Someone forgot to write a script for this movie. It really doesn't appear to have a script. It looks more like a bunch of people getting together and just filming scenes as they go along, much like the old TV fantasy series like Xena. Lots of conflict and some action, but no clear content. Suffice to say, there is a quest for ancient artifacts, and the ancient idol, Ba'al is involved. We even see Ba'al as malformed clouds during the movie. Not a bad visual. But to call it confusing is to be generous. This movie has nothing really going for it, other than a few characters who are reasonably likable. We also have a very trite villain, however. Not sure what the audience for this would be. Perhaps 12 year olds, but even they would want some sort of story. There just isn't a story here.
Add a Review
-
drystyx13 September 2008
-
Occasionally we select a film from the rental shelves because we were intrigued with the jacket cover. In school we often study and learn of ancient Gods from around the world. The title of this movie is " Ba'al " so I was intrigued. From it's inception, the story begins to fracture like a thin layer of ice. Beginning with a trip to the Alaska wilderness, we meet Carol (Stefanie Von Pfetten) and her companion, Dr. Lee Helm (Jeremy London) who have come to visit an eminent archaeologist, Dr. Owen Standford (Scott Hylands) who has discovered one of four ancient amulets. Although the find is dangerous, the mad doctor becomes obsessed with their combined power as it will activate the wrath and power of the ancient Sumarian god. The film then has our heroes gallivanting around the globe, chased by an assortment of characters like the F.B.I., Commander Kittrick (Michael Kopsa) of the Canadian government and the director of the museum. One need not see the entire movie to notice all the inaccuracies within the film. Granted the mistakes are obvious, the movie does get a couple points, like the impressive special effects and the near resemblance of the hero to Brandon Frasier. The conclusion is, although it's a badly constructed movie, it's entertaining enough to warrant a look-see. **
-
TheLittleSongbird6 July 2011I wasn't expecting much from Ba'al:The Storm God, and I didn't get much. That said, compared to a lot of other SyFy projects, it's not that bad, the visual of Ba'al is a reasonable and somewhat interesting one, the photography and effects are far less crude than you would expect, the characters excepting the villain are reasonable and the sound is decent. However, the villain is rather trite and uninteresting, and the story is dull and predictable complete with some wooden acting, really clunky writing and uneven direction. In conclusion, it's not good, but it could have been worse too. 4/10 Bethany Cox
-
kiawa7720 September 2008This movie can be summed up by one word: "blah". It wasn't good, and it wasn't really bad. It just *wasn't*. I was hoping for another laughable Sci-Fi Original; some terrible script, some sad predictable plot, some poorly delivered lines, some poor acting.... but there's none of this. It's just "blah" all around.
In this film, you won't find much of a story. There really isn't a plot, just some very vague good-vs-evil. There's a lot of running around, and the whole movie is one big exercise in boredom. It doesn't even have the humor of a so-bad-it's-good flick.
So don't bother. Just go rent Carnosaur instead ;) -
friedman-814 September 2008This is a ridiculously funny TV movie, though I doubt the producers planned it that way. The dialogue is stilted, the acting is wooden and the plot is completely nonsensical. However, it's really good for a laugh. Canadians will get a kick out of watching for the ridiculous Canadian goofs. (Like much on SciFi, this picture was produced in Canada -- Vancouver, natch.) Listen for the secondary characters with their Brampton accents... the Canada Post mailbox in the background... and my favourite, the US Navy Lieutenant with bars on his collar and corporal's stripes on his sleeve (reminds me of the MASH episode where Radar gets a "field promotion" to a Captain-Corporal). To make things even better, the rank chevrons point downward, a-la Commonwealth usage. Hell... you'd think someone in the crew would have noticed this?
-
Sonofamoviegeek28 January 2011This must be the only movie with serious pretensions that exceeds in cheesiness Steve Martin's production in the movie "Bowfinger". To be fair, the people who made Ba'al may have had a smaller budget than Steve Martin's character had. Let's face it, the Black Sea doesn't really resemble an inlet on the West Coast of Canada. After all, it's a SEA, people. Sebastopol isn't ever visible from Turkey, not even on a clear day. Plus BC Parks information boards don't mark archaeological sites on the Turkish Black Sea. Plus, the construction crew look as if they're right out of a bar in Prince George, BC rather than Turks. Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls are kept in Jerusalem. They're so important to the Jewish people that Israel doesn't let them out of the country, not even on tour. They have squat to do with Sumeria and the Hebrew alphabet was invented a millennium later. The Sumerians wrote on clay in cuneiform. Finally, the Dead Sea Scrolls are not written on stiff hand-tooled cowhide. They're written in ink on fragile sheepskin parchment that sometimes took a year to unroll. See them for yourself at the Shrine of the Book.
