User Reviews (22)

Add a Review

  • This has got to be one of the worst waste of time I have ever seen. The acting is amateur and costume, make-up, and sets are severely low budget. The actors can't decide if they are from Brooklyn or England. Half the time they try and speak with a fake accent, the rest of the time, they just don't care.

    Stunts? Ha Ha. There is one scene where a guy is speared through the "chest" and as he falls down he turns to the right it is plainly obvious the spear is under his arm. I have to admit, I never laughed so hard before at a "drama".

    This is what Stephen Baldwin is reduced too? Even the reality shows seem good compared to this.
  • frankfob23 June 2007
    Cheap, third-rate ripoff of the great "Army of Darkness". Poorly acted by virtually everyone, although Scott Valentine is enjoyably hammy (at times) as the evil Vorian and Kristin Richardson is watchable as a pretty but feisty peasant girl. Shoddy special effects (including some glaringly obvious matte work), laughable script and limp direction are bad enough, but this stinker has some of the most inept action scenes since "Hercules Against the Moon Men" and a leading man (Stephen Baldwin) who's gained so much weight that when his "army" storms the castle, it's hard to tell which is Baldwin and which is the castle. The one-liners that are meant to be flip are both lame and unfunny (although one line when Baldwin is swinging a torch in a cave isn't too bad). Altogether, poor in all departments. You'll do much better renting or buying "Army of Darkness" instead of this 99-Cent Store version of it.
  • Army of Darkness can be considered a cult classic, so I guess it's surprising we haven't seen more ripoffs of it. However, I can't imagine we'd ever see one like this.

    To those that haven't seen Army of Darkness, a regular wisecracking Joe with a shotgun is accidentally teleported into medieval/dark ages times and must save the inhabitants there with a combination of future know how, leadership abilities and fighting ability from a supernatural evil.

    It was a silly movie, but worked because Bruce Campbell has charm and wit, and the script was genuinely funny.

    Replace Bruce Campbell with Stephen Baldwin and replace the Evil Dead with Harpies. Replace the claymation low budget special effects with blue screen special effects straight from a shopping mall vendor or amusement park. And take out the witty banter and one liners and replace them with dialogue that makes the worst dubbed Italian film seem like Shakespeare. Watch at your own peril. About the only redeeming feature is the female lead, who isn't much of an actor, but is attractive, in a mid 30s sort of way.
  • liviuso5 April 2008
    Wow... If someone would have told me this before, I wouldn't have believed him. Come on, Sci-Fi have done some bad movies but this is their champion. Stephen Baldwin (I liked him before this) has done his worst role ever. He's not even acting. The other actors seem like they were picked up from the street. The CGI is nowhere. The angles of the cameras are all wrong. And don't let me start writing about the director of this movie. A 7 year old child would have directed better then him. Hell, a monkey would have directed better then him. The props look so fake and the most hilarious thing was the catapult that looks like it was bought from IKEA. The dialogs have no sense they are just a bunch of words put together in phrases that have no connection with the other phrases. I think that they should show this film only to students at film academies where they can learn what NOT to do in a film.
  • ...and end up surprisingly good movies.

    Stan Lee's Harpies is not one of them. **WARNING: SPOILERS FOLLOW**

    Let's see...where to start?

    Ah, yes -- The Harpies themselves. You'd think, given that they are the title characters of the film, that there would be great time and care and attention given their design. Instead we get abominable CGI, and the live action harpies looked like emo girls wearing badly-done halloween wings.

    The Action Sequences. When the harpies attack, it doesn't show us anything that convinces us that there's a battle going on. You see a bunch of people waving their swords, then you see a shot of the harpies giggling and flailing their arms. Yeah, real convincing.

    The battle scenes, such as they are, show a bunch of guys bumping into each other with swords drawn. One poor nameless extra got skewered by a sword, and when he fell down, he fell at an angle showing that he was holding the sword between his arm and torso, rather than sticking out of his trunk, as it should have been.

    In the museum, we're supposed to believe that these mercenaries are not only bad shots, but that an ancient cup, hit by a bullet, is just going to fall as if it were knocked over, and protect our hero.

