Plots(1)

Fantasy action film based on the Greek mythological warrior hero Theseus, who joins forces with the Gods to fight the Titans and save humankind. The power-hungry King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) has laid waste to Greece in his search for the legendary Epirus Bow, a weapon of limitless power that, in the wrong hands, could bring about the end of human life. Ancient law dictates that the Gods must not intervene in human conflict, and so they remain powerless to stop Hyperion and his merciless hordes - until young peasant Theseus (Henry Cavill), secretly chosen by Zeus (Luke Evans/John Hurt), steps forward to save the day. (Universal Sony Pictures Home Entertainment)

(more)

Videos (90)

Trailer 2

Reviews (11)

Marigold 

all reviews of this user

English 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. ()

Malarkey 

all reviews of this user

English Tarsem Singh is a master of crafting visually stunning worlds. It's refreshing to see a director who pours so much of himself into his films, and with Immortals, the visual experience absolutely blew me away. The set design and overall aesthetics were breathtaking, easily some of the best I've seen in a long time. Unfortunately, the story didn't hold up for me. It felt disjointed, and I struggled to connect with the characters, making it hard to stay invested in the narrative. It’s a shame because the visual spectacle was top-tier. ()

Ads

D.Moore 

all reviews of this user

English 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. ()

POMO 

all reviews of this user

English 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. ()

Kaka 

all reviews of this user

English 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. ()

Gallery (107)