Add a Review

  • I LOVE these Sci-Fi Channel movies. But usually when I say they are "good", what I mean is that they were bad, but in an entertaining way. But this, this turned my whole world upside down. It was actually... almost... sort of... gosh, kind of good (and I don't mean 'bad' this time).

    Well first, let me get this out of the way - I think it is only fair to rate a movie independently of what it is about - if someone wants to make a movie about googly eyed pet rocks, you should then rate it based on how well they accomplished what they set out to do - not give it a 1 just because it's about googly eyed pet rocks. So in that light, realize that yes, this is about Spanish explorers meeting Aztecs who worship a dinosaur who has apparently survived for millions of years in their valley. But no, it doesn't deserve a bad rating just because of the ridiculous plot.

    So with that said, the movie easily deserves an 8 because of its pretty decent special effects, pretty decent acting, pretty decent story, and highly entertaining result. The key for the viewer is being able to get past the silly premise - if you can do that, I guarantee you will enjoy yourself.
  • This movie threw me at first in the way it's put together.

    First I thought it is a Mexican movie, then I find out that it's Sy-Fy original. I thought it was filmed in Mexico, then I find that it's filmed in Oahu Hawaii (The same ranch where they filmed the "Wind Talker"). I thought the girl was Maxican, and I find that she's Tibetian-Australian. One thing I was right was that the guy looked Hawaiian, and he was.

    The reason why I thought the movie was Mexican was that it was about the level of quality of average Mexican movie. It is kind of bad even for a Sy-Fy channel special. What I like about the film is that it's shot quite beautifully. And the actors are actually pretty good looking.

    So despite the low budget feel, it only reinforces the fact that these actors are actually worth looking at. The girl looked like Pocahauntus for real.

    Everyone says this movie is bad, but for a movie that's supposed to bad, it's sure getting lot of views. So somebody must be liking it.

    I thought it was a great idea to combine T-Rex with the Aztecs and the conquistadors.

    I was never bored while watching this movie, although it was shockingly low quality in production. I can't say that for many of the more higher quality production movies, so at least the script was acceptable in this movie.

    Considering that Japanese anime studios routinely outputs a high quality program at about this budget range, I'm not sure if 2.5M for this movie is justified, but it was an interesting movie to watch in many different ways.
  • It was 1 a.m. in the morning and I had nothing else to do. Don't judge me... please.

    We're back in time during the Spanish settlements. A group have made their way onto an island. It doesn't take too long before they encounter a large "reptile", which gobbles up their horse. Soon they're captured by the natives and in order to gain freedom they must kill the "reptile gods." THE CG sucks; it reminds me of the CG of early console video games. The encounters were lame. The only positive thing I have to say about this was the hottie native running around in a skimpy outfit. Otherwise it's just a middling effort.
  • I was prepared to hate AZTEC REX. Stupid title, stupid plot, completely unbelievable. Charitably called a B-movie, this is one of the many schlocky pictures released via the Sci-Fi Channel in America. Others have been absolutely god-awful, so why shouldn't this one be? From the beginning, things don't look good. The T-Rex is inevitably brought to life with some pretty diabolical CGI effects that make the BBC's WALKING WITH DINOSAURS look like an authentic nature documentary. The acting is wooden – there's no point trying to deny it. When the highlight is an ex-NEIGHBOURS actress wandering around in a bikini for the film's duration, you know you're in trouble. With a bunch of ex-TV actors and actresses attempting to convincingly portray Aztec warriors and Spanish Conquistadors, there's not really much hope, even from the start. The low budget and cheap look dooms this one from the outset.

    But – wait a second. This film has something that most B-grade flicks don't: it has a sense of humour. And hey, it's actually quite entertaining to watch, albeit in a so-bad-it's-good way. Sure, it's a cheesy combination of at least three movies: JURASSIC PARK, APOCALYPTO and KING KONG, but somehow, the combination works. Instead of making us wait an age for the monster to appear, as in the old monster flicks, this one introduces us to the T-Rex from the start as he chews a guy's leg off. That's something else: the surprisingly graphic blood 'n' guts effects. They come thick and plentiful, with actors losing limbs, intestines and spraying arterial blood across the screen. The thing about the gore is that it isn't repulsive as in something like HOSTEL. Instead, it's colourful and amusing and left me looking forward to the next poorly animated death.

