Apparently, people love to denounce "Sinbad and Minotaur" (2011) because it's clear that the actors learned their lines the same day their scenes were shot and the production was done at lightning speed. On top of this is a we're-not-taking-this-too-seriously air akin to the Indiana Jones sequels. The criticizers can't seem to get past these limitations to see what is, actually, a fun, rollicking Sinbad adventure in the manner of "The Golden Voyage of Sinbad" and "Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger," only much faster-paced.Muscleman Manu Bennett would've made a better Sinbad if they had done something with his hair and maybe given him a goatee. As it is, he looks too much like a Jersey Shore hunk. Despite this, he nails the part and conveys the joie de vivre of Sinbad. In fact, one of the highlights of the film is the great joy of living portrayed by all the protagonists.Another highlight is the great locations, shot in Queensland, Australia. There's a good variety of settings, like forests, rock outcroppings, deserts, the sea, and caves. Speaking of caves, some of the cave sets are pretty unconvincing, sort of like the original Star Trek TV series, but not so bad that it spoils the film. It's just part of the charm.There's a nice smorgasbord of women as well, including a gorgeous belly dancer near the beginning and fleeing damsel with see-through attire, lol.The villain (Steven Grives) is also strong with his gruesome cannibal/vampire sidekick.The film runs 88 minutes.BOTTOM LINE: If you can look past the fact that the actors essentially learned their lines the same day of shooting, this is a fun, thrilling Sinbad yarn filled with high adventure, swashbuckling, magic and beautiful women. Yeah, it's a throw-away flick, but aren't all Sinbad films, really? Besides, "Sinbad and the Minotaur" is the definition of joie de vivre; it's a good film for when you just want to turn off your brain and have a good time.If it weren't for the overt negatives noted above I wouldn't hesitate to give it a higher rating.GRADE: C+ or B-

I watched Sinbad and the Minotaur with nothing else better to do, but while I was dubious of whether it would work it turned out to be worse than I expected. Production values-wise, it's a cheap-looking film, with costumes reminiscent of bad fancy dress, scenery that is not authentic at all and camera work that looks flat and rushed. I have seen worse effects in my lifetime, but although I do realise it was low-budget Sinbad and the Minotaur doesn't in my view look as though a lot of effort went into it. The minotaur has some menace but is too much of a giant bull rather than half-man/half-bull from mythology. The dialogue is terribly cheesy, but hilariously so at the same time, and while the idea was good the story was dull with no genuine thrills, imagination, fun and suspense and everything screams of being done before in adventure/fantasy films and better. The direction is sloppy, and the acting is pretty atrocious, with Manu Bennett having none of the charisma needed for the role of Sinbad. In fairness though, the characters are not interesting at all and have no life to them, the villain is especially flat. In conclusion, an awful film but if you watch it for novelty value you might get some enjoyment out of it. 1/10 Bethany Cox

If this can review can possibly dissuade you from watching this film, I will have improved your life!For every movie I have ever watched, up till this one, I have been able to find something I like about it.I know I wouldn't make much of a movie critic - but I don't care. I set out to enjoy my film-watching, and find this easier by looking for the positive in films.With this attitude, I started to watch this film. Manu Bennett, who plays Sinbad, was the lead. I have liked previous stuff of His, so I was definitely optimistic.This film is awful. Why?-> The actors put in no visible effort at all.-> The camera-work and props were disgraceful, barely more than people running through forest/caves.-> Female casting seems to have been decided on cup-size. This was so blatant that, even as a typical male, this annoyed me.-> There is a "monster" in this film: I think it's two people inside a horse - no really.-> The plot lacks continuity. Hardly any scene changes produce a cohesive whole.-> Supernatural elements to this film are ludicrously far-fetched, badly-thought out in relation to any "plot" and generally bring the film down yet further.If I stopped and thought for longer, other undesirables might come to mind. However, having typed this immediately after watching the film, I now wish to try and forget the experience ever happened.

The movie is no "Lord of the Rings," of course, but given the constraints of budget and more limited application of SFX, it is fairly acceptable, quite watchable, and better than the majority of recent low-budget productions that one can see on the SyFy channel these days. There is humor and deliberate irony of classic myth, as well as self-conscious parody at times, which, I believe, goes quite well to disperse any attempts to take things all too seriously. The acting is also acceptable - this particular representation of Sinbad, for example, just like Beowulf, is supposed to be a blend between the arrogance, yet zesty adventure-loving nature of an Indiana Jones and the ridiculous ego-mania of a Narcissus - and the lead delivers both reasonably well. Do not expect a great adventure tale; yet, the movie is fair and definitely watchable...