 |
|
| List Price: $14.98 |
|
Publisher: Lions Gate
Salesrank: 62523
Released: 2007-05-01
Theatrical-Release: 1998
|
| Our Price: $14.98 |
|
|
|
Availibility: 1
Costumer Rating:  |
Customer Reviews:
Oh My Gosh!
So interminably long, so poorly acted, and the greatest ANTI-climax I can imagine — long after my legs have turned to wood. Nice polyester costumes, though, set in a time long before the invention of polyester.(Oh, honey, I can’t feel my legs!)
This is Napolean Dynamite of the Desert!
I have to agree with all the other reviews, it was terribly painful to watch as one keeps hoping the characters or plot will improve. Sadly, they just don’t….we too made it to about 50 minutes and had to go onto Youtube and find comedy to cheer us up. The home joke was that the budget must have been the issue, the pretty white Camel, Gold Door, and costumes took all the bank roll, so they got a college film freshman to video and just went for it, hoping that it would pull the money like Napolean Dynamite anyway. What torqued me is that they didn’t even use Arabian horses for the desert ride scenes, but no tailed QH-crosses from maybe a western off set. I actually wondered if this wasn’t a movie made in the late 70’s, and had to keep looking at the rental box to make sure we got the right movie. I suppose there was a multilayered story there, but getting to examine the possibility really was just too much to ask of the viewer. A big thumb’s down on this one……
3 hours of my life I’ll never get back
Ok actually 2 1/2hours since I fast forwarded through the fight scenes. I think a better title for this would be “Bored in the desert” a movie about a group of actors and camera people who are stranded for several weeks in the desert and decide to make a film.
The movie suffers from lack of plot, lack of character development, horrible acting and lack of film quality. Perhaps the desert storms were responsible for some major equipment dysfunction. It is pretty obvious the actors were a little confused - their acting is stiff and mechanical - I’ve seen elementary school plays with more flow. Maybe it’s because the story is going nowhere and does nothing. The characters are so empty you really don’t care for any of them - except maybe Ben Cross’s character who you sort of feel sorry for since he obviously is a villian on the wrong set. Luckily I just rented this and didn’t spend money on it. Really it is a “must NOT see”.
Don’t waste your time on this one…
Tower of the Firstborn was a slow and badly acted, badly directed, and badly filmed movie. I thought I was watching something that was made back in the 1980’s for tv! I think that if the director had been better, the movie might actually have been passable. The girl chosen to play Diane Shannon was a poor actress. I did not believe for one second that she was in love with Rashid. And where did she meet him before? I felt like there was another story there that we were missing all together. They spent too much time on Adriel and Leon and didn’t interconnect their characters into the movie well enough.
The whole movie seemed choppy and slow. I would like to have read the book (if there is one), it might have made the movie make more sense. The ending was stupid and definitely not worth the 3 plus hours it took to get through it. Definitely a waste of time-watch “The Mummy” instead.
Definitely made for TV 
I have to partially agree with H. Kip - though it seems that Texans know next to nothing about the history of North Africa and the Middle East - it would indeed be possible for an Arab, depending on location and ancestry, to have blue eyes.
Having said that, the movie does belong in the comedy section. The dialogue is painful to listen to, the plot is slow and scattered, and the acting is…well, funny.
