings for a living when they are given an important assignment from the Vatican to uncover an historical artifact which can lower the seas moses-style - or some such nonsense. The budget as this is a Syfy Channel Production is Low (looks a lot lower than the $6.4M quoted here) and it shows rather badly at times, especially as buildings in the far distance look like paintings, but the acting isn't too bad and there is enough action to keep you interested if not glued to the screen.

A German made production Filmed entirely in South Africa and Directed by Jean De Segonzac, who has been in the Director's chair on many a TV Series and several forgettable DTV Movies.

The world is soggy. Everybody has a sinking feeling. Global warming, resulting from too much cell phone texting or something, has begun melting polar ice caps, increasing sea level, and turning cities into giant swimming pools. Fortune hunters James Brolin and two other guys playing his sons, roam around looking for artifacts and trouble. They wear wet suits and scuba equipment. One of the sons tries to get eaten by a shark about 30 seconds into the film. Brolin exits the film soon after; must not have been paid much. He delivers his few lines well, and he's buddies with a Vatican cardinal.

Rich megalomaniac Ben Cross pays off a girl who talks like Arnold Scharzeneggar; she used to date the guy who wanted to get eaten by a shark. Legend has it that there's a scepter that just may end the water problem, and so everybody goes after it, even some rogue priest. There are a few good underwater temple scenes, and some fun action, and the story line works. Although it's obviously copying Indy Jones, it at least offers some new ideas to the formula. The conflicts to get the scepter and its immense power keep you involved, and the cast make the most of what they're given. The temple scrawling of how the scepter machine works made me laugh. It looked like the schematic for one of those old transistor radios from the '50's.

Hastilly put together with limited resources, but somehow this film gets away with it. For a SyFy freebie, it's really not bad.

I don't know if James Brolin has just become too old to act or if he's always been a bad actor and I just never noticed because he is so damn good looking. His acting in this movie brought the movie down. Old age is no excuse - just look at Sean Connery, Clint Eastwood, Anthony Hopkins, etc. Brolin "reads" his lines slowly, as if slightly drunk. He moves like he is suffering from either arthritis or severe constipation. The movie itself was very good, surprising for a TV movie. The premise is a rather new one and could actually happen. A catalytic event that threatens civilization is nothing new in movies, but Lost City Raiders makes the premise very believable. Overall, I really enjoyed the movie, but not Brolin's acting.

I'll make this pretty short, as other reviewers have already pointed out most of this..

This movie (which is titled "The End of the World" in my country, for reasons no one knows) is among the worst I have seen.. And I've watched through all of "Pterodactyl" as well as "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians"..

The acting is dubious at its very best. Brolin takes the prize with his slow, unconvincing reads, but the others aren't doing a lot better.

The setting - a future where the world is partially submerged due to global warming - is believable, but the environment and geography is far from it (going from L.A. to Rome in a trawler, anyone?). The premise seems to shift during the film, and one key element of the story changes its method radically, to the point where it is ridiculous.

All in all, I'm glad I borrowed this movie from a friend, so I didn't spend any money on it. I'd like my hour-and-a-half back, please.. At least the other two movies, mentioned above, - though bad - are so bad they're funny.. This is just excruciating!

Can't add a spoiler alert because I couldn't stick it out. Truly, I tried but this is the winner in my personal worst movie ever contest. Absolutely the worst, worst, dumbest movie ever in my humble (well, OK, not so humble) opinion. Makes Waterworld look like Shakespeare. I admit it. I can't think of anything else to say but burn the film, disable the projector, pull the plug. Kill it before it airs again. SciFi my foot. JUNKY STUPID! Yes, I'm shouting it to the rooftops. Save yourself! Send this Brolin back to the fetid arms of his beloved. YUCK! Not enough words? Well try this for an ender: WARNING! WATCHING THIS MESS WILL REDUCE YOUR IQ AND YOUR LIFE SPAN! You cannot afford the time to check out this tripe. Medieval dentistry would be preferable. YUCK. YUCK. A thousand times dreck!

The subject is exciting, I like movies with underwater adventures, it makes me thinking of those wonderful Jules Verne's novels. Especially when the action is set in 2048, on an Earth flooded by waters, which is happening for real due to the global warming and the melting of the pole's ice cap. Now, to attack the deeper things of a spiritual nature, not only submarine. I do not give a damn about religions (including Catholicism) but I liked the cardinal line: "Without faith, our hopes go to hell". James Brolin still has charisma and he's natural. Elodie Frenck and Bettina Zimmermann not only they look great but they are also convincing actresses. Ian Somerhalder and Jamie Thomas King are natural and sympathetic. Ben Cross is good enough as the villain. It has something from "Journey to the Center of the Earth" (1959) and "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" (1954). Some good action and chases with water scooters. It's like a novel that Jules Verne did not wrote or which he would write if he lived today.

