Immortals

Immortals doesn’t have a story that would take it anywhere or characters that would give it life. And for every clothed female body, there are thirty half-naked men. However, the film is satisfyingly bloody, the concept of the Gods and their home above the clouds doesn’t look like something out of a cheap porn flick (see the new Clash of the Titans), and the lavish sets border on design genius. I wasn’t bored, nor was I in ecstasy. I didn’t feel sorry for anyone, nor did I keep my fingers crossed for anyone, but I still enthusiastically watched it to the end. Spectacular dilettantish emptiness. (11/14/2011)

A supremely aesthetic affair in which Tarsem Singh has imprinted his unmistakable, bizarre visual sensibility. The theatrical stylisation, the lack of epicness and the sparseness of the film's sets (while at the same time visually intoxicating) are the author's intention, not due to the producers' boredom and a hole in their wallets. I want to have this in Blu-ray. (11/29/2011)

That was yummy! A film doomed to the most mixed reviews. For some it will be an insufficiently stylized and insufficiently action-packed copy 300, for others, a way too stylised and an unfaithful take on ancient mythology, and yet for others, a screenwriting mess without any clear motifs and relationships… or, it’s really easy to criticise Immortals. But if I had to criticise one thing, it would be that, compared to his previous film, Tarsem Singh has taken a bit too big a step towards the average audience. But despite that, he’s made a very original and stylised film that I refuse to call average, even if I was forced to. Visually, it’s one of the most intoxicating films from last year and I’m sorry to have missed it in the cinema. (01/15/2012)

Please, no more battles between reality and dream. Tarsem Singh finally found a substance in which his unmistakable visuals do not become empty mannerisms, but instead perfectly serve an interesting (albeit simple) story in the theatrical vein of the big studio "sandal films" of the 1960s Hollywood big screen era. Paradoxically, the epic is conveyed through non-action acts, which allows the excellent actors to shine. Rourke’s villain is rightly being elevated to Olympus by everyone, whilst Cavill's charismatic bastard holds great promise not only for the new Superman but for similar types of roles in general. Beyond that, Freida Pinto's ass is just for show. This is another one of those occasional film pieces where I was put off going to the movie theater by lukewarm reviews and, despite the HD screening, I will regret it for a long time to come. 4 ½. (01/25/2012)

Fortunately, it is different than 300, and much more mature and refined in terms of mythological storytelling. What's bad about it are the exact moments when it leaves Tarsem Singh's quirky theatricality and tries to sell it as a simple mainstream product for fans of Snyder's bicep circus. In any case, this amphitheater (what some refer to as poorness and lack of epicity, I refer to as grip and intentional "scenicity") provides a fairly solid portion of aesthetic pleasure from a unique view of ancient mythology (although it uses it as a purposeful texture, it is able, unlike most similar films, to create the appearance of a coherent universality - paradoxically, if you take 300, Clash of the Titans and Troy, Immortals corresponds to the ancient prefiguration least). I enjoyed it, sometimes very much. (11/24/2011)

I don't know if my rating is completely truthful and objective. I sat in the cinema with my mouth almost gaping, and after the show it was full of criticism again. It was very nice to watch and all the effects and beautiful shots were very appealing. My ears can't complain either. The cast was very good, but for a while Henry Cavill didn't sit well with me. Plot-wise, I guess you could read a lot into it as well. But what I was hurting for the most was some sort of climax, which the viewer desperately needs in a film like this. This way I felt that nothing much was happening. A weaker 4 stars. (12/05/2011)

Excellent. A precisely constructed heroic story (but the only things it has to do with Greek mythology are the names and the setting), good and bloody and bombastic. A perfect atmosphere and action, too. Mickey Rourke is great, Superman is pretty well on top of things and even Zeus is cool. A visual banquet. (09/13/2013)

Olympian satisfaction. This is the most original interpretation of Zeus. It’s perfection itself - cruel, raw, mystical, and in high-quality 3D. Freida Pinto is in a meaningful role for the first time, while Mickey Rourke is in the role of a lifetime. Vivat Tarsem Singh! Bravissimo! (11/29/2011)

The likeness of the 300 is indisputable. I would even dare to say that Snyder is more visually experienced and sharper. Above all, you can see in Immortals a slight improvisation, especially in the large scenes, which are almost routine. But the whole thing is very imaginative and the fights are excellent. Some technical details are incredibly well-tuned, and I like the the visual style. It relies on the success of someone else, but on the other hand, why not? Mickey Rourke once again has no competition in terms of characters. (12/18/2011)

Somehow it's not clear to me why this film was made, why Tarsem Singh decided to waste his visual talent on such a stupid story, why it so blatantly ripped off 300 (creative invention = the skirmish in a gorge was replaced by a skirmish in a tunnel)... And so on. Mickey Rourke isn't all bad, and the main character is also likable (a very appropriate choice for Superman, I'd say), but what about the creepy-looking deity? In short, it's a weak film, which the bloody effects definitely can't save. (04/22/2013)