Attack of the Gryphon (2007) User Reviews

Good for a laugh, and that's about it.

[chrisbeaver · 2/10 · 27 January 2007]

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.

A mixture of good and awful

[jfren484-2 · 2/10 · 5 February 2007]

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.

Pathetically directed, poorly acted and just plain bad.

[[e-mail] · 2/10 · 28 January 2007]

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.

just awful

[terence_j_morrissey · 1/10 · 28 January 2007]

this movie was beyond lame. I immediately wondered how this kind of crap gets the green light when a talented high school writer could definitely do better. The direction was uninspired. The writing was just awful and so full of cliché, it became hard to watch at times.

However, my main concern was not the atrocious qualities of this film, but how it is being maintained at a 7.9 rating. It was at 7.8 before the show even aired on the Sci-Fi channel, an obvious attempt to pad the rating by someone with a vested interest. If you look at the other reviews you can see more dubious ratings where people will call it flawed but yet give it a rating of ten. That is an obscene use of IMDb for shameless promotion of such a crappy attempt at a film.

In looking at the other films by both the director and the writer of this film, I am convinced they are sleeping with the producers...

Tolkien estate should sue them!

[talkabout-movies · 1/10 · 11 March 2007]

I am surprised that I haven't heard about any lawsuit yet against the filmmakers, I mean they even stole the Path of the Death from Lord of the Rings! I am sure this one ends up in my top 250 of worst movies, maybe even at number one. O gosh, I hardly have words to explain how bad this is.

Bad acting, bad script : I have seen bad movies, for sure, but this one is so bad that beside my laughs about stupidities and terrible visual effects I felt eternal regret for even buying the movie on DVD.... result, I dumped it in the garbage can, glad to have never ever watch this again.

I really won't recommend it to anyone at all. I would feel guilty forever, afraid of loosing my best movie pals.

Painful to watch...

[Fedaykin_Sadako · 1/10 · 28 January 2007]

Only my love of Amber Benson got me to not only watch the movie, but actually watch the whole thing. She was easily the best aspect of this movie, but even she couldn't do much to alleviate the pain caused by the stilted dialogue and hammy (or at the very least uneven) acting of most of her co-stars...and why were most of her lines dubbed and then poorly mixed?

The effects were terrible even by Sci Fi Original standards and I was completely underwhelmed by the repetitive score.

I hope the film gave Amber Benson a nice check so she can go off and make more brilliant flicks like Chance...

Poor effort

[sisu_liber2 · 1/10 · 26 June 2008]

I don't remember seeing a worse movie than Gryphon. This movie had it all : uninteresting summary, characters that didn't even bother to act decent in this so-called sci-fiction production, weak effects. I wasted 2 hours from my life watching this piece of crap. This movie finds his place at the bottom of the worst movies ever. Watching this film, I wanted to laugh because of its poor quality, but the movie couldn't even bring a smile on my desolated face. I can't stop wondering who can give this movie more than 1 star????? If you thing this garbage is worth more than 1 star, i recommend you to watch it again and you will certainly change your vote. I urge you not to watch this movie. 1/10.

a tough movie-of-the-week to beat from the sci-fi channel...and I mean that in the worst possible way

[Quinoa1984 · 1/10 · 27 January 2007]

Wow...I watched this really in lieu of deciding to finally check out a sci-fi channel movie of the week, in this case featuring Amber Benson from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The made-for-TV slew of Saturday night movies are never picks of the litter, matter of fact not even well-made in any respect. But Gryphon, my non-existent God (which you may feel is non-existent if you believe it after seeing this), what a load of tripe! It's a medieval hodge-podge of total clichés and story arcs that obviously were thrown together by the five or six or seven writers who decided to pound this out over pizza and beers one night. Then again, maybe they KNEW that they were making a really stupid movie. But this raises the bar for stupidity, like a litmus test for often incoherent strands of story and character, and for wretched CGI. I'm not expecting Peter Jackson here, but this is enough to send me back to my psychiatrist for a double session of "the good old days of models and puppets."

