Sinbad: The Fifth Voyage (2014) User Reviews

Okay.

[thcenturysalmon · 5/10 · 1 March 2015]

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.

Disappointing.

[lmahesa · 3/10 · 14 October 2014]

Note: I'm ticking the 'spoiler' box, but I will try to keep things vague.

I wanted to like this. I really did. I'm a huge fan of the old clay animation movies and have watched them numerous times throughout the years.

Barring the first instance, which just looks like a walking prolapse with teeth, most of the stop motion work is good. There is a definite sense of nostalgia whenever such scenes arise. In fact, much of this movie is centered around nostalgia - the sliding cut between scenes, the zoomed-in gigantic creatures, and some of the cinematography.

The plot is acceptable. Standard fare for movies of the time, and I wouldn't expect anything else. The acting... well. There isn't much, really, other than the antagonist who was so over the top ridiculous with his Vincent Price caricature and seemed to have a problem with his jaw.

The actors themselves were miscast, and they seem to know it. None of the cast had the appropriate swarthiness expected of those who lived their lives at sea. The 'sultan' acted like a rug dealer in Baghdad, the 'gorgeous princess' was outshone by the dancers, and Sinbad himself looked like, as someone else has already pointed out, a throwaway terrorist in Homeland who's watched a few too many Clint Eastwood movies. Sinbad's crew and the palace guards were the worst - they had clearly never worked with a green screen before.

The CGI was above par for this grade of movie. Not blockbuster material, but maybe modern TV quality - somewhere between SyFy and HBO. Sleepy Hollow and the likes, or Dominion.

What fails the film most is the glue. Extremely bad editing, with sudden cuts from calm to chaos. Poor direction, with bad camera angles and pacing aplenty.

Then there is the music. It's actually quite good, but very, very badly edited and mismatched with the scenes. There is epic battle music during a closeup of a guy approaching a honeycomb, and music appropriate to a gentle stroll through the New Zealand countryside when they're fighting monsters.

As a tribute this movie is great, and I applaud them for the effort. As entertainment? Nah. You'll have a much better time with Sharknado 2.

Cheap and badly cut, but stupidly amusing monsters

[callingham-87016 · 3/10 · 18 February 2017]

Yes, the majority of the plot seems to have ended up on the cutting room floor, the director uses filters instead of narrative, the acting is risible and the flow erratic. Not even the great Sir Patrick's voice is an asset. BUT The Harryhausen-esque monsters are a hoot.

The whole thing seems to have been filmed in a small green-screen room for the price of a decent family meal. Accept and embrace it for what it is - a silly, cheap, nonsensical piece of trash with ridiculous monsters in it. My DVD copy cost 50 pence. A fair price.

Possibly the worst I've ever seen

[schwicked · 1/10 · 29 November 2014]

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.

Bad and amateurish

[sashairk · 1/10 · 11 December 2014]

When I see many 1- and 2-star reviews along with 5-star reviews my conclusion is that the movie is really bad and the 5-star reviews are written by the friends, family members and the people who made it.

I could force myself to watch only first 20 minutes of this 'masterpiece.' The animation is primitive like in the school movie, the acting is bad. I was surprised to learn, actually, that this is a US- made film. It looked more like some poorly made Bollywood flick, although they can make pretty good films there. I just wonder how such a fine actor like Patrick Stewart could lend his voice to such a trash. Well, money talks, I guess.

Don't waste your time on this one unless you want to see how a really bad B-movie looks like.

I would rather watch paint dry

[stephanfourie6 · 1/10 · 14 October 2014]

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.

Unbelievably, laughably, terrifically bad . . . .

[dan6-1 · 1/10 · 13 October 2014]

I was seduced into watching this movie because of Patrick Stewart's involvement. I'm certain that once he saw it (if he even did — he wanted to crawl into a small dark hole.

