Cyclops (TV Movie 2008) Poster

(2008 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Review this title
28 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
I admire the film-makers' ability to get paid for this.
Frumious_Bandersnatch_467 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.)
25 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Wow...Just Wow....
Indydan136 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.
35 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Dumb
argylefarm16 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.
20 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Another great background noise film for cooking or cleaning
kiawa776 December 2008
Warning: 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 ;)
14 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Maybe Cyclops has the right idea...
quartermile506 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.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
What a let down
groverton22 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.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
"Shut up you one eyed bast*rd!" More Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' crap from Roger Corman.
Paul Andrews17 February 2009
Warning: 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.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
A Cyclops movie with no vision
gpageau7 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.
13 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Eric Roberts As Tiberious
katyzone6 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.
11 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
I Like This Film
stephenhole819 February 2009
I have watched this film two or three times now, and have got to love it. I have found that there are two versions one with the violence left in, the other with most of the violence cut out. (I guess for before the watershed), the cut down version is awful, and makes little sense. But if you see the full version the film is very good indeed. I actually like the CG Cyclops, and the story line was very good in my opinion. I do feel that it would have been better to have a larger budget, as for me there should have been more foot soldiers marching through the forests, but that is a small criticism. Yes this is one for the young (at hart), and no I would not let young children watch the uncut version, but as a fantasy adventure I loved it. I recommend people watch this film, and not just read what has been written in other comments on this site. You may be surprised. After reading there comments, I felt it was my duty to type this quick rebuff, so people will give this film a chance, and make up there own minds.
14 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
There's A Cyclops On The Loose
bkoganbing3 January 2009
Warning: 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?
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
So Bad, So Bad, So Bad... But Entertaining!
gavin694222 February 2009
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.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Good production value
lauras_spam26 November 2008
Given the budget of this film, I would say it is pretty well done. There is some strong acting and the cinematography is impressive. Academy-award nominee Eric Roberts gives a powerful performance. The sets are also nice. From what I hear, these are the same as those used for the TV film, "Spartacus." Although some of the CGI might not be as sophisticated as the kind seen in a typical blockbuster film, it is nonetheless compelling. Despite this small weakness, this picture is extremely entertaining and is well worth watching. Its story is very intriguing. I believe this has better production value than many of the films on the Sci-Fi Channel.
16 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
It IS Entertaining
Gabrielka21416 August 2015
Do not judge this movie for its historical imprecision, it's not meant to be a next Troy nor an exact retelling of any historical events. Its story is clearly made up to ENTERTAIN, to not you make think. It's made to let you just watch and maybe smile sometimes. The integration of the Cyclop is a mere refreshment for the story mixed with gladiator fights and tenderly developing love between Marcus and Barbara. Don't judge, this movie is worth more than 2,9. I've seen many a horrible movie, not worth anything, nevertheless gaining better ratings. Why? Do you really need those famous "stars of Hollywood" to make you like a movie? Then you don't like movies at all.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Warning: This is so bad, it's not funny.
wadechurton24 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Okay, there obviously wasn't much of a budget to begin with (this has to be the most bizarrely costumed movie 'Rome' I've ever seen), much of the 'acting' is wincingly bad and the direction is so pedestrian that the entire 90 minutes is devoid of any hint of tension, but what really makes 'Cyclops' so stunningly terrible is the woefully stupid script. Rule number one with a monster movie is 'don't show the audience the monster right away.' One would think this a very wise course of action for movie makers to follow, and especially so if their monster is as unconvincing as the titular creature here. Good enough for Spielberg, good enough for everybody. Nope, a scant minute or so into the pre-credit sequence and there he is in all his poorly-animated (he seems 'weightless' and walks like an arthritic robot) glory. Add to this the most useless Roman army ever depicted in the history of cinema. All twelve or so of them. Honestly, the 'archers' are worse than useless and the spear-toting footsoldiers adhere strictly to their frankly insane and invariably suicidal strategy that the Cyclops be engaged by no more than one man at a time. The other IMDb reviews here catalogue a great deal more ludicrous details which abound in 'Cyclops'; suffice to say that even bored kids on a rainy day would give this one around five minutes before giving it the flick. I could forgive 'Cyclops' a little of its awfulness if the thing had a sense of humour about itself, but this whole preposterous-yet-straitlaced mess doesn't even have that. There is no fair reason that a movie turns out this bad; the likes of 'Cyclops' appear simply because its makers cared more about quantity than quality.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Worse than bad!
Ray Humphries5 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Plot spoiler. Plot pits good vs. evil. Good wins.

What's with Eric Roberts? There can't be any money in making junk like this. That was Lord Oliver's excuse for making junk that was hugely better than this. Does ER perceive it as irony? Maybe he just drinks.

For the most part I thought Kevin Stapleton did a decent job. He's not Russell Crowe, but this isn't "Gladiator," either. I can't say much for either of the female characters. Usually the Sci Fi Channel junk has a couple of youthful cuties, hotties, even. Not so here. Frida Show (or Farrell as the case may be) is neither cute nor hot and though this is the "break-out" role for Tania Kozhuharova, she isn't either.

The CGI sux. It was abominable. So was the plot.

Someone said the sets came from the TV version of "Spartacus." Maybe they did, but my high school gym had more seats than the so-called Coliseum. The original structure seated over 80,000. Also, construction on this edifice began in 70 AD. Tiberius died in 37 AD. And it's fair to say that Rome did not revert to a Republic upon Tiberius' death, whether he had his head removed by a CGI beastie, or no. There is no Science Fiction involved here, just fiction.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Craptacular!
TheLittleSongbird7 September 2010
Don't get me wrong, I don't hate sci-fi movies or anything, but I do have a problem when it is this bad. People may write to me saying it is meant to be cheesy, it is fun lighten up or it is so bad it's good, but as much as I wanted to sort of like it there are too many problems. The production values are absolutely awful really with a very cartoony cyclops that lacks menace and instead turns out to be laughable. The script is non-existent, the plot silly to the point of incoherence, the pacing is all over the place, the music is the epitome of cheesiness and the acting is really bad from all involved. In fact, Cyclops seemed more a movie that relied on gore rather than a fun storyline and smart scripting to me. The concept at least interested me into seeing Cyclops but on viewing I'm sorry to say but I regret even doing that. 2/10 Bethany Cox
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Great
Nikola Lalic3 May 2017
I come from Nigeria, in that pleas, A warns sou a film. it Wassermann in front of mi Fez. dis is good pis of Turk.i rapt dis from internet Kaye, jiving mane a right in Europa. I go and fight for Boko Haram, and do some jihad, so I buy some good CD player. I got laid off, so I cannot earn enough money and I am not good jihadist, but it was good experience.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Cheap, but not the worst
Adam Foidart12 October 2014
As far as low budget action adventure movies go, "Cyclops" actually isn't that bad. The effects are bad and the plot is nothing special but as far as these cheap "Asylum" monster movies, it' one of the better ones, at least on a technical level. The plot is nothing new. It concerns a Roman general that's betrayed by a sleazy politician (Eric Roberts from The Dark Knight) and finds himself stuck as a gladiator in the ring. It throws in the movie's titular monster too. Basically there's a Cyclops roaming the lands, the bad guy want it captured so they capture it and throw it in the gladiator ring. That's when our hero (Kevin Stapleton) meets it. Without giving away the ending that's pretty much everything you need to know.