    The Casting Not too much wrong here, other than they're rather unseasoned and ill-suited for a fantasy film. Also, they got the cast wrong on here. Scott Valentine (yes, the guy from Family Ties who said "Ay!") played Vorian.

    There are other stretches of the imagination, people jumping when they're supposed to be "sucked in" or "thrown clear" of the blast, etc. But this movie was just "That Which Should Not Be Made" on so many levels. My friend and I made better student films than this in college. Did anyone notice the dearth of slavic names in the crew? I thought only the Italians made ridiculous movies ("Naked Gladiators" and "Texas Rangers 2020", anyone?).

    Ah well, I suppose that if they enjoyed what they were doing, that's what counts. I didn't.
  • Sincerely hoping they all had a good time making this awful flick to ensure that at least there was some fun had here...certainly wasn't much fun to be had on the receiving end.

    Based on a few posts, I was hoping against all odds (Sci-Fi Channel original, Stephen Baldwin starring) that this would be an entertaining diversion, whether it be a tongue-in-cheek endeavor or a somehow otherwise funny or exciting venture; but unfortunately, this was nothing more than a terrible film. Can we fine the actors for this? That would be fun, and I would be content with the results. Better yet however would be to Star-Chamber the producers.

    This film is embarrassingly terrible and I despise the fact that Stephen Baldwin lives a better life than most of us.
  • I had a feeling that Harpies would be bad, but this bad? No, I was not expecting that actually. Other than some novelty value and a somewhat enjoyably hammy performance from Scott Valentine, Harpies has no redeeming qualities and is one of SyFy's very worst. The film looks cheap for starters, with choppy editing, scenery that never feels authentic and lighting that doesn't add anything to the atmosphere. But even they are not as bad as the special effects for the harpies which are so shoddy and fake that you are laughing by how hysterically awful they are. The script is just as poor, with dialogue so cheesy that it would make the cheesiest cheeseburger bland and flat delivery. The story is incredibly dull and predictable, with nothing of real interest happening, and the action sequences are the most inept of any movie that I've seen. The direction is limp and unimaginative and the pacing is sluggish. The characters have no likability or life to them, you are annoyed by them and nothing is done to develop them that well. The acting is awful, Stephen Baldwin's lead performance is so lazy that you are wondering whether he's even acting at all. Overall, an absolute waste of time, in all honesty not in a while have I seen a movie this bad. 1/10 Bethany Cox
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This may or may not contain a spoiler. I never made it to the end of the movie but I'm really disappointed and may let slip something about the threadbare plot (such at is it) that those actually daring enough to watch a Sci-Fi original movie may not want to know about.

    But then again this was a Sci-Fi original movie and by now we should probably know better. Alas the previews made this seem like it was going to be a fun knock-off of Army of Darkness with the shot-gun wielding hero fighting Harpies instead of Deadites, which sounds like a really fun B-movie premise. Especially since this is supposed to be about a security guard in a museum that gets transported into the past.

    It's such a simple premise how could anyone go wrong with that, right? Alas what we get is an excruciating piece of drek that shouted "we're using Stargate SG-1 set rejects" almost from scene one and goes downhill from there.

    Yes, this was a blatant attempt to make a cheap knock-off of Army of Darkness, and it fell, like Stephen Baldwin, flat on it's face in pig effluent. But that it appears sets were either recycled or copied the look of the "Ancient's Writing" for use in the artifact on display in the museum was mind boggling. Could it be this movie originated as a rejected Stargate SGF-1 script? I doubt it. But you never know.

    What's worse is that Stephen Baldwin and a (unknown to me) woman playing a pig keeper seemed to be the most competent actors seen in the first 40 some odd minutes of this turgid will-o-the-wisp monstrosity. Actually poor Mr. Baldwin, who'll probably get a lot of the blame for this, all but carries most scenes on his over burdened shoulders. Problem is it's obvious this was intended to be a tongue-in-cheek comedy that fizzled, thus the problems seem all the worse.

    I can forgive a lot in a B-movie be it bad acting, infantile dialogue, anachronisms, overacting (the guy playing the sorcerer actually takes this to a new level, he's actually rather hilarious at times), plot inconsistency, and even sequels that have no relationship to the original movie. However tedious dullness is an unforgivable cinematic sin. By the time the titular CGI monsters made an appearance I was already thinking about getting out the aforementioned Buck Roger's DVD set, which should give you an idea of just how boring this was.

