Gor (1987) Poster

(1987)

User Reviews

Review this title
38 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Fun Film
kaysanbrigham16 August 2019
There is action and especially fantasy which I appreciated. The chicks are also dutifully attractive flaunting their beautiful hair and legs. They do not make them like this anymore.
42 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
babalicious
wayne-slater-can30 June 2019
The professor gets transported to a land far far away, but it being a desert planet and free of inhibitions means women are hot flaunting, leggy, long-haired and completely nubile. Love leggy women. Love Gor.
46 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Fun Little Fantasy Film
gavin694212 March 2013
American professor Tarl Cabot is transported via a magical ring to planet Gor, where he must help an oppressed country overthrow its evil king and his barbarian henchmen.

Apparently this film was widely criticized for being campy, and also has come under attack from feminists for its sexist point of view. Of course, I cannot say it is not campy, but I will say that in some ways that is part of the charm. As for the sexism, well... this is another world. Should the attitudes of the people in this invented world be held against the film as a whole? (Honestly, I found it very tame -- not nearly as sexist as, say, "A Boy and His Dog".) We have the great Jack Palance and Hammer veteran Oliver Reed... how do you beat that?
28 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good Fantasy Film
cadinasir23 October 2019
Fantasy film in an enchanted yet brutal land.

Fantasy girls with super slender pretty slaves and guards and available horny women.

Good Watch
26 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Fun Film
cukmere15 January 2020
I cannot give it a higher rating because the travel through space is unexplained and remains magical, but the violence, the action, the new setting and the sexy women make me love this film.
14 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not Bad..
blindnes3 April 2000
When I sat down to watch this movie the first thing I noticed was that nearly all of the voices were over dubbed, and the beginning has some of the worst over dubbing I've seen in an English language movie.

Overall the movie was pretty good, if you like Fantasy this movie is for you, if you like Rebecca Ferretti then this movie is for you....otherwise you probably won't like it.
23 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Got lots of bored friends? Got beer? Rent Gor!
massive_death3 October 2001
Man, oh man. This movie pushes the limits of badness. I can't imagine anyone watching this movie for any reason but to laugh at it. As a comedy, this is great. Witness classic moments such as when the heroes just jump into a cart being dragged across the desert, in plain view of the enemy soldiers, and nobody notices! This is a great movie to watch with a bunch of friends, especially if you like to hear your friends howling with laughter. And then, after the flick's over, you can tell them a great joke: There are people for whom Gor is a sexual fetish. And then, the punchline is that you aren't kidding.
26 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Underrated but still far away from a good movie
alexfromhorn6 February 2012
I have to admit I had fun to watch it and I didn't turn it off so it can't be that bad. The acting didn't even appear that bad but maybe because I watched it in German and probably the dubbing was good. This movie hadn't a big budget but also far away from the smallest of this B-Movie Fantasy kind. The dialogs were quite simple and cheesy but not too stupid. It had some moments. I liked the music, it was old-school Fantasy/Sci-Fi Music. The second half of the movie could have been shorter in my opinion because it did not happen that much there. Cameraman did a good job, probably one of the most skilled people who worked on this movie. I wanted some fantasy-like stuff and I got it (which isn't really easy nowadays) and it entertained me, not on the highest level possible but it was enough to fulfill my need of watching fantasy stuff, so if you have that need as well you should give it a try.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Judged on their own merits, "Gor" and "Outlaw of Gor" are enjoyable....
ccmiller149226 October 2007
Judged on their own merits, "Gor" and "Outlaw of Gor" are enjoyable tongue-in-cheek near spoofs of the sci-fi warrior genre. The belabored Norman books are in the films given a much needed dose of humor, making them more palatable as film fare. On this basis, I found them to be agreeably entertaining. Having read the first five or so books and been impressed with the original cover art preceding Vallejo's, I had envisioned somebody like Ron Ely playing the lead, but I thought Urbano Barberini was charming as the awkward nerdly scientist who through a series of unbelievable circumstances is forced to gradually transform himself into a more primal, aggressive hunk. Yes, they were far short of the books in detail and characterizations, but that only helped to liven what would have been a deadly slow pace. I suggest that the many negative critics of these films take a look at "The Invincible Barbarian" or "Throne of Fire" if they think these are bad. Compared to those films "Gor's" production values are lavish and the scripts Oscar worthy. The English dubbing of Barberini's Cabot sounds exactly as if it were done by Dan Quayle...and after watching a while he almost morphs into Dan Quayle!
14 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
T vs A
Kierian2 April 1999
This movie was bad and I don't mean that in a good way. I enjoy bad films. This film was boring. For my male friends the best part of this film was the great female fight scenes which is best described in the words of one friend "Cool it's T vs A". There were only two reasons I could sit through the boredom that was this movie. First I had read Tarnsman of Gor which is a decent book even if the author goes into a psychotic misogynistics breakdown after the first 3 books in the series. Second this movie managed to rope JACK PALANCE into playing a part. I spent the whole movie waiting for Jack Palance to appear and it was almost as fruitful as waiting for Gedot. He shows up in the last 3 minutes setting up for a sequel...god I hope they don't make one. Not worth the time it took to watch.
29 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
If you don't know the books it might be better
fdpugh21 February 2013
Many of the negative reviews compare this to an apparent book series. I know nothing of those books, nor their author. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie - of course in the proper context of 80's pulp sci-fantasy.