I can forgive a low budget if the actors and screen writers turn in a decent effort. Nobody shows up for work in this turkey. The actors don't even try to make the stilted dialogue work. Lexa Doig turns in a particularly shameful performance, substituting a deer-in-the-headlights expression for emotion. The script writing appears to be the result of a committee. (OK on the rogue geologist versus the military, Mort but we also need a dying Indiana Jones plus we'll have four McGuffins, not one.) I could go on but you get the idea. See this only if you want to add more goofs to the list. -
michelebriere4413 February 2013The film talks about Sumerian priests (who died out long before the movie places them) leaving markers in the arctic which refer to offerings to the god Ba'al. Ba'al wasn't Sumerian, he was Ugaritic and Canaanite. Completely different pantheon, completely different region of the middle east. Also, the word Ba'al means lord or master, which could refer to any number of gods, since the word is no more than an honorific. And he wasn't a storm god, Hadad was.
Bad writing, bad direction, bad action, bad everything. If the sci-fi channel is going to offer low-budget movies for our entertainment, they need to at least get a production crew that knows how to do research. -
nogodnomasters11 April 2019Now I don't mind movies taking liberties with archaeology and historical facts, as long as they are not stupid with it. This one was stupid. It somehow confounded the Dead Sea Scrolls (Hebrew about 2,000 year ago) with Sumerian (4,000 years ago) or 12,000 years ago according to some stones in the movie. The two do not mix. They could have used some actual Sumerian/Akkadian tablets, but no one would have heard of them, hence the Dead Sea Scrolls. An old archaeologist is attempting to find and dig up 4 hidden Sumerian amulets buried around the world. These amulets were supposed to be well hidden so no one would find them and dig them up, except for maybe the one that had four markers by it! One was placed in a nuclear test site because as a test site it has a lack of air. I didn't quite grasp that one, nor did I even try to figure out how the ancient Sumerians would know this would be a nuclear test site. Now after these amulets are dug up, a beam of light (1980's special effects) shoots out up to the sky and causes destruction. Why this old archaeologist and his team is doing this is uncertain, the old man believes it may cure his cancer, but the reasoning behind the madness is uncertain. The movie has a subplot at a highly guarded military weather center, which really doesn't play much of a role, other than eat up some time and fill in some plot points. The lead actor, Jeremy London, runs around acting and looking like Brenden Fraser's clone. His inability to act is seen after the first light beam shines up to the sky and he says "Oh my God" with a severe lack of emotion. The movie looks like it was made for TV. It has no bad language, sexual scenes or innuendos, or nudity. Not even a naked statue of Ishtar. Oh yes, it also invokes those fake Bible Codes.
-
Film_monger5 April 2011Yes, the film was a valiant attempt at making a movie. The 'Leutenant' at the beginning was wearing COrporal stripes AND LT. bars, AND NO epaulets. The aircraft were erroniously identified, the list goes on and on. Was this a good film? no. Would a bigger budget have fixed it? doubtful. Would different actors fix it? no. Would different directing or FX fixed it? Doubtful. Would it have been a good film if made in the US? no.
What is NOT noticed by one other reviewer (JoeB131) is that low budget films are made all the time. This is common. there are probably 10-20 made of this calibre for every blockbuster. Suck it up man.
Calling every film made in Canada cheesy is a national insult. There have been MANY blockbuster big budget films done in Canada, and many top TV series are filmed in Canada. The difference in the dollar offers producers a chance to make a lot more for the same budget.
Yes there was weak acting here, and there was some good work too. The specific work of Lexa Doig was certainly professional.
Don't let an obvious 'hater' make you think nonsense. OK, the film was low budget, it was weak, but some comments were a blatant slam and unwarranted. -
Okay, you have all the factors for a Skiffy Channel movie here. Made in Canada, military guys in the wrong uniforms, bad CGI, an ex-star from another Sci-Fi series no one watches anymore.
