Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

vamp88 I admit not seeing all of the movie. I came home from Live Free or Die Hard (which was awesome!) and watched the last half of this. It had me literally laughing out loud, too bad it isn't a comedy. The good was Kristin Richardson, she could act and was easy on the eyes. The OK, Scott Valentine. I give him the benefit of the doubt and believe he was just over the top and cheesy on purpose to fit the tone of the film. Stephen Baldwin let his acting chops drop to the level of the surrounding cast, which was just terrible. You rarely get the whole cast to sound as if they can't remember their lines and are just reading them off a cheat sheet just off camera. Horrendous. The CG. Holy crap. This got the most,and biggest laughs out of me. Original Sci-Fi channel pics are not know for great CGI. But this is a new low. WOW, truly needs to be seen it to believe it. Probably the worst CGI I have ever seen. Avoid this even if you liked other made for Sci-fi channel movies, or tune in if you can't believe its the worst acting and CG maybe ever. But please quickly turn it off and save the brain cell or 2 you will burn out trying to figure out how it was green lit to go out to the public.

kester_pelagius This may or may not contain a spoiler. I never made it to the end of the movie but I'm really disappointed and may let slip something about the threadbare plot (such at is it) that those actually daring enough to watch a Sci-Fi original movie may not want to know about.But then again this was a Sci-Fi original movie and by now we should probably know better. Alas the previews made this seem like it was going to be a fun knock-off of Army of Darkness with the shot-gun wielding hero fighting Harpies instead of Deadites, which sounds like a really fun B-movie premise. Especially since this is supposed to be about a security guard in a museum that gets transported into the past.It's such a simple premise how could anyone go wrong with that, right? Alas what we get is an excruciating piece of drek that shouted "we're using Stargate SG-1 set rejects" almost from scene one and goes downhill from there.Yes, this was a blatant attempt to make a cheap knock-off of Army of Darkness, and it fell, like Stephen Baldwin, flat on it's face in pig effluent. But that it appears sets were either recycled or copied the look of the "Ancient's Writing" for use in the artifact on display in the museum was mind boggling. Could it be this movie originated as a rejected Stargate SGF-1 script? I doubt it. But you never know.What's worse is that Stephen Baldwin and a (unknown to me) woman playing a pig keeper seemed to be the most competent actors seen in the first 40 some odd minutes of this turgid will-o-the-wisp monstrosity. Actually poor Mr. Baldwin, who'll probably get a lot of the blame for this, all but carries most scenes on his over burdened shoulders. Problem is it's obvious this was intended to be a tongue-in-cheek comedy that fizzled, thus the problems seem all the worse.I can forgive a lot in a B-movie be it bad acting, infantile dialogue, anachronisms, overacting (the guy playing the sorcerer actually takes this to a new level, he's actually rather hilarious at times), plot inconsistency, and even sequels that have no relationship to the original movie. However tedious dullness is an unforgivable cinematic sin. By the time the titular CGI monsters made an appearance I was already thinking about getting out the aforementioned Buck Roger's DVD set, which should give you an idea of just how boring this was.The characters were flat and the actors, though they tried, never really made me care about them. Not because they were inept but because it didn't seem like the script gave these characters any depth. It was like they were there purely as character sketches without any thought given to their backgrounds. Now, to be fair, I should mention that I only made it about 40 minutes into the movie. But that seems like 35 minutes too long to wait for character development.But to be perfectly honest I'm not sure which pushed me over the edge, the lack of character development or the the utterly rubbish CGI harpies. Granted the editors of this movie at least realized their CGI was ludicrous looking and they didn't show close-ups of them, at least none that I recall, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. The costuming and make-up effects for the harpies involve a lot of smeared mascara and a white shift. That's it. It was utterly uninspired.I truly feel this was a cinematic abortion that never should have been made. I know, strong words, and yes there's far worse DTV "movies" out there. But, and this is important, none of those bear Stan Lee's name, which was the ONLY reason I tuned in. I really thought that, surely, if Stan Lee was putting his name on the movie it wouldn't be the usual lame CGI crapfest sciffy is known for. But I, apparently, was a fool for daring to hope as sciffy let me down yet again. Even so I am not angry so much as saddened and disappointed.While I'm sure Stan Lee laughed all the way to bank to cash that sciffy check, and really kudos to him for getting some green, I just feel this movie was a let down. Very disappointing.In short Harpies was deadly dull boring and actually had me popping in a DVD of Buck Rogers in the 25th Century to watch something with real acting talent and better SFX. I think that says it all.

Cas Smith I give this a three simply because I am looking forward to seeing just how consistently poor this "Army of Darkness" wanna-be is going to become. Stephen Baldwin (whose acme really was Barney Rubble) plays a wash-out-cop-now-a-museum guard, who is transported back to 9C Moldavia, and battles harpies controlled by a parody of The Bad Guy. All that to thoroughly stilted script and spastic gesticulations. Ah yes, yet another SciFi Original Movie. Oh! While pecking out this Comment, this movie has remained consistent. So at least it has that going for it. Hmm.... now I have to write more to be acceptable. O.....K..... The trebuchet looks like the Stealth Rabbit King Arthur used to attack the French castle under the tutelage of Monty Python. Ah, good. I have now written enough to pass muster. All rather silly really when all that needed be said about this movie is that it really is marvelously poor. Regards all, Cas

trancejeremy Army of Darkness can be considered a cult classic, so I guess it's surprising we haven't seen more ripoffs of it. However, I can't imagine we'd ever see one like this.To those that haven't seen Army of Darkness, a regular wisecracking Joe with a shotgun is accidentally teleported into medieval/dark ages times and must save the inhabitants there with a combination of future know how, leadership abilities and fighting ability from a supernatural evil.It was a silly movie, but worked because Bruce Campbell has charm and wit, and the script was genuinely funny.Replace Bruce Campbell with Stephen Baldwin and replace the Evil Dead with Harpies. Replace the claymation low budget special effects with blue screen special effects straight from a shopping mall vendor or amusement park. And take out the witty banter and one liners and replace them with dialogue that makes the worst dubbed Italian film seem like Shakespeare. Watch at your own peril. About the only redeeming feature is the female lead, who isn't much of an actor, but is attractive, in a mid 30s sort of way.