User Reviews

If you're going to mess up Greek mythology, I guess you might as well make it pretty. Immortals is a semi-related-sequel to the incredible film 300, which not only looked beautiful but had this incredible story of triumph and strength, overcoming powerful numbers with a sense of knowing who you are and the pride you have. Immortals was created by director Tarsem Singh who also directed The Cell, which was an alright story followed up by some great visuals, the same thing happens here. I think Tarsem is just known for making a beautiful movie with a weak story, he's more of a visualist rather than a story teller. I still couldn't wait to see Immortals and sadly was very disappointed, unfortunately this was just a weak story with some bizarre miscasts.

King Hyperion has declared war on humanity. He searches for the Epirus Bow, a legendary weapon created by the war god Ares, which will allow him to free the rest of the Titans from Tartarus and take revenge on the Olympians who brought about their downfall. In accordance with ancient laws, the gods are unable to take a side in the war between Hyperion and humanity. It is left to Theseus, who was chosen by Zeus and accompanied by the priestess Phaedra and a thief named Stavros, to protect his homeland and save the gods.

To begin with the positives, like I said the visuals really are incredible. Now the CGI is over the top, but sometimes I don't mind, we need the pretty occasionally. Plus like I said if you are going to mess up mythology at least we could make it beautiful to look at. When I go to a museum and look at the Greek statues, I am in awe and that's what I felt with some of the visuals in the film. The fight scenes were so well choreographed, a little ripped off from 300, but that's alright. They took the 3D to their advantage with the blood splatter and the stabbings and honestly, it was fun to watch. And if not for the script, the story was actually very good, it's something that just needed some work.

The cast though: Henry Cavill as our hero, Theseus, I don't know if it was the actor or the way he was written but I couldn't really root for his character. He seemed to lack the charisma that made me believe that not only is this man a hero but that he's a God. He has this scene where he is giving the big speech to his army that is freaking out when they see the numbers they are about to face in war and he says something along the lines "I bleed like you bleed" and randomly they're just like "Yeah!", that's it? It didn't take much encouragement and the way that Henry delivered it was weak in my opinion. Freida Pinto, beautiful lady, decent actress, however was an unneeded character and had no chemistry with Henry. Stephen Dorff did an alright job as the sidekick who often lends a joke when needed but makes for a good fighter and has some good action scenes. Mickey Rourke really does try very hard to be the bad God like King Hyperion, but again the threat wasn't so much there. He mumbles so many lines and won't stop eating when on the screen, why not just give him a cat to stroke while talking about his plan? The ending fight scene between Hyperion and Theseus was so anti-climatic to me. The mighty legendary incredible God Zeus played by… Luke Evans? Oh, my*slaps head and groans*, I don't think I need to say more, that was just wrong.

I think that if the story besides some casting issues, maybe if the film was trimmed down a bit, the film would have worked a lot better. Despite being over the top, I like the Greek mythology as a soap opera of some sorts, that's what it was like while writing and telling these stories. The film has a lot of flaws, however, I would recommend seeing in the theater if anything, go see the matinée. The visuals are absolutely beautiful and the fight scenes are a lot of fun. But don't expect the story to be there, this movie is not a rental, even as a blu ray, I'd recommend just seeing it in the theater if you want to see some great special effects. But Tarsem does need to work on his stories, I know he has some major potential, 300 was pretty and had a great story to boot, if there's a sequel, you have one more chance to make this story into a classic that we can proudly display with Jason and the Argonauts.

5/10

First the movie. Like many (including most of the reviewers here) I was not that impressed on first viewing. This, by the way, is a peculiarity with certain kinds of movies, movies where the uniqueness of the story (or action) tend to raise expectations higher than they should be. Human nature being what it is, if you watch a film with high expectations and it lets you down, it must, ergo, the film's fault. Usually it is. But I had occasion to watch this film two more times in different environments and, with no expectations to speak of, it was better in almost every way than I first remembered. And the deal closer here is Rourke. Hard to believe that, in days gone by (not Ancient Greece, but close) he was a Hollywood pretty-boy playing hi-impact romantic leads. As most of you (probably) know, he dropped out sight for a spell and then reappeared in 2008's THE WRESTLER where his let-it-all-hang-out performance blew away both critics and audiences. In 2010 he popped up again as a bad guy in the otherwise forgettable (PLEASE FORGET IT) Ironman 2. His casting as a uber-bad guy in a super hero film caught a number of eyeballs, and his performance was arguably the most memorable thing in the picture. Dennis Miller, who had a nightly talk show at the time, got a lot laughs by running a small clip of Rourke from IM2 -- a scene where Rourke's character is sauntering down a major boulevard turning cars to cinders with his magic whip-- and then asking the rhetorical audience, in Miller's unique deadpan style, "I wonder if Mickey realizes he is actually in a movie?" This film arrived a year after IM2 and Rourke really chews the scenery here. It is hard to keep a straight face when every second piece of dialog you have is a promise that your lineage will rule the earth for centuries to come. But Rourke pulls it off. For this unique performance, and allowing for the over-expectations of audiences at the time of release, I believe this film deserves a higher rating than it currently has.