    In the end, AZTEC REX is a success. I loved it, a lot more than many A-list Hollywood blockbusters. I was enthralled, I had a laugh, I had a really good time. And I can rest the success of this delightful movie on one man's shoulders alone: director Brian Trenchard-Smith. This man has been making B-movies for over thirty years and shows no signs of slowing down. He was responsible for TURKEY SHOOT, one of my all time favourite 'nasties', as well as the fun crime flick DAY OF THE ASSASSIN. Trenchard-Smith knows his genre inside out and I think he's a man who you can guarantee will give you a fun time. Leave your expectations at the door and give AZTEC REX a chance!
  • I'll bet none of you knew that the famous Conquistador Hernando Cortes made a preliminary scouting expedition to Mexico before taking on the Aztecs. Good thing he did because he would never have known about those T Rexs that inhabited one particular valley where the locals revered them as gods.

    That was understandable. What wasn't was the casting of blue eyed Ian Ziering as Cortes. Even with the blond hair made famous in Beverly Hills 90210 dyed black, Ian looked positively ridiculous. At least he made no attempt at a Spanish accent.

    The real hero of Tyrannosaurus Azteca is Marco Sanchez also late of a television series with a semi-recurring role in Walker Texas Ranger as Detective Sandoval of the Dallas PD. He finds true love with an Aztec princess and life would be just perfect if it wasn't for those pesky prehistoric beasts the natives worship.

    Tyrannosaurus Azteca looks like they used some outtakes from the famous Sid&Marty Krofft series the Land of the Lost. All that was needed was some Sleestak to appear.

    If you're interested in finding out about this reconnoitering expedition that didn't quite make the history books by all means check out Tyrannosaurus Azteca. Then try and sit through it with a straight face.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I have never seen one of these SciFi originals before, this was the first. I think it only fair to judge the acting, direction/production, set design and even the CGI effects on the other SciFi movies. To compare it to your typical Hollywood production is unfair. I will say, however, that overall Aztec Rex was not exactly reminiscent of Werner Herzog's masterpiece Aguirre, Wrath of God.

    I will begin by noting that, yes, I do recognize the fact that this movie has more to do with culture-clash than it does with dinosaurs. Despite this being a made-for-TV sci-fi movie, there is some underlying context to the story which I shall examine. The symbolic elements included are evident enough.

    Consequently, as a student of history, theology, mythology and film: I found the dialogue outrageous and the plot themes to be somewhat insulting. I am not asking for any mea culpas on behalf of the producers - as I said before the movie is what it is. But what concerns me is that much of the younger demographic for this movie probably rely on television to provide them their lessons when it comes to history and cultural diversity.

    The main problem manifests itself most visibly with the character Ayacoatl (not a commentary on Dichen Lachman's performance, but simply how her character was written, although, I'll say she has some work to do before she receives any Emmy nods). It is through her character that the Spanish Europeans actions are justified. Her function in the film as the love interest of Rios affirms that the European way is the right way, simply because they are European. There is really no other reason given. It's really just left to the assumption that the viewer is meant to associate themselves with the Europeans over the Aztec because their dress, language, ideology, etc is more familiar to them than the Aztec - so therefore the Aztec are portrayed as adversarial and 'backwards.' And it's not simply that the viewer is left with that assumption due to ethnocentric perception on the viewers part, but it really seems like the story is trying to convince the viewer - As if the Aztec were not capable of coming up with a plan - if not a better one - to lure a dinosaur to its death on a bed of punji sticks.

    In fairness, there is a subgroup of the Spanish who are portrayed as looting temples and intent on simply abusing the native MesoAmericans. There is also a scene where we have the Christian holy man noting the achievements of the Aztec: "They have agriculture, medicine, calendar, etc." - But in the end it is still the Aztec warrior who is portrayed as the main antagonist of the movie, even over the 'thunder lizards' (more on that later). He his portrayed as treacherous, duplicitous and attempts to dispatch the romantic European Spaniard by tricking him into consuming hallucinogenic mind altering mushrooms - an important spiritual component to certain aspects and religions of the native Meso & North Americans (again, more on this later) so that he can keep the female he feels belongs to him and away from the Spaniard.

