Cyclops

How Eric Roberts can go from portraying Sal Maroni in The Dark Knight to this is beyond me. The production value, low budget or not, is horrific. The costumes look like they were stolen from a nearby Halloween shop and the CGI looks like an art student got drunk and submitted some stock CG to SciFi.

That, and the gross butchering of Roman culture. The Emperor of the the most powerful empire in history clearly only hires the dumbest and most inept soldier for the city guard elite. These guys make the Star Trek "Red shirts" look like Leonida's 300.

To sum up: Take Gladiator, add a crappy subplot about a Cyclops to make it more SciFi worthy, and then give the staff 1 good actor surrounded by many, many bad ones and a budget of a 5 grade video project, without mommy's help.

I shudder to think about the future of the SciFi channel after Battlestar Galactica is done. Whether you like it or not, you must admit, after viewing terrible stuff like this, it's all they have left.

Needless to say, expectations were low for this no-budget Sci Fi flick. From atrocious acting and middles-school level CGI to uneven direction and boring subplots, Cyclops is what you've come to expect from the Sci Fi channel these days.

One interesting question was, how cold was it where they filmed this movie in Bulgaria? You could see the actor's breath in many scenes, including the indoor ones. Very strange and out of place. I never knew Rome got this cold.

The CGI was just dreadful. While the modeling of the monster wasn't bad, it seemed to change sizes continually throughout the production. In some scenes, it was enormous and in others, it was human-size.

I bought this with a bunch of other Sci-Fi movies that Anchor Bay had released under the "Alternate Realities" line-up. I initially thought this was a cheesy 80's movie which closely resembled Jason and the Argonauts and Clash of the Titans. Much to my disappointment this movie was more recent and from the opening scene my hopes for some good ol sci-fi cheese reminiscent of the 80s were quickly dashed.

The costumes seemed too bright thrown together. I felt as if at any moment I would look down and see one of them wearing sneakers. The actors throughout the film seemed out of place and much too "modern" as it were. The first characters we come across just seem to not be properly prepped for their rolls.. where was the makeup department on that one?

I didn't believe any of the actors portrayals in any of their rolls. Eric Roberts was just awful.. It felt like he checked out before filming ever began. Stapleton's character Marcus wasn't much better. Although he seemed to get progressively less crappy as the movie went on I can't say I was able to believe his role whatsoever. Mike Straub who played Gordian was by far the best throughout the film. He seemed to be the only actor taking his role seriously. The soldiers of Rome were pitiful as well. There weren't enough of them so their attempt at a Phalanx (the shield maneuver like in 300) fell short. They all looked like random kids they pulled off the street and once again it felt as if none of them played their roles with any kind of serious intention.

The visual effects were atrocious. For a movie that was made in 2008 the lacklustre CGI quality is quite disheartening. I have worked on a few low budget films and the CGI weren't astounding but the CGI in this film makes the projects I've worked on look like Avatar! For a movie like this that did have some production value (supposedly) you think they would strive to make it look a lot better than they did. Epic failure across the board in the CGI department.

This movie def. screams Cheese! Unfortunately it's not the good kind of cheesy that you enjoy watching again and laughing at, no it's the kind of cheesy that you are just happy to be done with once the movie has ended. I would feel embarrassed to have my name associated with this movie in any form. had a little more time, planning and research into the story been done I'm sure they would have had at least something that they wouldn't spend the rest of their lives trying to forget was ever made.

Well, the flick took no chances. Straight forward good verses bad and with no budget, I think that was a mistake. I feel the lower the budget, the more chances one should take. They could of put something, humor, whatever, into it.

As it was, it is what it is. Fluff and sub-par to slightly par. I did like many of the actors in it, the Centurion ought to get more parts, he has the dignity and charisma foe a big budget picture.

I thought the main female lead was Alantis Morrissette (sp) for a second, lol, a real LONG face but cute nonetheless.

Anyway, a light view, nothing special, but at the same time not taxing in anyway. Watch it, enjoy what is there, and forget it.

The rise of cyclops is the fall of Rome, says the box. And that pretty much sums up this picture. The Roman Empire captures the cyclops with intentions of using him in the Colosseum for their own amusement. But when they wrong one of their top guards and turn him into a gladiator, the guard and the cyclops form a very unusual alliance against the emperor. Beware the eye of cyclops, Caesar! "Dude, that looks like the worst film ever," is what my editor says to me when I show him the latest movie on my desk for review. Well, luckily for me, that's not quite true. The film is somewhat silly and the special effects are pretty much the worst thing you'll find anywhere in the world (even Brazil). I've ranted time and again about why I hate CG, so I won't do it here... the evidence speaks for itself. But, if you ignore the effects (which is difficult with cyclops getting so much screen time) it's not a bad film. Just don't ask why the cyclops wears underwear and who makes them.

If you're a fan of "Gladiator" and bad horror movies, this is for you. I don't know how accurate this one is -- probably not very -- but the costumes and fight scenes are decent, and even better if you're drinking Scotch whiskey. If you're me, you're always drinking Scotch whiskey (except now... I'm in a bar drinking a rail whiskey and coke). The portrayal of slaves and prostitutes is cheesy, but you'll have that.

Why is this film not "the worst film ever"? Easy -- it's entertaining. Horror fans have a habit of lovingly ripping on their viewing choices. Don't believe me? Go to a horror film opening night or to one of Chicago's specialty theaters, like the Portage or Music Box. If the fans are yelling out bad jokes, that means they love it. And I think my commentary was more or less non-stop during "Cyclops". So, I was entertained, and unlike most of the films I see, I'd gladly see this one again.

Perhaps this tarnishes Roger Corman's good name. Let's just blame Julie Corman and assume Roger was asleep when this was produced. But either way, it's better than you think. Not modern classic good, not you must have it in your collection good... but if you need a rental for some light-hearted horror fans -- especially ones who drink -- this is a great choice for that Friday or Saturday night marathon.