I saw this on the Tele few Days ago ... Iam Somerhalder was in it from the Lost Fame.. That didn't stop me from watching it, The Theme is Old Fashioned. the Research is dump. and the whole story line is stupid. don't know why they made this. but in terms of production they did a fair deal, In terms of television standards this wasn't bad. Thecast wasn't so bad the lead was good, but not enough emotions every one seems so unrealistic with the never say die attitude as if thy were over paid for the job. the special effects were upto TV standards. The Director Jean de Segonzac have done few thrillers including CSI and law & Order and I believe he did his best to show justice and so did the cast but the Story line was Weak very weak indeed. It's not worth a watch but still try it.

I think everybody should watch this movie, not as a serious action movie, but simply for being incredible and hilariously funny. Basically constructed as a cheaper TV imitation of familiar mega productions (Tomb Raider, Indiana Jones, Waterworld etc.), "Lost City Raiders" presents the ultimate explanation for the climate catastrophe: we all live in a gigantic bathtub, and every few thousand years, someone needs to pull the plug to lower the water level. Moses did it once, and our heroes just need to find his scepter to repeat the trick. Mind you, this is not a parody, it's intended to be convincing and scientific. When I read the summary on the back of the DVD cover, I desperately wanted to see the movie because I found it hard to believe until I saw it with my own eyes. How does one sell a story like this to a producer? It sounds like a lunatic Troma project, but actually is an international co-production, quite big by TV standards. Apart from the crazy outline, the script is pretty well constructed though: Bettina Zimmermann's character signing a deal with the wrong team, a lot about James Brolin's character only being revealed afterwards etc. - and finally, I liked the design of the cave, archaic and futuristic at the same time.

At one point in the movie, the villain is on his boat in the Mediterranean and commands: "set a course for Geneva". That would be impossible.

That's just an illustrative example. The movie gets so many other things wrong about Bible prophecies, about the Vatican, about how grenades work, about many things. The only saving grace is James Brolin, but unfortunately he's not in the film very long.

Still, it's a fun ride done with some energy. There are worse says to spend an evening.

This movie was, unfortunately, just what I expected it to be. The script was something school-aged boys turn in as their English homework. As such, it was dull and not engaging. If all the supposedly intelligent dialog and extended verbal exposition was traded with b-grade schlock it would've been an improvement, entertainment-wise, that is.

Same goes for the acting. Returning to my previous comparison to memories from my days in the school world, the overtly theatrical acting usually witnessed in high school plays would've really brought up the now-sluggish speed of the movie.

I don't think I need to comment on the quality of the special effects and other things that come along with obvious budget constraints. To sum it up, if you have something else to do than watch this, go do it instead. But then again, the lack of cynicism apparent throughout DID make this a notch better viewing experience than your average Steven Seagal -film.

What a waste of time. Bad acting bad everything. The slow motion rubbish is insulting. If the rating could go negative it certainly would have.

I feel I have a duty to take the movie back to the video rental store and pay the people behind the counter to burn all their copies of it.

I just wasted 90 minutes of my life.

Not to mention the $8.

It seems unbelievable that so many people can be involved in the making of a movie and not say anything like along the lines of " Hey this is really embarrassing someone should sack the writer, director and producer before the public get to see it"

Adam

Will keep that review brief as watching that movie was already a much to big waste of time.

Bad:

-acting: well maybe that was really "mission impossible", the dialogs and script being what they are. But I must say, I felt the all movie long that what the actors do here is a kind of professional suicide.

-CGI: just not even decent, I could do better given some hours to learn to use the appropriate programs.

-Scenario: well well well, do not use your brain cells on this one, it just doesn't make ANY sense. Nothing is surprising, ever, character motivations are just plain ridiculous,"science" is the worst pseudo science gibberish I have ever heard in my all life! If only it would be to be taken as a parody, but ...no...they are kind of serious about this mess! (Do not even start me on the diving sequences, already the first minutes are a total unrealistic, idiotic, nonsense that even a 5y old would find suspiciously ridiculous)

-I could go on, but it just isn't worth it. (special mention to the settings, some are worst I have ever seen)

Good:

-You can skip this movie and, see, your life just got practically 90min longer....

Conclusion:

-Only watch this movie if you want to redefine your representation of what "pathetic" means. (for some reason that adjective just kept coming to my mind every second watching this "movie") Otherwise, believe me, no pleasure, no thrills, nothing, not even 2d degree fun is to be expected...

