The Curse of King Tut's Tomb (TV Movie 2006) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
39 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
not as bad as some are saying
funkyfry3 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
If you're in the target audience for this kind of thing -- basically you enjoy movies like "Indiana Jones" and "The Mummy" -- then you're not going to feel particularly ripped off by this film. It satisfies all the basic requirements of its genre and even includes a few nice touches I haven't seen anywhere else; for example it's the first movie I've seen that makes its supernatural mummy (Francisco Bosch) into a hero.

Casper Van Dien dons Indiana Jones' hat and Rick O'Connell's hair to fill in the archaeologist/adventurer role as best he can. I didn't think he did half a bad job; he has an easy charm that suits this kind of material, and his face reminds me of John Agar's. His buddies, played by Patrick Toomey, Tat Whalley and others are an appealing bunch and they have good comedic chemistry together. Despite the fact that Malcolm McDowell is in the film, Jonathan Hyde plays the main villain. He's OK, basically a poor man's version of David Warner. I would have liked for McDowell to have more to do though.

This is basically a very simplistic story and a pretty shopworn script, given some life by a group of enthusiastic actors and a pretty good director, Russell Mulcahy (who used to be a very "hot" director in the early 80s when he directed videos for "Duran/Duran" and made the film "Highlander."). The whole thing holds together well enough that you overlook some of its rough edges, although some things that happen are just too stupid to be taken seriously even on the level the film seems to demand. For instance, why would the hero and his love interest (Leonor Varela) go back to the tomb only to decide they need to go back to get more help? Did they imagine there would only be one or two villains there? There are some lazy mechanical aspects of the plot that could have been fixed.

I found myself enjoying this film and having affection for the characters despite all its obvious flaws.
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good Escapism if you ignore the facts!
ozthegreatat4233016 January 2007
This is not "The Lord of The Rings" by any means and is not even the best work of Director Russell Mulcahy. And there were far too many natives of India trying to pass as Egyptians. Having said that I found this film to be good escapism entertainment if you realize that they are not trying to present any kind of historical fact. One of the best ways to sum it up is to imagine Indiana Jones on the cheap. Casper Van Dien is always fun to watch once you accept his natural cockiness and are pulled into his ability to be comic and serious at the same time.

Johnathan Hyde is always excellent either as hero (ala "Richie Rich) or as villain, and he seems to be fated to play these evil archaeologist types recently. And Malcolm McDowell is always superb. But the winner in this film was the sets, props and the soundtrack. The film was worth that alone. Still, a tighter shot film in a shorter time frame might have made it all work better. Not Oscar material by a long shot, but worth the time if you have nothing better to do.
17 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
My 8 year old enjoyed it.
chucktaine1 June 2006
My son is 8 and he enjoyed it. At three hours it was a too long for me, but I remember watching Tarzan movies for hours on Saturday mornings when I was his age, including those awful Mike Henry in South America Tarzan movies. This was better than those. So, even though I didn't like it much, I'm glad movies are still being made that a kid can watch and get lost in. One thing I thought was puzzling, they kept introducing characters that they never really did anything with. Steven Waddington was the only supporting character that managed to shine. The history was of course pretty silly, but they "fixed" that at the end. It made my son want to know more, so we went on the web and looked up what really happened. Definitely a "B" movie, with limited special effects and wooden acting, but still fun for kids.
18 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A real hoot for a lazy TV afternoon
gloria-4721 January 2007
One of the most fascinating things about this film (apart from Jonathan Hyde's extraordinary resemblance with Henry Daniell)is watching how the plot meanders and wanders with no destination in sight as if it were an Art Nouveau filigrain.

I suspect that the archeology academics would seriously object at the unorthodox -but revolutionary- system that the protagonist and his buddies use to find the legendary Pharaoh's tomb, namely, by sitting in the terraces of Cairo's seediest bars and leaving them without alcoholic stock. Their interest is, however, scientific, except for the legionnaire buddy who is more interested in gold statuettes accidentally getting lost in his greatcoat pockets (Having mentioned the legionnaire, I must say that I admire the courage of the scriptwriter, who reveals to us -for the very first time- that Egypt was at the time a French protectorate, and not, as we've been led to believe by the official history, associated to the British empire)

The bad guys stick to the old, slow, boring system of studying the terrain and excavating carefully according to old Ieroglyphs, while our hero and his friends discover the tomb the legendary grave by happily throwing dynamite sticks at random: a new path is opened thus for archeology.
26 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
About as Bad as They Come
pjmurnane4 June 2006
I've always thought I was one of the more forgiving movie viewers in the country, but I just can't describe how bad this movie is. The "Egyptology" described in the terribly written introduction voice-over must be from not a parallel universe, but a skewed one, because it certainly has nothing to do with this one. The dialog is just atrocious. The acting could have been good -- I choose to believe this because the bad directing so completely overwhelmed any performance talent that evidence of acting ability is completely undetectable. The characters would have to be improved to be two dimensional. The pacing was haphazard at best. I can't remember the editing, so it must have been better than the other aspects of the film. I wish Joe Bob Briggs was still reviewing movies, because that's the most entertainment anyone could hope for from this film.
24 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
This movie IS the curse
dave-84721 August 2006
I seldom stop a movie part-way through and refuse to watch the rest of it. "The Curse of King Tut's Tomb" provoked that exact reaction. It tries to be an action movie and fails. It attempts, badly, to imitate elements of both "Mummy" pictures and falls v-e-r-y short. It desperately tries to grab onto parts of the "Indiana Jones" series and misses the mark every single time.

The acting varies widely from stilted, to just plain amateurish. Any resemblance to historical accuracy is fleeting, at best, and CG work is about on a par with a talented child wielding an Etch-A-Sketch.

The only reason I can fathom for hanging on to this DVD is to use as a coaster when you get unexpected company. I can only imagine that Messers McDowell and Hyde desperately needed work. They should have been more discriminating.

The Director, Russell Mulcahy, seems to be on a role at this point. His version of "Mysterious Island" (2005) suffered from similar shortcomings and is another Movie Worth Missing. It is interesting to note that both "Mysterious Island" and "The Curse of King Tut's Tomb" were produced for The Hallmark Channel. Thankfully Hallmark greeting cards are much better than their movies.

If you see this movie coming on, go floss your cat's teeth. It will be much more productive.
32 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tut, Tut, Tut....
poetryinmotionpictures27 August 2006
It's sad to see. Really. With Russell Mulcahy being the director of Highlander - a must see of my 80's teenage - I thought maybe it was a return to form when I caught a trailer on Sky. I duly tuned in...

That was the start of my troubles. This lack lustre schizophrenic wannabe Indiana Jones clone lacked any sense of pace, character or credibility, and that's leaving the dubious special effects alone. My woes were doubled when I found that at the end of transmission I had only seen the first half of this two part torture.

Through some freak happenstance I collided with part two a week or so later. I accepted the wafer thin plot, the unlikely OTT villains, the stereotypes, the surface characterisations, and even the Very "Special" Special Effects. And from somewhere came the impetus to want the film to be finished. It went into free-fall and became a demon laden action type thingy effort, sort of... You see, it just ended and I thought "There is a God". All I wanted was to see it finished. And mercifully I did.

Please Russell Mulcahy, I beg you, read the script before you say yes to your next film! The Lost Battalion wasn't bad at all! As far as viewers are concerned though - save yourself a couple of hours of your life, because this film is certainly Cursed!
22 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
"Oh, My God! It's Tut!"
docrotwang14 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Yes, Casper Van Dien, it's Tut. Well, actually, it's immortal, mystical, son-of-Ra Tut, with Mechanical Wing action, come to save the world from Set, Lord of the Underworld, in a (not very) climactic battle in a quarry.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you read that right. Sorry.

Look, I understand that pulp can take liberties with history and, you know, scientific accuracy. That's fine, as long as it's fun and at least somewhat convincing. But when it isn't, you get "The Curse Of King Tut" (DVD titled "The Curse Of King Tut's Tomb"), a meandering wonderland of nonsensical cuts, bad dialog, magical explosives that cut 90-degree angles straight down and characters who add nothing, and I repeat, NOTHING, to the development of the plot.

What plot, you ask? Ah, yes. Casper Van Dien plays Danny Fremont, who is neither Rick McConnell nor Indiana Jones (and he's not Daniel Jackson, either), who has found 3 of the 4 fragments of the Emerald Tablet which King Tut (an immortal superhero, by the way) used to trap Set (who looks like a beardless Cthulhu) in the Netherworld. His nemesis Sinclair (Jonathan Hyde) belongs to a secret cabal called The Hellfire Council (who are not the Illuminati) and has stolen all three of them so far. If Danny and his pals (whose names you don't learn until, ummm...I dunno, 45 minutes in?) fail to find the final fragment before Sinclair, then Sinclair will wear his sunglasses a lot and have incredible powers with which to control the world. Also, there will be CGI demons.

