"Immortals" is a super-stylized, amazing looking film. The visuals really blew me away and halted my scoffing at yet another sword-and-sandals movie, which have nearly saturated genre films to zombie and vampire levels. Director Tarsem Singh is responsible for the beauty of the images. It's a golden pallette much like Zach Snyder's "300" but with even more interesting scene transitions, landscapes, and horizons.

The CGI is noticeable but it's actually one of the better examples that I've seen lately. There's also a lot of blood and tons of violence, often sped up or slowed down for impact. I remember being awed visually by one of Singh's earlier efforts called "The Cell". It wasn't very entertaining but Wow! did it look great! "Immortals" follows suit or actually, trumps it.

Henry Cavill is star number one here and the guy is magnetic as the hero named Theseus. This is the first movie I've seen him in and I don't think they could have cast a more appropriate actor to play Superman in "Man Of Steel". Mickey Roarke is the mega-evil King Hyperion and he plays it kind of like everything else he's done in the last few years. His personna is a bit too silly for this movie and it really added a level of camp that I didn't need.

A "gods" vs. "titans" battle is the underpinning of this entire movie. It's a whole lot like "Clash of the Titans" in that sense, but we do clearly get to see the gods and titans fight in the climax. These sequences were again amazing to view but they lacked impact because as it turns out, gods and titans fight the same way that the mortals do. It's more hand-to-hand combat but turned 'up to 11'.

This is worth a watch based on the strength of the visuals, a strong hero, and a good enough story.

Everyone talks about how _Immortals_ is a _300_ ripoff, and don't get me wrong, it absolutely is, but I haven't yet seen anyone talk about how it's also a bit of a _God of War_ ripoff.

I'm actually quite fond of historically-set mythology films, but I don't believe the problem with _Immortals_ isn't the setting or the genre, it's the motivation behind its being made the way it was. The _300_ movie exists to be an adaptation of the _300_ comic book, the _Immortals_ movie exists because the _300_ movie made money. (Don't get me wrong, I know that the real motivation behind both these, and of any other studio film, is money. But someone involved somewhere has to want more from their movie than that. And _Immortals_ doesn't give me the vibe that anyone did).

I can handle _Immortals_ doing what _300_ does. Hell, if enough people rip an idea off over a long enough period of time, in movies, we call that a genre. My issue is that it **only** exists to do what _300_ did, yet it does **all** of it so much worse. There are maybe two fights in _Immortals_ that last for longer than 30 seconds, even with all that slow-mo stretching the runtime, and neither are filmed as well as the ones in _300_. It's nowhere near as fun, it's not superior in any technical category, it's harder to tell what the fuck is going on. Even the acting, which is NOT _300's_ strong suit, is worse here than it is there. There were maybe flashes where you could glimpse a cohesive idea that desired to form, but it never even got close.

_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

Total failure of doing a movie with the aesthetics and success of "300".

Mediocre story, bad planned action scenes, tons of Fx, poorly developed characters and tons of stereotypes.