User Reviews

When I saw the word 'Syfy' appear on the screen, I immediately raised my defenses and thought 'oh no, this is going to be one of those movies'. As you might know, if you are familiar with Syfy Channel's previous works, then they have a habit of putting out some fairly questionable movies that tend to be lacking proper special effects.

However, "Witchville" actually surprised me in a good way. Well, aside from the poor choice of title for the movie, then Syfy actually managed to pull this production off quite nicely.

The movie has a fairly alright story, although it was quite predictable and not really bringing anything innovating to the fantasy genre. And actually most of what was in the movie have been seen in other similar movies. But still, "Witchville" worked out well enough.

What really impressed me was the production value that Syfy had upped and put into this. Especially the costumes and wardrobes, that was just brilliant work. I liked the armor and all the detail they had put into those. However, I just didn't fully understand the obsession with skulls, almost every armor and outfit was adorned with skulls in one way or another, even the king's armor had a skull on the shoulder piece of his armor, that just wasn't proper attire for a king. Skulls are associated with death and evil, and shouldn't be adorning a king's armor. But aside from this skull-fetish, then the armors and costumes were just amazing.

And as for the special effects, well Syfy isn't exactly known for their million dollar investments on the CGI side of movie-making. However, the effect that they put into "Witchville" were actually nicely executed and seemed to work well enough on screen. Don't expect to be dazzled out of your seat, though, but it is a great step up the ladder effects-wise for Syfy. So thumbs up on that account.

The people they had cast for the various roles were also working out well enough, most of them anyway. Personally I think that the lead by Luke Goss should perhaps have been cast differently, as he was not a particularly strong actor in this movie. The movie was really carried by the performances of MyAnna Buring (playing Jozefa), Sarah Douglas (playing the Red Queen) and Simon Thorp (playing Kramer).

I am a huge fan of this particular fantasy genre (perhaps because of my 26 years of playing Dungeons & Dragons), and I did enjoy "Witchville". So you might ask why I only gave it a 5 out of 10 rating? Well because the story was somewhat of a mess, there were a lot of dead ends in the movie and the coherency of it all was just overall blurry. The movie lacked a proper red line to follow, and as such, the end result turned out to be somewhat jumpy and half-hearted.

"Witchville" is well worth a watch if you enjoy this particular type of fantasy movie, just don't expect too much from the movie in the story department.

And thumbs up for the people behind the design of the DVD cover, because they really buffed it up and made the movie appear much more interesting that it actually turned out to be. So as the saying goes; "don't judge a book by its cover".

In the Middle Ages, Erik (Andrew Pleavin) and Jason (Ed Speleers) seek out his compatriot Malachy (Luke Goss) and force him to return to his homeland. When they arrive, they find that Malachy's father, the King, is dead and their lands are completely devastated.

Sooner the witch hunter Kramer (Simon Thorp) meets Malachy and tells him that a coven of witches led by the evil the Red Queen (Sarah Douglas) is the responsible for the destruction of the crops. Malachi teams-up with Erik, Jake, Kramer and four warrior-thieves to find the Red Queen. But the witch is very powerful and the skilled warrior Jozefa (MyAnna Buring) protects her.

"Witchville" has promising storyline and synopsis, and the DVD has a nice cover. Unfortunately, the film is a lame, boring and messy adventure with poor special effects and acting. When the viewer (me) takes a nap along an adventure of the fantasy genre, something is wrong. The verbose plot associated to the low-budget and soap-opera conclusion makes the film painful to watch. Further, Luke Goss is too week for the lead role of a king; MyAnna Buring is gorgeous but also weak for her important role of a warrior. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Caçadores de Bruxas" ("Witch Hunters")

I wasn't hoping for much but I got even less than that! This 'movie' was not only bad - devoid of any real plot, wit, or meaningful context; lousy special effects; terrible acting; and laughable direction - it was also a throwback to the most simplistic and misogynist view of magic and witches I have seen in ages. At first I thought they were depicting those views in order to turn them on their head but no- that really was the lens of this movie on the world of magic and female power versus civilization. Even the campy stuff wasn't fun because it seemed not to have any sense of humour about itself and how really really bad it was. If you like to watch things that are really really bad in order to laugh at how bad they are, you might find this a treat of some sort. It really is that bad. Did i mention it is bad?

This movie is just plain awful, not fun awful, not funny awful, just AWFUL! How someone could give this piece of trash more than 1 star is beyond me. Horrible effects, zero plot, even worse acting makes for the perfect mix to create a classic syfy channel movie. It is a real shame that syfy cranks out these stinkers, I love scifi movies, fantasy movies and horror movies so the syfy channel has potential to be a great station but yet they insist on cranking out these pieces of trash on a regular basis. Syfy movie has become a synonym for bad movies. There are so many great low budget scifi and horror movies out there, I will never understand why they insist on creating messes like this instead of spending a little time to find good low budget movies to broadcast.

