leavesonline Like more than a few others, my main reason for watching this masterpiece was the presence of Firefly actors. However, it soon revealed itself as one of those wonderfully unintentionally bad movies that when watched with friends and alcohol provide more entertainment than most sit-coms. I gave this 3/10 for content but as a comedy this would be a solid 9!The opening bad CGI sets the scene and from there things only disintegrate: weak, indecisive plot that seems cobbled together from every archaeologically themed movie of the past decade; the sort of wooden acting that dominates made for TV movies; surreal dialogue; unnecessary characters; a Police car/buggy chase for no apparent reason and special effects that appear to have suffered extreme budget cuts. Despite these faults, there are a few excellent reasons that this movie is worth watching: 1) Adam Baldwin shamelessly not bothering to act for the duration. 2) The jackal monster with hair made from stripped VHS tape. 3) The romantic tension with cringe-worthy double entendres. 4) The incongruous way that the Ancient Egyptian spoken is almost flawless. 5) The monster was apparently the Egyptian god of chaos and infertility (the horror!). 6) The Sheriff's hair. 7) The moment when Morena Baccarin chokes back non-existent tears and delivers the line 'at least he's buried with ancient history, the only thing he ever truly loved' with all the sincerity of a Hallmark greeting card. 8) The scene where our hero bravely defeats the murals. 9) The way that nobody ever considers it odd that there's an archaeological dig aimed at uncovering a film set...So while this warrants a 9/10 on the comedy scale, whatever happens, do not make the mistake of watching this film seriously...

dbborroughs TV movie about an ancient Egyptian curse brought to the US in the 20's during the filming of DeMille's first version of the 10 Commandments and which is reawakened when DeMille's sets are unearthed in the desert.One of the worst films I've seen in a long time.The question is were the filmmakers serious or kidding when they made this film? If this is serious its a laughably bad movie and a great film to pick on for its badness. If its a comedy its less good but funny for all of the wrong reasons.You will laugh long and hard AT this film, probably more than many other Hollywood "comedies".

mergatroid-1 When I saw this movie in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart I really didn't expect much. However, they did have a couple of actors from Firefly/Serenity and one from Supernatural. Of course George Kennedy is an excellent actor. So, there's no complaint about the acting.The story is pretty good (a movie-set from early 1900s is being rediscovered for relocation before the area it is located in is flooded, however the artifacts are genuine Egyptian artifacts and one allows the release of an ancient Egyptian God. Let the blood flow.) My main beef with this movie is the same old beef people have had about low budget productions since they began filming them. The big monster is once again a guy in a cheesy suit. Of course, people like me who grew up on Dr Who and Star Trek are used to the actor in the cheesy suit syndrome, however I had thought that in the 21st century we would be seeing more cheesy computer effects than cheesy monster suits.This monster suit is as bad as any I have seen. Complete with the stiff lower jaw that moves up and down like, well like a bad movie monster suit.For producers who might per chance be reading this, please spend less money on hotels (you can get tents cheaper), food (I hear snake meat tastes like chicken) and bottled water (hey, just cause the water in the bucket is brown doesn't mean you can't drink it)and put the savings into making your monster look more real. A more realistic monster in this movie would have made the entire production better.Hell, just making the monster headpiece more articulate would have vastly improved the movie.So, if you're the type of person who can enjoy a play with bad effects, then maybe the monster suit won't bother you much and you can enjoy the rest of the movie. I got quite a laugh out of it myself, especially when the monster bit off George Kennedy's arm. It looked like someone had his arm in a stuffed crocodile's jaw, very funny stuff. Of course, I don't think it was MEANT to be funny. The rest of the movie was OK.Once again, for people saying this is the worst movie, or second worse movie they've ever seen, I can only say they haven't seen very many movies. I can pull out 30 or 40 movies from my collection of over 500 that are WAY worse than this movie.To put it into perspective, one day when I'm bored I might pull this DVD out and watch this movie again.

takeru51 I make a point out of watching bad movies frequently, and the sci-fi channel original movies tend to be one of the best sources for these movies you can find. As such, I'm sure you can imagine my disappointment when I saw Sands of oblivion. The acting was uncharacteristically sub-par, as opposed to the woefully disgraceful display sci-fi usually has in store for us. There are a few cameos made by people you'd most likely recognize, although you may not know their names by heart. The CGI special effects are minimal, and as such, one of the largest sources of comedy in a sci-fi feature is lacking. Sure, there are some funny moments like when a guy gets beheaded by a bulldozer, or when the main character leaves his friend to die in order to save a girl he's known for a couple of days, but overall, it ends up just not having you rolling on the floor with laughter, and I consider that a major disappointment.If I was rating it on a 10 star scale made specifically to judge made-for TV movies, I'd probably give it a 4, maybe even a 5. A real shame that I may have to wait 'till the next sci-fi original movie to get a good laugh, and I really hope that this movie isn't part of some overall quality increase in sci-fi original movies.