Immortals

3/4

Starring: Henry Cavill, Mickey Rourke, Luke Evans, Freida Pinto, Stephen Dorff, John Hurt

Rated R for Sequences of Strong Bloody Violence, and a Scene of Sexuality

For what it is, “Immortals” is good fun.  It’s not pretentious or deep by any means (the plot is paper thin and character development is zilch), but for those who crave uncensored brutality and a peek at Freida Pintos’ rear end, it’s worth a trip to the theater.

Theseus (Cavill) is a young man living in a little Greek village about 5000 years ago.  He’s been built into a warrior by an old man (Hurt), who tells him that he will serve a purpose later on.  Meanwhile, war is on the horizon.  King Hyperion (Rourke) is on the warpath.  He intends to find the Epirus Bow, a legendary weapon forged by the gods.  With that, he can release the Titans, the vanquished enemies of the gods, and destroy the deities who stood by while his wife and child died.  Now it’s up to Theseus to realize his role in this saga and find the bow to destroy Hyperion.  He has the support of the gods, but they can’t intervene unless the Titans are released.

Like I said, this isn’t a particularly complex movie.  There’s no one to identify with and the plot is too simple to be truly engaging.  In an age where character and plot are sacrificed in favor of visuals to appeal to foreign audiences, it’s up to the director and his cast to pick up the slack.  It rarely works (see this year’s other R-rated action movie, the Marcus Nispel dud “Conan the Barbarian”), but when it does, they can still do battle with the golden oldies.

Indian director Tarsem Singh is a director who has flown under the radar, making two critically acclaimed, if little seen, movies (“The Cell” and “The Fall,” for anyone who’s wondering).  Ironically, it’s taken Hollywood over a decade to give Tarsem a big budget action movie when it’s his visual sense that is his best attribute.  His costumes and set designs are vividly imagined and extravagantly designed.  His movies would be worth watching on mute just to see them.  Unlike hacks such as Nispel, Tarsem can actually tell a story, and he’s capable of choreographing action sequences that get the blood pumping (the film is being marketed as something akin to “300,” and while there are similarities, the action scenes are more sparse until the end).

The lead of the film is Henry Cavill, a young British actor who is on his way up the ladder (he’s set to play Superman in Zack Snyder’s “Man of Steel”…another connection to “300”).  Acting-wise, he doesn’t have much to do other than look buff and kick ass.  It helps that he can recite dialogue convincingly and he has screen presence.  I expect him to go far because he is able to bring a little emotion to a character as thin as this.  Mickey Rourke is his usual badass self, although there’s little difference between Hyperion, Whiplash (“Iron Man 2”) and Marv (“Sin City”).  Frieda Pinto is on hand to look cute and give the guys something to ogle at, although her acting skills leave something to be desired.  John Hurt is always interesting to watch no matter what he’s in (one almost wishes he was onscreen more).  Everyone else fills their jobs admirably.

There are two things that critics are saying that I don’t understand.  One, the plot makes no sense, and two, the 3D is actually good.  The plot makes perfect sense, although it is pretty dumb at times (the same argument can be made about the majority of action movies, however).  The bottom line is that the director must get us involved to the point where we overlook, or better yet, don’t notice them, and that’s the case here).  The 3D is no better than it has been since “Avatar.”  It’s eons better than “Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides,” but it’s about as good as “The Smurfs.”

The bottom line is that this movie appeals to the baser instincts in all of us. There’s nothing substantial about it at all, unless you count the costumes and sets. If you’re good with that, you’ll like the movie.