je2643

and it is Caroline Munro, who is spectacularly gorgeous and scantly clad throughout the entire movie. As long as you focus on her, and ignore every other aspect of the movie ->the awful and sometimes out of place dialogue, extremely cheesy special effects (if you can call them that), etc, you will be fine. But should your eyes stray for even a moment (other then perhaps to eyeball the Amazon Queen - yes, you read that correctly, the Amazon Queen) you are doomed.

Its really that bad. In fact is it hilariously bad. Despite best efforts, I could not make it to the end. Caroline can justify many a fantasy, but the overall content of the movie is such that I suspect it will be impossible to sit through the whole movie unless you possess superhuman ability to absorb acoustic and visual punishment.

I believe Marjoe Gortner might have been stoned throughout his entire performance, he certainly acts like it. I bet that were you to approach Christopher Plummer about his role in the movie he would likely slug you. David Hasslehoff is very young, and actually babyfaced - almost unrecognizable to the person he is today.

I gave this a 2 vs a 0 only because of the breathtaking beauty of Caroline. I hope she aged gracefully.

I gave it a higher rating then it deserves but this is to offset the lower ratings for which it does not deserve. A tale of vikings raiding saxon territory, and the viking leader seeking a book which is supposed to be a holy relic of Christ as he feels it has power which he can use for his own advantage. The story follows the young monk who is the only survivor of a monastery where the book was kept, and his flight from the vikings. He is aided by a British warrior nobleman, and later on another (I leave unnoted so as to not spoil).

There are a few moments where it plods a touch, but overall I thought it well done. It is brutal in parts, but back in 733AD (when this takes place - part of the dark ages) it was brutal times. I thought the acting was good, the cinematography very good and it had gripping moments. Most of what happens is I think fairly predictable, but how many movies are not? There are always flaws in movies, but I think the ones in the movie can be overlooked plot wise. I have watched a thousand movies rated 5-6 that were not as good as this one at it current 3.5 rating, so I have no idea what the panning is about.

Just be advised, this is not a movie for children. There are brutal scenes of violence (and more) in the movie - entirely keeping within the character of the times and setting but stark just the same.

The published plot line indicates this movie is based upon a true story, or at least some sort of folklore. I have no idea of the accuracy or merit of that contention, and it seems to me it really does not matter.

I read some of the other reviews, and I concluded they must be by the fembot, art history major, wanna be a critic crowd. This is a straight up action film, with much of the action meaty hand to hand fighting. And it does a good job of portraying the fact that most such combat is pretty brutal.

There are girls, they are beautiful, one is deadly, the other is lovely. The roles they play are secondary.

Dolph has aged a lot, and unless it is the makeup, I think not to well. But he continues to carry the style he has shown in several recent action movies, as a menacing, brooding threat. From the outset we are aware he is a threat, but the relationship of this threat to the main protagonist is not clear.

For me, Steve Austen was a pleasant surprise. I recall another of his movies, and he was not good at all. This was much better, and the director played to all his strengths in respect of both his verbal and action abilities.

There were several little plot twists, and a few surprises along the way, which added to the enjoyment.

There are a number of recognizable supporting characters, which is also a pleasant surprise.

So my conclusion is that if you are hunting around for an action movie one night with some time to kill, this movie is for consideration. No, its not Gladiator, or Star Wars, or the Avengers, or Saving Private Ryan, but thank god, its not Brokeback Mountain or some other drivel either. Its a decent regular budget action movie. Take it for what it is and you will be fine.

Well, since I am another halo fan playing since CE on my pc many years ago, like all the other halo fans, i have been salivating at the prospect of a halo movie. Shows like Stargate Atlantis, Stargate Universe and Battlestar Galactica (the remake) have shown us that high caliber special effects and great acting can go hand in hand on the small screen. The first two eps of Halo 4: Forward unto Dawn live up to that expectation.

This web series is tight - even though each is the equivalent of a half hour of live TV (less the commercials) we already have excellent character development, and a sense of what is going on in the timeframe of the series. Acting is taught, tension is palpable, and the editing, sound and effects are crisp and clean. This is not a small budget web series, most of the actors have deep big screen and small screen resumes, and are highly recognizable. It's filmed in big screen movie quality film, and it shows.

The series gives an excellent indication of what direction a halo movie series can achieve, if ever undertaken. At the same time, one becomes aware that if the Halo books ever make it to the big screen, it would be best to avoid what they did with movies such as Master and Commander - where they tried to squeeze multiple books into one movie, with undesirable results. Halo will take several movies at a minimum, to depict its storyline, but as well done as this web series, the fans will rejoice and reward.