I read quite a lot of good reviews so I was pretty excited when I when to watch the film. Unfortunately it was one of the worse films I've ever seen. If you know even a few things about Greek mythology then do NOT watch it. I didn't expect them to follow it completely but since they are using the names of heroes and gods they could at least use their background.

First of all, Theseus was not a "bastard" as they call him. His father was the king of Athens (Aegean) and he certainly was not a peasant since he became the king of Athens himself.

Second there were 12 gods not 6 and I've never heard of Zeus killing any other god or about the law of not interfering with humans. Gods loved to "play around" with people.

Third: as soon as I saw the so called Titans I felt like leaving the theater. The last time I checked, they were not blue people who jump around like monkeys and have no intelligence.

Fourth: I am not a racist. I have friends from all around the world but using an Indian actress as Phaedra and black people for warriors feels out of space. I repeat I am not a racist but in a film "based" on Greek mythology they could at least use actors that resemble the people of the country and since the priests were talking in "Greek", they could at least make it sound like Greek. It took me some time to realize they were not talking in an alien language and when I did, I still read the subtitles to understand what they were saying, even though it is my first language.

I do not want to over analyze the mistakes concerning the mythology but I have to day that Phaedra was not a priest but a princess and Theseus definitely did not bury his mother in the labyrinth of minotaur which is in Crete, minotaur was not a man with an iron mask on his head and Theseus did not follow his own bloody traces to leave the labyrinth.

I could write pages about mythology but I will stop here. Other than that, I did not really enjoy the fights much. I must say that some of them were amazing but most of them concentrated on showing too much blood. If you enjoy watching people chopping off body parts and literally smashing people into nothingness in slow motion then this is a film for you.

Also, there was not depth in the characters. They are all shallow and you can easily guess what their choices they will make or how they will react to certain situations. The same goes with the plot. The ending is pretty much known from the beginning there is no mystery at all. We learn everything in the first 20 minutes and then just watch several fights until the end.

All in all, the makers just used some "famous" names from the Greek mythology and created a lot of violent fights in an attempt to gain the attention of the viewers.

I really enjoyed the movie. The end fight scene between the gods and titans could have been much better. In general I thought it was a good movie.

I'll start this off by saying, if you plan to waste you're money on this movie regardless of all the negative reviews, then watch it in 2-d. DON'T BOTHER with the 3D as it ads NOTHING to the movie. I have watched many films in 3D where it didn't add a whole lot to the movie, this is the first time where I can safely say, not only doesn't it add ANYTHING to the movie, it probably makes the viewing WORSE. So steer clear of 3D.

Now onto the movie, it starts off promising, I'll give it that. The first 5 minutes of this movie are probably the most exciting of the hole movie. The introduction builds suspense, intrigue, and excitement. Remember that feeling as from that point forwards, you won't feel that anymore. Rather, you'll start to feel confusion, frustration, and mild nausea.

Acting is mediocre at best. Micky Rourke's performance is dry in this film, as is Henry Cavills and the rest of the cast. The script is pathetic, really. The dialogue is corny at best.

The story doesn't feel suited for a movie, either that or it hasn't been executed well. Throughout this whole film I kept thinking to myself the story and sequences would be much better suited to a video game. On top of that, there are MAJOR plot holes:

Why is the king after the bow? if world domination is on his mind, then how does freeing the 'titans' going to help him achieve this goal?? Why do the titans run around like thoughtless monkeys? Why in one scene is Phaedra intent on keeping her gift of foresight, and in the next scene gives up the gift to sleep with a man? Why put so much emphasis on her faith and devotion if she plans to give away her gift anyway? Why am I even asking these questions when the director has already cashed out at the bank??

The final blow from this movie is through the trailer. The "action" sequences you see in the trailer are ALL the action sequences you will see in this movie. The trailer is substantially more exciting than the movie.