Naturally Danny DOES find it first, but his proved ability to lose important artifacts and not, you know, take basic precautions secures the fact that Sinclair gets it anyway and gets the powers and ahoy, the CGI demons. There's the obligatory love interest (Leonor Varela, whose character's name we also don't know for a while), the Crazy Wise Man, The Sexy Spy, The Comic Relief Who Adds Nothing To The Plot, The Tough Soldier, and The Horrible Dialogue. Russ Mulcahy, who left all his flair in 1985 where the pop music was better, phones it all in.

Oh, and apparently India looks like Egypt. Who knew?

Seven bucks gets you the DVD at Wal-Mart; 3 hours gets you an experience you'll never forget.

Neither one, unfortunately, is refundable.
13 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A good way to kill time
silvermoon13219 February 2009
Lets be honest, this is no master piece. But it is good mindless entertainment.

I think that all the people going on about the bad directing and less than believable storyline are really quite ignorant and foolish. This movie is clearly marketed towards male teens and people looking for a cheap fantasy story. If you are in to things like that (star trek, stargate, etc) then you will probably like this movie. If, however, you expect to see Oscar winning performances in this movie...well then you are also foolish and ignorant.

Realistically, the acting is not that bad. Several people pull off relatively impressive performances. The characters are likable for the most part, the plot is rather interesting, and all things considered the special effects are not that terrible.

Basically, after the first 10 to 20 minutes the movie is quite enjoyable. Once you get past the completely unbelievable storyline and accept the film for what it is you can get into it.

But unfortunately, if you are a snob who only watches movies of the highest caliber you will not be able to see this movie as a humorous satire like I did. Certainly it is not worth paying $7.50 for to see in the theater, but I think it was time well spent.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Dire dire dire
morana6920 April 2006
This is terrible. Do not watch! This made-for-TV 'extravaganza' is clearly intended to cash in on the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark and the other Indiana Jones films; however it is but a very pale shadow.

The characters are less than two-dimensional. Van Dien's character clearly tries to be Indiana Jones and fails so badly it's not even funny. He even dresses like Indiana Jones. However he has none of the charm and intelligence needed to be a believable character.

I don't expect, or want, fantasy to be realistic; but the characters have to act logically within the fantasy world the writer and director creates. They do not here.

I would rather watch paint dry than this drivel.
30 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Wow
The_Fist22 June 2008
Too bad there's no negative stars rating... I was appalled by everything about this movie, including the chick's fake French accent, the terrible Indiana Jones/the Mummy ripoff, and the awful editing. I have honestly seen better acting in adult films. The few hours I spent watching this movie seemed like an eternity. The historical inaccuracies are so numerous that I found myself shouting "wtf" throughout the entire film. I have no idea how Russell Mulcahy's name ended up anywhere near this abomination. It shouldn't even be called a film. This "thing" is a pathetic attempt to combine the 'Indiana Jones' and 'Mummy' franchises.
14 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Aventures and fantasy in the ancient Egypt with cheesy FX
ma-cortes12 November 2007
The film starts thousands years ago,under sands of ancient Egypt. The pharaoh Tutankamen rules, few know the events about his life.Tuthankamen really was son from King Amenophis IV and Qeen Nefertiti and he died violently.In the movie he appears fighting evil forces. The king was buried and his tomb eternally curses so that no man would ever again suffer from his evil ways. But thousands years later on a greedy search of Tut's treasure a group of archaeologist break the curse seal the tomb. A crakerjack adventurer(Casper Van Dien,Space troopers)is an adventurer wishes to find King Tut's tablet that would rule the world. But his nemesis Sinclair(Jonathan Hyde,Titanic) along with a secret society(Malcolm McDowell,Clockwork orange and Simon Callow,Room with a view)also want it and will stop at nothing to obtain it. Fremont is helped by a beautiful archaeologist(Leonor Varela,Cleopatra) and a trio friends(Steve Waddington,The last Mohican,among others). They venture into Valley of the Kings where find the Tut's tomb and the curse come out and once again unleashes the savage power.

This TV picture is a crossover of Egyptian fantasy:¨Mummy,King Scorpion¨(Stephen Sommers) and adventures and clothes from¨Indiana Jones¨(Spielberg). This is a cheesy fun in the Saturday matinée tradition with excessive and mediocre special effects. The movie contains lots of mummies, skeletons, wizards, as well as spooky tombs. The motion picture is regularly directed by Russell Mulcahy(Razorback,Highlander,Resurrection)who made a similar story about Egyptian curse titled¨Tale of mummy¨. Rating : Average but with some moment entertaining.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Interesting, but enjoyable
dolphingirlmn5 June 2006
I, personally, thought this movie was very well put together. Even though this movie was historically incorrect. It was something entertaining and different from the typical historical movie. Even though the things in this movie, like the flying demons, a soul eating immortal, and King Tutankhamen rising from the dead are obviously not real it was interesting how they displayed them. That is a whole part of Egypt and all Pharaohs and Valley of the Kings, it's mythical. Some people believe that there are mystical powers that evolve around these tombs and it was cool how they incorporated that mystical element into it. It was interesting how they combined the real things like in the end Howard Carter (which I was thoroughly confused in the beginning).I quite thoroughly enjoyed it though.
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Highly Enjoyable
k-thomas15 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I had never heard of this film until i was passing my local tobacconist and saw the DVD was for sale at 4 euro 99 cents. This was a good old fashion adventure film where you did not need to be a PHD to know who were the good guys and who were the bad and you cannot get any better than Malcom Mcdowell to play a baddie. Know way is this a ripoff like another critic has mentioned of the Indiana Jones franchise or of any other movie. It was just an enjoyable adventure yarn with some good effects and some fine performances from the cast. Can we please have more of this type of entertainment, because at this moment i find movies are depressing and boring. Kevin Thomas.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Outstanding Story, Great Acting
jfn00711 July 2010
I am aware that many reviewers panned this movie. I, however, found it to be a very interesting and a well done action adventure. Albeit, the CGI was rudimentary at best, but the awesome sets more than compensated for this.

It appears that a great amount of money went into making the sets. I love the Indiana Jones'/Mummy series, and these were on par with those much more expensive movies.

I believe the best part of the movie was seeing Leonor Varela. She is truly a beautiful and talented actress. Casper VanDien was excellent as the male lead.

So, if you have a rainy Sunday and nothing to do, kick back, have some popcorn, and take a gander at this movie.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Right Down To The Fedora
bkoganbing3 August 2013
The happenings depicted in The Curse Of King Tut's Tomb somehow didn't make it into the history books. If you're looking for the story of how Lord Carnarvon and Howard Carter found the tomb than you'll be disappointed.

Instead we find Casper Van Dien doing a pale imitation of Indiana Jones as archaeologist, right down to the fedora. Van Dien knows he's in a Thanksgiving special and he overacts accordingly.

That of course is nothing compared to what Jonathan Hyde does as the master villain of the film. Hyde runs the gamut of villainy from Snidely Whiplash to Darth Vader with a lot else thrown in. Hyde in his villainy is backed by the Hellfire Club headed by Malcolm McDowell. But Hyde's ambitions extend far beyond just ruling this world. Tut's tomb is a passageway to the demon world and Hyde's working with them.

A lot of talented people get wasted in this Hallmark TV movie which is downright mediocre. And the end switches from Indiana Jones to Stargate.

As for Carnarvon and Carter that's covered too, but you'll have to sit through almost three hours to find out.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Visual not Intellectual
pensman21 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
There are two actors in this--Malcolm McDowell and Simon Callow--but they are in it for maybe five minutes. So where did the budget go? Well it is a very nice film to look at. There is nothing new here. Well, given today's political climate maybe a nod to the Republican one percent. It is a cabal of rich business responsible for WW I who are the evil behind the scenes. They are looking for a green tablet that will allow them to completely dominate the world. Wow, never heard of that plot before. Anyway, if you want a nice sort of travelogue then worth a view. If you want the same plot with blood everywhere then try the remake of Conan. At least in that one you get a few bare breasts to view.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
the adverts were better viewing quality than this pile of crap!
eulrin17 April 2006
I'm writing this while watching it and i have to say, SWEET Jesus! who in their right mind actually green lit it? First of all, the opening speech is supposed to enlighten us to the comprehensive mythological aspects of Egyptian culture whilst introducing us to the fictional story wound into those aspects to form some sort of a plot. All we get from this is drivel! The mythology they base this on is changed completely to suit "the story".

OK at least Casper Van Dien attempts his best with the shoddy script and frivolous dialogue but he too fails to conjure up any sort of character traits since character development is obviously overlooked in the script. There's so much wrong with the script I'm not even going to go any further than this! The directing is atrocious as is the editing, the only way i can describe it is by means of a films pace. This has none! I'm not even going to waste my time continuing with this "review" as it clearly isn't one, more so, id like to call it a warning to anyone who is ever looking to watch this.... DON'T! The curse of King tut makes the likes of "The Mummy" or even "The Scorpion King" masterpieces!
15 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Should make enough to pay the bills.
pswillis27 May 2006
What else can we expect, this is an example of production companies to make films for 'entertainment' only and not have to pay the high Hollywood star wages.Even the 'bigger' name stars are working for less and as the scripting,historical accuracy is lacking the players get paid the producers can sell it, no real quality needed. Not to mention the new actors (esses) get some experience and become known. Goood movie to watch on a cold rainy day like,today. Anyway how can every movie be as great as Casablaca or Gone With The Wind, and at least its better than a 'teen movie'.The best factors are there is no swearing just to swear and no unnecessary sex.
10 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
if there was a -10 category...
bnanno13 April 2006
just absolute piece of utter drivel..although I admit I only lasted about half an hour somewhere in the middle You can't even call this rubbish... for instance, I caught the scene where they are supposedly digging in the wrong place, find the right place (72 steps, but no ones counting) and about 20 metres away the heroine brushes away a few CMOS of sand BY HAND and uncovers the tomb....a few rubbishy sentences later we see someone put a dynamite YES DYNAMITE stick in the very same sand, it blows up, and you have this beautiful SQUARE HOLE with nice clean staircase going down to the tomb. No wonder they call it King Tut. Tut tut, exactly.
13 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
cool film
Keria248 July 2006
I saw the film the other day it was very entertaining, many films that I have been watching lately has lack that, The Curse of King Tut's Tomb certainly delivered. The director did a wonderful job, I loved the locations as well as the visual effects of this film. Casper Van Dien did a great job playing Danny. I enjoyed all of his scenes. If there is one actor that you can depend on to deliver a heck of a performance it would be Casper. As for the rest of the cast they did a good job as well. If you haven't seen this film yet, you should watch it you won't be disappointed a bit. Also if you never seen Casper Van Dien on screen this is a thrilling action- adventure movie to see him in. I also heard that this film will be coming out on DVD very shortly, so if there are any DVD collectors out there I just wanted to let you all know that :)
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
(Quiet, I am not shouting) HA!
geminate730 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Let's see, get a lot of neat sets and locations together, mix in lots of special effects and costumed extras, ditch the script and just tack it together, and finally completely forget about any real acting attempt and you have this uh, movie.

The Danny Freemont character tries so hard to fill Indiana Jones' shoes that it basically ruins the whole movie, since Freemont could never be Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) and everyone watching is painfully aware of this to the point of frustration.

So then there is this Morgan Sinclaire character who goes about literally sucking up friends and enemies like some mad dust-buster (for what reason is unknown) and you would expect this personified evil to finally get what for, but what happens? He himself gets unceremoniously vacuumed up, and thus there goes the villain, sigh, whoopee.

Oh you will just love the good against evil fan-dance of flapping wings - what a dismal finale.

Best line of the this disaster - "I wish we could all forget"; you said it lady! Unfortunately they didn't forget to produce this wash out.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Damn good film
toastman19925 August 2006
There are a lot of good points and bad points in this film.

Bad points first.

1)Editing is pretty bad. 2)Acting is not great. 3)Historical inaccuracy. 4)Things copied from other films Indiana Jones, The mummy etc...

Good points next

1)Photography and scenery are brilliant. 2)Originality which is most important. 3)Nothing overdone. No unnecessary gore, sex, swearing.

But all in all the good points outweigh the bad. When you think about it. Its a lot better than most of those stupid low budget mummy films. Blood from the mummy's tomb, Talos the mummy etc...
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Save yourself and run the vacuum instead.
gar71427 May 2006
I haven't used that suggestion since Spielberg's 4-hour indulgence to nowhere: "A.I." This equally indulging crap-fest only lasts half that time, but I was not connected to IMDb and thus did not heed the warnings. I was merely channel surfing and stopped long enough on the Hallmark Channel presentation of "This Piece of Crap" AKA "The Curse of King Tut." Zzzzzzzzzzzz

This CRAP does not even offer any guilty pleasures. It's just stupid with tired and lame production values. If I could put it out of my misery, I would fire the first shot and blow my own brains out rather than watch this drivel.

Change the channel. Change the channel. Do not watch this drivel. It will offend your sensibilities. It's that bad. (And I don't mean Showgirls bad. There is no redemption here. It's just Gawd awful and STUPID.)

And even though it runs shorter than "A.I."; it's still worse. And that is bad.

"Worse than A.I." So, abandon all hope…
8 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Much more potential than reality.
gildedgeorge16 October 2008
I'm sure pre-teens liked this movie.

This is one of those films where a very competent technical staff has to watch their work being neutralized by flat and inappropriate acting and poor direction. The sets are good, the lighting is well done, and for TV, the Special Effects are more than adequate. But the main characters are one-dimensional, the supporting cast bad, and the bit-players, many who are local Egyptian people, are almost embarrassing. It's a shame. A director's job is to work with what you've got, and find ways to make even the smallest role as believable as possible. It just didn't happen here.
3 out of 5 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