IMDb > Cyclops (2008) (TV) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Cyclops (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]
Index 26 reviews in total 

34 out of 47 people found the following review useful:

Wow...Just Wow....

Author: Indydan13 from United States
6 December 2008

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

24 out of 31 people found the following review useful:

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

Author: Frumious_Bandersnatch_46 from LB CA USA
7 February 2009

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.)

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 27 people found the following review useful:


Author: argylefarm from United States
16 November 2008

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

Another great background noise film for cooking or cleaning

Author: kiawa77 from United States
6 December 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is the perfect movie if you've got something else to do such as cooking, cleaning, grooming your pets, or weatherproofing the windows. That's what brings it up to a 3. If you sit down to watch it for the sake of watching it, expect to be sorely disappointed.

The beginning: If you saw a giant monster, would you just stand there? No, but these guys do. Unbelievable.

The first battle is absolutely moronic. Why would they rush the monster when they had archers? When they saw their fellow soldiers dropping, why didn't they bother using the archers? Did I mention the archers? When they finally did use the archers... why did they suck? And when did they have time to dig that giant cyclops-sized pit? And when they finally did capture the cyclops, how did they manage to shackle it and get it out of the pit when -- prior to this -- anyone getting close to the monster got crushed and/or eaten? I'd also like to point out that while the Romans did indeed use whistles, they were shaped more like dog whistles, not our modern coach or safety whistles.

Also, the phrase to "take with a pinch of salt" has been in use only since the 17th century. It was not in use in ancient Rome.

Now let's discuss the cyclops itself. Odysseus had a run-in with the cyclops. Assuming that was somewhere around the time of the Trojan War, roughly 1194-1184BC, that's very far off from the reign of Tiberius which lasted from 14 to 37 AD. But if you look up anything about Tiberius, none of the movie is correct, especially about the Marcus uprising and the emperor being slain by a cyclops (obviously). Sci-fi. I get it.

This movie starts out very bad and very cheesy. The first hour is basically the cyclops killing people, getting caught, getting loose, killing people, getting caught again, and eating more people parts in between. Toss in some political back-stabbing and a slave uprising, and jump right into the colosseum. Some low-budget slaughter, the bad guys die, the end.

Did anyone else find it ironic that Marcus shouted "Look out!" to the cyclops right before he got a spear through the eye?

That's terrible ;)

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

"Shut up you one eyed bast*rd!" More Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' crap from Roger Corman.

Author: Paul Andrews ( from UK
17 February 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Cyclops is set in ancient Rome where three local men run into a giant bad tempered Cyclops who proceeds to kill & eat two of them, the third Roman guy escapes & reports back to the relevant authorities. Ruler of Rome Emperor Tiberius (Eric Roberts) commands his right hand man Falco (Craig Archibald) to order Roman soldier Marcus (Kevin Stapleton) to take his men & capture the Cyclops, what the boss wants the boss gets & Marcus does indeed capture the Cyclops & it is imprisoned for use in gladiatorial battle. Meanwhile a group of slaves try to escape & are caught, Marcus tries to free one of them & he is arrested for treason, all of them are ordered to fight in the Colosseum as gladiators for the entertainment of the Roman public who love this sort of stuff, apparently. The slaves, Marcus & the Cyclops decide not to fight each other but the brutal & corrupt regime of Tiberius as they seek their freedom...