    Now in analyzing the true nature of the story (leaving the obvious Christian vs. Pagan themes off of the table) from a symbolic standpoint - a viewer can easily take these so-called thunder lizards to be representatives of the MesoAmerican ideology/theology, which in this movie is portrayed as being one intent on: bloodthirstiness, mercilessness, cruelness, wicked, maybe even evil? In opposition, we have this group of Christian wanderers, led by a young Hernando Cortes who are portrayed as naive, yet overall noble, lambs caught up in the dark heathen world of the Aztec. Also, the name of the film is Aztec Rex, leading one to believe that it is about dinosaurs out to eat people. However, what Aztec Rex translates to is Aztec King, a the head of the Aztec state, or in this instance 'state-of-being.' (Hence, why the title of the film was changed). And so who in fact do we see as the new Aztec king at the end? It's the remaining Spaniard, Rios. Aztec Rex is in reference to the new European ideology which overcame, through disease, bloodshed, war & famine, Native Americans. Rios symbolizes the ideal European - as the presenters of this film would like them to be remembered (in opposition to Cortes who represents the 'practical-yet-still-noble European'). But when you examine the Holocausts of the Americas, let us be honest: don't the symbolic components of this film's story have it backwards?

    I have to say Aztec Rex is at worst a little racist, or to be kind about it, ignorant at best.

    And yes, I know it's just a movie, all meant to be in fun, I understand, but so at the end we're left with the idea that Rios was the father of the last remaining Aztec lines? I wonder what Native MesoAmericans would have to think about this ending... as for myself, I thought it was a little too self indulgent.

    Best supporting performance of the movie goes to Ian Ziering's wig - although conspicuous - it did at least alter Ziering's appearance enough so that I didn't think I was watching the yuppie from 90210 leading a bunch of conquistadors into the heart of darkness. Ziering actually proves himself to be a more-than-capable actor in this movie, I actually bought his performance, or at least I forgot it was Ian Ziering anyway. I don't know whom his agent is, but he should get more work.

    In closing, it was also a pleasure to see Jim McGee again. I've been a fan ever since his all too brief scene-stealing performance in 1988's Scrooged.

    Alexander Quaresma - DeusExMachina529@aol.com
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Take a SciFi Original Movie and mix in a little alternative/revisionist history, and you get "Aztec Rex." Apparently Hernand Cortes, before conquering the Aztec empire, had to first conquer a Tyrannosaurus Rex and her mate. That's the thrust of this movie. Given the plot it could have really sucked; the fact that it only kind of sucked is a tip of the cap to the writers. There are a few problems. For starters, Cortes is played by Ian Ziering. Even with a black wig, Ziering as Cortes is about as convincing as Axl Rose playing Gandhi. And though Cortes conquers the indigenous peoples of Mexico, the Aztecs here seem to be played by an all-Hawaiian ensemble. Casting aside, the T-Rex(es) look reasonably good, though every time one of them gets shot it just oozed CGI. And they die too easily; I suppose if a T-Rex were around in real life they probably could be felled or at least wounded by some rather rudimentary, 16th-century weaponry. But it takes something away from the movie. There are also some graphic T-Rex-swallowing-human scenes, which is surprising, but in this context I thought they worked OK. There's plenty of action, and the whole colonization angle is prevalent throughout but doesn't overwhelm the dinosaur angle, unlike the other recent SciFi Original dinosaur movie "Warbirds." Overall, a mediocre (but decent by SciFi Original standards) movie that rates a modest 4.
  • With nothing better to do I decided to check out "Aztec Rex" (as it was being billed) for the hell of it.

    The silly story might have played better if the dinosaur effects were convincing. They actually looked like animatics (those rough designs that artists later use to finish the CGI effects, adding more details, smoother movements, etc.) Absolutely awful-looking dinosaurs, which is the only reason you'd probably want to sit through this anyway.

    The one redeeming factor was the lovely Dichen Lachman as Ayacoatl. She kept my interest; if only the budget had been ramped up and some convincing dinosaurs could have been used.

