Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977)

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

The third and final instalment of the Harryhausen/Sinbad series and also Harryhausen's penultimate film before retiring from his work. I wish I could say this was a great way to go out, but it really isn't: in fact it's one of the most disappointing Harryhausen films I've ever seen. At least he finished with CLASH OF THE TITANS, which wasn't too bad at all. The problems with SINBAD AND THE EYE OF THE TIGER are numerous, ranging from the obvious (bad acting) to the surprisingly shoddy stop-motion effects work at some points. And a proper storyline and a smidgen of originality wouldn't have gone amiss either.The casting agent was obviously on the look out for cheap actors and actresses who were related to more famous personality; hence the casting of John Wayne's and Tyrone Power's offspring in the film. Patrick Wayne has little of the charisma and none of the acting skill of his father - all is forgiven, Kerwin Matthews - and is twice as dull. Taryn Power looks glamorous, but has a pointless role and is similarly lacking in the acting ability department. Chief glamour comes from Bond babe Jane Seymour, an actress whom I have personally always disliked, but she's actually not bad here. Probably because she gets little opportunity to open her mouth, instead flaunting her cleavage and lose her clothes whenever convenient.Margaret Whiting seems to have come from the melodramatic school of acting, with an eye-rollingly villainous performance. Therefore it's a shame that she's not in the least bit threatening and impossible to take seriously. Patrick Troughton also shows up, wearing a smock and endowed with a grey wig and beard. His role is of a wise old magician, and he's happy to ham it up as much as possible. Fans of British horror of the period will no doubt spot HORROR HOSPITAL's Kurt Christian pop up in a minor role, while Damien Thomas, the evil Count Karnstein from TWINS OF EVIL, plays Kassim who has been transformed into a baboon for much of the film. And that's where the trouble really begins.I mean, I know this film was of the extreme low budget variety (face it, even a lot of the backgrounds are looking poor here), but wouldn't it have been easier to get a real primate into the film instead of having poor old Harryhausen spending most of his time animating one? As the creature is on screen for nearly the whole running time loads of work must have gone into it and it sadly looks choppy and fake - definitely not one of Harryhausen's best. Also, annoyingly, some of the master's stop-motion effects take place at night, so that it's almost impossible to see what's going on. How infuriating! The problem with Harryhausen's work here is the lack of originality, which I suppose we can only blame on the auteur himself. Almost ALL of the creatures in the film have been seen elsewhere. The giant wasp was already done in MYSTERIOUS ISLAND, the miniature woman was seen in THE 7TH VOYAGE OF SINBAD, while the "fleshless ghouls" are just a riff on the bug-eyed aliens in FIRST MEN IN THE MOON. And the bronze statue of Minaton is just a poorly-disguised variation of the Talos colossus from JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS! On the film's plus side, one of Harryhausen's finest creations is in this film, in the shape of a ten foot tall troglodyte (sort of a cross between a Cyclops and a neanderthal), who is exceptionally well-animated and cool-looking. Surprisingly, this creature is also on the side of good for a change, and joins our party on their journey. Jar-Jar Binks he ain't.Things do at least pick up for an impressive climax set in a pyramid (!), where we see the Aurora borealis getting channelled into the ground or something. There's an impressive battle between the aforementioned troglodyte and a good-looking sabre-tooth tiger and a predictable "collapse" of the building at the very end. The film also receives marks for having one original moment where the explorers travel to an icy region and battle a walrus; at least there was something that hadn't been done before. So, in all, SINBAD AND THE EYE OF THE TIGER is a film for a) Jane Seymour fanciers, b) Harryhausen enthusiasts, and c) people who enjoy watching old-fashioned adventure yarns and don't mind over-long running times and a lack of acting and story. Not totally worthless, but definitely one of the weakest in the sub-genre, although that still makes it tons better than modern soulless CGI adventure films.

