Perry Kate Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Konterr Brilliant and touching

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

bensonmum2 I really can't imagine anyone watching Gor and thinking, "What a great movie." It's got problems galore - bad acting, ridiculous dialogue, poor special effects, a horrible plot . . . you name it, it's probably bad.With all that in mind, I understand I've most likely overrated Gor. But it's just too much fun! Three things I enjoy - 1. The Cheese - I really hate the expression, but for me, Gor is the definition of so bad it's good. Fortunately, the movie never seems to take itself too seriously. 2. Oliver Reed - I doubt Reed could have passed a sobriety test while filming, but he's got so much presence, he's always worth watching - even with the ridiculous dialogue. 3. Rebecca Ferratti - What's not to like - WOW! And that hair - puts most 80s hair bands to shame.Even with the many obvious problems, the thing that bugs me the most is the ending. The last 5 minutes is tacked on to setup the sequel. Jack Palance is also featured in the ending. You'll be forgiven if you forget he's supposed to be in the movie. He's only there to plug the followup.

makiprettywoman3 Gor is about a college professor Tarl Calbot who puts on a magical ring that transports him to the planet of Gor. This movie was made during the 1980's when movies like Star Trek and Star Wars were popular. Somehow they got both Jack Palance and Oliver Reed to star in this movie. I know Nicolas Cage over the years has starred in some bad movies. You wonder why they even agreed to star in this movie.This movie really needed a higher budget. The armor the characters were wearing looked like plastic. You had cheesy music that resembled something cross between Star Trek and Star Wars. I guess they couldn't come up with something more original. There is suppose to be a planet called Gor with all sorts of unique creatures. This movie makes you feel like you are stuck in the Shara Dessert and not on some other unique planet. Someone mentioned in the book they weren't even riding horses. I guess they didn't have enough money to actually make this a decent movie. Disney at least tried to make John Carter a good movie. They tried to make a series of books into a good movie.

Jonathon Dabell The John Norman "Gor" series gets a thoroughly shoddy screen treatment with this hopeless Italian entry in the sword 'n' sorcery genre. Norman's novels blended magic and fantasy with elements of erotica, and the early entries in the series were quite highly regarded (though later ones received increasingly negative reviews). There is none of the sexual stuff in this film version and anyone expecting to be titillated will be sorely disappointed. In fact, anyone expecting to be entertained will be disappointed too – this is one of those films that bears few, if any, redeeming qualities.A nerdy American college professor, Tarl Cabot (Urbano Barberini), is involved in a car crash, but his body is catapulted by magic to another planet. This other planet, named Gor, is terrorised by ruthless tyrant Sarm (Oliver Reed), who spends most of his time leading his army from village to village enslaving the people and stealing their homestones. Tarl arrives just in time to witness an attack on yet another community. He accidentally gets caught up in the fight and kills one of Sarm's soldiers – who happens to be Sarm's son. The people hail Tarl as a champion, a warrior from another dimension sent to overthrow Sarm. It soon becomes apparent that this timid scholar is far from a hero, and he has to be trained in combat ready for his quest. Tarl and a small group of companions – among them accomplished swordswoman Talena (Rebecaa Ferratti) – set off across the desert to Sarm's realm to end his reign of fear once and for all.Where to begin with what is wrong with "Gor"? Finding fault is almost too easy – it's like tripping a handicapped kid. The performances range from the vacant (Barberini and Ferratti) to the downright bizarre (is there a scene in the whole film during which Reed appears to be fully sober?) The dialogue is utterly trite, the narrative is so episodic it becomes boringly predictable, and there is a distinct lack of conviction in the fight sequences. If Norman's novels contained any intelligent ideas, they are nowhere to be found here. The only thing saving "Gor" from a 1-out-of-10 rating is that it is at least ripe for unintentional hilarity. The joke turns a little sour when Jack Palance turns up in the final five minutes to set up a sequel – what has the population of the world done to deserve another dose of this moronic garbage?

Jim-499 If they made a movie true to the book, it would have been great. This is the first science fiction series of books I ever read starting in 1973. Instead of the Priest Kings being immense, highly-intelligent sophisticated insects that communicate via smell, we get Jack Palace as a man. Instead of traveling via tarns (immense hawk-like birds) and tharlions (mini T Rex like lizards) we get horses. I think a limited budget might have played a large roll in all this.I'm hoping they will remake these books into movies with modern special effects. The original story from the book is very well done too. In fact, the first 8 books are pretty good.