    Disappointing. At least the cast and crew got a free trip to Hawaii, where the movie was filmed.
  • leader-1612 May 2008
    I saw the premier of this movie and i must say that it was very good, but some parts were very misleading The main part was i thought that Cortes was going to be the main character, not Rios Acting was good, i loved the tropical sense that the movie brought, i enjoyed it I could'nt wait to see the movie, I'm not disappointed, but the main character thing was stupid, that is the only flaw in the movie in my mind.

    The scene taht really bugged me was when the soldier was sleeping and the rex ate his leg, no would'nt you feel some pain if a big rex took a bite out of your leg?

    I give this movie a 8 out of 10
  • Warning: Spoilers
    All day now I've been watching dinosaurs, and all day they've had the same fundamental problem.

    They don't believe in firearms. They just don't seem to have been _told_ about them or something. Bullets _bounce_ off of dinosaurs! Maybe it's because they became extinct millions of years before the invention of gunpowder, and the laws of physics were just different back then... Aah, no. Come on. If they're close enough to chemically operate today, they'd have to be vulnerable to fast (even subsonic) lead projectiles. It's that simple.

    Look, the toughest-skinned reptiles on the planet today, alligators and crocodiles, are completely vulnerable to basic rifle fire. They're nothing magic. You can shoot a pistol round right through the heavy scales on their backs. They don't take armor-piercing bullets or anything special. Small bullets penetrate them, they just don't kill them. Somewhat (but not REALLY) large bullets are preferred because the challenge (as with most game) is to kill the animal with one shot, so it doesn't run. (Hunters consider it immoral to allow prey to run off and die unharvested.)

    Most animals, including predators, are easily repelled by gunfire. Between the noise, and the pain of even a non-lethal wound, most will run away. An exception are big bears, which are so fearless that they're merely enraged by mortal wounds. Cape buffalo are regarded as highly dangerous because they are well known to charge when wounded. We've seen video of the big bulls of a herd of cape buffalo rescuing a calf from an entire pride of lions. A big cat will run if it can, but if it can't it will charge as a final act of desperation. Where a T.Rex would fit in this spectrum is unknown. Their behavior simply has not been observed. With these larger animals, safe hunting becomes a matter of applying an appropriately large and powerful projectile, and/or applying several of them rapidly enough to counter its charge. With a T.Rex, of course, this could be a serious problem. I've seen a T.Rex skull (they have one in the museum downtown) and carrying a gun big enough to bust that might be impractical. Chewing its neck off with lots of smaller fire might be a more viable approach. Small bullets would still _penetrate_ them, they wouldn't just bounce off just because the animal is too big to easily kill!

    So here we have Cortez and his men (this is _before_ the famous Mexican campaign, apparently) captured by American natives and scheduled for sacrifice on the pyramid. It appears that all those human sacrifices were about appeasing the bloodthirst of the pair of T.Rexes that terrorized the continent in the day. Rather than just having their hearts cut out and being fed to the lizards, Cortez et al talk the Aztecs into letting them hunt & kill them. OK, maybe they don't have M-16s like the guys in the "Carnosaur" series, but they _do_ have flintlocks, crossbows, pointed sticks (big ones, made from trees) and swords. Maybe that's a little less uneven than squads of soldiers with full auto, but they've several guys and I'd quickly bet on them over a dinosaur. Oh, wait, there's a _cannon_, about a 4-incher. That's just the ticket for busting a Tyrannosaurus' skull! So they lay a trap, with a squad of men, cannon, pointed sticks in a ravine, and lure the first T.Rex into it, using a pretty brown girl as bait. Cortez points out that they'll NOT have time to reload, so they'll have to close the range until they can be certain of their aim. T.Rex totally ignores their volley of flintlock fire, and we see both a crossbow bolt _and_ the cannon ball _bounce_ off! Forget it. End of credibility. A crossbow bolt would defeat Cortez' torso armor, and a 4" cannon ball might penetrate the hull of a wooden ship! This would also _certainly_ get through the hide, ribcage, or skull of any animal ever to walk this planet. (Do you think a _whale_ could withstand a 4" cannon ball?) And here's T.Rex, still standing, not even bleeding. So Cortez lures it to the ravine, where it falls onto the pointed sticks, which (I guess by magic) penetrate it and kill it. Yaaay, pointed sticks!