The special effects (particularly when it comes to the Cyclops) aren't particularly convincing and in fact the decision to go with computer effects instead of practical is a pretty big mistake on the filmmakers' part. The Cyclops is, after all just a man with a few exaggerated features and a modified face so it seems odd that it wasn't prosthetics and trick photography used to create the creature. It's not like the Cyclops is that big either... we're getting side tracked so let's just say it's computer generate, and not convincingly either. As far as the story goes, it's pretty decent. It isn't really that original but taking a sort of familiar gladiator story and throwing in a big monster makes for some fun moments. The acting ranges from decent to pretty bad, with some characters simply delivering their lines pretty unenthusiastically to some people really under-reacting to being surprised and then killed by the Cyclops. The main characters do a fairly good job though, it's just the extras and secondary characters that will make you cringe. The fight scenes are actually pretty well choreographed and the costumes are convincing throughout. The gladiator battles actually get pretty exciting because you don't know how they are going to turn out and you can tell that it's actually people wielding some real weapons and they're edited competently so you can see what's going on. The sets are also well done and when the special effects call for some artificially created city skylines via computer effects, those are pretty good too. It is worth noting that when it comes to the amphitheatre the gladiator battles are set in the budget does show because it is far smaller than it should be, but it's nevertheless a minor flaw.

The bottom line comes to this: "Cyclops" is not a blockbuster or a movie that would impress the casual movie goer. Most people will see it and laugh or just dismiss it as total trash. Well, it kind of is trash, but it's competently made trash. If you're the kind of person that picks these direct-to-DVD or made-for-TV fantasy and horror movies and hopes they're good, this is actually one of the better ones. (On DVD, April, 2013)
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Bad movie , watch in small doses if at all
wtey10 July 2013
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.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Hair awful
tamimarie2284 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I know Eric Roberts is in tons and tons and tons of crappy movies and this one is no exception. I don't know who was doing hair and make up on the set but Eric Roberts hair looked terrible. Another thing that looked terrible was Cyclops. It's one of the worst CGI I have ever seen on this channel. It's so bad that I was laughing at some of the most gruesome parts just because of the Cyclops. I am always saying that these movies on Sci Fi Channel are bad but this one is really bad. It ranks up there with "Lake Placid 2." Sometimes the movies are just hilarious and sometimes they make me want to pull off my face. Some people say it wasn't that bad but I only lasted about 45 minutes before finding something else on TV.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
All is possible...
vincentga21 October 2010
My real score: 0.1/10

This film is probably based on a true story. This is certainly a historical film. We learn how to Rome lost its empire. It's wonderful.

Seriously, this film is truly a masterpiece. A masterpiece of c**p. How does one come to collect 6 million dollars to do this kind of turnip. Phew! We understand if we were told that these are children 6 to 10 who had created this film. Pseudo 3D animation of the Cyclops is really ridiculous. A boy of 6 years can do the same thing using photos**p.

But where is gone the 6 million? Since there is Eric Roberts (specialist films the most bad as each other) of known it was he who received the big million for this s**t.

It's really unimaginable that we can produce things so bad when you consider that there are humans who have not even eaten anything.

To escape completely or give your worst enemy.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Not the worst SyFy flick I've seen
chiluvr122830 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Okay - yes, the acting was pretty bad, the special effects were laughable, the CGI was awful and the soldiers needed to go back to archery school to learn how to shoot an arrow. However, it actually had a bit of a plot which I don't see much on SyFy movies.

Eric Roberts looked and acted worse than I've ever seen him. I can't believe he even took this role. The cyclops had on what looked like a Speedo and walked like he was a puppet, however, I actually started liking him and felt bad for him at the end. I usually can't watch anything on SyFy but I did feel this was one of their better movies. I've seen much, much worse. My 25 year old son was in shock that I watched this but I wasn't expecting it to win any awards. I won't bother writing a synopsis as you've pretty much got the idea of the movie.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Interesting characters make this cheese Provolone
drystyx14 January 2010
No one intends for this film to be anything but "cheese". Historical facts go out the window, but that's okay, because this is a Cyclops.