MY rating for this movie is -1.5 out of 10.

To begin with, this is a TV movie, therefore you should not have a high expectation about it. However, given that fact, I have seen a low budget action movie which is way better than this one. The actions were very bad; there were some sword fight, but when you look at them, it is exactly the actions that were comparable to a play, not a movie. There were a lot of awkward moment where you can actually see that the actors were waiting for the hit to come slowly..... and then try to deflect them. And of course the details were terrible. The minaret for whatever reason was topped with a cross ? Normally; in this kind of movies, books are made of animal skins, but on this one, it is cheaper to use paper...

All in all, my suggestion is not to waste your time on this one. I've given a 2 vote for the effort of the actors, despite a very bad direction they still do reasonably well....

This reminded me a little of "In the Name of the King" (2007). Here instead of Jason Statham though, we have the completely out of his depth Luke Goss as the king "Malachy" and Ed Speleers as his hunky sidekick "Jason" as they try to save the kingdom from the clutches of the evil "Red Queen" (Sarah Douglas). It might have made for a perfectly watchable television movie had the acting been better, but Goss is frankly dreadful as he wields his broadsword with all the menace of a fairy liquid bottle. Speleers is always easy on the eye, but again he makes little impact as their set-piece escapades see them recruit new allies and head for a denouement with the vengeful monarch who breathes red smoke. The budget clearly wasn't huge, but to be fair the special effects folks, they have done a reasonable job at making the film look decent. The story, though, is weak and the writing does little to help overcome the obvious limitations of those delivering it on screen. It might kill ninety minutes on an aircraft somewhere - after a few glasses of something, but otherwise this offers nothing at all new or remarkable.

I shouldn't rate this yet, haven't finished watching it, however, the Kramer character IS cracking me up. Does anyone else think he speaks like an English accented Captain Kirk, William Shatner 60's style?

The pacing and inflection is so funny. I wonder if he realized he was doing that?

hahah

"They............are...........among us.........even now. Pause "One meal..........for one man.............will not.........." and on and on.

I am an avid Sci Fi movie fan...books too....I just wish they had some better writers for the movies ON the Syfy channel. Sheesh. Don't waste your actors.....Luke Goss, Ed Speleers, James Frain (another movie) and more.

I'll watch anything with Luke Goss in it. He is just dang gorgeous.

So far, about a four on the ratings.

If you like that sort of thing. The production qualities are quite good. The acting is quite good. The music is quite good. The plot is identical to dozens of others. A fantasy medieval kingdom is threatened by takeover by an evil power. Brave heroes and heroines must fight and suffer and die to place the rightful good king back on the throne.

This movie offers more in the way of shirtless tied up guys, women with swords, cross-bows, etc.

If you like this sort of thing, this is a good version of it.

In my opinion on par, and certainly better in terms of acting, than "The Sword and the Sorcerer" or "Kull the Conqueror." The mood is rather consistently dark throughout, which I liked. Not the joke-y-ness of many similar movies.

Now let me explain I'm giving this a 6 because when it comes to SyFy Channel movies they usually get a 2-4 yet this one had a bit of something different. While the actor I expected to deliver a good performance was only OK (Luke Goss who was so great in Hellboy II) acting by everyone was good, well not counting Sarah Douglas who was well just campy. Now as for the Movie some interesting action scenes & special F/X kept the movie going though dialogue bogged this movie way down. Not many movies are made of Swords & Sorcery so I had my pop and snacks ready watched the whole thing and found it a nice change of pace. Filmed in China some scenes are beautiful. Lots of visual F/X that play well even if they had budget constraints the director worked with what he had making the most of it. I never heard of him before but apparently he has a cult following with a film called Gene Generation. In an interview I googled he discussed putting himself well into the project determined to make a quality film to that end he did considering his budget and a poor script. A stand out was Eragon's Ed Speelers who has grown up a bit and was really kinda funny in the movie. The movie is a mixed bag (well what syfy movie isn't) at times slow, with odd fight scenes at times fun to watch and enjoyable overall if you can record it and skip the commercials you may like it more...until next week when Syfy will no doubt bless us with yet another Saturday Original flick Nuff Said

Didn't go into this expecting much, was a touch better than what I imagined. Acting wise it was up to scratch, not brilliant but good for a B movie. Was delight to see Sarah Douglas playing the villain, and she did a good job, probably the best actress in it!

The plot's the usual swords and sandals medieval fare, wasn't the greatest story but it held my interest. Special effects were alright and to my surprise there's some good cinematography to be seen here.

Onto the characters, and this is where it picks up a lot of praise from me. We have the reluctant King, who's more interested in his drink and women than ruling, but when he gets going he does it solidly. Tough man Erik (played by Andrew Pleavin from 300) and "pretty boy" as he's referred to, Jason (played by Ed Speelers from Outlander) and a witch-hunting religious man. Quite the unique trio! There's also a women sorcerer allied with the head Witch but I don't want to give too much away.

5/10: Positively shocking good fun

Another turkey! Should be rated Fantasy/Humour/Sleeping Pill. With due respect to a previous reviewer I don't agree with the mantra that it's a TV movie therefore don't expect the standards to be high. Why not? There are MANY TV movies which are probably better than cinema release stock.

The same old repeated clichés, jumps, twists turns, a storyline I've seen on numerous other occasions. Nothing that helps me to like OR dislike the characters.

The best piece of acting came from the witch who was burned in the first quarter of the movie.

Nuff Said

Though not especially bad, it really wasn't very good either. I only stuck it out because Luke Goss is in it. If they'd cast almost anyone else, this would have died before it even started.

Sadly, although Luke Goss can usually elevate pretty much anything he's in, he can't do it single-handedly. He needs someone to play off of, someone to help him carry the load. He has none of that here. What he's got is some guy named Ed Speleers, who I kinda feel like I should know from somewhere but I can't quite place him, and a guy who looks like he's trying to be that one dude who's name I forget but I know him from playing a slightly villainous love child of Richard E Grant, Charles Shaughnessy, and Wish dot com.

The script is terrible, too - Malachy (Luke Goss) plays a dude who is the grown son of the king. The king has just died, so some other dude comes looking for Malachy and says "Bruv. You're the king now. B T dubs your subjects hated your dad and they hate you. Now go be king". But his new subjects are starving because of witch-related malarkey so they go off to kill the witch/es.

Nobody can act, though. Not the witch, not the witch's 2IC, not the 'magician' (the lovechild dude), not Ed Speleers, not his mate, and apparently not even Luke Goss could act while this was being made. But again, I blame that squarely on the 'script'. IMO the best acting here was from the guy who played the dead king. And you never see him. Ever.

2 of the 3 stars I gave this are purely for Luke Goss' presence. I can't help but be a fan. Blame it on his boy-band days.

Syfy Channel do sword and sorcery, with some martial arts thrown in. Former pop star Luke Goss (of Bros) stars, if that's the right word, as King Malachy who has to defend his tiny Kingdom of about 20 subjects against an evil witch called the Red Queen. Apart from some nice mountain scenery everything about this movie was bad, the atrocious acting, the script, the awful camera work and the poverty row effects, a real stinker!

I have made no secret of disliking Syfy's output in general, but despite its awful title Witchville is actually one of the better ones in my opinion. Granted the title is really quite naff, the story is rather standard and didn't particularly surprise me and while I admired its ambition the dialogue is often quite weak and stilted. However, I liked Witchville. The production values are surprisingly not too bad for a low-budget movie, the sets and costumes look as though they were constructed with care, the scenery is beautiful and the effects are more consistent and less crude, the standout being the hellhound attack which did have me biting my nails. The sword-fighting scenes are efficiently done and nicely choreographed, the direction is competent and I too loved Jozefa's stylish entrances. The music is pretty tolerable too, while the acting while far from award-worthy is decent, especially MyAnna Buring. All in all, despite its weaknesses for me it is one of the better Syfy movies. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Pros: Partially charismatic cast, fairly passionate, make best use of resources

Cons: Low budget, partially weak acting

Let me first tell you that I am no B-movie buff in any way. I don't grade them especially high. Giving this movie an 8 is not because it is as good as Lord of the Rings in every aspect, but rather because with the Resources handed, this is probably one of the better movies you could make.

What sets it apart is that the actors, for the most part, buy into it and most of the main cast are fairly charismatic. The true subpar acting you'd expect in movies like these are confined to lesser, supporting actors. There is attention to detail and some passion and effort both in from of and behind the camera.

To be fair – this movie probably struck a chord with me personally somehow. It is not a great story, it is not magical directing – but it is a good enough, low-budget matinée and if you're into fantasy and can stand low-budget, this one will probably at least amuse you for the time being.

The lack of money is apparent in nearly every scene of this movie, but it's an interesting fast moving story so all in all I still enjoyed it. Just be prepared for very cheap fx and supposed crowd scenes where you only see six people clustered around Mr Goss.