    The characters were flat and the actors, though they tried, never really made me care about them. Not because they were inept but because it didn't seem like the script gave these characters any depth. It was like they were there purely as character sketches without any thought given to their backgrounds. Now, to be fair, I should mention that I only made it about 40 minutes into the movie. But that seems like 35 minutes too long to wait for character development.

    But to be perfectly honest I'm not sure which pushed me over the edge, the lack of character development or the the utterly rubbish CGI harpies. Granted the editors of this movie at least realized their CGI was ludicrous looking and they didn't show close-ups of them, at least none that I recall, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. The costuming and make-up effects for the harpies involve a lot of smeared mascara and a white shift. That's it. It was utterly uninspired.

    I truly feel this was a cinematic abortion that never should have been made. I know, strong words, and yes there's far worse DTV "movies" out there. But, and this is important, none of those bear Stan Lee's name, which was the ONLY reason I tuned in. I really thought that, surely, if Stan Lee was putting his name on the movie it wouldn't be the usual lame CGI crapfest sciffy is known for. But I, apparently, was a fool for daring to hope as sciffy let me down yet again. Even so I am not angry so much as saddened and disappointed.

    While I'm sure Stan Lee laughed all the way to bank to cash that sciffy check, and really kudos to him for getting some green, I just feel this movie was a let down. Very disappointing.

    In short Harpies was deadly dull boring and actually had me popping in a DVD of Buck Rogers in the 25th Century to watch something with real acting talent and better SFX. I think that says it all.
  • I admit not seeing all of the movie. I came home from Live Free or Die Hard (which was awesome!) and watched the last half of this. It had me literally laughing out loud, too bad it isn't a comedy. The good was Kristin Richardson, she could act and was easy on the eyes. The OK, Scott Valentine. I give him the benefit of the doubt and believe he was just over the top and cheesy on purpose to fit the tone of the film. Stephen Baldwin let his acting chops drop to the level of the surrounding cast, which was just terrible. You rarely get the whole cast to sound as if they can't remember their lines and are just reading them off a cheat sheet just off camera. Horrendous. The CG. Holy crap. This got the most,and biggest laughs out of me. Original Sci-Fi channel pics are not know for great CGI. But this is a new low. WOW, truly needs to be seen it to believe it. Probably the worst CGI I have ever seen. Avoid this even if you liked other made for Sci-fi channel movies, or tune in if you can't believe its the worst acting and CG maybe ever. But please quickly turn it off and save the brain cell or 2 you will burn out trying to figure out how it was green lit to go out to the public.
  • OK, just watched part of it as it is out on satellite tonight - it didn't go to the theatres at all I guess. It's quite ridiculous - done over the top cheesy on purpose - but it's not funny. Stupid script, lame acting and pathetic effects - it had a cheap porn quality to it. I can get that this was all done on purpose - but I don't get why. It wasn't good enough for a laugh. I imagine it was supposed to be a parody of something. Was this a stupid comic book that they are making fun of then? It does advertise as Stan Lee's Harpies. Do not go into this thinking of Spiderman quality in anyway. Massive waste of time - I didn't get through 20 minutes. Let me know if someone watches the whole thing - or if there was a point I was missing. Poor Baldwin. Poor Stan Lee.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Yes, I gave this a 10, which is deserves...if you can stand to sit through the first hour of it and wait for the castle storming sequence - which is so abysmally, horrendously horrible it is HYSTERICALLY FUNNY!!! At first, it was so bad I wanted to cut out my heart with a spoon, (because it would hurt more, you twit!), The harpies are about as scary as I am when I wake up in the morning (admittedly that can be pretty bad some days, but...) and the dialog is asinine. Balwin is ridiculous (big shock there), but I was eventually rewarded for my masochism about 45 minutes into the SCI-FI broadcast with the "Storming the Castle Sequence".

