While the 2003 movie "Sumuru" is by no means an outstanding movie, it actually is a watchable movie, if nothing else.

Granted, the storyline presented by writers Harry Alan Towers, Peter Jobin, Torsten Dewi and Sax Rohmer have elements of classic fantasy, laced with some light sci-fi elements. And of course it is topped off by a heap of scantily clad women and set in an Amazonian-like environment (Amazon as in the female warrior society, not the South American region, nor the online giant vendor). And while it does actually sound like it is a good combination for some geeky entertainment, the movie was actually not overly impressive.

The storyline was rather mundane and actually boring, and I managed to endure an hour of the ordeal, then I was tender to the core, good and ready to find something else to watch. And I did; I turned off the movie at that point, because I just didn't have the will or interest to watch any more of this.

Now, what did work in favor of "Sumuru" was the production value, for the most parts. I will say that the movie definitely had a good production and editing to it, and it felt like a wholehearted movie, where it could just as easily has come off as being a project made by young adults for young adults. I liked the costumes and the props, and the setting of the movie was actually good too.

The acting in the movie was adequate. With the movie's premise in mind, you know you are not in for a grand Shakespearian performance here, nor will you witness any amazing performances worthy of top notch awards.

While I searched this movie on IMDb, I saw that there were other - older - titles also bearing the name Sumuru in the title. I haven't seen those movie, so I have no idea what the connection is, or how the continuation of those movies is with this 2003 movie.

All in all, "Sumuru" was not a movie that provided the needed entertainment value, and it just succumbed to becoming too much of a low budget B-movie. My rating of the 2003 movie "Sumuru" settles on a mere four out of ten stars. I had initially settled on three stars, but the movie's overall production managed to lift up the movie a notch.

I watched this out of curiosity. I enjoyed Stargate SG1 and I've watched many of the other TV shows and movies that the principal characters have worked on.

My expectations weren't high, so I was surprised to be so monstrously disappointed.

The acting throughout is appalling, and the script is worse.

Zero research into the bad science that is spouted throughout the movie, or into martial arts (which several cast members engage in throughout the movie, despite clearly having no martial arts training (baton twirling does not a warrior make)) training makes the already implausible plot even less credible. The same weapon (carried by Michael Shanks),when shot at the side of a mountain, causes extreme damage, but when shot indoors at the wall made of wicker, creates a small fireworks effect without damaging the wicker structure - OK, I suppose Michael Shanks fans will be sued to seeing that in Stargate SG1, where a staff weapon creates either a surface burn on a main character, or blasts a hole in a section of castle wall as required),but still... A bad CGI snake 'god' eats one of the faithful in the way a dog would eat - snakes just don't behave like that.

The basic premise of an amazonian warrior cult on a distant planet is silly at best. Matriarchal societies have always been based on a lack of understanding that men are required in the process of propagating the species - for instance, the Picts, who didn't figure out the role of men in sexual reproduction until the ninth century - at which time, the balance of power moved from the women to the men. They carry technological weapons and demonstrate some knowledge of science - particularly of medicine, so the idea that a matriarchal society could exist with this level of scientific knowledge is based purely on the original author's wet dream. Of course, the few references to stellar science made in this movie demonstrate that the author knew nothing about that either (except for a few keywords that he must have heard in other movies). Still, it could have been done better - like 'She' in 1965 for instance, which showed matriarchal society with a certain reverence, far more believably, and even after 45 years it seems fresher than this fetid exercise in stupidity. Marching a few women around in 'armour', pouting aggressively, and spitting out their lines like a kiddie looking for a fight in a nightclub ("Come on then! I'll do ya!" style),seems to be over-simplifying the complexities of a matriarchal culture.

The cultural references are so simple - 'all hail the snake mother' pretty much sums it all up. Even the tiniest hamlet shows more cultural variation.

There is nothing clever, thought-provoking, interesting, visually exciting, or remotely entertaining about this movie. The soundtrack is of similar quality.

I can only assume that the few, overly-charitable positive reviews this movie has received are from blinkered Michael Shanks fans who will give a thumbs up to anything he's involved in. Don't be fooled. Low budgets are not a reason for a film to fail - cheap B movies can be brilliant. This isn't one of them, and there's no reason to inflict this movie on yourself.

Another go at the Sax Rohmer character of Sumuru by the producer Harry Alan Towers. 'The Million Eyes of Sumuru' came out in 1967 and is completely different from this film. This Sumuru is a long, long way from the Sax Rohmer character and is bizarrely set in the future. A couple of fertile men, the last apparently in the universe, land on Sumuru's planet where she queens over lots of scantily women and a few enslaved men. You could write the rest of the film in your sleep.

It is not a good film. The acting by Alexandra Kamp as Sumuru is terrible and what can one say about Simona Williams as her rival Taxan? It is a gloriously bad performance and thus one to treasure. It tops over the top. Michael Shanks and Terence Bridgett as the visitors have nice hairstyles (did they have a hairdresser on board?) but are otherwise bland. There is an annoying child in it who learns how to pilot a 900 year old spacecraft surprisingly quickly and a gigantic badly rendered CGI snake which is poor by 2003 standards. Credit must go to Savanah who plays a dog called...dog and seems to be the only animal on the planet apart from the aforementioned snake. The dialogue is a hoot. Do amazonian queens on distant planets usually say, "Gotta go!"

Apart from the ceaseless amusement that Simona Williams' acting gives it is a boring film.