This film did not have the "big name" actors that other contemporaries did, but it was a generally coherent story. Full of cheese and B-grade schtick, this film will not inspire or thrill you as Conan may have - it is definitely on par with others (Red Sonja, Fire & Ice, etc.) It's an Italian film I gather, and if you know anything of spaghetti westerns, expect similar production value.

This is NOT for fans of "A" grade barbarian films (are there any really?), nor apparently fans of the fiction upon which this is (loosely) based.
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A complete pile of s**t
Gangsteroctopus2 April 2004
Fritz Kiersch, this cinematic abortion's "director", has got to be one of the most completely untalented hacks working behind the lens. (If you've ever seen the original "Children of the Corn", you'll know what I mean.) The fight scenes here are SO incredibly lame. I've seen 2nd graders stage better mock combats in school plays. It doesn't help that the script seems to have been written by a moronic middle-schooler. No cliché goes unturned here, no mundane sword-&-sorcery trope untouched. I read the first three of John Norman's 'Gor' books when I was in high school and much more interested in the genre, and even then I didn't think that they were anything special. But at least they held my attention for the first few books in the series (probably mainly because of the sexy Boris Vallejo covers and the stories' liberal doses of bondage-themed sex). This movie has none of those elements. The only two good things about it are the vigorous, hearty (and often inappropriately utilized - good job, Fritz, you inept stooge) musical score and Rebecca Ferrati's breasts. (Wait - is that three things?)
26 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A bit like Disney's John Carter, only much, much, much, much worse.
BA_Harrison14 March 2016
Try, if you can, to imagine Disney's fantasy/sci-fi mega-budget flop John Carter as if it had been made in the '80s by The Cannon Group, producers of such cinematic clunkers as Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo, American Ninja, Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold, and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. This might give you some idea of what Gor is like: dreadful production values, a terrible script, lousy action, unconvincing sets, cheap costumes, and a cast of has-beens and never-weres directed by the man responsible for Stephen King dud Children of the Corn.

The film stars Urbano Barberini as mild-mannered physics lecturer Tarl Cabot, who is transported to the planet Gor by his magic ring, where he helps a group of brave warriors to overthrow evil despot Sarm (Oliver Reed), who has enslaved the people of nearby villages and stolen their sacred homestones. Featuring wooden performances from everyone, with the exception of Oliver Reed, who hams it up to the max (his exuberant performance no doubt aided by enough alcohol to fuel a small plane), Gor is difficult to endure, although the generous curves of sexy warrior woman Talena (Playboy playmate Rebecca Ferratti) help to ease the pain just a little.

1 out of 10, with a generous extra point added for the battle of the bad '80s hair-dos, as Talena, with her massive rock-babe barnet, fights another woman sporting crimped blonde locks.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Did they even read the book?
sychonic13 February 2009
Much like the other commenters, my view is that this movie is bilge. Really it's not much different than those sword and sorcery movies that were inspired by the Conan the Barbarian movies -- this is more like Conan the Destroyer than the infinitely superior first film.

There are so many flaws, and they have been mentioned in detail in other comments, they can't all be listed, it would use up the word maximum.

Suffice it to say that this is in the area of "Ator the Fighting Eagle" style flicks, very low budget, no talent to speak of in the direction or cast, and the writing is atrocious.

It is too bad, it appears the makers figured they could make the same movie, with the silly comic relief, that they've made dozens of times before, slap the "Gor" name on it, and people would watch it if they were into the books.

The Gor books do merit a movie, and the makers wouldn't even need too large a budget, though it would help since the world Norman created is quite intricate. And yes, the sexual aspect can be pretty adult in the books, the latter ones anyway. But the first few are pretty tame in that regard.

Still, a reasonably budgeted R-rated movie with a talented director (get Milius!) could have been made and would likely been successful.
12 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
NO redeeming qualities.
zapdude8 January 2007
As a fan of Science Fiction and Fantasy, I expect a bit of cheese with the movies I sometimes force myself to watch (mostly low-budge cheese).

As a fan of the Gor books, I too was anticipating this movie when I first heard about it. I had completely forgotten about it until it was playing late night on Space channel, but yeah, the bad memories came flooding back.

This movie and John Norman's books have absolutely nothing in common. No, I don't just mean that this is a bad adaptation... NOTHING in common. This was most likely an already written story that someone pasted the Gorean names onto.

The most disturbing part is that the very thing that made the books good, Gorean society, was ignored for this crapfest. The keeping of slaves and rough-and-tumble nature of Gor is not some bad people in one distant city... it was the entire planet.

Tarl Cabot is transported to this planet, which is in orbit on the opposite side of the sun (thus explaining why we don't see it), and after his first adventure he is returned to Earth. Tarl Cabot in the books is every-man, you, me, the guys you know. At first he is horrified by what he sees, but as time passes he realizes that this simple, brutal world is actually the way humans were meant to live.

In the books, slave girls revel in their sexuality. In the movie, slave girls are props for showing how evil the evil bad man is. Pathetic.

There are movies you watch to laugh at how bad they are. I don't think this one even rises to that level. Every character is miscast, which itself is an odd accomplishment considering how poor the script is in the first place.

I've already wasted enough of my life writing this... Of all the movies on IMDb, this is one that truly offers nothing, no redeeming aspects, no moral, nothing. There is no reason to see this. Ever. Anyone. For any reason. It lacks even the cheese factor. It's just... bad.
19 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Best watched with the sound off; add your own dialog.
wendywitch4 September 2001
Woof, is this a bad film! It can be quite entertaining, watched MST3K-style, but without a hearty sense of humor, this is just plain awful. It's made worse by the fact that it has almost no bearing on the novels upon which it is supposedly based. I'm not convinced anyone involved with the making of this movie (or the sequel, just as bad) read any of the books beyond the back covers.
11 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A great book made into a lame film
rams_lakers9 January 2007
Very sad how they turned a couple of fantastic books into a travesty of a movie. The movies did not do these books justice. Terrible acting, awful screenplay, and inferior directing with not-so-special effects. Sesame Street caliber. Very disappointing ..... this movie could've, and SHOULD'VE, been so much better.

The first book was the best. The unknowing hero (Tarl) is plucked from earth to a similar planet on the other side of the sun, and trained be a great warrior. He encounters various fantastic creatures, an evil ruler, beautiful scantily clad women, and a civilization that considers him an outlaw since he "belongs" to no city. The planet is run by the powerful yet mysterious Priest-Kings, who set a limit on advancement and keep the world in a quasi-medieval age. They live up in a huge mountain that is seemingly impossible to breach. No one has seen them, although many have witnessed their fury when a rule is broken.

The first 3 books are in my collection. That's all I wanted out of the 20-something books by John Norman. After the 3rd, where Tarl goes up the mountain to defiantly confront the Priest-Kings, there really didn't need to be more.

The series began to drop off considerably after that. Women were mostly slaves throughout the series of books. In the 2nd book one of the main female characters was leader of a city, while a few others in the first 5 were aggressive and headstrong. They weren't all submissive all of the time, which provided a few well-timed surprises. The only thing that bored me was Norman's endless descriptions of Gor's culture. This slowed the pace that kept me interested, so I just bypassed those parts when I ran into them. I'm sure a few nerds chose to get involved in the entire culture, similar to many in the Star Trek universe who got into speaking Klingon.

I read up to book 5 and wasn't too impressed with the 4th and 5th. The stories became repetitive with Tarl being captured (again!) and Norman got really hardcore with the female slave subject. Just too over the top in my opinion. The rest of the series is worthless after the 1st 3, I wouldn't take any of the later books even if someone offered them for free.

I absolutely LOATHE remakes, but if EVER a movie or series of movies needed to be remade, it's these. No list of big names needed, I'd be happy with all unknowns if they did it right. With the special effects of today, we could witness a wonderful story brought to the big screen (the right way!), and the majestic Tarns in glorious flight.

A generous 2 stars out of 10. Let's see someone try this again, please.
9 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
vile abuse
Jay V.17 January 1999
I've read some of the Gor books and enjoyed them. (Norman's later writing became far too sexist for me to stomach, but the first several are pretty good stories if you like the genre.)

But this movie *totally* sucked and about the only thing one could do with it is to have MST3000 do their thing (good luck). I turned it off after about 15 minutes and was seriously tempted to burn the video store's copy to spare anyone else the pain of seeing the thing.
12 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
It's bad but...
Sergiodave29 November 2020
A low budget Conan style movie, where all there budget probably went on paying Oliver Reed and Jack Palance. The acting is really bad and the script is terrible. Apart from seeing a very fit woman (Rebecca Ferretti) in hardly any clothing, this movie has no pluses. Having said that, I saw a sequel was made, so I'll probably watch it.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What is the opposite of plagiarism?
MisterCentury9 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
When I first saw this title in the video store, I was excited. I have read and enjoyed several of the books, and I was hoping that the movie version would be truthful to them. Unfortunately, I was wrong. The credits claim that this movie was based on the book "Tarnsman of Gor", but there were no tarnsmen in the movie, nor were there any tarns. They could have released this movie as is without paying any money to John Norman (or his estate) and they wouldn't have been sued. That's how little the movie resembles the book.

Jack Palance was given the third credit in the movie. I assumed that he would be playing the bad guy. As the movie neared the end, I turned to my brother and asked, "Wasn't Jack Palance supposed to be in this?" He just shrugged. Then Mr. Palance appeared just before the credits rolled, setting up the sequel. Obviously, he had a much better agent than Oliver Reed.

This movie does have a few redeeming qualities. I always liked Oliver Reed (except when he sang in 'Tommy'). Urbano Barberini has a pretty cool name. If you're a fan of character actors, this film has Paul L Smith (a.k.a. Bluto from 'Popeye'/the Beast Rabban from 'Dune'). And, of course, there are the female fight scenes, if that's what you watch movies for.
6 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Titillating Pageant of 80's Hair Styles!
Solveig-322 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I have never read the novel from which this film was derived, so I approach it untainted by literate expectations.

I muse at the notion people got dressed, got into motor vehicles, traveled at least a few miles, and paid cash money for a ticket to enter a cinema in order to sit and watch this thing on the big screen. I was never among those ranks, and having just experienced the movie for free (save the electricity required to operate the TV) while sitting on my couch, I'm torn between Schadenfreude and sympathy for the ones who were.

Unlike other reviewers, most of whom seem to have read the Gor novels, I declare this movie has measurable golden turkey value. The art direction is where I found redeeming elements.

The 80's hair is to die for, and I was especially taken with the mullet sported by one of the comrades with whom our protagonist aligns. The idea that hairstyle would be the single common thread between the civilizations of Gor and earth is quirky and cute.

I was also impressed with the quantity and diversity of injection-molded plastic props and wardrobe accessories. Molded *rubber* spear points in a vast array of shapes and sizes also appear on screen. (Some of the blades of the swords seemed to be actual tin or aluminum, and not painted/colored plastic/rubber.) I am not sure how they managed to color and paint all these things so well (and that is not sarcastic, the finish work on the props and wardrobe is exemplary; no "Attack of the the Eye Creatures" detail treatment in Gor), yet still betray the counterfeit nature of an item's composition material. Typically, when the detail work is this good, items pass for genuine articles, but not in Gor. The bejeweled crown Oliver Reed wears looks very similar to items I have seen in the toy aisle at many dollar stores, even though I have never seen any of the toys look so much like actual precious metal and stone.

Another worthy point: Oliver Reed, as a blonde. It's a surprisingly good color for him. Oliver Reed, alone, is a worthy point. I missed the opening credits, and came to IMDb as soon as I saw him on the screen, as the film was already so bad I was not expecting to see anyone with as much film cred as Reed, and as a blonde??? Surely this must be some Reed look-alike, but no... it *is* Oliver Reed. I was hooked at this point, and spent much of the time, while watching the movie, trying to imagine the circumstance and how Reed came to the decision to accept this role.

It's true this is a movie that exploits heterosexual men's vulnerability to t&a, but there is also some fine presentation of male buttock and overall physique that we don't often get in such scripts. I was pleasantly surprised.

One reviewer wrote that this would be good with (a few cases/kegs of) beer and lots of bored friends looking for a laugh, and I have to second that. (If you live in California, you may choose to substitute beer with medical marijuana for even better results.) Ignorance of the content of the Gor books also seems requisite for maximum enjoyment. If you watch this movie for the celluloid it is, without anticipation of visual presentation of some previously learned story, it is bad enough to be entertaining.

I'll never forget that brunette boy's 1986 mullet juxtaposed with his ?first century AD? semi-barbaric attire, fashioned from cloth and plastic resins. That, alone was worth the time it took to watch the film.

Still I am left with the question: Why, Oliver, why?
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
If you liked the books, the movie will be a good target for your frustrations
mtillman-220 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
While the novels are a view of one man learning to exist in another society, the movie is about imposing the views of our society into another. The only thing true to the novels in the movie is that the names are the same, but even the names aren't accurately applied to characters. The alliances in the novels are between men while in the movie the alliances are non-existent or fraudulent. The characters in the novels are very well-developed but in the movie they fail to bring out many of the character traits that make them important in the novels. All-in-all, it seemed to me someone wrote a B-movie and needed a source for names. They used names from a novel that was relatively not well-known and so whether the plot matched or not was of little concern.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Oh dear me...
HP Winter20 June 2002
When I found out that there was a 'Gor' movie I was surprised, the long running series of bad pulp novels was bad enough but after finally trying to watch the movie I was amazed. Movie versions of decent books are often bad enough but this takes the prize for utter trash...and there was a sequel! In my opinion, worthless (as in not even awful enough to stand a chance of ever gaining cult status)
4 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
disappointment
deadsenator26 May 2000
I've read most of the Gor books and loved them all. They described an epic tale of a reluctant hero that never fails to impress in an alien world based on the most primal of human instincts reminiscent to Burroughs' fabulous John Carter of Mars tomes. This is entirely unlike the makers of this movie who have chopped the fantasy into an ugly circus sideshow. The tales of Tarl Cabot deserved much more of an effort to put on film. Robert E Howard's "Conan" character was given a visual showing thousand-folds better than Gor. The novels will live on in my memories forever and I may yet even read them again, but never will this movie enter my VCR or my mind again. Shame on them. 1 out of 10
4 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It's not bad, it's the WORST
exslyder18 February 2004
I've read several top 10 worst sci-fi/fantasy movies lists, and on most of them at least 1 if not multiple Star Trek movies were listed. Even the WORST of those movies are like works of DiVinci or Shakespear compared to this movie. There was no sense of time in the movie, so many "clipped" areas, where the scene jumps from one to the other, in no apparent order. The combat scenes were some of the worst I've ever seen, one punch or a hit on an enemy's shield kills them. If you like "B" rate movies, you won't even like this one. If there was more lettering I would call it a ZZ rate movie. Avoid this one like the plague.

I would rate it -4 out of 10
3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed