Michael Angelcynn 1) The accents were cringe-worthily bad. I wasn't sure if I was listening to Cornish, Irish, Spanish or Klingon. The lead actor, particularly, was perfectly capable of putting all four into his lines and randomly mixing them up. 2) Rarely will you see an American "period" film which does anything but recklessly re-write history, usually to the detriment of the country or people it targets (bitter that America doesn't have one?). This is among the worst for that crime, but take a look at the writer and director and you cannot, surely, be surprised. 3) Considering it was made in 2009, I was under the impression I was watching something from the 70s. Poor acting on a scale as bad as "Land Of The Giants", poor story and even worse editing.

Gypsybelle This was one of the worst movies I ever attempted to watch. I love Adrian Paul but his 'acting' was totally bad if you even want to call it 'acting'. It was as if he was resisting to even reciting the lines given in the script and just spit them out as 'whatever' - Okay so it was a badly written script. How desperate was Paul to do this? Even the sound track was bad! The whole movie was pitiful. I couldn't even finish it. I believe that anything (especially a film) to be done is worth doing right. It is possible to do even a low budget film in the right way but evidently the writer, producer and director of this film haven't figured that out yet and take absolutely no pride in what they do! Wes Ramsey (as 'Peter Easton') did the best acting of all even with the lame writing in the script. I believed his character anyway. Kudos to Wes for doing the best he could with such horrible dialog! Even George Lucas can write better dialog than Rafael Jordan! The overall storyline was interesting, even though it was certainly not reflective of actual events in the life of Sir Francis Drake. This venture was a total waste of time for the actors and anyone who was unfortunate enough to watch it, even for a few minutes. Even 'Ishtar' deserved an Academy Award compared to this flick.Of course, other reviewers seem to really like this one. Everyone has different opinions and take aways from films they watch.I have said this before and I'll say it now...SciFi (now SyFy) Channel should turn to the writers and directors of its wonderful 'commercials' to write a good 'original' film for its network! SyFy has proved to show horrible and poorly written 'original' films on a regular basis - Get with the program SyFy Executives! With the right writers, great made-for-TV films are possible - even on a lower budget.

jenn I felt the film was as good as it could possibly get, being that it was a film on the Sci-fi channel. Personally, I liked The Immortal Voyages of Captain Drake. I felt it was fun and entertaining. It was Adrian Paul at his playful best. It seemed obvious that he relished the role and was having a lot of fun. When the actors on screen have fun I tend to enjoy the film a little more.The Immortal Voyages of Captain Drake was not the usual Pirate lark. I felt it was a touch Homer's the Odyssey and a touch Pirates of the Carribbean with a hint of Shiharazard and Aladdin. A story filled with magic, great sword fights, more depth than one would expect from the commercials. Its a very adventurous story with lots of great FX and CGI. Of course I laughed a lot because, hello, it was almost B-grade, can you say Giant Lobster Monster? But in spite of some of the hilarious FX it was quite the romp and quite fun. Delightfully fun!There seems to be a showing of this film tonight, Thursday, February 5 2009 on the Sci-fi channel at 8 pm or 9 pm. I look forward to seeing it again.

hkindt Well, I don't make a habit of watching television, and I certainly don't necessarily expect "fine art" when I DO. I was really looking very much forward to this and then rather disappointingly, fell asleep after about ten or fifteen minutes. But the part that I saw was exactly the lighthearted, entertaining fantastical fare I was expecting. I already KNEW from the ads that it wasn't intended to be a non=fiction piece and that it featured lots of CGI and special effects.. this is precisely what I was hoping. As to those who nitpick about "poor acting" and what have you, I will look forward very much to seeing YOUR efforts on the big screen very soon. My only regrets are that I wasn't able to see the whole thing, that I can't find any more listings or showings of it, and that it doesn't appear to be available on DVD yet.