Ella-May O'Brien
Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.
gutsthealchemist
I didn't enjoy it because the romance felt forced, the CGI isn't good, and the acting isn't very good either. I only liked one of the fights in the whole movie
Richard Archer
I saw the 2 disc DVD at the store and bought it and I was not disappointed. Sure it's no LOTR (but what is? LOTR is in a class of its own) but it is superior to some other films of the genre. Like many film adaptations of literature it's easier to enjoy if you aren't familiar with the subject matter. When I first watched it I admit to only a passing knowledge of the legends of Siegfried, afterwards I read up on it so if nothing else it made me broaden my horizons.Yes, the screenplay bore precious resemblance to the original legends but there were some gems. Siegfried's challenge to the two Saxon kings is classic: "It takes more than a treasure to make a man worthy to fight a King" - "It takes more than crown to make a man BE a King".The acting was average for the most part although it was refreshing to see Max Von Sydow in a somewhat different role than normal. The Special Effects were okay for the most part and didn't look cheesy. Being a history buff it is always nice to see a reasonable effort to get some of the weapons and costumes period-correct to the point where it didn't jar sensibilities too much (it almost makes me cry to see things like late medieval dress and weapons in a 6th Century setting).Not without it's faults it is still an entertaining watch although it would really be something to see the story put in the hands of someone of Peter Jackson's caliber.
Blueghost
After shelling out lots of dollars to sit and watch some of the latest romantic comedies, I decided it was time for a little indulgence. Surfing the net I casually caught a still from a film about a ring and dwarfs. The charter's name in the caption was Brunhilde. I thought to myself, that sounds familiar.Well, it looks like someone finally took a crack at bringing Wagner's ring cycle to film format, only this time shot as a Movie of the Week for TV audiences instead of as a feature film for theatrical release. With that in mind, I have some observations to make: For a TV film it gets a passing grade, but only just. I remember ABC's "Movie of the Week", and seeing all kinds of popular TV and film stars being dragged into projects that would be shown once on the network to garnish ratings, and then vanish into the ether to be only shown on Sunday afternoons or late night shows before the national anthem and test pattern. Well, that's kind of what we got here.Only "Curse of the Ring" gives the audience some very high production values in terms of art direction, but not much else. We see the Nordic and Germanic setting of the tale, and are given some decent support cast members, but the two leads nearly slay themselves as they deliver lines with as much enthusiasm as a local weatherman telling us about the latest cold front. The acting from Benno Furman was that difficult to watch. Kristanna Loken wasn't much better, but at least her character had some fire in her. Benno walks through the project like a star eyed school boy who's concentrating on remembering his lines, all the while Kristanna is doing her best to tell future directors that she actually can act in spite of the collagen in her lips and a blonde dye job that would have put a 1950's pinup to shame.Seriously, there's lots of visuals to be proud of here for what the project is. The SFX are quite impressive for a low scale TV production, and the amount of energy and care that went into the art direction is also something of note, but the two leads are as flat as a local theatre troop being recruited as extras for that Hollwood production that rolled into town. Their acting is that bad... or worse.Had the producers pumped a few more dollars into this thing, and cast not necessarily well known talent, but competent talent into the roles, and then re-aired the project several times, then guaranteed this thing would have made its sponsors proud, and then some by boost DVD sales. As it stands now this thing is only five bucks to buy on the open market, and believe you me there's a couple of reasons for that; they are Furman and Loken.Technically, other than the art direction, the shots are simply okay. Better lensing as well as overall direction could have saved this thing, and pushed into beyond its niche, and into the realm of general audiences appreciating a well crafted and acted film. As it stands now it simply appeals to the Tolkien and D&D crowd. And again, this didn't need to be so, but the film is what it is.Dramatically the film tries to go into the realms of love and betrayal, and we get a taste of that by virtue of the story. Even Loken starts to shine a little as an actress when she does her scenes that address this concept, but we're weighed down by the fact that nobody seems to really care about the lines they're reciting. Well, perhaps that's unfair, because most of the supporting cast do an okay job.Overall I'm glad I saw it finally, but it's not something I'd readily recommend.Definitely watch at your own risk.
vidLucifer
This movie is just fantastic as many fantasies really are. Part fantasy part mythical part adventure but it's no war movie. So don't compare it to the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I really enjoyed the movie. Let the critics say anything about the movie.It's true the movie deviates from the original story line or the actual Teutonic legends but it's worth watching. Special effects can be praised seeing the budget of the movie.The story line is nice. As it was on TV second part contained the synopsis / recap of previous show which was little boring. But you will enjoy it if you are a Teutonic legend fan. Enjoy it
