Grecian epic falls short on character development
“Immortals” is like the stereotypical attractive person in the room — you can stare all day, but when they open their mouth, their sole contribution becomes quite apparent.
Two minutes in, it is quite obvious that director Tarsem Singh has an eye unlike anyone in Hollywood. Using oversaturated colors, Singh creates a distinct setting, one that is very much detached from reality.
However, after Singh transports the audience to this mythological world, he essentially drops them off and waves goodbye, almost as if he’s saying “it looks good, what more do you want?”
In the most general sense, “Immortals” has a plot that is somewhat held together by the characters, but that’s being generous. Instead, “Immortals” is just some sweaty men — sauna-in-ancient-Greece sweaty — with bulging pectorals fighting each other in perpetual slow motion.
And it wouldn’t be a Grecian epic without a battle between the forces of good and evil. Enter our protagonist, Theseus (Henry Cavill) who we are supposed to root for, but the farcical urgency he brings to his character just makes the viewer want to root for another fight scene where he doesn’t speak at all.
As the story goes, Theseus is a common slave, but he displays great fighting prowess and no hint of fear. This prompts the Oracle Phaedra to grow concerned that Theseus could be swayed by the evil King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) into aiding the king in his quest to find a mythical bow that could literally eradicate Greece from existence.
Outside of the clunky dialogue and the painfully obvious comparisons to “300” (2006), “Immortals” has a flaw that is more noticeable than Henry Cavill’s abs — the casting of Mickey Rourke to play the villain.
Nearly all the other actors received the director’s notes on speaking properly — managing to not sound irrevocably American — yet Rourke shows up as if he is fresh off of a Hell’s Angel rally, speaking with his signature whiskey-drenched voice and trying to pass as a Grecian King.
If “Immortals” had relied more on its action scenes and cut the film down from 110 minutes to 90 minutes, the it would leave viewers with a much different experience.
The fight scenes are incredibly engrossing, but outside of that, the film drags when it tries to develop characters’ motivations or plot points.
This is the problem with having a film so visually arresting: the fight scenes are so excellently shot and performed that everything else seems bland in comparison.
It doesn’t help that the dialogue has such gems as, “Let me enlighten you,” right before one of the characters lights the other on fire. There were many other one-liners that will leave a palm-print on the viewer’s forehead, but space-limitations prevent them from being printed.
Is “Immortals” worth your money? Probably not, but if you must go, wait until the last thirty minutes and skip the drudgery, it will be much more satisfactory.