    The dinos aren't completely invulnerable to gunfire - they manage to put out an eye of the second one with a pistol. This runs it off, so it's NOT as mean as a bear or a buffalo, at least in the movies.

    They kill the second dinosaur with a bomb - made from a gourd filled with gunpowder and gemstones. My money would still be on the cannon. It's engineered function is to concentrate all the gunpowder's energy in one direction - toward the target. A bomb is a much more diffused application of force. A _real_ bomb (NOT a gourd bomb) has a steel casing which contains the explosion to extremely high pressure. (Think: pipe bomb vs firecracker.) A pile of gunpowder set on fire will simply go POOF. (Trust me on that one.)
  • I was intrigued by the concept and did think that Tyranosaurus Azteca had a lot of good ideas going for it. The camera work and scenery are quite nice, the acting from Dichen Lachman is decent and there are some acceptable enough gore effects. So what spoilt Tyranosaurus Azteca? The dinosaur effects for one, I've seen worse with Warbirds and the (insert name) vs (insert name) movies, but on the whole they do look cheap and sometimes off-scale. In terms of how they are used, they are nowhere near tough enough, little is done to make them at least interesting with little attempt to explain their origins, and they die all too easily. Despite the gore, the death scenes are lame, with no real suspense or sense of terror, not to mention hilariously-over-the-top in some. The story is rather unsurprising with too much of a silly tone and never really that exciting(though I can definitely think of much duller SyFy movies), the characters are on the clichéd side of things with little done to make us identify with them, the Shamon character ends up annoying rather than antagonistic and the rest of the acting with Lichman aside is either bland(Marco Sanchez or too broad(Ian Zierling). All in all, not terrible but I didn't find much to be enthused about. 4/10 Bethany Cox
  • To be fair they did as well as they could with a budget of five shillings and sixpence, but the dialogue was more cheesy than 9lbs of emmental and the CGI was a little old hat now. maybe if some of the actors were not so perfectly chiselled out of granite it would have made the film a little better too.. To say this was awful is to do this film a mis-service, if you want to see something that is totally execrable, you gotta sit and waste a couple of hours of your life watching 'sickle', that is soo mind numbingly awful, its actually good,(several large alcoholic beverages are deriguer though. Any road up, I enjoyed this film and its gotta be worth a look if you have not seen it yet, just don't expect anything along the lines of 'jurassic park,the lost world' or 'apocalypto'.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    So Cortes and a small band of Spaniards plan to steal from a tribe of half a dozen Hawaiian Aztecs who have a bad CGI T Rex and a megalomaniac shaman on hand to generate some random slaughter. There are some love triangle shenanigans going on involving the psycho shaman, one of the Spaniards, and a very freckly Hawaiian Aztec princess, the latter two of whom indulge in a swift knee-trembler at the most inopportune moment.

    That deals with the plot.

    I do not understand how a tribe so small (half the members of which have been killed by the end of the film) manages to survive.

    The scenery is lush and gorgeous.

    The CGI would have been better if even a slight attempt had been made to integrate the T Rex with the background. The blood round the T Rex's mouth alternates between red and greeny-brown.

    The cast are all thoroughly committed, although the shaman chews the scenery somewhat - he might as well have a sign reading "VILLAIN" hanging round his neck.

    The slaughter - of which there is plenty - is hilariously over the top.

    In short, this film is everything you might expect a movie called Tyrannosaurus Azteca (aka Aztec Rex) to be.
  • Arriving in Mexico in 1521, a group of Spanish conquistadors are captured by the Aztec natives and offered their freedom in exchange to kill a giant dinosaur plaguing their community and try to hunt it down in order to finally leave.