This Cyclops is mean, and eats people's innards. And he can kick Hannibal the cannibal's butt. There's loads of gore for the brats, but the dorks will want more outlandish special effects. We are given more readable actions, so there is a logic of plot and story line to follow than the "video arcade" special effects the dorks would stuff down our throats. This speaks well for the director.

One mark against it is the ease with which our hero communicates with the Cyclops. This went beyond cheese.

And it is cheese. Lots of fun. Unlike most films, the good guys sometimes win. That's a nice twist. But what makes this into a good cheese, of the Provolone kind, are the fairly well defined characters. Besides the lead, we get several characters we can follow and believe. Gordion and Julian in particular. Even the two bad guys, Tiberius and Falco, have some saving graces. A lot of one scene characters are in for laughs, and do a lot of ignorant things, but this is understandable in human evolution for the scientific minded, because this is set in an unknown BC year, before some of the genes for stupidity vanished. And, in fact, this is Rome, where arrogance did exist in humans, which makes these foolish characters much more realistic than the illiterate masses want to admit.

The female lead is ultra beautiful, at least by male standards, but isn't a "woman's woman", but more of the male fantasy woman. She doesn't fit the mode of the former, who we know survive these films, so the viewer never really knows if she'll survive. That does make for suspense.

I would've given it a higher mark if there was less gore, and if the scenes where the Cyclops communicates with the hero were deleted. That was ridiculous. The story was fun, though, and entertaining.
1 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Shockingly incompetent.
Diamhea28 January 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Ingenuity can often salvage these shoestring budget Sci-Fi Channel-esque numbers, and the inclusion of Corman in the production should have given Cyclops more of a chance, but perhaps it was little more than a tacked-on selling point, as this is a monumental misstep that looks like it belongs eight to ten years before when it was released, and that's not even enough of a handicap to salvage these effects.

The 2008 release date is shocking, as the CGI has that clear mid '90s quality to it, with the namesake creature featuring a rubbery, gelatinous physique that changes in size drastically to fit the scene. The cyclops clashes with the environment he is dropped into, feeling so artificial that you can't suspend your disbelief to even accept that he is interacting with the rest of the actors (despite the incessant use of cutaways and other camera tricks to obfuscate). The endless roaring and groaning makes the creature a bigger annoyance than a threat, and that is saying something, as he racks up a ridiculous body count, oftentimes due to the solders' propensity to take one swing at the monster, then stand there and wait for he cue from the director to react to the movements of the CGI.

The gore is excessive and tasteless, much like the first Bloodrayne film. It doesn't fit the tone of the picture, and serves to only lower the bar, as it isn't even entertaining in a visceral way, being over-reliant on CGI as opposed to corporeal fare. Save for Eric Roberts phoning it in, most of the bigger roles are capable at the absolute best. The cheapness of the production is felt all around, like the glaringly obvious ADR jobs, usually followed by the character's mouth moving afterward (speaking the line that was originally there). A particularly cheap moment comes when the Cyclops is wheeled in on a cart, hidden under a tarp. A few children come up to peek inside, and the fact that they are being directed by someone standing inside the cart is impossible to hide as they emote stiffly, like "Should I scream now?" The lack of competent acting ability is almost laughable, to say nothing of the anachronistic nature of the flick. This is so pervasive that it isn't worth singling out individual moments, but safe to say "Barbara" was not a common woman's name during the time period in Rome. The film also tries to piggyback on Gladiator, with the typical three-way struggle between the emperor, a high ranking officer and a weasely adviser type (who serves the dual role of Quintus here). But to me, the most infuriating thing about Cyclops was the sheer incompetence of the supposedly trained professional soldiers. They are quick to fire arrows at their own comrades, stand and wait to be killed, and make otherwise insane decisions. Cyclops simply follows no line of logical reasoning, and feels exactly like what it is: A quick re-purposing of sets and costumes from a different production, with a script slapped together to contain as many clichés as possible, replete with an awful CGI abomination shoehorned in. A disgrace.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews