• TheDMonline.com Staff Member?
  • Log In
Share |

'Immortals:' pointless but entertaining

So in “Immortals,” a ruthless maniacal king wants to, you guessed it, take over the world.  Along the way, he and his army come across a village where they slaughter everyone except a muscle-bound warrior who they turn into a slave, but he escapes and seeks bloody vengeance on them.  

Sound familiar?

Also, that muscle-bound warrior has been trained and looked after his entire life by none other than Zeus, king of the gods, disguised as an old man.

Sound familiar?

I recall seeing the trailer for “Immortals” a few months back and wondering if we’d really gotten to this point, where filmmakers just scavenge parts from other movies and haphazardly throw them at the screen, hoping they all come together.

I know there’s nothing new under the sun and no movie is completely original anymore, but they can at least not throw it in my face every 30 seconds.

Watching “Immortals” in the theater, I was amazed at how blatant filmmakers were with their formula for making this movie, which was to take “Conan the Barbarian” (the good one, not the horrendous remake) and sprinkle a little “Clash of the Titans” then dress it up like “300” and laugh all the way to the bank.  

Know what’s weird, though?  

I thoroughly enjoyed it. It could have been my almost nonexistent expectations or that it at least rips off movies that were really entertaining, but I found “Immortals” to be a lot of fun.

Sure, it’s not really a “great” or even very “good” movie, and I’ll probably forget all about it as soon as I finish writing this review, but for two hours in the theater, I had a pretty good time.

As I said, I had zero interest in seeing this movie, but then I read the other day that Henry Cavill was the star and got curious.  

For those of you who don’t know, Cavill will be the new Superman in Zack Snyder’s upcoming “Man of Steel.”  

Because I’m a huge Superman fan and have never seen Cavill in anything else, I wanted to see “Immortals” because I wanted to see what he’s like.

Turns out he’s pretty good.  

Cavill is an appealing lead here although he certainly doesn’t have to stretch a whole lot as far as the acting goes. He’s much better than Sam Worthington, who was playing pretty much the exact same character in “Clash of the Titans.”

The evil king is played by your pal and mine, Mickey Rourke.  

He mostly phones it in but is still fun to watch. Rourke is one of my favorite actors, but these aren’t the kind of parts he should be playing.  

Luke Evans, who played the god Apollo in “Clash of the Titans,” has graduated to playing Zeus here.  

I just don’t buy Zeus being so young and having such a white-trashy mustache. The gods in general could have been completely removed from the story, and it wouldn’t have made much of a difference. It might have even been better.

The cinematography, fight scenes, production design, costumes, etc., were all stunning. This is a very good-looking movie, often vibrant and colorful, and is actually served well by being in 3D.  

I still hate 3D though, and I hope it goes away soon.

As far as what I absolutely hated: the movie is really loud. Maybe I’m just getting old, but I really don’t enjoy having my eardrums pounded into submission while I’m trying to enjoy a movie.  

I also didn’t like the ending, which dragged on a bit after the climax and only served to try and set up a sequel I hope never gets made. Plus, I think Cavill is going to be busy. 

Maybe I liked “Immortals” because it’s such a “guy movie.”  

It’s action-packed, over the top, cartoonishly violent and bloody, and has just enough of a compelling story to get by.  

It’s dumb fun. Check your brain at the door.  

Maybe if you go see it you’ll get lucky like me and have the guy sitting behind you provide insightful commentary on the movie while loudly smacking popcorn.

Follow Josh Presley on Twitter @joshuapresley.