Actually, what ended up keeping me glued to my seat (in a manner of total irony) was the CGI Gryphon itself. Created by watercolor or paint by number or Mario Paint or all of the above, it's controlled by a sinister sorcerer who wants to use it to create chaos in the kingdom. The gryphon flies about with total abandon of any logic, and it occasionally- in the midst of people trying to KILL IT- comes down to just preen itself in front of its foes. It sometimes kills people too, but often just acts like the most constant, reliable thing about the movie- it's so laughably bad it hurts the mind and diminishes the soul to something comparable to a slug, and makes one pine for a random insurance commercial. As the Gryphon continues as a threat, we're given a quest, a romance between warrior man and woman (the woman Benson, who can't even read her s****y dialog competently enough with her posturing and fake toughness) from the same descended vein, and a random possible battle that might ensue if a) the gryphon and/or sorcerer gets their way, or b) if there's somehow a tiny boost in the budget by the end of filming. And by the time the climax comes around, me and my friends somehow were not only compelled to keep on watching (just to see how low it could go limbo style), but to keep on gleefully- if painfully- yelling at the screen as the sorcerer used his powers in very random, selective measure, and kept his nutty little bird somewhere else by contrivance.

I know I shouldn't be TOO hard on Gryphon, as I'm sure some of the intentions behind it were decent enough. But the execution is just so lacking in every department: special/visual effects (well, in a sense, the visual effects are "special"), proper casting (even the actor playing the sorcerer is like ham left out of the fridge), dialog, cinematography, message, or romance. Even the action is sloppily filmed a lot of the time by lackey Andrew Prowse, who once in a while made me wonder if the soul of Uwe Boll slipped into his own. It simply leaves a residue that wont go away very soon after, even with its own likely self-knowledge of its many flaws. It was made on a quick buck, and for all its exploitive gestures, hopefully most, if not all, of the regular sci-fi movie channel viewers will recognize it as a new standard which other movies in its wake may not live up to even if they try (or lack trying). It's simply one of the very worst made-for-TV movies I've ever seen...albeit with a hell of a goofing-on-it time all the way.

Some very nice performances VS poorly executed 'B' movie SFX

[FilmsiQ · 5/10 · 28 January 2007]

This was a highly anticipated movie for me, if only because I love the genre and I'm hoping for a reprise. It feels like an eternity since the 'sword and sandal' fantasy epic graced our screens. I'm not counting the likes of Troy because there's little 'fantasy' involved.

Having said that, and the fact that it IS a low budget TV movie, I had low expectations. It starts just fine and looks very promising. Benson is holding it together well enough, although she looks uncomfortable with the dialog and the chain-mail (fake or otherwise). You could be forgiven for thinking Larry Drake is hamming it up but, IMO he's simply 'IN IT', the genre I mean. He goes for it and kudos to him for that. Same goes for Sarah Douglas, although she's a long way from Falcon's Crest. I liked Johnathan LaPaglia in The District, he was good because he was clearly comfortable in the role. In this movie, he looked completely out of place; his delivery was straight out of modern TV and at two or 3 points I got the distinct impression he just didn't know how or what to do. He was in a completely different movie to everyone else. Andrew Pleavin was particularly compelling, he obviously threw himself into it and came over very well considering most of his scenes were with LaPaglia. I imagine it can't have been easy staying focused while your partner is struggling to cope with the premise. I can't tell you how disappointed I was to see the Gryphon for the first time. My god, where did the money go? I've seen more realistic monsters in cartoons. Doug Roberts was another who shone for me, he obviously knows the style and had a convincing character. The story is one we all know, no surprises really, pretty predictable fare. Overall, in terms of the direction, it looks like it was rushed but I can't blame Prowse for that, he's always impressed before. From what I can tell, with 'Time equaling Money' and all, these low budget movies have little chance of really being impressive. I imagine Prowse was against the wall and making compromises most days. I have a great deal of respect for artists who can accomplish anything under those conditions.

Anyway, taking all of the budget and time constraints into account, the mismatched cast, the SFX demands of spoiled people in this day and age; it really wasn't that bad. 'Thumbs up' - Drake, Pleavin, Douglas, Roberts. 'So-So' - Benson, LaPaglia, Thumbs Down- The Gryphon

Skip It.

