BroadcastChic
Excellent, a Must See
GarnettTeenage
The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.
ChampDavSlim
The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.
Theo Robertson
This is one of these movies that gets frequently broadcast on the SyFy Channel . You can understand why someone might do their best to avoid watching it but as so often happens there's absolutely nothing else on so it was either REIGN OF THE GARGOYLES or having to watch a movie I'd seen several times before and had commentated on it on this site . After all I'm amongst friends at the IMDb and I can always share my opinions amongst my friends here The general consensus on this page is that REIGN OF THE GARGOYLES is better than most of the films produced by the SyFy Channel which is admittedly faint praise but some people have qualified this by stating it's almost a good film in its own right and contains a couple of good scenes . There's certainly contains the bare bones of a good film and one wonders if a film containing some downed pilots and SAS soldiers behind enemy lines during WW2 might have been better pitched to one of the major Hollywood studios . Indeed a cross genre mixing war and monsters starring Jeremy Renner , James McAvoy and Olga Kurylenko probably wouldn't break box office records but it'd certainly make a great night out at the multiplex . This SyFy production is let down by two major things First of all is the budget . You want flying Gargoyles , squadrons of planes and explosions . No problem for a Hollywood studio with a lot of cheque books , but a very big problem for SyFy who can only realise these sequences via ... go on guess ? I'll give you a three letter clue - CGI . The unfortunate thing because there's so many CGI sequences the budget for it is spread very thinly which means it's often worse than you see in this type of production . It also seems to bite in to other aspects such as sequences where characters fire their weapons is it's patently obvious that the actors are just shaking their props around The second thing is the amount of errors made concerning military matters and timeliness .Early a character talks of UFOs and flying saucers terminology that wouldn't have existed in 1944 . We also see SAS troopers with British Parachute regiment insignia and berets and over-sized B-17 Flying Fortress interiors where the crew have no need for oxygen and are happy to fly 20,000 feet in dress uniforms without suffocating or succumbing to minus 20 degree temperatures In summary REIGN OF THE GARGOYLES is a mediocre film but one recognises that with a bigger budget and a bit more thought this would have been a fairly enjoyable piece of pop corn entertainment . Perhaps if Hollywood is thinking of doing a mixed genre film featuring monsters and the war with an international cast they could watch this film seeing the obvious contrast in what works and what doesn't
Fatherandersonthepaladin
This movie really is just baffling. It has a few good scenes, and honestly, I'm usually a sucker for any movie set in WWII, but I'll make an exception for this one.First off, the actors have the acting ability of a cardboard standee. That just makes for a horrible movie no matter what you do. Second, there are inexplicable mistakes in the form of anachronisms that just blow it straight out of the water (example: the French Resistance girl somehow magically possessing a Mosin Nagant carbine (never available to France, or anywhere other than Finland and Russia during WWII), the Sten guns firing from a closed bolt, the SAS uniforms being completely wrong, and the MP40's with a 2mm bore diameter).Did I mention the use of a MORTAR round to take down a plane? How about the fact that the Germans, confronted by an enemy, wait until he picks up a discarded MP40 and starts shooting at them before they attempt to do anything to stop him (and yes, they're standing there, weapons ready, staring at him the whole time)? Overall, if you need a decent laugh at the expense of some Nazis, I'd recommend this movie. Otherwise, I'd recommend avoiding it like the plague.
Elswet
The animation here is HORRID, and the story is lacking, but the performances are what drives this Sci-Fi Channel original. The dialog is hokey, but the delivery is about as good as it gets. These guys at least make you believe they and their situation is meaningful ... at least to them. Most of these movies are done with an almost tongue-in-cheek delivery as if the film not only does not take itself too seriously, but the actors are making FUN of it while, at the same time, drawing a check for doing it.This dreck-fest at least showed some heart. There are a couple of places where the performances made you forget (if only momentarily) that this was a typical "B" flick.All in all? It was enjoyable, in spite of itself, and showed some real heart. Tom Penny was an asset this time. While it is NOT fit for Friday/Saturday night viewing, it is still more fun that first imagined.It rates a 7.2/10 on the "B" scale, which is around a 4.6/10 on the "A" Scale, from...the Fiend :.
themoviebuff2003
Actually, this had an interesting and little-used premise-that of the Nazis using sorcery/black magic to help them win World War 2. Yes, done in Raiders of the Lost Ark and Hellboy, but not much else, so I had slightly good hopes for it. I was wrong. The Nazis bring stone gargoyles to life, but are unable to control them, and the creatures begin to multiply and kill Germans as well as Americans and European freedom fighters. One of these days I'll get it through my head that 95% of Sci-Fi Channel's original movies are cheesy garbage, but I guess I'm not quite there yet. The cheesiest CGI I've seen in years, some of the worst direction , the worst acting, and stereotyped Nazi villains with bad accents abounded. The old TV movie GARGOYLES from the 70's was head and shoulders above this, so I'd imagine that should tell you something. What a comedown for an actor I always liked, Joe Penny (once of JAKE and the FAT MAN), who must have needed a new car or renovations to his house or something. I've already given it a one, only because I'm not allowed to give it a zero.
