Cyclops

Because I'm watching this travesty with BOTH eyes and my head is starting to hurt.

Before I wrote this, I checked a few other reviews and I have to ask myself if the cast and/or crew are writing their own critiques. Strong acting? Solid plot? Seriously? There IS a plot, but the only strength I find is in the stench. The directing, the camera angles, the inconsistencies... The director felt it necessary to randomly show weird actor facial expressions at useless times? A Syfy movie with no nudity, no worthy violence, horribly choreographed fight scenes and mediocre-at-best CGI.

This is the second horrible movie I've watched today... Now I know what the guys in Mystery Science 3000 must have gone through.

Needless to say that I had never actually heard about this 2008 TV movie titled "Cyclops" prior to stumbling upon it by random chance here in 2024. And being familiar with the mythological creature, the cyclops, of course I opted to watch the movie. Sure, I wasn't really expecting a whole lot from it, given the somewhat dubious cover.

And then I saw that it was starring Eric Roberts, and my expectations went from slim to none.

Writer Frances Doel put together a fair enough script. It was a pretty straight forward storyline and it actually made for adequate enough entertainment. Sure, it wasn't stellar entertainment, but it was sufficient enough for a single viewing if you enjoy fantasy movies.

The acting performances in "Cyclops" were good. I was only familiar with Eric Roberts in the movie, and you know what you get from his acting. While I wasn't familiar with the rest of the cast, I will say that there were some good performances that helped to carry the movie.

Something that worked out well in the movie was the sets, costumes and props. It definitely looked like a movie set in ancient rome, and the costumes were really great. However, while the costumes were great, they were all just a tad too new and in mint condition. I would assume that commoners and slaves would have worn weathered garments with wear and tear, but oddly enough, everyone in the movie wore costumes and clothes that looked like they were straight and fresh out of the factory. It was a shame, because it made the production feel a bit amateurish. Some dirt and some wear and tear on the costumes would have added a lot of authentism to the movie.

The CGI animated cyclops creature in the movie was atrocious to look at. It looked like rejected CGI graphics from a 1990s computer game. It was really horrible to look at. Sure, the intention was good, but the CGI budget could have benefitted from a more handsome handout, or perhaps more skilled people working on the graphics. The texture of the cyclops felt incomplete and too smooth and shiny.

Oddly enough, there was a surprising amount of visceral gore and mayhem in the movie. Which definitely surprised me, because I wasn't expecting that from a TV movie with Eric Roberts in it.

"Cyclops" is a movie that is suitable for a single viewing if you like cheesy fantasy movies.

Funny fact here, you could actually watch "Cyclops" with just one eye, limited attention span, on the screen and still keep up with the events and happenings on the screen.

My rating of director Declan O'Brien's 2008 TV movie "Cyclops" lands on a three out of ten stars.

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.)

Yes, I said it's dumb. The quality of the acting is bad. The Cyclops is CG'ed and looks pretty badly done. A real live actor in a cyclops costume would fair better than the efforts of the CG team. The costumes look like they came from the local fabric store sales rack. Pretty low budget flick. OK for the younger kids, but there is a lot of fake blood and killing to be had. If they play video games, this will fall right into that category. The writing is pretty elementary. The use of cheap actor's to play secondary rolls is quite obvious. Some of the camera shots, POV, are poorly done. The use of a steady cam might have helped with some of the scenes in the courtyard shots. The better part of this being made for TV, will be the commercials between the program. Not for the intelligent viewer.

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.