Obviously, most viewers will be halo fans, but if you need an intro to the halo universe, this web series is an excellent start.

So 10 out of 10 from me for exceeding my expectations on quality in all respects. Thank you for not doing a cheapy production, but going the full monty, and commencing some Halo precursors in high quality.

I to am at a loss as to how people cannot like this movie. The audience around the television was smaller this time, just I, my wife and one daughter (13 yrs old) and we found the movie engaging, intricate, and involving - it has a deliberate pace, and perhaps, that is part of the a problem for some - it is not a whiz bang blow things up type of movie. Also, in the style of New Orleans, it has some odder characters appearing in the movie, and this undoubtedly is a turn-off for some.

But the plot is skillfully woven, and grabs your attention at almost every turn. We generally found it riveting. John Cusack's performance was excellent, as was Kevin Spacey. The weakest link was Alison Eastwood, cast by her Dad, and really neither a good enough actor, or pretty enough for the role in which she was cast. But that was a small foible - you will have no regrets spending your 2 hrs watching this movie.

IMO a fine light family movie. Of course everything is pretty much entirely predictable, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with that at all, given the character of the movie. Cassie weaves her usual magic, and it is plainly telegraphed, yet quite enjoyable as it all unfolds. We had smiles on our faces throughout the entire movie - so nothing wrong with that!

The theme of the movie is 2nd chances, and it is woven into virtually every single character in the movie. Actually, when I think about it, the ensemble is a pretty good size, and yet they managed a better focus on a diversity of characters and situations, without losing either the theme or plot in the process, then many a big screen, big budget movie.

Cassie is of course, her usual magical self. At this point at least some of the characters are "suspicious" in a good way, that she is "unusual" but its deftly weaved as subtle backdrop of the movie rather then a principal portion of the movie. Jake of course is still pretty clueless.

It was like watching an episode of The Border again with both Catherine Disher and Graham Abby having principal parts in the movie. I was surprised that Graham did not have a co-starring bill given his prominence in the movie and plot lines. I hope he gets a meaty role on a big US network production some day and gets the recognition he deserves.

Also was fabulous to see Laura Bertram - I have not seen her since Andromeda (I take that back - I did see her in Gunless) - again she had a good sized role and I hope we see more of her in the future. Lovely woman.

Catherine Bell looks her usual amazing self. She captivates with those eyes, and I think she could probably do 10 movies in this series and the Hallmark audience would eat them up. Its a great gig on the side to her Army Wives series.

So if you are a romantic at heart, this is a movie for you, and there will be no regrets.

I read the review that shows on the front page for the movie, and the one star is totally off base in my and my families opinion.

Our whole family watched this movie, and while it won't win any Academy awards, it kept us interested, and even on the edge of our seats on occasion . Yes, there were many predictable aspects in both plot and how the characters are portrayed, and of course the science, particularly in terms of the plot resolution, was something you just need to set aside. But I doubt most people watch a movie and sit there analyzing the technical aspects. On that basis virtually every science fiction movie would be a washout.

No, they hope to pass 90 minutes and not think about anything else other then the movie, enjoy the story for what it is and if this is you, and you like your movies with a science "fiction" edge/flair (seems people forget about the fiction part) then this movie is perfectly fine.

In respect of SF genre, think Day after Tomorrow, after which is is obviously patterned, but of course on a smaller budget (since DAT has a $125MM+ budget).

Micheal Shanks of Stargate fame is the lead and of course carries off his role acceptably (he always plays the rugged braniac hero in all these TV scifi movies). Everyone else is really part of supporting cast and all are decent. Most of the cast is Australian so you won't know them in NA and Europe. The characters in the movie include both teenagers and adults, and each have contributing scenes, so it is a movie that can appeal to all age groups.

The overall budget for the movie was better then I thought it was going to be - special effects were decent, and carried out with aplomb what they were supposed to accomplish. Their was a variety of settings, shots, locations, etc. My guess is that the budget was somewhere about $3MM-5MM range, which is very good for a TV movie.

So if you are trolling the movie sites looking for a decent time waster relax, sit back and enjoy. This movie was one of Syfy network and partners better releases - some of which have been quite dreadful and really deserving of one star. Artic Blast is not one of those. You will munch your popcorn faster during certain scenes, and if you are a family oriented individual, you will appreciate them more when it is over.