Don't waste your time with this one.

As for anyone calling this movie "art", I'd suppose they are pompous and pretentious fools who don't know what real art is. I do agree some movies can be considered 'art', but only if they are visually stunning, great story, great acting, soundtrack etc...i.e a whole package. When a movie just has several nice pictures in it, it's not "art", it's just trying to hide the fact that the story and dialogue is lacking..

3/10

First of all, I'm currently doing a degree in History and classics. I really do not understand why people get so annoyed about when characters in movies about the Greek gods are not 'true' to previous representations. For a start there are always more than one version of a Greek heroes story. that he was the son of a king is one, another is that his mother was raped by Poseidon (in human form of course, so could have been a 'villager' like in the movie) and that he was brought up be his grandfather (like his mentor in the movie) so actually it's not that far removed, if you take it from that version. I could go on using other examples from other reviews but I think I've made my point. Also, a few people are saying that the oracle having sex with him is gratuitous. Well, I don't remember at any time the Oracle saying SHE was actively trying to protect her gift, everyone else was doing it. Theseus guesses at her true feelings about her 'gift' and she says he's right, so actually, it's not that much of a shock. Also, for those saying they don't interact enough after - you obviously HAVEN'T read many Greek myths ;p Besides, it not a romance movie! I was impressed with the acting, being slightly worried at first about Mickey Rourke, and the CGI was good and non-intrusive, there's nothing worse than fussy overdone CGI-scapes ruining the feel of the movie. I actually found it had more brains than 300, which for me was very much a "LAAADS WHEEEEY" movie, where as this, although violent pretty much the whole way through, never felt gratuitous and was always interesting/exciting. As for the appearance of the Titans offending some people = who is to say what the Titans looked like? They were cosmic representations of different aspects of nature - and they seemed to do pretty well in the fighting stakes, so not really seeing the issue there either... Although, I do draw the line at Athena dying. That's just ridiculous. I think people go to these films with their 'critical hats' on, and just ruin any enjoyment that you can get out of a film like this. Just relax and enjoy the 'ride'! My boyfriend thought it was the best film he'd seen all year, and better in lots of ways than 300, too. Just my opinion, anyways!

Western literature has been mining Greek mythology ever since the time of the Romans, but the last few years have seen a volume of screen adaptations not seen since Ray Harryhausen was in his prime. The start of the 2000s saw a couple of films set in Ancient Greece but without the gods ("Troy", most notably, then "300", though the latter adopted an oft-copied stylized book that had little to do with reality either), which gave way to myth-based adventures (the "Clash of the Titans" remake, the adaptation of "Percy Jackson and the Olympians"; incidentally, though that latter film was bad, I highly recommend the books it was based on). "Immortals" has, based on the trailers, been pegged as a "300" knockoff with the gods present. There are certainly some similarities, but Singh's visual sense is ultimately much different than Zack Snyder's was (there's a lot more beauty and colour in this world, for starters, whereas Snyder's emphasized earth tones and grime. Plot details are discussed hence, so be warned for spoilers.

In Hellenas (Greece), our hero is Theseus (Henry Cavill, the future Superman) - actually, to get this out of the way, the film uses a bunch of mythological characters' names (Theseus, Phaedra, Lysander, Hyperion), but the characters in question haven't any real relation to their mythological counterparts - the bastard son of a village woman. When the evil Heraclean king, Hyperion (Mickey Rourke, surprisingly not out of place in the ancient setting, though the heavy stylization doubtless facilitates that), sacks his village and kills his mother, Theseus finds himself in the company of Phaedra ("Slumdog Millionaire"'s Freida Pinto, on duty as the love interest for the second time this year; she has more to do here than in "Rise of the Planet of the Apes", though that was the superior film), the virgin Oracle, who has prophesied that he will play a crucial role in the war between Hyperion and the gods (he seeks to unleash the Titans and end the reign of the Olympians, in revenge for the deaths of his family). Hyperion, meanwhile, seeks Phaedra, who can reveal to him the location of the Epirus Bow, a fabled weapon of immense power. A quite exceptional amount of violence ensues.