This movie is unspeakably awful. I'm a huge fan of all the Harryhausen-era versions, and I had turn this off at the 30-minute mark. The effects looked like they were done by a high-school class, and the actors were unspeakably horrible. To give you some idea, the Caliph's guards were pudgy, pasty-looking guys that looked like they were pulled from their mall security gigs to hold spears and look bewildered at how they had ended up on a film set.

Sinbad himself looked like a grade-Z extra from a terrorist film. And then you have Patrick Stewart narrating over the whole mess in a state of total ignorance at the travesty transpiring on the screen.

I can only believe that previous reviewers had some involvement with the production of this "movie" because it is so obviously terrible, terrible, terrible. (Did I mention that it's terrible?)

Please stay far away from this stinker. Otherwise, it will haunt your memories. I would give this a rating of "0" if I could...

Awful

[kiseli666 · 1/10 · 20 April 2015]

I had to register and make review for this masterpiece. I usually newer leaving comments on IMDb, but i was provoked when i saw all that 10 star reviews. Must be the film crew or family of makers of this s...

If i could gave 0 i would, the movie is awful, newer watched worst film, could not finish it how much disaster this movie is...

The first animation of that blue thing is awesome :)) like its made in 80's, special effect are also very bad, and poorly done. Acting had some nice moments, but overall very bad...

Vote:

VFX: 0 Acting: 0 Animations: 000

Don't lose time watching this.

Ray Harryhausen Would Turn In His Grave.....

[barry-steers · 2/10 · 14 October 2014]

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 want the 1.5 hours of my life back!!!

[mpooyan83 · 1/10 · 2 December 2014]

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.

Absolutely amateurish

[Data-1001 · 14 December 2014]

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.

Wow see this

[SkyaTone · 10/10 · 25 October 2014]

My family and I were fortunate enough to get to experience this movie in theaters. We loved the costumes the most, very authentic... It is most definitely a must see! 'Sinbad: The Fifth Voyage' uses stop-motion animation that looks nicely cartoonish and retro.

I have been waiting for this movie for a while, and needless to say, was anticipating it to be an instant classic, and guess what?? IT WAS! The whole look and feel of this movie is a classic.The production value is low, the super animation and mix of CGI make it fun. The script is a short version of the original " Seventh Voyage of Sinbad ( one of my all time favs). I enjoyed this 100 times more than the terrible job they did on the remake of the Clash of the Titans. If you have an hour and a half to waste go see it and have yourself a great laugh. This will make it into my DVD collection when it hits the shelves. Hungry men don't ask they take! For my old school Sinbad fans.

I could not disagree more

[tvsgael2-2 · 7/10 · 22 August 2015]

{Exclamation marks at every sentence) I'm watching a movie called SINBAD: THE 5TH VOYAGE, and am astounded by how it was made. They took a typical Harryhausen plot and added creature effects that parody Harryhausen's, only they are computer rather than stop action, but they have a clay like texture even. The other effects are also high class. I'd recommend you give this a look. There's no question that this is a dedicated attempt to create a Harryhausen film without Harryhausen. It's too bad he's not alive to see it. The creatures look like his, not at all like those in the remakes of his other films. Patrick Stewart narrates. It's only 78 minutes long so it moves along sprightly.

30 somethings won't like it. They won't get it, because they are expecting creature effects from after 2000 not retro like this. This is where the title of my review applies.

My note to the director: Keep making these films because you are truly a fantasy guy who appreciates the greats of the past.

OMG the Worst movie ever....

[master-davy-jones · 1/10 · 5 January 2015]

and here i was so excited and so happy with this movie thinking that i will watch an amazing fantasy movie but all what i have watched was some Super Bad Actors who cant even act i never saw such bad acting in my whole life even porn stars act better seriously and it has the worst animation ever! that must have been made by a 5 years old amateur and the whole movie was shot in a room with bad / changing decoration! if this movie was made in the 50s it would have been much better in everything even in animation i wont tell you more it's totally your call and don't let the 6.7 rate fools you it must be the actors and their families and friends This movie suck!I'm here to give you a warning (Save yourselves)it's is a huge mess and a Massive Disaster the most stupid movie i have ever watched since Demon island in 2002

Padded Reviews

[BratE9000 · 1/10 · 17 April 2016]

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!

