L'attaque du griffon

I had looked forward to this movie. I love the fantasy genre and expect to make allowances for low budgets, B actors and short time frames production schedules. But I think this one could have been made better in somebody's basement.

The costumes were unacceptable. They looked contrived and inappropriate for their purpose.

The acting was horrible. The hero and heroine didn't appear to be in this movie. Their dialog was stilted. The delivery appeared uncomfortable. Part of this could be blamed on the direction, but maybe the director couldn't pull better performances from them. Hard to say.

The plot of this genre is often far-fetched and I don't have a problem using my own imagination to fill in the usual gaps. But this film had too many gaps for even the most vivid imagination to assist.

I feel sorry for anybody whose name was associated with this film. It will certainly not do their careers any good.

This low-budget knockoff of LORD OF THE RINGS, among others, has various medieval folks having to deal with an amateurishly animated gryphon, a giant bird with an an eagle's head and lion's body. An awful lot of the so-called action takes place in the woods, obviously to save on money. What I want to know is what Jonathan LaPaglia is doing in this backwoods barn burner. He is too good for this sort of crapola, but then I guess it's a paycheck like any other. After the gryphon flies overhead for about the 500th time, you will be ready to kill it yourself. Larry Drake, who has done some great work (LA LAW) and some awful work (DARKMAN 2), is simply awful here as the porcine mage who calls the gryphon to life. Fortunately for him, he is almost unrecognizable.

After so many reviewers butchered the flick, I'm almost reluctant to say I think it's not all bad (voted 4/10). To start with, it's a C movie with cheap actors, cheap effects (the monster looks crap, no arguing about that), shot in the cheapest location they could find (Bulgaria or Romania, depending on whether you believe the opening titles or the ending titles). Obviously, it can't look like 'Bored of the Rings'. But under the production circumstances, it is acceptable. I liked the two kings who have personal difficulties to overcome their hatred for each other. They would rather not join forces to attack the wizard. Also the princess was cool because she always has blood or mud on her face, had to do the dirty work with sword in hand, not just look pretty, sit around and scream 'OMG, it's the monster' all the time like in the old days of C movies. Except for the visible problems due to low budget, some problems also lie within the script. The evil wizard seems terribly clichéd as a villain, while many things are poorly explained or not at all. There you go, it surely is somewhat silly, but OK to watch once.

My goodness. I just finished watching this on the SciFi Channel, and it's everything I thought it would be. Everything about the gryphon, from concept design all the way up the pipeline to rendering & compositing, is sub-par. Everything about the story is asinine; it feels like the random result of a D&D match between the scriptwriters. Even the props and costumes are silly; the majestic Lance of Whatever the evil sorcerer spent the whole movie fondling looked like a claw hammer covered in gold leaf in several shots.

And the acting! Half the cast obviously drew inspiration for their roles by watching Lord of the Rings a few times, and the other half just didn't care. Evil Sorcerer Guy, for example -- I have never in my life seen a man so bored as that actor was in the final scene! He never did really attain the point of being an imposing presence. More than anything, he reminded me of one of the recurring characters on Food Network's Good Eats, so much so in fact I've been hunting around trying to see if it's the same actor.

All that said, it's good for watching on a Saturday night with a few buddies, especially if there's beer involved. If it had taken itself a little less seriously, it actually could've made for a really fun epic-film parody. In its current state, unfortunately, I can only recommend one viewing -- And that's if you're a fan of cheese-ball movies.

What amazed me about this movie was the difference between the highs and the lows in it. Many of the locations were great. They picked some very nice places in Bulgaria to film some of the shots. The gryphon itself I thought was actually very good, but the way they put it into the picture was laughably bad. It was really, truly terrible. The plot was equally bad. Throw all the old fantasy clichés into a hat and just randomly draw 10 or so, and you'll get an idea of how bad the plot is. The acting also had highs and lows. Jonathan LaPaglia read his lines well - I bought his performance. Amber Benson, on the other hand, was terrible. Interestingly, it seemed like the decent performances were all by the "Delphites" (LaPaglia's character and his nation), and all of the "Locklanders" (Benson's character and her nation) were just the opposite.

Anyway, it was kind of fun to watch once my expectations were lowered to a reasonable level.