IMDb > Ba'al (2008) (TV) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
Ba'al (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 17 reviews in total 

23 out of 35 people found the following review useful:

inane bit of cinema

Author: drystyx from United States
13 September 2008

Someone forgot to write a script for this movie. It really doesn't appear to have a script. It looks more like a bunch of people getting together and just filming scenes as they go along, much like the old TV fantasy series like Xena. Lots of conflict and some action, but no clear content. Suffice to say, there is a quest for ancient artifacts, and the ancient idol, Ba'al is involved. We even see Ba'al as malformed clouds during the movie. Not a bad visual. But to call it confusing is to be generous. This movie has nothing really going for it, other than a few characters who are reasonably likable. We also have a very trite villain, however. Not sure what the audience for this would be. Perhaps 12 year olds, but even they would want some sort of story. There just isn't a story here.

Was the above review useful to you?

16 out of 23 people found the following review useful:

Complete Lack of Substance

Author: kiawa77 from United States
20 September 2008

This movie can be summed up by one word: "blah". It wasn't good, and it wasn't really bad. It just *wasn't*. I was hoping for another laughable Sci-Fi Original; some terrible script, some sad predictable plot, some poorly delivered lines, some poor acting.... but there's none of this. It's just "blah" all around.

In this film, you won't find much of a story. There really isn't a plot, just some very vague good-vs-evil. There's a lot of running around, and the whole movie is one big exercise in boredom. It doesn't even have the humor of a so-bad-it's-good flick.

So don't bother. Just go rent Carnosaur instead ;)

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

" Now it's in the hands of God, . . . But which one? "

Author: thinker1691 from USA
12 October 2009

Occasionally we select a film from the rental shelves because we were intrigued with the jacket cover. In school we often study and learn of ancient Gods from around the world. The title of this movie is " Ba'al " so I was intrigued. From it's inception, the story begins to fracture like a thin layer of ice. Beginning with a trip to the Alaska wilderness, we meet Carol (Stefanie Von Pfetten) and her companion, Dr. Lee Helm (Jeremy London) who have come to visit an eminent archaeologist, Dr. Owen Standford (Scott Hylands) who has discovered one of four ancient amulets. Although the find is dangerous, the mad doctor becomes obsessed with their combined power as it will activate the wrath and power of the ancient Sumarian god. The film then has our heroes gallivanting around the globe, chased by an assortment of characters like the F.B.I., Commander Kittrick (Michael Kopsa) of the Canadian government and the director of the museum. One need not see the entire movie to notice all the inaccuracies within the film. Granted the mistakes are obvious, the movie does get a couple points, like the impressive special effects and the near resemblance of the hero to Brandon Frasier. The conclusion is, although it's a badly constructed movie, it's entertaining enough to warrant a look-see. **

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 23 people found the following review useful:

Very funny... though unintentionally

Author: friedman-8 from Canada
14 September 2008

This is a ridiculously funny TV movie, though I doubt the producers planned it that way. The dialogue is stilted, the acting is wooden and the plot is completely nonsensical. However, it's really good for a laugh. Canadians will get a kick out of watching for the ridiculous Canadian goofs. (Like much on SciFi, this picture was produced in Canada -- Vancouver, natch.) Listen for the secondary characters with their Brampton accents... the Canada Post mailbox in the background... and my favourite, the US Navy Lieutenant with bars on his collar and corporal's stripes on his sleeve (reminds me of the MASH episode where Radar gets a "field promotion" to a Captain-Corporal). To make things even better, the rank chevrons point downward, a-la Commonwealth usage. Hell... you'd think someone in the crew would have noticed this?

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Quite good...somehow

Author: aliway from United Kingdom
23 July 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I went into this film expecting a terrible piece of film that should not ever see the light of day. It's probably because of this I actually started to enjoy it.

Don't get me wrong, the special effects are as good as other bad films such as 'Boa vs Python' and 'Megashark vs Giant Octopus', some iffy acting here and there, and a bizarre plot, but somehow I started to get into it.

Lexia Doig, however, despite being a good actress, always seems to make me develop a hatred for whatever character she plays. Elias Toufexis I really like and, unfortunately I can't remember who plays the FBI guy who tries to arrest Helm (played by Jeremy London), but he was the best in my opinion.

There are some other downsides, such as Doig somehow hearing a beep in her van whilst inside the house, and travelling seems to take 5 minutes. Oh, and I missed the meeting when blood was classed as water.

But strangely enough, despite this being a bad film, I can't stress this enough, I actually enjoyed the film. For once I will not say "ignore this", give it a chance. It's most likely a hit and miss, but it's worth a shot.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Not as bad as some of the other output on the SyFy Channel, but still not that good

Author: TheLittleSongbird from United Kingdom
6 July 2011

I wasn't expecting much from Ba'al:The Storm God, and I didn't get much. That said, compared to a lot of other SyFy projects, it's not that bad, the visual of Ba'al is a reasonable and somewhat interesting one, the photography and effects are far less crude than you would expect, the characters excepting the villain are reasonable and the sound is decent. However, the villain is rather trite and uninteresting, and the story is dull and predictable complete with some wooden acting, really clunky writing and uneven direction. In conclusion, it's not good, but it could have been worse too. 4/10 Bethany Cox

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Nicely constructed supernatural thriller

Author: Rabh17 from United States
5 June 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This was looked like a cheap, "Dig-up-old-things-and-people-die" boilerplate Mad-Scientist flick.

But wait. . .

Old Archaeologist (Mad) starts digging up buried amulets-- except he's not after them for Archaeologist fame. By the time the other scientists realize he's (Mad) and up to no good, the God of Storms is already wrecking havoc and creating superstorms.

Meanwhile, a Gov't Weather Watch bureau is tracking the unexplained storm growths and trying to dispel them without sparking an international War. The meteorological hand-wavium isn't overwhelming but adds enough of a scientific pseudo-explanation of a supernatural event to give a facile ring of believability to the story.

The God Ba'al itself is pretty cool. It's done well as a nice FX. And it's plausible: Ba'al is supposed to be a God-- not a creature. And on the ground, the viewer is taken along on a nicely timed build-up of tension as the Mad Archaeologist keeps skipping ahead of everyone to get the next amulet.

This movie is a well-turned gem of a lite Friday Night pop-corn thriller that doesn't fall into the rut of cheap ridiculousness.

So within its merits, this Made-For-Cable "B" movie is darn good!

Now having said that. . .this Movie doesn't win any awards; this Movie isn't a pack-tha-house blockbuster; this Movie isn't tour-de-force Cinema. People-- it's JUST LITE ENTERTAINMENT!! Don't try to be a New York Times Critic! Just Watch it! I call this one a Friday Night flick for a reason-- Powerhouse flicks are for Saturdays in my book. And for you Military Buffs out there-- remember that most of us civvies don't know a Lieutenant from a Corporal. If Military Rank Inaccuracies bother you that much-- don't watch this one.

Oh. . .and this movie is Kid-friendly and Girlfriend Neutral.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Return of the Stormgod

Author: unbrokenmetal from Hamburg, Germany
12 August 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Dr Stanford is looking for 4 artifacts which will revive the ancient god Ba'al, for without any reason why, he thinks Ba'al will heal him from cancer. Of course, the Stormgod creates a storm instead, for that's his usual line of work, not medical treatment. Lexa Doig from Stargate suggests to nuke Ba'al, because that's cool for any disaster movie, but her, uh... "scientific" approach is opposed to the mythological approach of Archaeologists who invoke another Sumerian god instead to fight the Big Cloudface. I'm still looking for reasons why any of this should work. And I really wonder why some people are proud to discover tiny little goofs like uniform stripes in a movie for which the "Bosporus" scenes are obviously filmed on a cold and rainy day in Canada, without the slightest resemblance to Turkey. Filming an Egyptian pyramid scene in my backyard would be easier, because there's at least a brick wall.

After Yeti, Stonehenge, Loch Ness and Snakehead, I think this is the 5th movie from this director I watched within a year - and it might be the best, closely followed by the hilarious "Stonehenge Apocalypse". Honestly. "Ba'al" may come from a fast assembly line, but it was worth spending 90 minutes of my time on; less for the action and effects, but it certainly was much funnier than the makers intended.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Good film. Not Great, but Good.

Author: Berzerkirsrage from Canada
26 May 2011

Don't listen to morons who reference pseudo history. It was a good effort, and those idiots who whine about wrong uniforms, and bad acting, have never made a film and don't know what they're talking about. Will this film win any awards... no. But bigger budgets, bigger names, and bigger producers have made much worse films.

Also, if you're going to get into history, some of the scrolls were written in Greek as well as Aramiac (Canaanite languages such as Phoenician) but remember you're watching a MOVIE!!! Meant to entertain and pass the time. Buttheads who sit with their history books open to pick fault with such trivial things is asinine.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Replacement actors

Author: lloydjw from Australia
18 April 2009

This film ticks all the boxes, and then more. It is distinguished by the use of at leas three replacement actors - fake Brendan Fraser, fake Woody Harrelson and fake Terence Stamp. I also loved the extravagant flight simulation usage. Most impressive was the fact that one of the ancient sites was a picnic spot - they could have just read the information board to locate the amulet. Also, you'd think that a storm that destroyed the golden gate bridge and most of London would have caught the attention of some people higher up than a lieutenant in a corporal's shirt, the G man and a pretty girl with a satellite dish on her truck.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Ratings External reviews Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history