Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

GazerRise Fantastic!

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Michael A. Martinez Easily the least of the loose Sinbad trilogy, (and possibly of all Harryhausen's color films) this fantasy film remains a lot more fun than most modern CGI-laden big-budget equivalents but still one can't help but feel disappointed that they couldn't do better with what they had.Something feels very off and uncertain about this film, as though it was thrown into production too quickly without really thinking things through. The casting feels largely quite awkward with Patrick Wayne as a bland lead (I even thought so as a child) and Jane Seymour as a nearly as bland love interest only redeemed somewhat by her beauty and unrelentingly revealing clothing. Margaret Whiting makes for a colorful yet very campy villain and the always reliable Patrick Troughton is undermined largely by having to play a very inconsistent character. Everyone else in the cast is instantly forgettable.One of the single weakest and most awkward key scenes in the film is where Sinbad and his crew try to convince Troughton (as a Greek Philosopher "Melanthius") to come with them. Instead of any of them really saying or doing anything to change his mind, he seems to convince himself by tinkering with an old invention that never plays into anything later in the film at all. This really isn't a Sinbad movie; it's a Melanthius movie. Sinbad just plays his chauffeur and bodyguard. Another major script failing is the inconsistent level of knowledge given to Melanthius - he seems at first to guide the group based only on vague legends and intuition, but the further along they go, the more he seems to just know everything about everything.But who comes to Harryhausen movies expecting the best in storytelling and great performances? They come for the stop-motion creatures and fights, which here is done quite well and plentifully. One of the more impressive (though narratively pointless) sequences is a battle with a giant walrus containing some excellent blending of practical and visual effects (how did they get those real snowballs to connect with the stop- motion creature?). A fascinating vaguely antagonistic robotic minotaur rows its way through the movie, but is criminally underused before he gets to do anything cool. The other creatures such as a giant bee, a baboon, and a troglodyte, though well done and realistic, are just not nearly as interesting and feel like a waste of time that could have gone into animating cooler things. Oh yeah, there's also a very satisfying (though poorly set up) battle with a saber-tooth cat near the end.Unfortunately the visual effects department got so carried away and relied so much on budget-friendly models and compositing in lieu of actual sets and locations that it's difficult to really buy into anything. Much of the blue-screening is quite distracting and terrible even by the standards of the time it was made. Just look at the whole scene at Petra and it's quite obvious that most of the actual cast didn't make it there opting instead to just shoot their close-ups in a studio. It fuels the film's quite bizarre tone which helps in some scenes and hurts others. The inconsistency and weirdness isn't helped by the TV-like direction of established actor Sam Wanamaker. His slow and campy style contrasts so sharply with the serious and exciting monster scenes that it starts to feel like there's two different movies here. However there's so much apparent apathy and laziness on display across all departments involved that I can't put all the blame on him. SINBAD EYE OF THE TIGER in many ways though holds up as a fun fantasy movie which children and nostalgic adults will love, but unlike most of its peers from the day just doesn't hold up.

Wuchak I don't get why so many people pan this 1977 Sinbad adventure film, the third in a trilogy featuring Ray Harryhausen's special effects creations. The previous installments are 1958's "The 7th Voyage of Sinbad" and 1973's "The Golden Voyage of Sinbad."THE PLOT: Princess Farah's (Jane Seymour) brother, who's about to be crowned Caliph of the kingdom, is turned into a baboon by the envious sorceress Zenobia (Margaret Whiting) who wants her son to be Caliph instead (Kurt Christian). Sinbad (Patrick Wayne) escorts Farah and her baboon brother on a grand adventure to restore his humanity before Zenobia's son is crowned. The long quest includes meeting the wizard Melanthius (Patrick Troughton) and his beautiful daughter Dione (Taryn Power). They travel to arctic regions and along the way are exposed to all kinds of fantastical creatures and supernatural experiences.Sinbad adventures play like a Middle Eastern version of Conan the Barbarian, albeit with a slightly funner edge and a less dour protagonist. So, if you love Conan you'll likely appreciate all three Sinbad films. And even though I describe it as having a fun edge, don't think "Eye of the Tiger" is goofy. It's not. This is a serious Sinbad adventure, but the protagonists exude the joy and vitality of living.The items I demand in a Sinbad adventure are obvious: A good casting choice for Sinbad, a great adventure story & locations, a colorful assortment of likable characters & love-to-hate villains, beautiful women, and quality F/X work. "Eye of the Tiger" delivers in all these areas: Patrick Wayne is superb as the titular hero and IMO the best of the three actors who played the character in the trilogy (the others being Kerwin Mathews and John Phillip Law). I don't see why so many criticize him as "wooden" or somehow sub-par. He's perfect for the role and I'm bewildered as to why he didn't have a more stellar career. I know this is blasphemy to some, but I prefer him to his famous father. He's in the same masculine league as Charleton Heston and Burt Reynolds.The story is everything you'd want in a Sinbad yarn -- grand adventure on the high seas with intermittent supernatural elements. The locations are fabulous -- Jordan, Petra (Melanthius's lair), Malta and Spain. There's even an arctic sequence with snowy locations and fairly convincing studio sets.The characters are indeed colorful and well-cast. Whiting puts her heart & soul into her role as the witch with a capital "B" and Troughton is charismatic as the likable old magician.As for women, this is one of the highlights of the film as the young brunette Jane Seymour and blond Taryn Power (Tyrone's daughter) are breathtaking to behold in every scene they appear. The film's worth watching just for Jane & Taryn. As for Harryhausen's effects, they're pretty much the same as his work in his other films, e.g. "Clash of the Titans," "Jason and the Argonauts" and "Mysterious Island." It just comes down to whether or not you like the creature(s) in question. Nothing here is as good as his Medusa and skeleton gang in other films IMHO, but it's a matter of preference. I personally don't find the saber-tooth tiger very impressive, but who can deny the greatness of the troglodyte as a sympathetic animated character? Anyway, the F/X sequences are just icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned. They don't make or break the film. The story, characters and locations are what really matter.FINAL ANALYSIS: Don't listen to the critics! This is a very entertaining Sinbad adventure on all counts. It's main flaw is that it's too long for it's own good. Regardless, I have a good time whenever I see it and prefer it to the previous two films. Patrick Wayne is a great Sinbad, the story captures your attention, the locations are fabulous, and Jane Seymour & Taryn Power are delectable. It's at least on par with "The Golden Voyage," although I give "Eye" the edge.The film runs 113 minutes.GRADE: B

retrorocketx "Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger" is not as good as the other two Ray Harryhausen Sinbad movies. There are too many instances where events could play out really cool, yet they invariably fizzle. Given that this is the third installment of Sinbad by the same creative team, I expected more. The plot seems to wear out halfway through the movie, and important scenes are poorly executed. But can any movie featuring Ray Harryhausen's creatures and sexy Jane Seymour ever be truly bad? Of course not! I'm just frustrated that this movie missed being great, because it easily could have been. The storyline of the movie is acceptable, and some of it is directly lifted from an 1001 Nights story, which is a plus. A prince is cursed into baboon shape by a witch so a challenger for the throne (the witch's son) can take over the kingdom. The shapeshift will become permanent after a while. The sister of the prince hires Sinbad to sail to a foreign land to find a wizard to break the curse. The witch and her son pursue Sinbad to prevent the reversal of the shapeshift. At the end of the movie, the competitors end up at the north pole in the temple of a lost civilization, the last hope to cure the prince.Much of the plot follows standard elements found in the three Harryhausen Sinbad movies such as a race to a lost land and a shapeshifted/disfigured royal person. But that is okay. What does not work is that there are too many characters just tagging along with little to do. Sinbad is one of the characters left hanging, which is not a good sign for a movie with Sinbad in the title. Once Sinbad states (early in the film) that he cannot remove the curse but he knows someone who can, Sinbad exits center stage and the wizard becomes the driver of the plot. Jane Seymore visually dominates any scene she is in with her sexy princess outfit, but does little else. The witch's son and the wizards daughter must have some dramatic story potential, I'll figure out what it is some day, maybe.Basically, the heart and soul of the movie comes down to a duel between the wizard and the witch, as both ships race for the north pole. The witch (Margaret Whiting) is outrageous and bizarre, and has plenty of stop-motion creature sorcery at her disposal. The wizard (Patrick Troughton) has obscure knowledge and is wonderfully nutty. But this duel is hardly a battle of wits. Their antics actually make the movie kind of funny, not necessarily on purpose, but since they are the main focus for drama the whole tone of movie feels uncertain. The writers do not seem to grasp the central importance of these two characters, and the plot devolves into random encounters and padded scenes. It would have been great to have an ongoing duel of sorcery (and dynamation creatures) throughout the race to the pole, but this opportunity was missed. As always, the dynamation monsters are entertaining, but perhaps not as effectively presented in the dramatic parts of the story as they could have been. The minotaur is totally cool, but almost pointless; the walrus is totally pointless; the skeletons are okay but without any sense of why the witch could summon them (and then only once); the troglodyte looks great but is almost pointless; and the saber-toothed tiger and troglodyte fight (two dynamation creatures fighting at the climax is another staple feature in these Sinbad movies) is an awkward disappointment. The baboon is by far the best creature in the film. Harryhausen always manages to evoke personality from his creations, and the baboon-prince is one of his very best in terms of expression, emotion and presence. However, too much screen time is spent with this creature and the baboon ultimately adds drag to the film.In spite of my frustrations with the film, I've watched it several times and will undoubtedly watch it several more. There is something charming about a Ray Harryhausen movie, even one that misses the mark.

James Hitchcock Prince Kassim, the young heir to the throne of Baghdad, is magically transformed into a baboon by his evil stepmother, the witch Zenobia, who wants the throne for her own son, Kassim's half-brother Rafi. Sinbad, accompanied by Kassim's beautiful sister Princess Farah, as well as the Prince himself in his monkey form, sets sail in search of a cure. This being a Ray Harryhausen film, much of the plot involves the heroes struggling against various monsters, all animated by the stop-motion process which Harryhausen pioneered. This must be the only film in which the hero gets to fight a gigantic killer walrus. The title "Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger" may refer to the fact that, having seen off the walrus, Sinbad then has to battle a sabre-toothed tiger, although I am not sure how the "eye" part fits in.This was the third and last of Harryhausen's films about the legendary hero Sinbad the Sailor, the others being "The Golden Voyage of Sinbad" and "The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad". It was not, however, Harryhausen's final film; that was to be "Clash of the Titans" from four years later. In the fifties and early sixties his techniques of film-making (which he named "Dynamation" or "Dynarama"), combining stop-motion animation with live action, seemed something new and exciting, opening up new possibilities for fantasy films. By the late seventies they were starting to look old-fashioned; there is little in "Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger" (which came out in the same year as "Star Wars") to distinguish it from "The Seventh Voyage" which had come out nearly twenty years earlier.Today, of course, films made using the "Dynamation" process have a very retro feel to them, but I have long had a soft spot for Harryhausen's work ever since I was taken, as a child, to see a double bill of "The Seventh Voyage" and "Jason and the Argonauts" as part of a friend's birthday treat. I would not rate "Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger" quite as highly as either of those films. The acting is variable; neither Patrick Wayne as the hero nor Taryn Power has the talent or the charisma of their famous fathers, but Margaret Whiting as Zenobia makes a splendidly over-the-top villainess, former Doctor Who Patrick Troughton is good as the wise old philosopher Melanthius and Jane Seymour as Farah looks as lovely as ever. With its fairy-tale Arabian Nights atmosphere, this film can perhaps best be described as the cinematic equivalent of a pantomime, and like most pantomimes serves as very enjoyable family entertainment. 6/10