Actual "film" grade: 5/10
Experience grade: 9/10
Tarsem Singh is not a director who churns out work. IMMORTALS is only the third feature film he has made (after THE CELL and THE FALL), much like director Stephen Daldry, who to date has only directed BILLY ELLIOT, THE HOURS and THE READER. Both directors also have one film currently in the works, MIRROR MIRROR for Singh and EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE for Daldry. Other than that similarity, these directors could not be more different: Daldry favors intimate character studies while Singh experiments with the heights of artistry. But what these two directors have in common is that, because of their limited number of projects, every time you go see one of their films, you know you will be watching a labor of love.
Based on the trailer, reviews and word-of-mouth, I went in expecting to enjoy Singh's signature artistic style, but was prepared to ultimately be underwhelmed by its lackluster screenplay. It didn't help that the studio kept billing the film as "From The Producers of 300," another visually-impressive yet underwhelming movie about ancient heroes and mighty battles. It is unfortunate that the studio itself decided to make that juxtaposition for its audience members, because now anyone who goes to see IMMORTALS will, consciously or not, be drawing comparisons to 300. Of course, some similarities exist: neither feature a particularly unique or compelling storyline; both are populated by two-dimensional characters with well-oiled six-packs and straightforward motivations (liberty! vengeance!); both feature epic battle sequences with the trademark slow-motion-then-speed-up technique. But there are just as many differences that set IMMORTALS apart and make it even better.
Firstly, 300 is based on previously-established source material, limiting director Zack Snyder's scope of imagination. He set out to recreate a popular graphic novel, almost frame-for-frame, and he deserves recognition for his success in that aspect. But because it was such a faithful adaptation, there was no room for Snyder to explore. IMMORTALS, as an original work, doesn't have that problem, and I could really feel Singh exploring the boundaries of what was possible within the parameters of Greek mythology. (Side note: Greek mythology buffs might want to steer clear or at least go in prepared -- the story here bears absolutely no similarity to real mythology -- Singh has taken completely free reign to write an original story using established mythological names.) Singh was inspired by Renaissance paintings of Greco-Roman subject matter, and this film was his attempt to recreate that style in a visual format. In that respect, he was remarkably successful.
Secondly, I feel that Singh is simply a better director than Snyder. Both men definitely favor style over substance, but Singh continually shows impressive mastery over the style of his movies. The only other director I can think of with an equally distinctive visual vocabulary is Tim Burton. In IMMORTALS, the whole design -- the sets, the costumes, the colors, the fight choreography -- all blend into a breath-taking feast for the eyes. There are moments of intense beauty, scenes of graphic violence, and sequences of pure adrenaline-thumping action. As an example of Singh's superior capabilities as a director, while he uses the same slo-mo effects in his action sequences that were popularized in 300, they are utilized exclusively when the gods are fighting, so instead of becoming a mind-numbing gimmick, it sets the gods apart from the mortals and becomes an illustration of their superior speed, strength and agility. Such a simple difference goes a long way in turning a mere special effect into a specific stylistic choice, and carves a noticeable (and helpful) distinction between battle scenes.
Henry Cavill (soon-to-be Superman in Zack Snyder's MAN OF STEEL) as Theseus shows himself to be a fully capable action hero. He can give a rousing speech, glower at his enemies, show off his massive pecs, and shove a spear through countless throats with the best of 'em. Then again, the script doesn't call for much intense "acting" from him, so we'll wait to see what MAN OF STEEL demands of him, but this film gives me hope that he will carry that franchise well. Most of the "acting" in IMMORTALS comes from Mickey Rourke (THE WRESTLER) as the villain Hyperion. He chews the scenery left and right, delivering a delightfully unbalanced performance and keeping the audience on edge as you wonder when he's going to commit his next act of atrocious violence. The final fight between Theseus and Hyperion is one of the most brutal, realistic-looking mano-a-mano sequences I've seen in a while. Pretty much the rest of the cast is filled with eye candy -- Freida Pinto (SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE) as the virgin oracle Phaedra, youthfully stoic Luke Evans (THE THREE MUSKETEERS) as Zeus, studly Kellan Lutz (TWILIGHT) as Poseidon, blandly beautiful Isabel Lucas (TRANSFORMERS 2) as Athena and Stephen Dorff (SOMEWHERE) with his newly-acquired six-pack as Theseus' sidekick Stavros.
IMMORTALS is the "prettiest" movie and the best use of 3D I have seen since AVATAR. If you get the chance to see it in theaters in 3D and don't mind a bit of bastardization of Greek mythology, then I would highly recommend it and give it a 9/10 grade for pure visual experience. After the lackluster script and cliché storyline are taken into account, I can only actually give the film a 7/10. Hopefully someday Tarsem Singh will be able to blend his superior artistic capabilities with a compelling story and three-dimensional characters. If so, I'll be first in line. In the meantime, between the horrendous CLASH OF THE TITANS, the okay-but-not-great 300 and IMMORTALS, I'll take IMMORTALS. Sure, it could also be accused of favoring "style over substance." But what sets IMMORTALS apart from those other action-oriented swords-and-sandals epics is that here, the "style" alone is worth the price of admission.
Final grade: 7/10
No comments:
Post a Comment