The plot is that a terminally ill scientist steals the Dead Sea Scrolls to discover the location of the amulets of Ba'al, the Storm God of ancient Sumeria. (Except the Dead Sea Scrolls were written by Hebrews who didn't believe in Ba'al, but never mind. He decides to dig up all four amulets and unleash Ba'al because his HMO wouldn't cover Lartril. Or something!
Anyway, in another movie, Lexa Doig of Andromeda Fame, who still can't act, tries to alert the military that a really big storm is coming...So they do a lot of filler scenes in a room with big screen TV's and cheap computer graphics....
it's dumb, it's silly and it's lame. It's the Sci-Fi channel. Did you expect GOOD science fiction? -
Rabh175 June 2009This was looked like a cheap, "Dig-up-old-things-and-people-die" boilerplate Mad-Scientist flick.
But wait. . .
Old Archaeologist (Mad) starts digging up buried amulets-- except he's not after them for Archaeologist fame. By the time the other scientists realize he's (Mad) and up to no good, the God of Storms is already wrecking havoc and creating superstorms.
Meanwhile, a Gov't Weather Watch bureau is tracking the unexplained storm growths and trying to dispel them without sparking an international War. The meteorological hand-wavium isn't overwhelming but adds enough of a scientific pseudo-explanation of a supernatural event to give a facile ring of believability to the story.
The God Ba'al itself is pretty cool. It's done well as a nice FX. And it's plausible: Ba'al is supposed to be a God-- not a creature. And on the ground, the viewer is taken along on a nicely timed build-up of tension as the Mad Archaeologist keeps skipping ahead of everyone to get the next amulet.
This movie is a well-turned gem of a lite Friday Night pop-corn thriller that doesn't fall into the rut of cheap ridiculousness.
So within its merits, this Made-For-Cable "B" movie is darn good!
Now having said that. . .this Movie doesn't win any awards; this Movie isn't a pack-tha-house blockbuster; this Movie isn't tour-de-force Cinema. People-- it's JUST LITE ENTERTAINMENT!! Don't try to be a New York Times Critic! Just Watch it! I call this one a Friday Night flick for a reason-- Powerhouse flicks are for Saturdays in my book. And for you Military Buffs out there-- remember that most of us civvies don't know a Lieutenant from a Corporal. If Military Rank Inaccuracies bother you that much-- don't watch this one.
Oh. . .and this movie is Kid-friendly and Girlfriend Neutral. -
aliway23 July 2010I went into this film expecting a terrible piece of film that should not ever see the light of day. It's probably because of this I actually started to enjoy it.
Don't get me wrong, the special effects are as good as other bad films such as 'Boa vs Python' and 'Megashark vs Giant Octopus', some iffy acting here and there, and a bizarre plot, but somehow I started to get into it.
Lexia Doig, however, despite being a good actress, always seems to make me develop a hatred for whatever character she plays. Elias Toufexis I really like and, unfortunately I can't remember who plays the FBI guy who tries to arrest Helm (played by Jeremy London), but he was the best in my opinion.
There are some other downsides, such as Doig somehow hearing a beep in her van whilst inside the house, and travelling seems to take 5 minutes. Oh, and I missed the meeting when blood was classed as water.
But strangely enough, despite this being a bad film, I can't stress this enough, I actually enjoyed the film. For once I will not say "ignore this", give it a chance. It's most likely a hit and miss, but it's worth a shot. -
unbrokenmetal12 August 2011Dr Stanford is looking for 4 artifacts which will revive the ancient god Ba'al, for without any reason why, he thinks Ba'al will heal him from cancer. Of course, the Stormgod creates a storm instead, for that's his usual line of work, not medical treatment. Lexa Doig from Stargate suggests to nuke Ba'al, because that's cool for any disaster movie, but her, uh... "scientific" approach is opposed to the mythological approach of Archaeologists who invoke another Sumerian god instead to fight the Big Cloudface. I'm still looking for reasons why any of this should work. And I really wonder why some people are proud to discover tiny little goofs like uniform stripes in a movie for which the "Bosporus" scenes are obviously filmed on a cold and rainy day in Canada, without the slightest resemblance to Turkey. Filming an Egyptian pyramid scene in my backyard would be easier, because there's at least a brick wall.
