Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotesOverview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditsAwards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage boardPlot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotesDid You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQOther Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDeskPromotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo galleryExternal Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clipsReviews & Ratings for
Gor II More at IMDbPro »Outlaw of Gor (original title)
| Page 1 of 2: | [1] [2] ![[Next]](http://i.media-imdb.com/f86.gif){kind=small} |
| Index | 18 reviews in total |
13 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
Gor-Blimey! It's complete crap!, 23 May 2004
Author:
Rob Taylor (Rob_Taylor) from London
Let's see.... take one of the more infamous literary staples, namely
the Gor books by John Norman, convert it to film and you'd think you'd
be onto a winner. Why? Well, the Gor books, for those of you who
haven't had the pleasure, or pain, can be summed up as follows: Conan
with pornography. Each and every novel was chock full of porn,
sado-masochism and bondage. In short, a
"raging-hormone-male-teenager's" wet dream. Hidden amongst the sleaze
and thinly-veiled attempts to make the reader think of women as nothing
but objects, there are actually some pretty good action-adventure
stories. So it would seem that converting them to celluloid would be a
winner, even if only on the soft-porn circuit.
Sadly, Outlaw of Gor is nothing like the books. Given my description
above, some might breathe a sigh of relief at that. Unfortunately, by
taking away the sex, having a budget less than that of the average
teenager's weekly pocket money and doing some awful re-inventing of the
novels' original ideas (yes there were some!), the filmmakers literally
killed the golden goose and replaced it with a prize turkey.
Outlaw is just horrendous throughout, from the acting, the sets, the
laughable "costumes", the editing and dialogue right down to the fight
scenes that appeared to have been choreographed by the Marx Bros. But
the worst thing is seeing how little they used the original material.
Nevermind the porn, they plucked names out of the books and didn't do a
whole lot else. Tarl Cabot, the hero of the novels, is translated into
a weedy vegetarian who is totally against slavery - a complete reversal
from the novels. Likewise the Priest-Kings - In the books alien
insectoids who ruled the planet. In the movie we get.....Jack Palance,
who doesn't seem to be in command of his own lines, let alone the
planet. And yes, Jack leers and mugs his way throughout the movie, at
least having the grace to look embarrassed at several points.
The plot is feeble, centering around an evil Queen's attempts to take
control of the city of Koroba by murdering her husband and blaming it
on Cabot. There then follows interminable amounts of wandering about in
the desert by Cabot and his midget henchman (I kid you not!). We're
also treated to far too many shots of the midget's rear end during the
film (I mentioned the costumes were rubbish, didn't I?) and awful
moralising dialogue by Cabot about the evils of slavery.
There are no special effects to speak of - the budget was too miniscule
for that, just the heady excitement of one lame swordfight after
another. At the end, which really sums up the whole movie and had me in
hysterics, Tarl Cabot makes as if to snap his sword over his knee - a
symbolic gesture of peace. Would have been good too, except that the
sword does not break - it bends into a U shape like it was made out of
thin tin. Yep, that's Outlaw of Gor for ya - all bent out of shape.
Even on MST3K this is one of the lamest excuses for a movie. It really
is best avoided.
5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
"i was cleaning and polishing the vibrations of the home stone.", 16 March 2005
Author:
contactgmt from United States
outlaw of gor. the title says it all. a few comments before we begin: its a sequel, and far more exotic and watchable than its predecessor, useless comparisons to the story on which it was based will not be entertained here. second, mst 3k is not outlaw of gor. finally, whoever caught the midget butt thing was right on. this is typical example of a moment caught on this awkward film that makes me wonder, what, exactly, are we supposed to be thinking about this? we also see urbinos ass in the same shot. true, all of this is as appealing as awful watney smith getting massaged or the queen yelling "guards!" even once, though she does it about six thousand times in the movie...anyhow, you get the idea that the viewer is left to wonder what the filmmakers were thinking. its really baffling. jack palance is amazing. i assume he was taking his annual holiday in Italy when he got picked up for this one. his performance as Zeno is almost as good as the hip-hop/wizard costume he wears. any movie where palance wears fat gold chains and speaks in monosyllables is worth something. a half-smile is detectable on his face throughout his performance. the hardest part of the film is how unevenly its paced. this is typical for adventure films, to proceed in chapters, but nothing really apologizes for this. one more thing, in the first five minutes you will hear the name Cabot repeated about six hundred times. also, the set for the castle sort of looks like a terry Jones fantasy movie i saw once but forgot the title. one may also be confused by a scene which was choreographed in the manner of a high school dance class, with the added dimension of exploitation, achieved by a nodding palance and bouncing small man. the upper part of the frame here was masked off not very successfully in post production, or maybe during a set shot. you'll see what i mean. it sort of looks like the concert scene in the blues brothers where the crowd and the stage are pastiched together. naturally, gor doesn't achieve any describable effect. this film is very annoying at times and at others, downright mystifying. i would suggest this movie only to those who prefer a strange film and have a high tolerance for poor film-making. for those of you brave enough, i would say go out and see it right away.
6 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Never trust someone named Watney, 16 March 2004
Author:
InzyWimzy from Queens, NY
Ah, Gor. I really used to think Cave Dwellers was pretty crappy, but
Outlaw
of Gor makes me wish Ator could skewer Cabot while Thong pummels Watney
Smith into submission. Having seen Outlaw several times, I must admit, it
does tend to get better and you catch even more hilarity. The strange
thing
is that the humor is so unintentional since the actors really play their
roles so seriously! Also, add to the fact that Outlaw is preceded by Gor
which makes following the plot (what plot??) a difficult task
indeed.
Jack Palance really looks annoyed in almost every scene he's in. Maybe
it's
those really goofy hats he wears and his facial expression which says "I
have more talent in my pinky fingernail than all these scum actors
combined." Urbano is less than mediocre as Cabot, but is less painful to
watch than Russel Savadier's portrayal of sex starved Watney. Try not to
regurgitate during his massages (EWW!). The barely clad nymphs in the
film
add a little (and I do stress little) enjoyment to the film especially the
terrific acting of Donna Denton whose "Get out of here, you disgusting
worm!" speech may be the highlight of the entire movie. That or any scene
with Nigel "Kermit" Chipps.
There must've have been so many Seymour Butts jokes during the making of
this film.
So who's the hero?, 7 August 2011
Author:
Installation_At_Orsk from United Kingdom
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I was shocked to find that this was made in 1989; it felt more like an
early '80s Conan rip-off. It also probably means that Jack Palance went
straight from the mega-bucks production of Batman to slumming it in a
desert with a bunch of Italian non-actors.
The oddest thing about this movie is that it has no hero. Yes, Cabot
may have the camera pointed at him most of the time, but he does
absolutely nothing to affect the story's outcome. He doesn't kill the
evil priest (someone else does that), he doesn't turn the people
against the evil queen (someone else does that - with just one line of
dialogue! These people are easily swayed) and he doesn't even kill the
evil queen (someone else does that too). He might as well not have been
there. For about the last 20 minutes, he just gets repeatedly beaten
and whipped: it would be The Passion Of The Cabot, if anything
approaching "passion" were in the actor's repertoire.
Cabot's wormy friend is also one of the most annoying and punchable
"comic" sidekicks in movie history.
Gor and Gor II, 29 December 2010
Author:
azazeleblis from United States
Most simply, these movies are proof that science fiction and fantasy
have fallen completely.
From Asimov's foresight and Tolkien's epics... devolve this sexually
awkward televised game of Dungeons and Dragons?! I am disappointed with
the genre because of this film.
No plot, annoyingly hollow characters that never develop, horrible
actors, and a poor concept from the beginning make this movie (and it's
twin) worthless. Quite literally, Mother Goose's simplest tale has
miles more to say about the world. While such a feat used to be hard
for this genre, now it seems 9 year olds get novels published, and
screenplays filmed.
It gets a second star simply for being so easy to heckle. The Mystery
Science Theater 3000 version is more enjoyable, and illustrates my
point beautifully. However, this episode is a little wasted if you
don't watch with friends and heckle along too.
2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
"Get out of here, you disgusting 'worm'!", 13 November 2007
Author:
bensonmum2 from Tennessee
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Outlaw's plot comes straight out of the Sword and Sorcerer Handbook –
an evil queen kills her husband and blames it on the innocent hero,
Tarl Cabot (Urbano Barberini), so she might take control of the thrown.
Cabot spends the rest of the movie trying to clear his name, undo the
queen's evils, and return to his true love.
Overall, Outlaw is one of the poorer examples of the Conan "inspired"
rip-off I've seen recently. While the movie has a number of weaknesses,
the most glaring is Barberini in the lead role. He makes for one of the
most nondescript, unexciting heroes I've seen. He's completely
unconvincing. And what's the point in announcing quite proudly in the
movie that our hero is a vegetarian? Was Outlaw funded by PETA? What's
the point in adding that to the movie? It takes what is an otherwise
namby-pamby hero and makes him even more so. Between the emasculated
Tarl Cabot, scene after scene of a midget's hinder, an annoying
side-kick named Watney, and an embarrassed looking Jack Palance wearing
one of the goofiest looking hats imaginable, you've got the recipe for
one bad movie.
Yet I haven't rated Outlaw as low as I could have. Why? Well, I have a
weakness for this kind of movie. I tend to enjoy most sword and
sorcerer type movies, even the bad ones. That, plus some of the outfits
worn by Donna Denton, seems to be enough to warrant a point or two.
3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
I think Jack Palance fired his agent after this., 10 July 2006
Author:
MisterCentury from Massachusetts
My theory: The producers of this film first made the movie "Gor". It
only took them four days. Then someone noticed that they still had
three days left on their equipment rentals, so they decided to film a
second movie. Someone put together a script while on a potty break.
They used the same sets, the same props, and much the same cast. The
end result was "Outlaw of Gor".
Jack Palance must have been hard-up for money to do this. It ranks up
there with the biggest wastes of talent in movie history, right next to
Max von Sydow in "Strange Brew" and Sir Lawrence Olivier in "Clash of
the Titans".
3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Oh buffalo shots, won't you come out tonight, come out tonight, come out tonight..., 4 April 2006
Author:
Diana from United States
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Agghhh! Why do the Italians continue to make these horrible cheap
knock-offs of American genre films? To ship them directly to video over
here and makes tons of filthy lucre, or Lira, or whatever, off the poor
unsuspecting American public's pain. In this awful serving, which is a
sequel to a film that I haven't(thankfully) watched(I actually saw the
first movie to Cavedwellers, much to my horror), an idiot professor by
the name of Tarl Cabot(what kind of stupid moniker is that, anyway?!)
is drawn once again to the planet called Gor. Along for the ride is his
'friend' and fellow professor, Watney(again with the ridiculous name!).
This guy is one of the most annoying characters ever put onto film. He
has a contest with himself early on in the film to see how many times
he can say Cabot! in the space of five minutes. Four thousand and
twelve, I think the total was. If only I'd had a shovel and a way to
get into the movie, that sucker would have been toast..
Anyhoo, Cabot arrives at the capitol city of..umm...the country?
Planet? Or whatever, of Gor, called Koroba. Here this turkey is greeted
as a hero(did the good citizens have nothing else to do that day?) by
one and all and taken into the castle of the King. He's in love with
the King's daughter, although how she stood his open mouthed trout
kissing is anyone's guess. There's a lot of misogynistic scenes with
scantily clad women and, more disturbingly, an equally scantily clad
albino dwarf(am I making that up? God,I wish I was). Apparently Cabot
and the dwarf are 'old friends'(nudge, nudge, wink, wink). Enter at
this point the venerable Jack Palance(what is he doing in this piece of
crap? I mean, I know a job's a job, Jack, but come on!), dressed in a
ridiculous costume with what looks like a split butter top loaf of
bread on his head instead of a hat. He's supposed to be the second bad
guy, along with the evil younger Queen that the King married(sure,
seventy year old decrepit guy, she married you because she loves you!
Yeah, right!).
Cabot's wormy friend Watney is seduced by the Queen(ewww!) into helping
her frame Cabot for her husband's death by really sharp blade. He goes
on the run with his personal dwarf, and we see them wander for days in
the desert(or that's what it feels like, anyway). During this time, we
get an immense amount of buffalo shots from the two men in their tiny
loin cloths. I SO did not need to see that dwarf's butt cheeks the
fifteen times or so that they showed them! They see a slave caravan
where the slaves are wearing toilet seats instead of collars around
their necks, and the dwarf unfortunately stops Cabot from drinking some
poisoned water. Dammit, Herve, couldn't you just have let him die? We
would all have thanked you, believe me!
They get out of the desert and save a slave girl from the market. Cabot
gives her a lecture about loving freely(who does this guy think he is?
John Brown Cabot?) then he goes back to the capitol city to try to
rescue the Princess(who was in a wrestling match with a pair of
lesbians) and stop the evil Queen and her creepy old High Priest
adviser(Palance). Of course he succeeds, when in reality this guy would
have had as much chance of winning the day as he would have had
successfully hang gliding off of Mt. Everest. You'd at least think that
the utterly infuriating little toad Watney would have been killed by
the Queen, but no...the last scene is of this total moron walking down
a road in 'America'(for America, read Italy), still wearing the lame
ass costume he got in Gor. Once again I have to take my hat off to the
Italians, who loved making films with scantily clad well oiled idiots
pretending that they're big, bad swordsmen and wizards. These aren't
even B grade films-they're more like Z-grade for the most part,
although most of them do have the laugh factor going for them, since
they're pure Italian cheese of the stinkiest kind.
3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
It's impossible to underrate this one, 25 November 2005
Author:
lemon_magic from Wavy Wheat, Nebraska
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
OK, so someone took the basic outlines of the infamous "Gor" novels and
used them as an excuse for this amazingly threadbare, slipshod excuse
for a feature film. I want to blame John Milius and Arnold
Schwarzenegger for this mess, since it came out in 1989, but in
actuality it was probably just another piece of product grunted out by
the "Sword and Sandals" division of the Italian film industry/sausage
factory, and it (or something very similar to it) would probably have
been made even if "Conan" had never existed.
So let's see what we've got here. Acting? Well, somehow they got hold
of Jack Palance and dressed him up in choir robes and a series of goofy
hats. Even sleep walking through his ridiculous part, he's got more
talent than the rest of the cast put together. This Urbano guy...well,
he's handsome, and he's buff, and he knows how to pose, and that's
about it. Everyone else can barely get their lines out without
stammering or chewing the scenery, and the guy who plays "Watney" will
probably never live down his role in this turkey if he lives to be 210
years old.
Writing and screenplay...sorry, you must be thinking of some other
movie. There is no such thing as "writing" on display anywhere here. I
am trying to make allowances for factors such as dubbing and
translation but...no, even allowing for that, this thing obviously
wasn't "written", it was assembled from the random output of 1000
monkeys sitting at typewriters, and then carefully edited to remove all
trace of human feeling or dramatic veracity from the results.
Costumes, scenery, etc.??? Nope, no such thing here. Oh, the actors
don't wear their own clothes to the shoot, and they aren't standing out
in a vacant lot, but the things used here were thrown together in an
afternoon on a budget of about $29.98, so they doesn't really qualify.
This is just some stuff they used to avoid having nude actors
pantomiming sword fights in an empty field. Hell, they're
ANTI-costumes...you've never seen so much un-sexy skin in your life.
(My favorite example: the 60 year old balding, flabby guy in the
leather bustier).
I don't want to hate on this film too much, such it doesn't really
deserve venom or hatred....just contempt and dismissal. Compared to a
lot of things put out by the Italian film industry (say, "Machiste Vs
Hercules In the Vale of Woe", a film so bad that it actually drives
strong men to tears), this isn't all that bad...it's just dull,
lifeless, uninspired and goofy without being funny. The Urbano-whosis
guy, you know, the romantic lead, survived this movie...he even went on
to do dozens of other film roles in Europe. That puts him one up on
people like Kurt Thomas after "Gymkata" or Ben Affleck after "Gigli".
Watch this once, preferably with the MST3K coverage to get you through
the roughest spots, on a lazy Sunday afternoon when you are too
hungover or sleepy to watch anything more ambitious. And if this sequel
is any indication, don't seek out the first "Gor" movie, not if you
value your brain cells.
3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
nice plot, poorly made film, 17 August 2000
Author:
mfujie
I found the story concept to have some potential but the film was poorly made. Tarl's sidekicks could have been different and better (and less irritating). The props could have been improved at lot more. As for the lead actor, Urbano Barberini looks right for the role but his acting skills were rather bad.
| Page 1 of 2: | [1] [2] |
Related Links
| Plot summary | Ratings | Newsgroup reviews |
| External reviews | Plot keywords | Main details |
| Your user reviews | Your vote history |
Copyright © 1990-2012
IMDb.com, Inc.
Terms and Privacy Policy under which this service is provided to you.
An 
company.