As a story with characters, it's pretty minimal, but I imagine anyone going into it expected that. I will, nonetheless, comment on the plot in one aspect: in the past I've encountered films where the hero's only heroism was all about stopping an evil that they had accidentally caused, which often doesn't come across as especially heroic; "Immortals", on the other hand, features a hero who *fails* to stop anything. Theseus would have to be considered the least successful action hero since Indiana Jones in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (if Dr. Jones had gone on an extended vacation to Yugoslavia, would the ultimate result have been very different at all?) - in fact, you can build a pretty good case that if Theseus had done nothing at all things would have turned out better, since his only meaningful action was finding the Epirus Bow and then losing it so that Hyperion could use it to free the Titans. The gods defeat the Titans, and Theseus' killing of Hyperion is meaningless since the villain would have been killed along with his armies when Zeus collapsed the mountain. Sure, he was brave, but what did he actually accomplish in the grand scheme of things? Henry Cavill is a credible hero, and has great pecs (certainly, he feels less over-the-top than did Gerard Butler in "300", though I'm not sure whether he actually is). The aforementioned Rourke is a menacing villain, aided by the director letting him do some memorably gory things to make an impression. Freida Pinto, as I said, gets more to do here than in her last blockbuster, and I'd say she does fairly well with the movie's main female part (the movie never pretends that the petite Pinto is an action hero either, which I appreciated after too many movies featuring waifs with the combat skills of a Green Beret), though it's hardly a demanding role. Pinto is also, among the cast, the primary beneficiary of her director's aesthetic skill, as he finds many ways to showcase her beauty (a brief nude scene is not actually her, but there are many stunning images of her in a red dress). The supporting cast includes Stephen Dorff as what I suppose is meant to be a Han Solo figure, Stavros, and Luke Evans, Isabel Lucas, and Kellan Lutz as gods.

Tarsem Singh is the real star of the proceedings, though. He does some remarkable things with his camera, producing quite a few memorable images and setpieces. His use of colour stands out repeatedly, particularly the aforementioned red dress that Pinto wears (which does a great job of staying clean even in the midst of a typhoon of oil that coats everything else). His rendering of Mount Olympus is by far the best I've ever seen on film - there's not a trace of the simple fluffy clouds populated by people wearing bedsheets so often seen in older films; pure majesty. For all the inventive fight scenes, though, I don't understand how Zeus (Evans) could go the whole movie without using his thunderbolt even once (though he proves adept with chains).

As a story, this is lacking in numerous respects, but as a visual experience it's quite a marvel. I came away thinking that Singh could perhaps be a great director if would devote as much care to his stories as to the images used to tell them. As it is, we have a visually stunning mediocrity.

Watching Immortals is like eating a big platter full of candy and sugary sweets. There's plenty to look at and many savoury sweets to indulge in... Only for you to not realize that by the time it's all over and done with, you'll be left with a lingering stomach ache. Which is exactly what is the problem with all types of candy; eye candy or the actual food itself. It's not until you're finished devouring such huge portions of it you realize you've absorbed absolutely nothing.

I have nothing at all against Tarsem Singh, an amazingly talented and visionary director. I loved The Cell, even though it was a bit mind-screwy (though as soon as it's done, you realize what was real and what was not). Every shot in that film was to die for, starting with the opening frame of Dead Vlei. The Fall was a movie that I managed to stumble upon by accident on IMDb. I watched the trailer and quickly decided "I must see this!". Soon after I rented the DVD, watched it, and thought "holy crap, that was amazing."

So as you may or may not be able to tell, I went into Immortals solely due to Singh's namesake, and the one thing that entered my mind as soon as his name appeared over the closing credits was "did someone hold a gun to his head and force him to direct this boring 'movie'?"

It really is a shame. I love Greek mythology, and I thought Singh would be able to carry a Greek mythology themed film well. Let's say he did well with the visuals part; his trademark visual brilliance is all over this film. Every single frame of the movie is a work of art in itself. That said, the script is so agonizingly slow, boring and disgustingly patronizing.

Sure there's a lot of holes in the mythos- Theseus being a bastard, the sacred bow, etc. But those are the least of the films problems. The story and sequence of events plays as if it were adapted from a gore-obsessed 10 year old's paper on Greek mythology. One particularly insulting plot hole comes from the bow- when Theseus buries his dead mother in the cave, we are to assume the bow chose him and deemed him worthy of using the bow itself- yet Hyperion can use it without problem?!

The acting is insultingly awful. Cavill seems to think that just standing there and looking handsome and what not is acting. And while he is indeed a handsome fellow, he fits the role of Theseus in looks only. He barely emotes throughout the film, and even the one scene (where he watches his mother get killed) isn't enough to redeem his boring performance. Freida Pinto does an alright job though her performance wasn't nothing we saw in Slumdog Millionaire or Rise of the Planet of the Apes. And I have a gigantic man crush on Mickey Rourke, but he was just hilariously bad. He rehashed his performances from Iron Man 2 and Sin City, and the result was not good.