    This sequence is so funny it had me and my husband howling with laughter. My favorite is building the trebuchet overnight - out of plywood, which they make no effort to disguise - and then watching this plywood contraption BOUNCE upon launch. The music varies during this sequence from actually being good to being a ludicrous heart beat in the background.

    Then there's the bit where Baldwin's character hides the all-powerful amulet in his mouth...

    Turn this torture of a movie on half an hour after it begins airing; distract yourself for a few minutes, and keep an open mind - and watch for the really, REALLY bad humor. It's not fun/funny like "Army of Darkness," but more along the lines of a "post Joel and the Bots (Mystery Science Theatre 3000) do-over - if you can subject yourself to the first hour!!
  • I'd assumed "Stan Lee's Harpies" was an adapted license of some kind of obscure, non-Marvel comic property he created, like Chakra the Invincible or Striperella. That seemed amusing enough to watch on Youtube for free. But no, this actually has nothing to do with comics; Stan Lee just executed produced a couple of completely stand-alone Sci-Fi channel movies, of which this is one.

    So what this is, actually, is an Army of Darkness clone. I mean, it's not just similar, it's a complete and total rip-off, down to specific lines and camera shots. Stephen Baldwin is our sarcastic contemporary blue collar schlub who gets sucked through a portal back into the medieval ages, where he must lead a rag-tag group (one of the characters in the closing credits is simply billed as Fat Ugly Guy) against an evil kingdom replete with flying harpies and ruled by Scott Valentine.

    It's terrible, of course. The CGI sinks to Birdemic-tier non-effort and the budget is many levels beneath AoD. Picture any random episode of Hercules or Xena, but with more corners cut because they had to stretch it out to 90 minutes. However it's also self-aware (without being cloyingly self-aware) and genuinely entertaining. Sometimes the gags are funny, more often they're not, but it's thoroughly amusing either way. This was directed by Raimi cohort Josh Becker, so there's no coincidence or subtly to this being a made-for-TV Army of Darkness, and its shamelessness is big part of its charm.

    This movie is to Army of Darkness what Hell Of the Living Dead is to Dawn of the Dead. And anyone who appreciates Bruno Mattei films like that should get a kick out of this.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    It was very, very slow and cheesy and just not a very good movie. The harpies were not very realistic looking in the least bit and the acting was terrible. Basically the movie goes like this a jerk of a guy tries to take on bad guys alone and ends up in the past. He gives out a bunch of cheesy lines, helps the people beat the harpies travels back to the future with the help of a damsel brings harper and evil guy with him and kills them both and goes home with the girl. I had bigger hopes for a Stan Lee picture but was very, very disappointed. It was not entertaining in the least and I was happy to see the movie end. Unless very bored don't waste your time!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I give this a three simply because I am looking forward to seeing just how consistently poor this "Army of Darkness" wanna-be is going to become. Stephen Baldwin (whose acme really was Barney Rubble) plays a wash-out-cop-now-a-museum guard, who is transported back to 9C Moldavia, and battles harpies controlled by a parody of The Bad Guy. All that to thoroughly stilted script and spastic gesticulations. Ah yes, yet another SciFi Original Movie. Oh! While pecking out this Comment, this movie has remained consistent. So at least it has that going for it. Hmm.... now I have to write more to be acceptable. O.....K..... The trebuchet looks like the Stealth Rabbit King Arthur used to attack the French castle under the tutelage of Monty Python. Ah, good. I have now written enough to pass muster. All rather silly really when all that needed be said about this movie is that it really is marvelously poor. Regards all, Cas
  • It *is* always a bad omen when you find out something was produced by them. Have you ever wondered what Army of Darkness would have looked like without humor or fun, and if put together by no-talent hacks? I know, right, me neither, not for a second. Well, evidently, this is what would come out of such. I speak in hypothetical terms, since part of my coping with having watched this is telling myself that it doesn't really exist, that it was nothing more than a fever-induced nightmare(the movie itself as much as the idea of something like it actually having been made), as it is truly unbelievable. Baldwin, in a performance that simply must be the very low-point of his career(!), travels back in time without trying to, and finds medieval warriors willing to use their swords, that all hold the ability to harm without being seen penetrating flesh, provided Ash helps defeat the monsters that kill, mainly by virtue of hideous sounds and music(I'm afraid I cannot bring myself to think for a second that they meant it to be that awful) as well as being brought to life by effects so immensely poor that the beings don't need to tear out the eyes of the audience, as they will feel inclined to do so just from attempting to watch this. The acting is bad. The random accents... eugh. The dialog tries extremely hard at being clever, and fails utterly miserably. Any laughs this gets are unintentional ones. This underwent a massive surgery, to replace all possible original material with painful clichés, and the operation was a complete success. What's with the transitions? Did someone peer at a cut, and think that *that* was what was wrong? The editing in general ranges between average and below. At least one character is there purely to deliver exposition, and they didn't even try to cover it up. I don't know the extent of Stan Lee's involvement in this, however, as a big fan of several of his creations, I would say, even if you love his work, you can afford to stay far away from this one. I presume the sole reason Sam Raimi didn't sue the production is that he'd have to not only have seen it, but also admit to sitting through any of it. I recommend this only as fodder for MST3King, to anyone who enjoys doing so. 1/10
  • Warning: Spoilers
    If you loved Army of Darkness then without a doubt you will hate the hell out of Harpies. I promise.

