Plot: A tyrant slices his way through Greece in order to unleash the Titans upon the world, simply so he can have his revenge against the gods. It's up to a peasant to stop him.

Review:

"Immortals" was a movie I instantly knew that I would see as soon as it was released, but it wasn't one I was especially looking forward too. It looked like it could be good, but the trailer made it seem like "300" meets "Clash of the Titans (2010)". Like everyone else, I wasn't sure whether that was a good or a bad thing, but I've always felt that a movie should be its own entity. If I'm thinking of other, better movies (even if one of those was just mediocre), that probably isn't a good thing. Now that I've seen the film, I realize I was both right and wrong about the trailer. The final result was certainly the love child of those two films, even moreso than I realized. However, I was wrong about the trailer itself. Now that I've seen it, the trailer actually made the film seem like its own thing due to its wild ideas that seemed like they would be more important. Oh well, luckily, as the love child of a movie I love and a movie I tolerate (guess which is which?), I couldn't bring myself to hate "Immortals". It was fun stuff, even if a lot of that stuff was stuff I had enjoyed in the past.

Theseus (Henry Cavill) is a peasant who has spent his life as a low class outcast due to being the spawn of a gang rape. Yet he has been trained in the sword by an Old Man (John Hurt) who has acted as his Father figure. He becomes quite skilled, but prefers to live the simple life with his 'family' instead of joining the army to fight King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke). King Hyperion is slaughtering people left and right because he's searching for a mystical weapon. Greece certainly will be doomed if this happens. But the old man turns out to be Zeus (Luke Evans) himself, and he has plans for Theseus. When Hyperion kills his Mother, Theseus intends to get his revenge. But first, he has to journey with Phaedra (Freida Pinto) and become a leader. Wait, doesn't this all seem familiar?

It's more like "Clash of the Titans", but done in the same style of "300". Seriously, at times I could've swore the two movies had the same script when it came to their protagonists. I mean, both are about peasants who are the son of Zeus (one by blood). They can kick ass, but prefer their happy lifestyle with their normal, human parents. Then the villains kills their loved ones as an afterthought and he wants revenge. They have no respect for the gods and refuse to be the hero, fighting only for revenge. They both have love interests who appear useful until it's actually time to do something and then they become typical damsels in distress. Soon they accept their fate and become leaders out of nowhere and overcome the evil. Seriously movie? Did they once again pull out the great book of conventions to write their script? The funny thing is "Clash of the Titans (2010)" wasn't exactly original storytelling either, but that came out like a year ago, so the similarities here are more noticeable than ever. Luckily, the bland script is almost acceptable because "Immortals" is not about characters, it's about visuals. So how are those?

In general, the film does have a strong visual style, although this is also where I was most disappointed. The trailers emphasized the films more unique aspects, namely the sky battle and the energy powered bow. Tarsem is a visual director who needs to be reigned in, but the trailers made the film look like it could be something completely new visually. Unfortunately, the sky battle is merely a sequel hook and the energy bow is a plot device that's only used a few times. With Tarsem's most famous film, "Cell", it felt like the awesome imagery simply never connected to the story/characters. The bow and the sky battle could've connected to the story quite easily, and I'm sure there could've been plenty of other epic ideas that could've contributed to the imagery/story. In the end, Tarsem is rather restrained. His crazy imagery is more subdued. I remember in my review of "13 Assassins", I said that the film benefited from Miike's visual weirdness being restrained, but that was otherwise just a very good movie. This movie needed more visual wierdness because it's not a very good movie. "Immortals" makes many mistakes, but I will say this, I do feel that Tarsem is growing as a filmmaker. While not often succeeding, he does put more effort into fleshing out the characters. Even the tacked on love story almost makes sense, which is more I can say about most tacked on love stories.

But enough with what the film does wrong, let's get into what I liked about it. I initially said that it had the style of "300", but don't presume it rips off "300". Yes, there are many moments where it's hard not think of it (the cliff scene, the speech, it's heavy green screen effects), but it's more inspiration than plagiarism. For one, "300" was awesomely violent and it's favorite color was blue (insert Monty Python joke here). "Immortals" is more disturbingly violent and it's favorite color is gold. I like gold for these types of movies. It's adds to the mythical atmosphere and has yet to become a cliche. I'm so glad that Tarsem decided not to use blue or those gritty, washed out colors that have become boring and cliche by this point. The CGI is on and off, but "Immortals" survives the bad moments because it's trying to be stylish, not realistic. The only complaint I have there is the otherworld scene. It looked way too much like the actors were just standing in front of a green screen. After the impressive otherworld scenes found in "Clash of the Titans" and "Thor", it looks weak. Otherwise, the good special effects are good and the bad ones rarely feel out of place.

While restrained, Tarsem still allows some freaky imagery in his movie. The sky battle is still awesome, even if it goes on for two seconds. I also loved 'the beast', which lead to the films spookiest moment. The violence is extreme and stylized and the battle sequences are very well shot and choreographed. The gore is CGI, but it understands that if your gore must be CGI, it should be extreme. I didn't think it could be more extreme than Theseus spearing in the face. Just wait until the gods step in. But make no mistake, rarely is the gore 'awesome'. I often found it harsh and unpleasant. The atrocities the villains pull off are just cruel. It was more effective that way. To cap off the films visual coolness, the costume and set designs are rather over-the-top, but I found them appealing. Now ask yourself, can a films visual style redeem a lackluster script? If you think 'no', I don't believe you will like "Immortals". If yes, then you might. I did like "Immortals" and felt its shortcomings stemmed from its reluctance to be better.

The acting is good, but I also felt some people were miscast. Henry Cavill (Theseus) was much better than I expected. He was natural and endearing, but he also was believable as a warrior. Granted, he had a bit too much of a baby face and his rousing speech at the end didn't work. Actually, as a leader in general, he was no Gerard Butler, but he worked overall. Mickey Rourke (King Hyperion) stole the show. I personally found him to be downright terrifying at times. Freida Pinto (Phaedra) is gorgeous and talented, giving a bland role some depth. Stephen Dorff (Stavros) gets to have the funniest lines. Luke Evans (Zues) was no Liam Neeson, but I liked him overall. While I understand why the director went for 'pretty' looking guys to fill the roles of the gods, I just couldn't take them seriously. Sometimes I would even laugh at the movie. But in general, the cast was more than acceptable.

When considering whether or not "Immortals" is for you, ask yourself a few questions. Based on the trailers and what I've told you, do you think the visuals will appeal to you? Does the gold coloring look unique and stunning, or does it look bland and lifeless? Furthermore, you have to ask yourself whether or not a film that sacrifices script for style is for you. Personally, I can enjoy a film that chooses style over substance and enjoyed the films visuals, but that doesn't make it great. Since I've compared them so often, I felt this was overall better than "Clash of the Titans" (which is a mediocre movie with a few stand out moments), but it's not as good as "300" (which used it's style AS substance). A decent watch, but way too familiar and it could've been so much more unique.

By the way, I didn't watch it in 3D, if anyone cares.

Nudity: There is some, which leads to a sex scene.

Overall: "Immortals" has its target audience and shall please its target audience, but it should've been more memorable.

2.5/4 Stars