The SciFi Channel has produced some stinkers in the past. This movie isn't one of them.
A good movie must start with a good story. The story behind this movie has everything that makes a story worthwhile. It has great evil. It has a brave hero. It has a love interest. It has another hero conflicted between losing what he loves and saving it by using tactics that may be unethical. And it has a ticking clock, showing that all will be lost unless the desired goal is reached within a certain time period.
It has epic battles and humorous interludes and majestic scenery and stirring music. Oh, wait, that's the movie part. The best thing about this movie is Jonathan LaPaglia. I don't know why he's not in more movies. He's a great actor, and he makes his roles believable. He did a great job in this movie. Sarah Douglas portrayed his mother, the Queen. She had some great magic powers, but I recognized her from somewhere and couldn't recall where. Only after I looked her up on IMDb did I find that she played the Tok'ra Garshaw of Belote on Stargate SG-1. She was excellent. Amber Benson was great as the princess, keeping LaPaglia's character in line as a potential enemy but also warming to him as a love interest. In fact, I didn't see any actors who I could say did a poor job in this movie.
As I said, the scenery was great. The cinematography was pretty good too. There wasn't any camera shaking or zooming in and out or any of the other cheap tricks that make cheap movies. Yes, some of the scenes were dark. That's because they were shot in tunnels, where it's...surprise...DARK. The scenes shot outdoors in the daytime were...another surprise...NOT dark. I didn't understand the complaint there, but maybe I shouldn't read other people's reviews before writing my own. I don't recall seeing anything that made me think "Wait a minute, what was that thing that they just showed? I didn't see what it was/didn't understand why they showed that." So, good job there.
I enjoy some humor in my movies too. It was funny how Amber Benson's character didn't trust Jonathan LaPaglia's character at first. At one point, where things are getting dangerous, he asks "Can I have my sword back?" and she won't give it to him. And at the very beginning, when he asks how much time is left, his mother says "Until the next eclipse." He looks distressed and says "Seven Days." Now unlike some of the professional critics, I enjoy seeing a nod to an actor's other works. I was a fan of the TV series Seven Days, and I thought it should not have been cancelled, so I appreciated seeing the reference placed in this movie. I GET IT and thanks very much for including those two words in the movie.
Every reviewer probably has parts of the movie that weren't enjoyable to him. This part for me was the monster itself. The computer graphics didn't seem to be as sophisticated as they were in some other movies I've seen. When it flew over the armies on the ground, the troops ducked down as it went over but didn't seem to be affected. Yet in the very next shot, a significant percentage of them were lying dead. And the thing should have been killable. Early on, it was shown that it was affected by an arrow shot into it. Yet later, when it flew at low level over the troops, they didn't fill it full of arrows and kill it. I suppose if it had died right away there would have been no movie, but it seems to me that if you have archers in your army and an enemy is attacking, that enemy should be sprouting some arrows right away. Because of that, I couldn't score it a full 10 and only gave it a rating of 9 out of 10.
A good movie must start with a good story. The story behind this movie has everything that makes a story worthwhile. It has great evil. It has a brave hero. It has a love interest. It has another hero conflicted between losing what he loves and saving it by using tactics that may be unethical. And it has a ticking clock, showing that all will be lost unless the desired goal is reached within a certain time period.
It has epic battles and humorous interludes and majestic scenery and stirring music. Oh, wait, that's the movie part. The best thing about this movie is Jonathan LaPaglia. I don't know why he's not in more movies. He's a great actor, and he makes his roles believable. He did a great job in this movie. Sarah Douglas portrayed his mother, the Queen. She had some great magic powers, but I recognized her from somewhere and couldn't recall where. Only after I looked her up on IMDb did I find that she played the Tok'ra Garshaw of Belote on Stargate SG-1. She was excellent. Amber Benson was great as the princess, keeping LaPaglia's character in line as a potential enemy but also warming to him as a love interest. In fact, I didn't see any actors who I could say did a poor job in this movie.
As I said, the scenery was great. The cinematography was pretty good too. There wasn't any camera shaking or zooming in and out or any of the other cheap tricks that make cheap movies. Yes, some of the scenes were dark. That's because they were shot in tunnels, where it's...surprise...DARK. The scenes shot outdoors in the daytime were...another surprise...NOT dark. I didn't understand the complaint there, but maybe I shouldn't read other people's reviews before writing my own. I don't recall seeing anything that made me think "Wait a minute, what was that thing that they just showed? I didn't see what it was/didn't understand why they showed that." So, good job there.
I enjoy some humor in my movies too. It was funny how Amber Benson's character didn't trust Jonathan LaPaglia's character at first. At one point, where things are getting dangerous, he asks "Can I have my sword back?" and she won't give it to him. And at the very beginning, when he asks how much time is left, his mother says "Until the next eclipse." He looks distressed and says "Seven Days." Now unlike some of the professional critics, I enjoy seeing a nod to an actor's other works. I was a fan of the TV series Seven Days, and I thought it should not have been cancelled, so I appreciated seeing the reference placed in this movie. I GET IT and thanks very much for including those two words in the movie.
Every reviewer probably has parts of the movie that weren't enjoyable to him. This part for me was the monster itself. The computer graphics didn't seem to be as sophisticated as they were in some other movies I've seen. When it flew over the armies on the ground, the troops ducked down as it went over but didn't seem to be affected. Yet in the very next shot, a significant percentage of them were lying dead. And the thing should have been killable. Early on, it was shown that it was affected by an arrow shot into it. Yet later, when it flew at low level over the troops, they didn't fill it full of arrows and kill it. I suppose if it had died right away there would have been no movie, but it seems to me that if you have archers in your army and an enemy is attacking, that enemy should be sprouting some arrows right away. Because of that, I couldn't score it a full 10 and only gave it a rating of 9 out of 10.