The film plods along at a snail's pace. We get a handful of action, and all are very short. Even the battle scene at the end was boring as frack. The slow, sedated pace wouldn't be such a problem if the dialogue weren't so awful. The dialogue sounds like an immature 14 year old wrote it, and I wouldn't be surprised if one did. The exploding heads scene was awesome, but that was it.

In short, guys will go see Immortals for the battle sequences and gods fracking stuff up, and girls will go see it for the guys walking around, letting their abs/muscles be the center of attention, neither of which being anything they wouldn't get from viewing the IMDb publicity stills for the movie- something they can do for free. Well, girls, if your boyfriend takes you to this movie, swiftly pull him aside and tell him "maybe you and me being together just isn't working out for either of us...". Guys, if your group of buddies drags you to this movie, immediately cut all ties with them and inform them that they're idiots.

And to the writers, your scripts are more suited for no-talent hacks like Michael Bay or Terrance Malick. Have you seen either of Singh's previous 2 films? That guy has a wicked imagination. Let him use it on worthy scripts.

OVERALL: 3/10

THE GOOD: It looks pretty. There's exploding heads and Mickey Rourke. And Freida Pinto naked.

THE BAD: ...everything else.

I hadn't seen any previews going into this movie. I was just out with friends and went along with what they wanted to see because, hey, I like pretty much all movies (emphasis on "pretty much" in this case). This movie could have been really good. It really could have been. But the plot had major holes and attempted to do too much without the development to support it. Everything just flitted between one thing and the next. One second the Virgin Oracle was determined to keep her virginity and her gift (foresight). The next minute (and for no apparent reason) she decides she wants to give it up for the chance to be "normal" and has sex with the main character. This was completely and entirely just for a meaningless sex scene. They hardly interact for the rest of the movie. Beyond that, there's a 20th century style dam which they are using as a wall. Okay sure, but why is it in the middle of a desert with a mountain next to it that looks like it has always just been a mountain? Plot hole. And okay, so Titans vs. Greek Gods, it isn't original but it has the potential to be good. But why do the titans look like they were covered in gray paint and made to wear silly helmets? And why do they keep flying out of the floor in an endless stream? I really could keep going. Like, why were they determined to find the bow when the King couldn't find it. So by finding it they were leaving it open to be stolen (which it was... immediately). Just don't go to it. Rent Alexander or Agora or a mindless action movie by someone like Steve Austin. Just... Avoid.

"Immortals" is visually extravagant – a triumph of special effects, costume design, and art direction. This is to be expected from Tarsem, who belongs on the same shelf as Tim Burton as one of the most unique visually inclined directors alive. While not the film's greatest achievement, he should be commended for shooting it in 3D and successfully translating the process into a theater format. For the first time in what seems like ages, here is an immersive experience that isn't dim or muddy; I could clearly see what was going on, even during the dark scenes. I like that I don't have to give you my usual advice of saving your money and seeing it in traditional 2D. This time around, you can base your decision on what dimension you prefer, not on sparing yourself from a barely visible projection.

But I'm making this sound better than it actually is. The plot is essentially B-movie material – Greek mythology crossed with the comic-book action of an Italian sword-and-sandal epic. This is somewhat disappointing given Tarsem's previous film, "The Fall." Apart from being a sumptuous visual feast, it was also a heartfelt, beautifully structured story within a story. It was the work of a free filmmaker, bounded only by the limits of his imagination. Here, he brings his vision to a serviceable but routine screenplay of the same league as "Clash of the Titans" and "Conan the Barbarian" (in both cases, I'm referring to the remakes). There will inevitably be comparisons to "300," although if you actually see this film, you'll quickly realize that the two are in fact quite different.

"Immortals" will probably never rank among Tarsem's best works, but for what it is, I thought it was entertaining. The story is as follows: King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) has declared war on humanity and the Olympic gods following the death of his family. He seeks a legendary magic bow, which can produce arrows out of this air when the string is plucked. This weapon will allow him to free the Titans, who for eons have been imprisoned deep within a mountain. Rather than follow the current trend of making them beasts of colossal proportions, they are instead of normal human size, looking like nomads caked with mud. Their prison is actually kind of interesting; they're neatly lined up within a cramped square cell, and their teeth are clamped on rods passing through the walls. The immediate image that comes to mind is a foozball table.