PS: this movie didn't get a 1 for the sole reason that it isn't shot with the family's camcorder, so IQ is indeed technically decent as long as no CGI is involved. Aaah, and there are few moments where boobs are the eye catcher, so that brings us to a generous 2. (special warning for "most" guys, hey I like boobs too, but believe me, no way that these few moments are worth watching the rest of this, just believe me on that one...)

Before I say what was bad about Lost City Raiders, which was a lot, I don't think it is SyFy's worst. Titanic II, War of the Worlds 2, AVH:Alien vs Hunter, Battle of Los Angeles, Quantum Apocalypse, 2010: Moby Dick, Super Tanker and Dinocroc vs. Supergator were worse. And I did think the settings were nice. However for redeeming qualities, that is it. There have been worse special effects elsewhere, but they still look artificial, while the editing is hackneyed. The music was overbearing and seemed out of place with the film's mood, and SyFy have still yet to prove that they actually do any kind of research in regard to their films' science and geography in my eyes. But the worst offenders were the script, story, characters and acting. The script is actually not that much different from the quality of most SyFy movies, which is usually cheesy and aimless, but it is still enough to make you cringe and wonder whether the actors are ever going to have anything worthwhile to say. The story is thin in structure, never exciting or suspenseful and never does know what it wants to be. Constantly it switches from one theme to another, often in uncomfortably rapid shifts, and it just doesn't work. The characters are very stereotypical and underdeveloped, with not much done to make us care for them. And the acting is not worth mentioning, some like Ian Somerhalder overdo it horribly. So all in all, I can name worse but Lost City Raiders was a really bad movie, cheesy, dull, sometimes cheap and never knows what it wants to do. 2/10 Bethany Cox

I thought it was an adequate movie. Not the best, but certainly not the worst. I had a good time watching and I think I would even watch it again. I love that it has to with global warming as I think everyone should be more aware of it. The sea level rising and land disappearing because of it are very real possibilities although how far into the future I do not know. I thought the actors were great also! It's worth a look. I always say don't listen to anyone else's opinion, even a professional critic. The Critics put down Wild Wild West and I had people who would not see it with me just because of that. I saw it anyway, and I loved it, it had it all. Action, comedy, creepy villains, crazy contraptions. Same goes with this movie, don't let someone else decide whether you see it. See it for yourself and make your own decision. :D

P.S. I can appreciate the bathtub analogy someone was giving up there tho. It's an interesting way to look at it, although it would have never crossed my mind to compare it like that.

This movie was awesomely bad. Bad by normal standards, but better than most sci-fi crap. It had horrible effects, the actors would often over act and the plot was kind of ridiculous but I LOVED it. Surprisingly the worst acting for me came from James Brolin. The movie is compared to Water World and Raiders of the Lost Ark. Water World I can see, Raiders of the Lost ark a little bit, with a splash of Angels and Demons. I didn't really feel like I wasted my time. It's bad, but a good bad. Great for people who enjoy cheesy movies. Ian Somerhalder is nice to look at, and at the end I found myself hoping for a sequel. I own the DVD and I would watch it again.

James Brolin is a decent actor but he could not save this script. I watched the first 10 minutes and could not torture myself any further. The script is corny, the direction is sophomoric and the plot is ridiculous "Cardinal, me saving the scepter is the only hope we have". Someone was smoking crack when they green lit this pic.

Sadly, nobody ever saw the Rising Seas Shoreline Maps from National Geographic (On which IMDb doesn't let me link) Or the calculation on how much the ocean level can rise until there just is not enough water on the planet. Hint: It's 80 metres. That would kill Rome, but not its hills, and certainly not Dresden (at 114 metres), which still would be 1000 kilometres away from any ocean.

But then, this is not about science and the possible. It's Indiana Jones meets Waterworld, and very bad piping. Since if you don't use Moses sceptre to drain the oceans (to where?) every few thousand years, the oceans will just keep rising. Probably fits right into the narrative of climate-change deniers.

In any case, I did not find the acting too bad, neither the dialogue. It's just the plot that is so incredibly unbelievable. Apart from that, the most annoying thing was the outro music.

It's honestly confusing how bad this movie is. There are so many moments that made me think "Why did they think that was a good idea?". The only positive things I have to say is that the locations being used didn't look terrible and I personally don't think the acting was as bad as some of the other reviews say (don't get me wrong the acting was still not anything special). As for the bad stuff, pretty much everything else. The writing was terrible. The pacing was awful since the story was all over the place. The editing was bizarre. They randomly had shots in slow motion for no reason and the camera work felt sloppy. The most hilarious thing about this movie is that apparently it was supposed to serve as a pilot to a TV show. This means that if the movie was successful, then A TV would have been launched. Since the aforementioned TV show has never seen the light of day, you can only imagine how the network felt about this movie.