Would rather watch the original movies...

[flemtone-134-997740 · 2/10 · 16 October 2014]

Sad to say but would much rather watch the original Sinbad movies as they were far more entertaining than this sad attempt.. Also, the effects were horribly done for a newer 2014 movie and the monster animation and choreography for the fight scenes was dreadful... The acting was bland with no excitement or personality placed in any of the characters, also why did the Sinbad character have an accent in the movie but the voice-over Sinbad have an English accent (Patrick Stewart) ?!?! A quite awful B-movie status for this movie which could have been a lot better given some time and attention to the original Sinbad movies...

Yet another useless Director

[mdf45456 · 1/10 · 13 October 2014]

This Director is yet another crappy maker of films, who think cutting scenes every 3 to 5 seconds make you great i did not make it past the first five minutes so i can't say if he was going for" let's wave the camera about", but i think this would happen as all Directors now have the how many cuts world record in view. If any of the old film makers were alive they would be rolling in their graves at what has happened to the fine art of film making. I really do think that what story they are telling has to be ruined by unnecessary cuts and throwing the camera about, well this viewer will not tolerate crappy directors and shabby work, so if you, like millions of cuts and bouncing camera work then this is for you, or you have the attention span of a cretin then watch away, but i will be giving this a miss and any other pile of crap that comes out of Hollywood as they can't make films anymore, well not for me. Like everything in this world today having a camera does not make you a director, and anyone who finds this so called art have lived a very sheltered life. So 0 out of 10 for really poor camera work and direction as for the story Meh...

The movie is awful. The astroturfing reviews and ratings are even worse.

[davegoldman · 1/10 · 24 March 2016]

First, the "movie". Wooden acting. Claymation "special effects" that are weak even by 60's standards. No plot. Non-linear story line caused a constant state of confusion. It makes "Manos: Hands of Fate" look like an Oscar winner. I got sucked in due to seeing Patrick Stewart's name attached to it, but I have to assume that he got involved either due to familial duty or blackmail.

The fake reviews and ratings really irritate me the most. It is one thing to lay an egg. It is another to try to cover it up. I wish IMDb would screen for this kind of thing. Just treat it as a learning experience and move on rather than doubling down on the mess by spamming accounts to inflate the miserable scores.

Over all, "Sinbad: The Fifth Voyage" is a creative and ethical nightmare. Avoid it at all costs.

I wish I would have paid attention to the bad reviews

[classicacres7050 · 1/10 · 14 June 2015]

If you are a Sinbad fan don't buy or watch this movie. I have been a Sinbad fan for over 50 years and have seen many Sinbad movies, but this one shouldn't even have the name on it. In fact they don't even pronounce it correctly...it sounds like "sandbag" in the movie. After watching it I was amazed that Patrick Stewart had anything to do with it. The special effects were a joke. You'd think it was made in the 40s or 50s instead of just last year. Even the blooper reel wasn't funny. I also should have had a hint about it when I didn't recognize any of the actors. I like to see new ones and I hope some of them get a second chance with a better script. The director should go back to playing terrorists or something like that. Again, don't waste your time or money, even if you have a Sinbad movie collection like I do. It won't be a part of it.

Was the movie done on 70's? Not even worth seeing

[youweask · 1/10 · 15 October 2014]

Its good to be honest, I have download this and watch it for a few minutes. In the beginning you will be amazed at the first blue creature that looks like it was made of clay animation done in the 70's for a children show. In fairness to the movie, it made me laugh! How in the hell at the year 2014 a movie with that kind of effects? if you may call it effects, So what I did was just to scroll the bar to see how the movie effects are, i saw a big bee, flying o yeah flying that it looks like it was guided by a stick LOLS, so this means the effects are really bad! i didn't watch anymore and DELETED that crappy film. It's a waste of time, bandwidth even money if you bought this film. I advise you better watch sesame street rather than this pile of junk!

Like watching a school play

[jbarnett76 · 1/10 · 7 November 2014]

..a bad school play. Poorly directed and acted, the narrative itself is constructed by someone who has no understanding of how narratives work. The best bit of this is watching actors, and I use that word quite wrongly, not respond in any way to the poor special effects that were obviously cobbled on later. How Patrick Stewart got attached to this, I'll never know, it is like he turns up at school narrating a school play, it is that strange. In order to post this review, I have to think of things to say, but this junk is not worthy, so I'm struggling. The acting is wooden at best, hammy baddie of course, this tries to emulate greater movies of the past but the director is not talented enough to even come close. Avoid.

The storyline is great

[webpun · 10/10 · 25 October 2014]

Sinbad: The Fifth Voyage (2014) seems to be a mythical fantasy movie that I absolutely could not wait to see . There is no reason so far behind the release date being changed except for it being closer to Valentine's Day. I saw the trailer several times and loved all that it offers and the magical feeling it gives me. I saw the movie and I loved it and that is really because it offered a diverse variety of things that you do not see in your normal everyday movie. I would watch this movie again (maybe several times) and would recommend it to everyone to watch for a fun, entertaining, relaxing watch without thinking too much about it or thinking too much about what the movie is about.

The storyline is great. Just watch the movie and enjoy the setting, sceneries, fantasy creatures, belly dancers and all it has to offer that are different from the other movies in 2013 through 2014 so far.

I enjoyed this movie because...

[tiranna · 7/10 · 15 October 2015]

1 It didn't use special effects to cover plot holes 2 There were no useless, screaming women 3 There were no stock Sci-fi characters (jock, nerd, whore, etc) 4 It told a story from beginning to end (even if it did it a little choppily) 5 It got its point across, and moved on 3 The characters looked like they belonged to the time period and place (races were appropriate; belly dancers had curves; guards were big, but not gym-buff)

I'm not sure why some people are so upset about this movie - I guess they expected it to be artier or closer to an homage. It's its own thing - a short take on a story from the Arabian Nights.

This cannot be a movie made in this century of awesome graphics

[braziej · 1/10 · 8 July 2016]

I want all to be aware I speak of parts of this film and not sure if they will be considered spoilers. I let all who read this know this in advance. Simply stated the "Sinbad" movies I grew up watching in the 70's and 80's had better acting and graphics then this "movie"! It was so poorly done and the fight scenes were pathetic. I was lulled into watching the entire movie just hoping there may be a glimmer of good. There was not! The creators, directors or producers need to go back to school and learn how to make a "real" film because they did not have any skills in this one. Very poor quality, animation and overall it was terrible! The saga of Sinbad was given a very poor adaptation here and this movie should be removed from such a fantastic legacy of real Sinbad stories. The animation effects of the creatures in this film was so pathetic it made me feel so cheated. They were so fake that one could not even feel a tiny bit of excitement. Childish and so crude these effects were that they left me in a state of disbelief this film was ever released to the screen. If you want boredom, lackluster acting, and crude effects then this is a film for you. If you want quality, well you will not find it here! One last comment, I would be very curious as to how others feel about the ridiculousness of the acting done by the wizard in this film? It made me almost sick to see such a vain attempt at portraying a part. Almost made me feel sad for who ever played this part. His acting could not have done anything positive for his future in film. Just my opinion though!

Waste of your time

[erimerdi · 1/10 · 25 October 2014]

I wonder If I could write something different had I managed to watch the movie to the end. I had to stop watching it because it was agonizingly terrible! Yes the special effects some what were done in old school way however they are done so poorly it looks like watching baby TV trailers (the ones with the puppets in between the shows). The acting is beyond terrible. The story is not catchy and Sinbad is a joke. I wonder how some people ,if they are real people not some hired pens, compare it with old Sinbad movies! One said this is what Sinbad should be! Let me tell you this: this Sinbad is not only has no charisma, charm and the physical build but also looks like he is has no brain either. So please Do yourself a big favor and skip this one. Keep your hard earned money and time...