[Leiford · 1/10 · 28 January 2007]

I sometimes like to call the SciFi network the "schizoid" cable group. They run "Battlestar Galactica", without doubt one of the best shows on television, then they put on, well, this. Trite, predictable and just plain bad, one wonders how such disparate programming can exist on a single station. "I saw it coming" is redundant. I pretty much had the entire plot from the completely unoriginal opening moments. I hung in for Amber Benson, an actress I really like, only to be disappointed by her flat reading of the uninspired script. Additionally, there is either very poor audio looping, or Ms. Benson's dialog is actually dubbed over by someone else in a number of scenes. Her co-star, Jonathan LaPaglia, proves that acting ability is not genetic. When he asks his mother, in complete monotone, whether he is up to the tasks ahead of him, it's not so much that he doesn't care, but as a viewer you have a hard time caring either. The one bright star in this overwhelming dreck is the gifted Larry Drake, playing the evil sorcerer. Armed with the prerequisite witchy babes in skimpy costumes, he makes the utmost of his heavily narrative role. Even the costuming, looking like it was pulled from SciFi convention stock, is mystifyingly awful. One of Mr. Drake's underdressed nymphs looks like a poor man's Barbarella, while the other, wearing red vinyl, looks like an escapee from an 80s music video. The lovely Amber Benson is clad, almost throughout, in an unfortunate "armor" which is obviously made of "pleather" and is noticeable only for the fact that it leaves room for her boobies. This leaves the Gryphon, an animated beast that looks like some Saturday morning cartoon. Two-dimensional and completely mismatched with most backgrounds, the mythical creature looks a little unfinished. Completely inexcusable in an age of advanced CGI. There is some pointless bloodshed – an arrow through an eye, a decapitated Styrofoam head drenched in red paint (it bounces) which makes the film inappropriate for the very young, but honestly, it's inappropriate for anyone with a functioning brain. Save your DVRs for Galactica.

Dig that Gryphon-y Goodness

[indy-18 · 10/10 · 29 January 2007]

Well, having just watched it, since I had to work last night and set the DVR to record it, I have to say I'm all with the Gryphon-y goodness!. This was a fine and noble variation upon the themes of my favorite film genre i.e, the 1980's sword/sorcery fantasy adventure film. You don't need all manner of digital jiggery-pokery to tell an old-fashioned tale of knights, princesses, winged beasties, and villainous power-mad sorcerors who have agendas all their own. A more elegant tale for a more civilised age, perhaps, "Gryphon" has all the hallmarks of good wholesome family entertainment; the kind of fairytale that has been passed down through the generations of numerous cultures since man climbed down from the trees, ventured out of the caves, and crawled out of the sea for the first time. Amber really had a marvelous time playing the role of a princess who was also a well-seasoned warrior as well. Amelia was the sort of character whom young females could look up to and aspire to be like as a role model as she possesses any number of positive character traits. Loyalty, bravery, independence, nobility, passion, devotion, the ability to use her feminine wiles. Amber was in a rich and splendorous environment and got to ride a horse, fight duels with swords, wear a suit of armor, and engage in other classic elements of the Norse and Celtic legends. The tent scene deserves to have a moment of reverent silence paid to it so betides that scene. The legends always involve a prophecy which tells of a child of royal blood who will unite the kingdoms and rule them in peace and harmony. This child is the trump card that the sorceror cannot beat as his chosen queen has already given herself to one she loves. Amber stood proud and fiery gold she glories with her smudges of dirt and her sexy milky white shoulders on display. I'm going to start working on the script for "Gryphon II:The Tears of the Basilisk"

In Spite of the Deficiencies, an Enjoyable Fantasy

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 17 March 2008]

Many years ago in the Kingdom of Vallon, Prince Lock killed his brother in a dispute for the throne and the realm was cursed and split in Delphi and Locklanders. Along the years, the Delphites and the Locklanders have been battling against each other in a civil war. When King Phillip of Lockland (Adrian Pitea) loses his only son in a battle against Prince Seth of Delphi (Jonathan LaPaglia) and Lockland is under siege of the Delphi army, he is convinced by the sorcerer Armand (Larry Drake) to give his royal blood to him to unleash the flying beast Gryphon to destroy the enemy. Princess Amelia (Amber Benson) opposes to the decision of her father and advises him that Armand is not trustful. The evil warlock uses the Gryphon to become the master of the kingdoms while Amelia and Seth join forces in a journey to search the Draconian Pike, the only weapon capable of defeating the Gryphon.