After Yeti, Stonehenge, Loch Ness and Snakehead, I think this is the 5th movie from this director I watched within a year - and it might be the best, closely followed by the hilarious "Stonehenge Apocalypse". Honestly. "Ba'al" may come from a fast assembly line, but it was worth spending 90 minutes of my time on; less for the action and effects, but it certainly was much funnier than the makers intended. -
karl-bridges16 September 2008This is truly dreadful. Aside from the lack of investment in basics -- like a script, they make no effort. Let's see -- the Air Force lieutenant wears a captain's bars throughout. At one point, they are conferring with the person in the command center -- who just happens to have a full sized deluxe wall chart of ley lines in front of her -- yep, Air Force has maps relating to New Age mysticism as standard equipment. The locations are dreadful. They're in Alaska, then they're in Turkey, but it looks the same -- even to the pine trees. And the car is the same. And, like, in 2000 years or whatever, no one had ever pushed on the buttons -- which are right on the front of the Ba'al statute -- and it takes our "heroes" about 2 seconds to figure this out? The acting is wooden. Jeremy London has made 16 films in 2008 alone. And it's only Sept. Does that tell you anything about the quality level we're talking here? And who was playing Dr. Stanford anyway? His name isn't on the IMDb listing for the film. Why? Embarrassment perhaps?
-
ithinkmyemailaddressis12 December 2010I could watch Lexa Doig dust book shelves, so fortunately, not knowing she was in this monster of a movie, I was otherwise sparred the wasting of 2 hours of my precious life on this celluloid crap-heap of a flick. Although I doubt even she could have held my attention in this stencher.
Is this a fair review? Of course not. I actually only saw about 20 seconds of it! 18 seconds too much, I fear... Probably near the end, a scene that struck me as a bad rip from the Mummy movie, that looked like the angry-mummy-face-in-the-sand-storm scene. That's all it took, and I hit the "next-channel" button, musing to myself, like others have mentioned, that it had "Bad Sci-Fy Channel Movie" written all over it.
It was on "Show Case". I wonder what they would classify as a "Bottom-Of-The-Shelf-Case" movie on a Saturday night, if this was the event of the evening? The mind recoils at the possibilities...
When are we as a civilization going to man-up and just start culling our archives of this crap? Stick with the bank commercials, Lexa. At least there's a little dignity in that pay-cheque. -
lloydjw18 April 2009This film ticks all the boxes, and then more. It is distinguished by the use of at leas three replacement actors - fake Brendan Fraser, fake Woody Harrelson and fake Terence Stamp. I also loved the extravagant flight simulation usage. Most impressive was the fact that one of the ancient sites was a picnic spot - they could have just read the information board to locate the amulet. Also, you'd think that a storm that destroyed the golden gate bridge and most of London would have caught the attention of some people higher up than a lieutenant in a corporal's shirt, the G man and a pretty girl with a satellite dish on her truck.
-
fel-4415831 May 2020This movie is good fun, clearly love and care went into craft of this movie. It has it share of eye brow moments but overall it was clear and told a cohesive story. Very much enjoyed this movie. Great to watch with friends
-
Berzerkirsrage26 May 2011Don't listen to morons who reference pseudo history. It was a good effort, and those idiots who whine about wrong uniforms, and bad acting, have never made a film and don't know what they're talking about. Will this film win any awards... no. But bigger budgets, bigger names, and bigger producers have made much worse films.
Also, if you're going to get into history, some of the scrolls were written in Greek as well as Aramiac (Canaanite languages such as Phoenician) but remember you're watching a MOVIE!!! Meant to entertain and pass the time. Buttheads who sit with their history books open to pick fault with such trivial things is asinine. -
Coastal54 April 2009While some of the special FX aren't too bad for a movie with this budget, I cannot forgive some really poor production values which makes this film painful to watch. Let me highlight an example...one of the main guys in the film is a lieutenant, he is often referred to by his rank, he even has lieutenant bars on his collar...yet somehow he and everyone else on the movie set fails to notice he has giant corporal stripes on his arms as well. It's beyond ridiculous.
The plot, very typical disaster movie, but with a sci-fi twinge. So rather than it being mother nature that will destroy the planet, it's a supernatural being wielding the power of mother nature.
Suffice to say, I changed channel without watching the whole thing.
Unless you really like one of the actors in this film, I can't see why anyone would want to watch it.