Sindbads fünfte Reise

and here i was so excited and so happy with this movie thinking that i will watch an amazing fantasy movie but all what i have watched was some Super Bad Actors who cant even act i never saw such bad acting in my whole life even porn stars act better seriously and it has the worst animation ever! that must have been made by a 5 years old amateur and the whole movie was shot in a room with bad / changing decoration! if this movie was made in the 50s it would have been much better in everything even in animation i wont tell you more it's totally your call and don't let the 6.7 rate fools you it must be the actors and their families and friends This movie suck!I'm here to give you a warning (Save yourselves)it's is a huge mess and a Massive Disaster the most stupid movie i have ever watched since Demon island in 2002

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.

I've been a big fan of Sinbad and Ray Harryhausen movies since I was a kid. These movies were some of the first I ever saw at the cinema and later in life I've introduced my 10 year son to them and he loves them too. When I saw what I can only describe as a 'remake' of a classic I decided to watch this with an open mind. Well within the first few minutes you could see what a crock of s*** this was. The FX were supposedly a homage to dear Ray but it completely lacked any soul or peril that the originals had. This movie was a hollow, amateurish attempt to recreate a classic and it failed miserably. I think my main gripe is the atrocious editing. It really was appalling and what could have been a barely passable film ended being cringe-worthy such was the terrible way it was put together. Yes some of the acting was creaky and the cast and extras only just about made it to double figures but the whole thing really is spoiled by the lack of care in post production. For the people giving this movie high praise, well we all know they are either part of the movie or associated with it somehow. Ultimately their high marks just make them look like morons. As a point, there are in fact 3 reviewers in a row giving this pile of steaming crap 10 stars but looking through their review history they joined IMDb at the same time, have all reviewed the exact same films at the same time and with the same or similar remarks so are in fact must be the same person giving multiple entries. This is probably an industry insider giving an inflated score to compensate for the real and honest low ones. Do yourself a favour and do not watch this, just go watch the originals as they are infinitely more appealing.

There are several fake reviews for this movie, attempting to counter the 1 stars with a bunch of 10/10 reviews. Be warned, this movie is one of the worst ever made. It's not subjective, it's just a fact. There have been worse movies but they were all made in the 70's about workplace safety.

There are several aspects of this movie that are terrible.

The acting is on par with that which you might find in a play put on hastily by teenagers, who forget to make a script... or a plot.

The script, if one exists, is the kind of thing that makes the likes of 10,000 BC or Cats & Dogs look like masterworks. It mostly consists of one character telling everyone what is happening then another saying "oh yes, that is happening", to which a third character will exclaim that "I have also noticed it happening, and this is how I feel about it." Which may or may not be accompanied by an expression, which is supposed to convey an emotion but somehow doesn't.

The story was clearly not story boarded. That's the only conclusion I can come up with as to why giant swathes of the plot are skipped over from scene to scene. I have actually advised several film students to watch the movie as a warning, to illustrate what happens if you try and make a movie without properly planning it beforehand. You end up with missing scenes. In the case of Sinbad, you are missing at least 20 minutes, since the movie purports to be 89 minutes long but is actually only 69.

Editing. It's one of those jobs that is utterly thankless. If you do a good job, nobody notices but if you do a bad job, you ruin everything. As an illustration of what you can expect, we have a scene in the movie where, not once but twice, the camera has a slow, lingering shot of what we're told is a honey comb (people who have seen a honey comb know that they rarely look so much like a throbbing member though), the shot is accompanied by tense, combat style music. It is surreal. As if to compliment that, we have combat scenes, scored by gentle, Sunday strolling music.

Effects. Much has been made of the effects by the fake reviews but they really, really shouldn't. The effects are just plain bad. They are bad, to the extent, that the 1958 Sinbad movie, which featured the stunning work of Ray Harryhausen, is leagues ahead, not 50+ years behind. The idea of paying homage is fantastic and certainly stop-motion, with the modern tools available can really be brought to the next level, it just hasn't been here. It has dramatically missed the next level, fallen short and landed in a vat of angry alligators.

In short, the movie is a disaster, the likes of which most will be lucky to never see. For everyone else, watch this movie, only so that you might warn others.

Please insert your own sign-off pun, based on movie quality, containing the words 'sin' and 'bad'................................. ...............here.

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.