Cyclops

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.

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 completely agree with everyone that has panned this on here. Horrible! Low budget, low IQ, and low on delivery. The costumes would have been best suited to The Three Stooges early comedies as well as the dialog and acting. If the women of Rome actually looked and dressed the way depicted in this movie there would never have been any orgies .....trust me. The "coliseum" was about the size of chicken fighting pit. The Sci Fi channel is insulting to its viewers.When taking on subjects that demand more mature writing and subject matter the channel almost always falls flat on its face. I'd much rather the channel would show old sci fi classics , even b movies, than the dreck it currently turns out. I rented this from Netflix and overlooked the source or would never have done so.

First and foremost: the Cyclops wasn't a Roman legend, it was Greek! (Check any decent production of Homer's "Odyssey".)

Eric Roberts was the best-known name in the cast, and therefore the first name mentioned in all the promo advertising. However, with what little screen-time Mr Roberts got, even he could not have saved this turkey. They wrote the Emperor Tiberius' character as if they'd never heard anything about the real man beyond his name. They had Tiberius completely under the sway of his evil counselor.

The CGI Cyclops effect was cartoonish not monstrous! (I've seen better amateur efforts!) It has to be seen to be (dis-)believed. — And it's really not worth the trouble.

All in all, I found it not only a waste of my time but a waste of the electricity it took to power my TV.

I have to admire the film-makers' ability to get paid for this.

dreck (noun: trash - worthless trashy stuff, especially low-quality merchandise.)

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.