Reviews & Ratings for
The Sands of Time (TV) More at IMDbPro »I guardiani del cielo (original title)

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Bad. Awful. Don't Waste Your Life!!, 6 August 2007

Author: jason-1859 from Canada

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie is one of the WORST movies I've had the misfortune to watch in a long time. The acting is cheezy and the characters are cliché, irritating and randomly killed off throughout the movie. The only thing worse than the actors posing with tears in their eyes is the mushy male-bonding moments. The director needed to CUT half this movie, just to make it bearable. Lots of sand, riding across the sand, people passing out in the sand, and dying. In the sand. They never really explain the legend behind the title, nor does the movie actually involve the tower, except in a very deux ex machina way. Horribly planned and filmed. Bad technical codes. At one point a guy is poisoned and shot but still kills a fort full of men and then carries a girl across the desert without water. And he's one of the more better-rounded characters. Before he DIES!! The plot-line wanders uncontrollably, and it is LONG! Before getting to the end, you want to kill the sappy main characters and then kill yourself just to end the misery!! Unbelievably unrealistic and painful. So sad it's almost funny, but never, never again. Just walk away. Fast. Don't say you weren't warned.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Gave me a new bad movie standard, 26 February 2010

Author: MelLotti from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I picked up this movie with a friend because the front cover made it look like it would be pretty good...I never realized how deceiving a movie cover could be.

This was truly the worst movie I have ever seen.

It is painfully long, and the only reason I kept watching is because I was waiting for this guy to die, but after legitimately being killed off 5 times: he's poisoned (all of his men die from this poison may I add) yet somehow he has enough energy to walk back through the desert (dehydration), fly a plane, which is later shot down and crashes (miraculously he doesn't get shot/survives the crash), then somehow through all that carries his wife through the desert to safety (she was dying of dehydration/maybe a gunshot at this point) and when she is safe he finally dies, but by then the movie was basically over.

The acting is horrible, the dialog was terrible, and most scenes are in the desert. The characters are not very likable, and did I mention that it is painfully long??

My friend and I started drinking through half the film, and even that didn't improve it!

It would have been more entertaining to light my money on fire and watch it burn.

And the end was worse than anything. The revelation of who the firstborn were was so anticlimactic! I hated this movie.

Now my movie standard has changed-when I see a bad movie, the least I can say for it is "Well...it wasn't as bad as Tower of the Firstborn".

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Torture, unfortunately, 24 July 2007

Author: RDrrr from United States

Peter Weller (RoboCop) is in this movie... well, we all have to work to pay our bills.

The movie is just not even what I'd charitably call a 'B' movie... it is tortuously drawn out... not well written, not Hollywood-made (and if you value 'indies' above Hollywood, then this is still even below Hollywood-made)... simply sub-par. I picked this up as a rental hoping it would be an Indiana Jones (or something) knock-off... I wish it could have been.

Lots of camera work where it simply lingers too long on the actor... the (bad) dialog is done, overdone, burnt offering done... just not well done.

The 'wonder' and awe is not there... even though you're led up to the wall and bashed into it at the end. I don't want to quit watching very many movies in the middle (or beginning)... but I would have, if someone else didn't insist on fast forwarding through parts to see the end.

It needs to be re-edited just to hope it could be a 'B' movie... I really don't think it can be. Lionsgate included previews of other movies that you could tell were just as far off the mark for video entertainment... a line of excruciating time killers. I didn't really expect this kind of quality still existed... not in the U.S. at least?

In comparison, "Sahara" is a blockbuster... at least Sahara made a professional effort... and I don't mean effects/explosions. I mean a script that could be spoken and not in silent era dramatics.

Ooh, simple-minded story, ear-painful dialog... even bad fight scenes. Sorry, I'd watch "Titus", twice, before this. It's punishment.

3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Give it a Chance; I Did, and It Was WELL Worth It, 28 June 2007

Author: surrealwinter2 from United States

I just watched this movie, after finding it in a video store and choosing it as my 'random' movie of the week, so to speak. I was hoping for something like The Mummy or Indiana Jones: serial adventure with an Egyptian theme, which is what the box sells the movie as. This is not entirely true, and I will tell you that when I started the film, and it had that slightly unfocused TV look and weird audio qualities, I was feeling rather...disappointed. More than once in the first two or three scenes I considered turning it off, wondering if its apparent quality and my lack of energy made it not worthwhile.

I was wrong. This is a movie that rather sags at the very beginning and very end, but the middle is, in honest truth, quite good. The actress playing Diane looks and acts her part; the same goes for those portraying Rashid, Neil, Leon, Adriel, and most major characters. The costuming is *incredible*. The music, by the great Ennio Morricone, isn't his most standout score, but it's good. The setwork is also very, very impressive. And, though the movie is, yes, long at 3 hours, and, yes, there are reused shots and the like, if you let yourself enjoy it you will find an adventure film of surprising depth and plot complexity. The relationships between characters are quite touching and ably portrayed; the action scenes are old- fashioned but this fits the film. You will find yourself caring, very quickly, about most of the major characters. And you will experience some scenes of high adventure, nervous intrigue and skilled gambits, and intelligent humour. This film also succeeds in that it doesn't acknowledge that it is an adventure movie many will make fun of -- it is earnest, the actors don't seem distracted by the fact that they're acting, and, in the end, you will have watched a satisfying and engrossing story unfold.

I warn you the ending is a little wonky, but it's good. If you like adventure, action, camp, serials,or archaeology, you'll like this movie. There are many more good things and a few not-so-good things I could say about this, but frankly I enjoyed it immensely and would watch it again. You like Lawrence of Arabia? Beau Geste? The French Legion? Tales from 'Arabia'? The Mummy? Indiana Jones? A little metaphysical talk on the side? Give this a try. It's sincerity and compelling story will surprise and engross you. I know it did me, to my own surprise. And, probably, you will be touched as well; emotional response is rather garanteed--some of the film can be brutal, romantic, or sad. I very much liked it, and plan on making my friends watch it with me. Decide to enjoy it, and you will, very much. It's very good.

1 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Amusing but not much more, 19 May 2007

Author: D_vd_B from Netherlands

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I bought this TV mini series because I loved Secret of the Sahara and I own Ennio Morricone's amazing score. The link with Secret of the Sahara was the theme, the same company and the same director (and the same composer).

Italian TV productions are often very well made. I saw the 10 mafia series La Piovra and some Italian mini's. But one this goes for most of them; the music is great, the camera work is great...but since 1998 everything is cut short for the so called MTV generation. And that just doesn't work with Tower of the Firstborne. You cannot have a movie this complex without a proper introduction that takes at least an hour. And the other two hours are filled with subplots, so it only gets more complex. The second part begins great **MINOR SPOILER** with a french legionair that saves his love with a plane, almost as a knight on horseback would save a dame in distress **SPOILER END**.

So expect nice shots, absolutely fantastic music by Ennio Morricone, wooden overacting by Guy Lankester and Ione Skye and a complex plot retold in the editing room of the studio. The setting itself is great, but there is just not enough time to let the audience 'feel' the Sahara desert. And there are some nice special effects too.

You'll be better off with Secret of the Sahara if you like mysterious adventure movies with great soundtracks. If you liked that one, you might kill off an evening with this, but don't expect to be amazed.

7 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
Not too bad.., 18 October 2002
Author: Eve Torrez from Texas, USA

This movie was not that bad, it was all about the sweet romance between the Arab Prince and the English-man's daughter it kind of reminded me of Brook Sheilds and Lambert Wilson in 'Sahara' (which I LOVED)... The show had quite a build up, I was 'glued' to the TV just wanting to see how it would turn out and who would reach the end of the line. The ending was not what I expected, but I was somewhat satisfied with the movie overall, and have watched it two more times. I would suggest it if you are a romantic, interested in a higher being or just have about 2 hours to kill...

Add another review

Related Links