Directed by Declan O'Brien this is yet another Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' that was shot in Bulgaria although set in ancient Rome & produced by B-Movie legend Roger Corman (in an amazing career spanning over half a century he has nearly 400 credits as producer & over 50 as director) & his wife Julie Corman, apart from one or two decent gore scenes & some unintentionally funny moment Cyclops has little if nothing going for it. First off despite being set in ancient Rome the makers were not interested in historic accuracy so don't expect a history lesson as the dialogue feels very modern rather than how you would expect the ancient Romans to speak, While the first half of Cyclops is quite fun in a fast paced but very daft & sometimes embarrassing sort of way it quickly descends into a Gladiator (2000) rip-off with some former Roman army dude being betrayed & becoming a gladiator. I can't believe I just compared Cyclops to the multi Oscar winning Gladiator! In terms of quality the two are literally worlds apart. Cyclops is at it's best during the first half when it's more of a 'Creature Feature' with the Cyclops running amok in ancient Roman killing lots of people in fairly gory ways, the only problem is it doesn't last & if that's really the only thing a film has going for it then there's something wrong. Most of the usual clichés, predictability, happy endings all round & poor scripting are present.

The one thing that did surprise me about Cyclops is how gory it was, there are ripped-off heads, heads cut off with axes, ripped-off limbs, blood splatter, the Cyclops takes revenge on an annoying kid & bites his hand clean off, it rips someones leg off, there are some ripped open stomachs, a guy is impaled on a spear, there's a slashed throat & more. The only problem are the CGI computer effects which render some of the gore scenes laughable & speaking of CGI computer effects lets talk about the title character himself. There is not one single special effect shot in Cyclops that I would even consider as convincing, the CGI Cyclops effects are truly awful, it changes size between shots & the animation is absolutely dreadful. Yout average Playsatation game looks better. The scenes when the Cyclops begins to talk are unintentionally funny due to a really bad voice, awful lip sync & a stupid look monster. To be honest I would have no hesitation in saying master stop-motion animator Ray Harryhausen's Cyclops from The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (1958) is more realistic, has more charm & personality & is infinitely more watchable on screen & that was made half a century ago. There are a few hand to hand gladiatorial fights but they look sloppy & stilted & have no real energy or dynamism about them.

The budget probably wasn't that high so one wonders why the production values are quite as good as they are & a little bit of research seems to suggest that Cyclops was shot on the same sets used for the lavish TV production of Spartacus (2004) so that explains that. Eric 'I'll star in anything for money' Roberts (the IMDb has him listed as being in ten films made in 2009 already & it's only the beginning of February!) is the name actor & looks bored frankly while I don't recognise anyone else from the cast.

Cyclops has some nice sets (left over from another production) & has some surprisingly gory moments but overall the awful CGI computer effects renders every scene with the Cyclops laughable which is not what the makers intended. It's nice to see Roger Corman still cranking them out though even if this is as rubbish as most of his other output.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Maybe Cyclops has the right idea...

Author: quartermile50 from United States
6 August 2010

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

What a let down

Author: groverton from Canada
22 April 2010

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

A Cyclops movie with no vision

Author: gpageau from United States
7 December 2008

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

There's A Cyclops On The Loose

Author: bkoganbing from Buffalo, New York
3 January 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

One of the dopier products ever to come out of the Science Fiction Channel is this epic about the Cyclops who helps free Rome. In some alternate universe, no doubt.

Actually when I was watching this film, I thought of the TV series Sliders where Jerry O'Connell and his friends keep dropping in an alternate universes in other dimensions. In this alternate universe the Emperor Tiberius is assassinated and the Roman Republic restored with the help of your friendly Cyclops.

The Cyclops has been thought to be extinct, but out in the hinterlands one's been reported attacking and eating Roman merchants. Can't have that in the Empire so Tiberius played by Eric Roberts assigns Kevin Stapleton to bring him back because he'd be such a hit at the Coloseum games.

Stapleton does that, but even with the beast escaping a few times and eating a few citizens Tiberius is still thinking about those lovely box office receipts for the games. When Stapleton falls out of favor Tiberius reduces him from centurion to gladiator.

Yes this film is as dumb as it sounds. But I guess in the true tradition of the old Hollywood studio system, we couldn't let the sets from the television Spartacus go to waste.

So with those nice Roman sets, why not a production of Julius Caesar?

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

Eric Roberts As Tiberious

Author: katyzone from Elm Mott
6 December 2008

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Parents Guide Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history