Easily the least of the loose Sinbad trilogy, (and possibly of all Harryhausen's color films) this fantasy film remains a lot more fun than most modern CGI-laden big-budget equivalents but still one can't help but feel disappointed that they couldn't do better with what they had.Something feels very off and uncertain about this film, as though it was thrown into production too quickly without really thinking things through. The casting feels largely quite awkward with Patrick Wayne as a bland lead (I even thought so as a child) and Jane Seymour as a nearly as bland love interest only redeemed somewhat by her beauty and unrelentingly revealing clothing. Margaret Whiting makes for a colorful yet very campy villain and the always reliable Patrick Troughton is undermined largely by having to play a very inconsistent character. Everyone else in the cast is instantly forgettable.One of the single weakest and most awkward key scenes in the film is where Sinbad and his crew try to convince Troughton (as a Greek Philosopher "Melanthius") to come with them. Instead of any of them really saying or doing anything to change his mind, he seems to convince himself by tinkering with an old invention that never plays into anything later in the film at all. This really isn't a Sinbad movie; it's a Melanthius movie. Sinbad just plays his chauffeur and bodyguard. Another major script failing is the inconsistent level of knowledge given to Melanthius - he seems at first to guide the group based only on vague legends and intuition, but the further along they go, the more he seems to just know everything about everything.But who comes to Harryhausen movies expecting the best in storytelling and great performances? They come for the stop-motion creatures and fights, which here is done quite well and plentifully. One of the more impressive (though narratively pointless) sequences is a battle with a giant walrus containing some excellent blending of practical and visual effects (how did they get those real snowballs to connect with the stop- motion creature?). A fascinating vaguely antagonistic robotic minotaur rows its way through the movie, but is criminally underused before he gets to do anything cool. The other creatures such as a giant bee, a baboon, and a troglodyte, though well done and realistic, are just not nearly as interesting and feel like a waste of time that could have gone into animating cooler things. Oh yeah, there's also a very satisfying (though poorly set up) battle with a saber-tooth cat near the end.Unfortunately the visual effects department got so carried away and relied so much on budget-friendly models and compositing in lieu of actual sets and locations that it's difficult to really buy into anything. Much of the blue-screening is quite distracting and terrible even by the standards of the time it was made. Just look at the whole scene at Petra and it's quite obvious that most of the actual cast didn't make it there opting instead to just shoot their close-ups in a studio. It fuels the film's quite bizarre tone which helps in some scenes and hurts others. The inconsistency and weirdness isn't helped by the TV-like direction of established actor Sam Wanamaker. His slow and campy style contrasts so sharply with the serious and exciting monster scenes that it starts to feel like there's two different movies here. However there's so much apparent apathy and laziness on display across all departments involved that I can't put all the blame on him. SINBAD EYE OF THE TIGER in many ways though holds up as a fun fantasy movie which children and nostalgic adults will love, but unlike most of its peers from the day just doesn't hold up.

Sam Wanamaker directed this third Sinbad adventure with Ray Harryhausen's F/X on display, and this time they aren't enough. Patrick Wayne takes over the role from John Philip Law, and isn't as good(why JPL didn't return I don't know) Jane Seymour and Taryn Power are the female leads(no mention of Caroline Munro either!) Plot involves the quest to restore a young prince to his rightful throne(despite being turned into a chimp) with an evil witch and her son plotting to usurp it themselves. Past "Doctor Who" actor Patrick Troughton costars as a wise old man, but his performance does rise above the poorly written character. Whole film feels both tired and redundant, lost in the wake of "Star Wars"...

Harryhausen's crop of creations in this third and final entry in the Sinbad "series" are, perhaps the least effective of all of them (I think feathers and fur don't help), yet this film is maybe the strongest of them all in terms of story, character and emotion.And, while the creatures themselves may not be as effective as some, they are beautifully animated and, as usual, flawlessly integrated into the background plates. Plus both the baboon and Trog give performances of enormous emotional subtlety when you consider that they are essentially no more than rubber mouldings over a metal skeleton. There is no doubt that their creator is an artist of the highest order in a field where artists simply aren't recognised.