"Gryphon" is a TV movie with a restrained budget, poor special effects, average acting, some silly and corny lines and situations, but also an enjoyable fantasy underrated in IMDb with Amber "Tara" Benson in a lead role. I would never dare to compare or write that this film is a "Lord of the Rings" wannabe, as I glanced in one review, but the story is not bad and deserved better actors (or acting) in the key roles and improvements in the Gryphon. In the end, I found "Gryphon" entertaining and I do not regret of watching it on DVD. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "O Ataque do Gryphon" ("The Attack of the Gryphon")

Mud, blood, and no lipstick

[unbrokenmetal · 4/10 · 7 November 2010]

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.

Horrifically bad

[onosideboard · 1/10 · 27 January 2007]

In the interest of full disclosure, I did forget to turn the volume back on after one commercial break and thus missed about 20 minutes of this awful tripe.

Honestly, I don't understand why the Sci-Fi channel insists on making special effect-heavy movies. The "gryphon" was ridiculous. I've seen more realistic monsters both in my four-year-old niece's coloring book and in movies from the 1930s when they still used the puppet method. Sci-Fi really ought to save some money by making horror flicks without much special effects and invest in a better scriptwriter. And acting lessons.

Which leads me to Amber Benson. Oh, Amber. She looked terrible and acted even worse. I guess I didn't really expect much after seeing her in Intermezzio (with the near-death Eddie Furlong), but it's just so hard to accept that this actress who was wonderful on "Buffy" is actually a hack. Jonathan LaPaglia was just as bad, if not worse. He needs to leave the acting to his big bro, Anthony. The supporting cast didn't help, either.

I guess the ONLY reason anyone should watch this movie would be to ogle the sorcerer's wives (two chicks in leather bikinis) or Jonathan LaPaglia's arms (real gun show there). However, those are not even remotely sufficient reasons to subject yourself to this movie.

I think this might be the first movie I've rated a "1," and I've rated a lot of bad movies. Please don't waste your time.

Bad as bad can be

[xredgarnetx · 2/10 · 28 January 2007]

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.

So Bad I Had to Laugh

[sophybliss · 2/10 · 1 February 2007]

Extremely bad "Lord of the Rings" wannabe. (The Delphi king even seemed to be trying to look like the king in LOTR.) Bad acting, bad battle staging (notice how the "dead" soldiers disappear), bad COSTUMES, and incredibly bad CGI. Poor Larry Drake - when I say him in that getup at the end, all I could think of was John Candy in those old SCTV skits!! Plus, what was with his two Xena reject warrior women? Why did the queen need to sacrifice herself to get rid of them? Obviously meant to be a big meaningful "sacrifice" scene, it had no emotional impact. To top it all off, Benson & LaPaglia were totally unbelievable and miscast. Don't get me wrong - I love cheesy movies, but this was just BAD!!

Where did they get that Gryphon?

[silverhairdad53 · 2/10 · 12 May 2007]

Watch for a pit that had backhoe teeth marks on the side and no backhoe was ever featured in this film. Watch for the two captured soldiers, one had his weapon taken away the other did not. Watch for the sound boom lurking overhead. This movie should have and could have been a lot better given the advancements in computer graphics today. It could have been directed better. It could have been edited a lot better. Not very often that I regret purchasing a movie but this is one of those that probably should not have been released to the general public in it's current condition. This was not even the least bit entertaining and I am glad that we did not spend the money to see it in the theater. Even if this was supposed to be a comedy as opposed to a fantasy film it failed miserably. Just another attempt to bilk the moviegoers out of our hard earned cash.

Gryphon: Sponsored by Commodore, maker of the Commodore 128...

[Krakn3Dfx · 1/10 · 29 January 2007]

I say that, because in my mind that's what I picture them rendering all of the CG work in this film in.

OK, I understand that when they tack on "a Sci-Fi Original Movie" to the name, it's by default assumed to be complete crap, but come on! This was bad even by SFC standards, if such standards do indeed exist. The uneven, poorly delivered dialogue, the overly-generic storyline that failed to deliver on even the generic ending that everyone knew was coming.

Just pitiful...and I liked the D&D movie sequel...now THAT was straight-to-DVD entertainment!

Gryphon

[Kenny-36 · 5/10 · 22 April 2007]

I have mixed emotions about Gryphon. I thought the idea was really good. The special effects of the Gryphon were terrible as much as I like Jonathan LaPaglia, he just read his lines as if he was still on The District where a lot of the other actors at least tried to give it a medieval accent.

All in all it was an exciting movie, if not anything that would get an award and not the worst turkey I've ever seen, and I've seen some real good turkeys. I think the main thing if you haven't seen this film. It's what the viewer would like to see and how the viewer would like it. It's not for everyone, but as the old saying goes. One man's trash is another's treasure. I'm not going to throw it in the trash, but probably won't be taking it out of storage for quite a while.

Cheesy CGI fantasy flick

[myeck · 4/10 · 28 January 2007]

This is a low-budget fantasy flick. It doesn't try to be anything other than a stock genre picture. It's let down by the very cheap CGI, and worse, by a director who doesn't know how to work with budget FX.

I decided to check this out due to the presence of Amber Benson, whose character on Buffy, Tara, was specifically someone who was not good at physical combat, while she appeared to be an action heroine in the promos I saw for Gryphon. So I was curious. And actually, I've seen far worse action work by female leads in sword-and-sandal fantasies.

Larry Drake is also in it. It's always fun to see him, and he still chews a mean backdrop.

The male lead in Jonathon LaPaglia. He looks and sounds a lot like his brother Anthony, but is really muscular. And he can't act to save his life.

But the big problem is that the director didn't know how to deal with a limited effects budget. They repeatedly violate the first rule of cheap FX, which is to show them from far away, or only fleetingly, or moving quickly. What you don't do, when you only have the money for a very cheesy CGI gryphon, is have a long shot in which the gryphon is PETTED by its master front and center on screen.

(edited to fix a couple of stupid typos)

I enjoyed this movie

[TarantulasPrime · 9/10 · 28 January 2007]

The SciFi Channel has produced some stinkers in the past. This movie isn't one of them.

A good movie must start with a good story. The story behind this movie has everything that makes a story worthwhile. It has great evil. It has a brave hero. It has a love interest. It has another hero conflicted between losing what he loves and saving it by using tactics that may be unethical. And it has a ticking clock, showing that all will be lost unless the desired goal is reached within a certain time period.

It has epic battles and humorous interludes and majestic scenery and stirring music. Oh, wait, that's the movie part. The best thing about this movie is Jonathan LaPaglia. I don't know why he's not in more movies. He's a great actor, and he makes his roles believable. He did a great job in this movie. Sarah Douglas portrayed his mother, the Queen. She had some great magic powers, but I recognized her from somewhere and couldn't recall where. Only after I looked her up on IMDb did I find that she played the Tok'ra Garshaw of Belote on Stargate SG-1. She was excellent. Amber Benson was great as the princess, keeping LaPaglia's character in line as a potential enemy but also warming to him as a love interest. In fact, I didn't see any actors who I could say did a poor job in this movie.

As I said, the scenery was great. The cinematography was pretty good too. There wasn't any camera shaking or zooming in and out or any of the other cheap tricks that make cheap movies. Yes, some of the scenes were dark. That's because they were shot in tunnels, where it's...surprise...DARK. The scenes shot outdoors in the daytime were...another surprise...NOT dark. I didn't understand the complaint there, but maybe I shouldn't read other people's reviews before writing my own. I don't recall seeing anything that made me think "Wait a minute, what was that thing that they just showed? I didn't see what it was/didn't understand why they showed that." So, good job there.

I enjoy some humor in my movies too. It was funny how Amber Benson's character didn't trust Jonathan LaPaglia's character at first. At one point, where things are getting dangerous, he asks "Can I have my sword back?" and she won't give it to him. And at the very beginning, when he asks how much time is left, his mother says "Until the next eclipse." He looks distressed and says "Seven Days." Now unlike some of the professional critics, I enjoy seeing a nod to an actor's other works. I was a fan of the TV series Seven Days, and I thought it should not have been cancelled, so I appreciated seeing the reference placed in this movie. I GET IT and thanks very much for including those two words in the movie.

Every reviewer probably has parts of the movie that weren't enjoyable to him. This part for me was the monster itself. The computer graphics didn't seem to be as sophisticated as they were in some other movies I've seen. When it flew over the armies on the ground, the troops ducked down as it went over but didn't seem to be affected. Yet in the very next shot, a significant percentage of them were lying dead. And the thing should have been killable. Early on, it was shown that it was affected by an arrow shot into it. Yet later, when it flew at low level over the troops, they didn't fill it full of arrows and kill it. I suppose if it had died right away there would have been no movie, but it seems to me that if you have archers in your army and an enemy is attacking, that enemy should be sprouting some arrows right away. Because of that, I couldn't score it a full 10 and only gave it a rating of 9 out of 10.

Had to add one more critique of this awful film

[u2558827 · 1/10 · 26 September 2008]

After watching the film and reading the comments posted here I felt I needed to add a comment about the CGI: UNCOMPREHENSIBLY POOR!!

Just doesn't make sense considering the easily accessible technology these days. It reminds me of something from my childhood in the early 80's.

The whole cast of producers and directors should be ashamed!! I feel sorry for the actors associated with this film whose face front this embarrassment. I am sure it was the severe lack of talent and inspiration from those behind the scenes that were the main cause of this disaster.

This movie is just WRONG WRONG WRONG!!

Tragic

[kelemarius · 1/10 · 8 November 2007]

Listen to my advice and don't spend any time with this one ! You've been warned ! I feel pity for the great places shown in this movie which otherwise paint the wonderful scene of Transilvanian land, like the Castle of Corvinesti in Hunedoara. But sadly, I feel no pity for the movie, directors and crew, they took the money and produced nothing out of it .... And the 3D animation of the gryphon, that is a real joke ! Sorry, a kid could have made it better with a pencil ! The dialogues are childish and with nothing to be added from actors, they make no more than a cheap story told by a bored grandmother ! I can't understand why the foreigners were put to speak in romanian when the cast is 90% romanians which speak English ! Weird .

Duh... I think I'm as good as Jackson!

[shalimar-4 · 2/10 · 8 May 2007]

Duh... I think I'm as good as Jackson!

I have this nifty software called M$ Paint.. a friend has a hacked copy of Adobe something or other on his apple IIc.. and we have a tiny budget we managed to con some sucker out of investing so I can make an epic masterpiece too!

Now reality sets in that this movie is epic for sure.. in the sheer level of horrifying bad quality.. the only saving grace is the locations used for filming (and they were used due to lower cost for filming).

The CGI is so pathetic it makes Southpark look like it's cutting edge "realism".. Honestly I'd be beyond ashamed to be associated with this POS in any form.. If any of you remember bad special effects from 70's flicks etc then this will remind you of such.. but it's far far worse. And at least the films back then had the excuse of lacking the methods we have now.. there is no excuse for this now though.

I actually watched this due to Amber Benson being cast in it... and she can act as has been previously proved... However given the drivel of this script (and script should be taken with a box of salt!) and the inane crap from the director she had no chance.

In the end I have three pieces of advice:

1) Amber Benson... FIRE YOUR AGENT ASAP & then call Joss up and ask for a real part!

2) Anyone thinking of watching this movie please hit your head off the nearest hard object until the thought of such goes away... trust me it'll hurt less.

3) For the Director, Writers and others responsible for this film... please remove yourselves from the gene pool immediately... we already have enough stupidity in this world without your trying to spread yours around as well...

Ultimately this film is one everyone should run away from.. as far and as fast as they possibly can! Maybe I should bill the director/writers for my therapy needed after this experience?

I Hate To Be Cruel, But...

[bobwildhorror · 1/10 · 3 July 2008]

God bless the Sci Fi Channel. It never ceases to amaze me with its ineptitude. And GRYPHON may well be something of a pinnacle. I dare you to find a film that features a more pathetic CGI creature.

Beyond that, we get a plot that seems to toss every Harry Potter cliché imaginable at its audience. I can picture a bunch of guys in the Sci Fi Channel's boardroom shaking their heads in unison with an executive's ranting.

"What this story needs is more magic."

"Yes, RJ."

"And some knights. I like knights. They could fight each other with swords."

"Yes, RJ."

"And don't forget the women. We could make them witches. Witches in tight costumes. Did they have rubber suites back then?"

"Whatever you say, RJ."

It probably didn't happen that way, but it might as well have. The only pleasure here is seeing the painfully miscast Larry Drake struggle to deliver lines that sound like they were written to entertain kindergarteners.