Sinbad: The Fifth Voyage

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.

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.

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.

I would have given this three stars if not for the infuriating padded reviews. After reading the director/lead actor's bio, it is clear he is behind it. Shame on you!

Make no mistake, folks, this movie is bad. Bad acting: Our padding culprit is not the worst of them, but to put it in perspective it looks like casting was done impromptu at the food court of the local mall in the morning and shooting began that the afternoon. Directing: Not awful, average at best. Set design: hit and miss, mostly miss. Costumes: fair to good. Editing: awful. Gaps, gaps, gaps or was that just the bad screenplay? It skips from scene to scene. You have to have seen the oldies to fill in the blanks. It became too exhausting. Costumes: pretty good. Makeup: blah, but i think i saw a pal conversion so hard to tell. Special effects: Hmmm. At first I was like, what? This looks worse than the effects of Sinbad in the 70's. This drew me in a little. Nostalgia, I guess, but it got old fast.

Meh!

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.