Anyway, the Olympians, led by Zeus (Luke Evans), are by law forbidden from siding with mortals during times of war. It seems, however, that they're not forbidden from preparing mortals for battle well ahead of schedule (I admit, the details are a little sketchy). Here enters Theseus (Henry Cavill), the bastard son of a peasant woman. Although he doesn't believe in the gods, he has been expertly mentored by an old man who isn't given a name, except for Old Man (John Hurt). Exactly who he is, I leave for you to discover. What I can say is that he delivers the expected wise-elder dialogue – observant, cryptic, and just a touch humorous. A stock character, to be sure. My favorite line of his doubles as the film's opening title card: "All men are immortal, but righteous men are immortal and divine."

Into Theseus' life enters Phaedra, a virgin oracle priestess (Freida Pinto), and a cynical, wisecracking thief named Stavros (Stephen Dorff). Their quest to find the magical bow before Hyperion is surprisingly violent; in the course of this movie, we will see numerous battle sequences, all involving stabbings, beheadings, and impalements. Some scenes achieve an unexplainable perverse beauty through the use of editing, special effects, and choreography. This would definitely include when one of the Olympians decapitates his way through a blockade of Hyperion's men; the bodies fall in slow motion, and the blood sprays dramatically. Other scenes are a bit too heavy handed. One involves torture victims roasting to death inside an iron bull sitting atop an open flame. Another involves Hyperion taking a sledgehammer to a man's nether regions.

I mentioned the battle sequences. Most of them are typical action fare – swords clanging, spears flying, wounds opening, people dying. It isn't until the obligatory final battle that we get the male posturing that was once rousing but is now funny. Just before the fight, Theseus stands on a ledge and shouts to a battalion of men, all ironclad, all raring to go. Tarsem adds interest to the scene by having the men rhythmically pound their swords on their shields. Cavill delivers a line. Bang! Another line. Bang! Line. Bang! Line. Bang! It lasts no more than a minute or two, and yet it achieves an almost musical quality. Can you blame me for laughing at this? Story wise, I have a sneaking suspicion "Immortals" was intended to be taken with a grain of salt. But in terms of the work that went into the film's look, it's impossible to not take that seriously.

-- Chris Pandolfi (www.atatheaternearyou.net)

'Immortals' is an action fantasy film from 2011 directed by Tarsem Singh and starring Henry Cavill. Funnily I had forgotten that Tarsem directed this, and at some point while watching it I was thinking that it really looked and felt like a Tarsem movie, and low and behold I was right on the money. Tarsem only has five films under his belt as a director, but he has a very specific visual style that once you see is hard to miss. His first film, 'The Cell', is a favorite of mine. 'Immortals' stars Henry Cavill really before anyone knew who he was. He has screen credits going back to 2001, but this is really one of the first films where he was front and center in all his swole glory, and this was one of the roles that probably directly led to him getting cast as Superman in 'Man of Steel'. Stephen Dorff, Mickey Rourke, John Hurt, Luke Evans and Freida Pinto also star alongside Cavill.

This is a mishmash of various Greek legends and myths cobbled together into a story that does its own thing and doesn't stay beholden to any of the lore it comes from. Hyperion, played by Rourke, is an evil warlord spreading across the land conquering searching for a relic known as the Epirus Bow which he wants to use to release the Titans to make war on the gods who he feels have wronged him and all humanity. Theseus, played by Cavill, is trained by an old man but is secretly, and unbeknownst to him, the spawn of Zeus and is destined to battle Hyperion. At first Theseus runs from the marauding army, fighting as he can, until he discovers who he is and attains the proper aid to seek out additional resources and confront Hyperion. Mix in some actual Gods showing up and entering the fray as well and this truly is a violent, stylized action extravaganza.

Tarsem's visual flair cannot be denied as he shoots some excellent sequences although it is very hard not to see echoes of '300', which I believe is a superior film. The mythological fantasy backdrop is also reminiscent of 'Clash of the Titans' to add to the muddled cacophony that is the plot of this film. The story is both basic and at the same time convoluted mainly due to the shotgun style of mythology going on here. It's like throwing a bunch of stuff at a wall, and just seeing what sticks. The characters are, for the most part, bland and forgettable. While I enjoyed Cavill, I cannot decide if Rourke's despot is good or if he just leaned in too much tipping the performance into a sort of camp. This is a decently enjoyable film and can be entertaining for the visuals and action. It just suffers from comparisons to better films that have better characterizations and more cohesive plots.

Eric's Grade: C-