    This was a rather fun and enjoyable creature feature. Among the better factors here is the fact that it plays with history, since there's an actual amount of history attempted here. It plays enough with it to feel true to what happened while also incorporating enough of actual history, namely the inclusion of Cortez, the Spaniard conquest of Aztec-led Mexico and much more here that come from actual history give it enough to be rather new and unique. The inclusion of the dinosaur in that story is great, as it allows for a readily available amount of suspense into an action film, and the fact that it remains a part of the story for a while is what really helps this since the beginning is about the exploration of the culture, then about the dinosaur for the rest of the film with limited interruptions. That also means that the creature is perceived as a threat, and really plays up to that nicely, with many encounters with the creature to generate action and excitement. The first encounter in the jungle, the battle with it deep in the ravine and the assault in the surf on the beach are really great and full of action coupled with some fantastic encounters to further the human storyline and this one gets interesting all the time. This continuous amount of action also comes with what is the last plus here as all the encounters between the two stories leads to some great kills, and the blood and gore in here doesn't disappoint, as this one here has some really nice points to it while there wasn't a whole lot of flaws. The biggest issue here is the same one that is customary in these films, the CGI on display is just atrocious and never once looks anything close to realistic. Besides it looking incredibly phony, there are also times where it's out-of-scale to the environment and there's a sense that it is never there interacting amongst the group. The scenes of it stalking the soldiers through the jungle are fine, but by making the several scenes of it really out-of-scale, there's no way around how fake it was. That also applies to the gore, which is never realistic either and is plainly obvious as well. The other flaw in this is that there's nothing on the dinosaur's origins. It's mentioned that there was a family that had died out, leaving the ones here as the last survivors, but nothing is mentioned about how they stayed alive to begin with. Even a hokey legend about them would've worked here, which would've been fine over what's given here as nothing is definitely not appreciated. Otherwise, these here are the film's flaws.

    Rated R: Graphic Violence, Language and Brief Nudity.
  • this movie is an entertaining movie the gore is good and and the CGI is okay the plot is weird. the acting is okay but some of the characters are dumb they use cross bows against a dinosaur. the Spanish the Aztec's speak is somewhat fake. this is the only TV movie have given a high rating to. this movie is like some sci-fi movies like frankenfish, abominable and living hell. entertaining interesting CGI and good gore.so there is one problem with the movie it reminds me of a Jurassic park rip off. so that is my rating and review for aztch rex a good movie with a good amount of gore and some good acting. enjoy this review.
  • A very clever movie, using the old style movie plot, that the writer and director team very subtly, and very craftily, made their point.

    The movie is an old style Science Fiction adventure. Cortez leads six men on an expedition into the Aztec world. Cortez is a good choice, because he is known as one of the less ruthless, but still successful conquistadors. He certainly had more civility than Pizarro.

    Along the way, they meet a tribe, and two T Rexes. They are out for conquest, so they decide they will conquer the tribe instead of the T Rexes.

    But the tribe gets the better of them, and a priest intervenes on their behalf. It isn't unusual for a Spaniard to be stranded or shipwrecked near a coastal community, and such was the case for this priest, who was deemed interesting enough by the tribe to take in, and he taught them the language of Cortez.

    The characters are very real and identifiable. You genuinely care about them. It is well written and directed. The T Rexes lumber, as some scientists still believe. It is only recently that some scientists claim that rexes were speedy, but these are scientists just trying to get their names into print. Good Science dictates that it takes an incredible amount of energy to give speed to that weight. It's like trying to motor a two ton truck as opposed to a motorcycle. The lumbering T Rex still makes more sense.

    The characters are well done. Cortez is much like the leader of the treasure seekers in "The Jungle Book", the one with Sabu in it. He is a decent man, who cares about other people, and has humanity, but still wants the treasure. The priest is a very three dimensional character. The romantic two leads are also believable, especially for the times, since they have never seen movies, and don't know what a modern character is supposed to be like. They behave much as you would find credible for the times.

    But the chief point of the movie is that it attacks all other horror and Science Fiction movies in a very subtle way. It comes with the idea in the title I gave this, and I wouldn't want to spoil it. Nearly all horror and Science Fiction movies made in the last forty years indicate that some characters are "divinely" above any physical weakness, and that if you're evil enough, you cannot become weak. This movie cleverly attacks that notion.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Quite liked this film apart from the CGI dinosaurs which were laughable but the scenic photography was good to look at and the acting was commendable, particularly Marco Sanchez as the sensible Rios, Dichen Lachman as the lovely love interest Ayacoatl and Kalani Queypo as the duplicitous Xocozin. The idea of 16th century Spanish conquistadors fighting a tyrannosaurus rex does sound rather odd but at least it's different. My belief was definitely suspended.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I don't know if this is one of the SyFy Channel original movies, but that's exactly what it feels like. A cheap, low budget action movie that was probably made very quickly, it contains laughable effects, lame dialog, and one vaguely faded star to give some name brand recognition to it (funny how many of the kids from 90210 are doing cheap TV movies now).

    Ian Ziering plays Cortes, who we know from history as the explorer who wiped out entire populations of native people while conquering parts of North America. Here, he is not played as a hero or even sympathetic, but as a slimy opportunist; his character would probably be killed off if this weren't loosely based on a historical figure. In this story, Cortes is on a brief surveying mission, trying to find something of value to prove he deserves financing to further explore America. He and his men find a small tribe of Aztecs plagued by dinosaurs.

    The actual hero of the story turns out to be Lt. Rios, who proves to be honorable, resourceful, and wise. He knows the right thing to do in every situation, which puts him at opposition with Cortes, as well as with the young, ambitious Aztec shaman. Of course, the native girl who is supposed to marry the headstrong, scheming shaman falls for Rios, furthering his anger towards the Spanish outsiders. So it's all pretty cliché. The dinosaurs are dispatched with relative ease. Despite taking place in an area that seems wide open, the story pretty much takes place in either the woods, or the Aztec village for 95% of the time, so it isn't visually exciting either.

    I didn't even recognize Ian Ziering. They gave him a ridiculous wig and an unconvincing accent, and somehow he disappeared into it. He doesn't look or sound Spanish for a second, however, making the casting choice wrong in every way. If this movie had been released theatrically, he would have been singled out for a Razzie, no question.

    Overall, forgettable.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This movie was filmed in Hawaii and Hawaii beautiful as it is not exactly reminiscent of Mexico and Central America. The costumery of the Spanish conquistadors and male Aztecs is quite authentic but the female costumes are sorry to say not ethnically or historically correct. This movie aside from Caucasian actors being cast as Spaniards which is correct has with the exception of two main characters who are actors of Native American descent has Hawaiian actors cast as Aztecs. Hawaiians are descendants of Polynesians who came in ancient times from Malaysia and who within the past two and half centuries have mixed with several races and ethnic groups. Only a handful exist of pure Hawaiians. As for the Aztecs an Amerindian people possibly with Semitic or Pre-Spaniard European,Negro and Asian strains believed to have come from North America and settled in Central America namely Mexico during the 12th century A.D. The facts are the ancestors of the Polynesians and Mexican Tribes were not ethnically related and did not physically resembled each other and were far removed from each culturally and their multiracial descendants have little in common culturally,physically and ethnically today. If one is going to do a movie about any Native American tribe please use a cast of Native American descent. Mel Gibson in his film Apocalypto cast Native Americans and Hispanics the biracial modern day descendants of Spanish and Central American Aboriginal tribes. Ian Ziering did a pretty good job as Hernan Cortes I wouldn't have known it was him if I hadn't read the cast. The lead actress does a good job but one has to face it she looks nothing like an Aztec woman she's too tall and her facial features look more Polynesian or Asian. I wish they wouldn't have put dinosaurs in this movie I think than the writer of this movie was inspired by two dinosaurs films of the 1960s Valley of the Gwangi and Dinosaurus and any film having to do with the Aztecs. I did like the finale when Cortes top man falls in love and marries the Aztec princess and decides to stay with her and raise a family in an unknown valley of Mexico. Actually this story has a little factual basis.The myth no hidden valley in Mexico the Spanish Explorers didn't miss a trick.

    The fact being that a captured Spaniard made slave in the Yucatan years before Cortes arrived decided to stay with his Native wife and family. He was tattooed like the natives and thought it was best to stay with them as he would never be accepted again by his Spanish countrymen. When Hernan Cortes came to Mexico this man refused to help him as an interpretor but his friend a captured fellow Spaniard and later a beautiful tribeswoman woman known as Malinche renamed in Spanish as Marina became his second interpretor.The story is recorded by Bernal Diaz writer and comrade of Hernan Cortes in his magnificent book the Conquest of New Spain. A must read for anyone interested in Aztec History from a Spanish perspective. The movie will be acceptable to anyone who likes adventure,dinosaurs,Spanish explorers/Conquistadors and ancient cultures.
  • Obviously any film about Conquistadors battling theropods shouldn't be taken seriously, and sure enough the resulting movie is mindless entertainment, although still far from "so bad it's good".

    The film has some level of charm; tyrannosaurs that always walk after prey instead of running (despite a character even stating he saw such acts)becomes... I don't know how to explain it but sometimes these things provide affection for this movie instead of making me think "wow, that's just terrible". Everything just clicks.

    There are a couple of bad points however, the Shaman character, while intentionally antagonistic, becomes annoying to watch pretty quickly and tyrannosaurs in the film aren't quite as tough as I would've hoped for.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Tyrannosaurus Azteca is set during the sixteenth century where famous Spanish explorer Hernando Cortes (Ian Ziering) has landed in Mexico with six of his best men including Lieutenant Rios (Marco Sanchez), they intend to claim the land in the name of the Spanish & maybe steal some gold too if the opportunity arises. Within minutes they have their first sight of local Aztec savages, within minutes after that Cortes & his men are captured & held prisoner. If that wasn't bad enough it turns out that a couple of Tyrannosaurus Rex live there & like to eat the locals, in an effort to win their lives the Spanish offer to help the locals get rid of their monster problem but with various hidden agendas & ulterior motives it's not just the dinosaurs they have to watch out for...

    Directed by Brian Trenchard-Smith (who, coincidently, made one of my all time favourite exploitations films Turkey Shoot (1982) which I throughly recommend to one & all) & also more commonly known under the spoof sounding title of Aztec Rex (the title was changed by the Sci-Fi Channel when they aired it maybe as the original title Tyrannosaurus Azteca sounds like it might be a foreign film) this is yet another idiotic & cheap looking Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' & that's all you need to know really. Based on & around the real Spanish Conquistador Cortes during his expedition to Mexico the film definitely doesn't strive for historic accuracy although I will admit that the story tries to do something slightly different here but ultimately Tyrannosaurus Azteca is still just a 'Creature Feature' with a bunch of people running from some poor CGI computer graphic of a monster despite it's period setting. Not too sure what else I can say, despite being set centuries ago the usual clichés are here, the character's are the usual cardboard cutouts, make stupid decisions & the selfish one, the heroic one, the backstabbing one, the faceless victim who exists just to get eaten & the pretty woman are all here & easy to spot. The film is predictable, silly, dull & doesn't really entertain on any level although it does move along at a decent pace & there's one or two half decent moments of gore if that sort of thing interests you. The story isn't that good & has plenty of holes too, this is also the sort of film that you will have completely forgotten about within a few days.

    Now I have seen & commented on plenty of Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Features' & usually the CGI computer effects are terrible & while Tyrannosaurus Azteca doesn't exactly buck the trend I will admit there are a few effects shots which look alright but then they are usually ruined by an absolutely awful effects shot straight afterwards. There's a few decent gore effects here too, there's a cut out heart, a guy's leg is bitten off, there's some blood splatter, a cool shot of a guy left holding his own intestines after he has been attacked by the dinosaur, there's a few dead bodies seen & someone is stabbed with a spear. The T-Rex gets to eat a couple of people too. The production values are really cheap, the Aztec set looks like one of those theme park attractions made from Styrofoam & those Spanish men must have been imprisoned in the worst enclosure in cinematic history with the fence supposedly keeping them in lower than a mans waist, they could have simply stepped out of it & run away it was so low.

    With a supposed budget of about $900,000 I can't see where the money went, shot in O'ahu in Hawaii in apparently fifteen days. The acting isn't great from no-one I have ever heard of.

    Tyrannosaurus Azteca really isn't any better than any other cheap Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' despite an almost interesting & unusual premise, that basic statement should basically be enough for you to decide whether you will enjoy this or not (at a guess probably not).