So much average

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Everything about this cheap "Raiders of the Lost Ark" wannabe stinks. The acting is "high school play grade". The screenplay is ultra boring. The monster looks like it just crawled out of a 1980s video game. This is on the same lowest of the low level as garbage like "Sands of Oblivion", only perhaps slightly worse. The question is, who is the intended audience. With unlikable characters, with zero development, doing the stupidest things, this abomination would bore even the lowest level of "Sci-Fi Channel" viewers. I'm even ashamed to pawn this off at a garage sale for one cent on some unsuspecting buyer, who might think he is getting a bargain, while in reality he is paying too much. - MERK

It's one of those cheap movies that they make by getting two well known people (not necessarily stars anymore), two take a week out of their "busy" schedule to make a quick film.The story in the film is pretty decent about an expedition to find another exception gone missing in an attempt to find a treasure of a long lost civilization that worships a CGI monster like a God.I also like Micheal Shanks performance as a snobbish archaeologist on the expedition for a personal agenda. It also has a great set of interesting characters played out by some good actors, including the other name in the movie Shannen Doherty.It's one of those things that when it repeats on Syfy, you'll catch it and you'll like it, but it's not worth going out of your way to see.

The story line is pretty basic. Nineteenth century archeologists seeking lost treasure find bad things instead. There are few stupidities perpetrated by the script/cast save perhaps those of Dunbar and friend (comic relief?), and Dr. Langford (well played by JR Borne) who is somewhere between evil and uncaring, and the self-serving bitch Hildy, nicely performed by Ms. Doerksen. Hildy's fate is cleverly left indeterminate. One hopes she wound up as the willing sex slave of an Aztec warrior, rather than as a meal. There are ample heroics by the good guys, Jacob Thain (Michael Shanks) and Dr. Jordan (the venerable Duncan Fraser). There is also a surfeit of evil (well, badness maybe) from the natives and from the monster (Quetzalcoatl – who never looked like this), poor CGI though it is. The still toothsome Shannen Doherty, though not the stone fox of her "Charmed" youth, does well with what little she is given by the script writers. Her role coulda/shoulda been much stronger. Speaking of writers, 20th century idioms, such as "hang in there" and "take him out", seem quite out of place in 19th century dialogue. And the human sacrifice scenes are thoroughly disheartening.

I must admit that I saw this, because I heard Doherty was playing the main role (if there is one..). I love her movies Since Charmed.Anyways, this movie is so predictable, you'll think you were the one who produced it.The monster/god (or so they say...) is way too animated. But it's not just that. There's a scene in which a man is killed and you can clearly see that a red ink bucket or something in that style was thrown at the wall. The costumes and the actors also look too goofy. They don't exactly look or sound like some scientists/miners whatever.I also think they rushed a little TOO MUCH at the end. Things with no sense started to happen, so they could put an end to it.I think they wasted Doherty's talent in a weak, predictable movie.Also, it's always the same story. Scientists getting lost, miners dying...If you are a Doherty fun like me, then you'll probably make it to the end.