    From start to finish harpies grabs at almost every theme from Army of Darkness except for undead. Now i know what you're saying, how can this be an Evil Dead knock off without, you know, Evil Dead Things. Well its a simple really. There's a brash womanizer that fools with an artifact in present time and falls through time to a some horrible middle age surreal vista that hurts my heart. Aside from the word "Tis" there is no attempt be authentic. Don't get me wrong I love crap but it throws me when they suddenly remember their acting and try poorly to remind me of it. They do think he's the chosen one, cause... um... well why not.

    Another snag from Amry of darkness is when Adam Baldwin suggests building a Trebuche. THat's probably spelled wrong but such is my disdain for all things French that i don't care. Also, i can't back up with any fact that that word is French. See, he says he seen it once on PBS and he must have paid such close attention that he had them build one, like on the spot. Sweet.

    Enough ragging on the fact that they didn't really so much have a movie plot as just time on their hands and some spare money. Let's get to the good stuff. Like how this movie called Harpies has relatively little screen time for said Harpies. I know the reason. I do. See when you have no Idea what the hell a Harpie is but you make a movie called Harpies the safest thing you can do is just ask Adam Baldwin to talk his way through a movie and stare at everything like he's stoned. That covers nicely the fact that you just put CGI bat wings on super models. Also, nerds love hot chicks with bat wings. I love hot chicks with bat wings.

    The noise the Harpies made.... oh...Oh... I'll let my buddy Pin Head Sum up the Harpy noise with a quote from his not crappy movie. "There is a secret song at the center of the world, Joey, and its sound is like razors through flesh"

    I didn't give this movie a one for several reason. 1, Coolio wasn't in it. 2, It appealed to my simple side, the side that loves girls with bat wings. 3, the notion of Alec Baldwin watching his brother's movie and laughing like a madman made me do the same. Also, the mixing up of a Succubus and a Harpy is pretty sweet. As a side not I also didn't give this movie a ten because Coolie wasn't in it.
  • lancerlover12325 June 2007
    1/10
    Sucky
    OK, I love Stephen Baldwin, I admire the man. But he could have picked a better movie to be in. The actors lose their accents about every five seconds, and those are the ones who pretend to have accents. The effects are almost as horrible as the dialogue, and the acting is just as bad. Baldwin tries to carry the movie, I do give him props for that, but even he can't do it. One minute Baldwin's character and the love interest don't get along, and the next they're all lovey-dovey. The acting is very wooden and rather annoying. Celestial isn't bad, but her and Baldwin are about the only two who make the movie enjoyable for about two minutes. The Harpies look like Halloween kids dressed up as dead people, a whole lot of makeup and frizzy hair. Baldwin's character isn't even officially divorced before he starts hitting on a woman about twenty years his younger. As a final note, don't see this movie. Its pretty much a waste of two hours.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I am 44 minutes into the 2 hour movie, so I don't think there will be any spoilers.

    I'm not sure if this piece of crap is the result of a bad script, bad directing, or overall bad-acting, but is most likely all three. Stephen Baldwin is a terrible actor if this performance is any indication. I have yet to see actor provide anything close to a post-high school performance.

    I'd say Stan Lee is a member of the Ed Wood Director's Club and has should be embarrassed to have his name attached to this movie as director, much less as part of the title. The special affects are worse than some I have seen in 1950's movies.

    This movie should be titled "Stan Lee's Failure as a Director" Stephen Baldwin should retire from acting, the rest of actors should lay low for a while before their next audition.
  • I tuned into this hoping to see the harpie running for vice-president. The screeching was there, but the harpies were really ugly - like lipstick on a pig.

    I knew I had seen this movie before in some other form. It just so happened that Army of Darkness was on cable right after it, so I tuned in. Well, what do you know, this was just a remake, and a not very good one at that.

    I know Bruce Campbell, and Stephen Baldwin, you are no Bruce Campbell. Leave it to Bruce to give us a really funny movie about being transported to the Middle Ages. Baldwin just seemed to go through the motion and pick up a check. There just wasn't anything there.

    Anyone looking for someone to walk around and look good in their movie could do a lot worse than Kristin Richardson. Of course. I would prefer a movie with Joely, Miranda, or Natasha Richardson in it, but I'll take Kristin in a pinch.

    This is a move that would have been greatly improved by the addition of a couple of rappers in it.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I get a kick out of watching the awful movies the Sci-Fi Channel releases during the weekend, and by golly, Stan Lee's Harpies is without a doubt, the worst film to be featured yet.

    There's many implausible actions the writer for this garbage wrote, such as the lame excuse of a threat Stephen Baldwin's character makes to a fellow security guard, or the great sketch of a trebuchet he later provides to a fellow warrior.

    The special-effects are laughable. From the usual bad CG used in other Sci-Fi movies, the harpies in this film are cringe-worthy in that you'll laugh till your sides hurt. There's scenes where the harpies were suppose to be added in later during post, but what we get are warriors hacking and slashing at invisible things in front of them or in the air. To get an idea of this trash's budget, there's a moment when an elderly soldier falls from his horse after a harpy dismounts him sending the soldier onto what should be a dirt path, but a quick cut shows a younger man with black hair falling onto a beautifully green field -- with no wig at all. There's also trick angles, where a spear hits a soldier to make it look like he's been impaled, only to see briefly that he is holding it under his arm and to his side. Other moments include: fake swords (the kind that push in when pressed upon a hard surface to give a seemingly real stab) and corny blue screen.

    The harpies are so ugly looking, one could wonder if anyone took this project seriously. From the big-tooth dentures, to the matted hair, these woman are funnier looking than scary.

    The music is terrible. While trying to have some sweep, it comes off as something an audience member would chuckle to. When one of the main warriors is slain in battle, the choral work is even more laughable.

    The dialogue is atrocious. From the villain explaining his mistakes and intentions to his dim-witted harpies, to the weak "jokes" Stephen Baldwin's character makes here and there.

    The acting is so bad, it's bewildering. Peter Jason has a dual role as the sorcerer and the professor (who somehow manages to grab some of the lamest mercenaries in movie history) and the lazy performances by Baldwin and some of the other warriors, who seem like they want to take a nap rather than express any emotion in their monotone deliveries.

    Overall, there is not one compliment one can give to this wretched "film". It's simply grotesque, and the only way this could even be considered good, is if this was a parody and it was done with the best of intentions of being this awful -- which considering from the moronic director Josh Becker, this was meant as a somewhat serious project, as he has a list of failing movies. Only watch this film for the laughs, it wasn't meant to be taken seriously I hope.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    They just can't seem to make good ones. As others have noted, this movie is a bad ripoff of Army of Darkness, without the charm and wit.

    Stephen Baldwin can't act. That's the first problem. Compound that with a silly plot, simply awful CGI, and several long dull stretches of filler, and you have a movie that is two hours of your life you won't get back.

    JoeB- Watching bad movies so you don't have to.
  • Bad acting and bad effects but I did find it funny and enjoyable. Yes it is a ripoff of Army of Darkness, but at no point in this movie did I feel they were trying to make it serious. It's cheese and they embrace it.