Simbad: El quinto viaje

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.

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.

All I can say is this film, if you dare to call it that takes the "Sin" out of "Sinbad". Do yourself a favor and skip this one, this should go straight to DVD and then die.The acting is very poor and also the special effects are sure special, costumes aren't bad. I felt like I was watching something akeen to a bad remake of pulp fiction with all the jumping around between scenes and time line, I think the editor was asleep when cutting the scenes or maybe was watching pulp fiction at the time, then we get to the sound, the score isn't bad but once again poorly executed.So all and all someone's wasted a lot of money on this submarine of a film.

There is not enough space here to detail all the things that are terrible about this movie.

First, let me start with the good: Uhh... hmm. Well, Patrick Stewart's voice is in it. That should count for something, right? Actually, no. It merely points out the huge chasm between his talent and the "talents" of everyone else involved in this picture. Also, he is ostensibly the older voice of the lead actor, who doesn't even have the same accent. I hope at least Sir Patrick bought himself a nice car with his salary from this awful film.

The bad: No, "bad" is not a sufficient modifier to describe the extreme low level of quality here. Abysmal is more accurate. And that covers: the acting, the directing, the writing, the editing, the scoring, the producing, the special FX, the whole business.

Here's why you should be suspicious when a movie receives a mix of 9 & 10-star reviews with 1-star reviews, and very little in-between: There is no motive whatsoever for a group of people to band together and give rotten fake reviews to a movie. There is, however, a huge motive for cast & crew and their friends & family to give massively positive and glowing reviews for the film they worked on. I'm sure an email blast was sent out to a mailing list, encouraging everyone to rate it highly and write a review. Ignore the rating. Ignore the 10-star reviews. They are bogus. Trust the 1-star reviews.

There is nothing in this cinematic abomination that is worth recommending. It's not even a so-bad-it's-good kind of movie. None of these actors, directors, producers, writers, or editors should ever make a movie again — unless they each spend another 10,000 hours studying their craft... and at that point, they might possibly be almost ready to work on a Uwe Boll film. But I'd seriously advise all of them to become hotel clerks or real estate agents, because they really have no business trying to make movies for a living.

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.