Hercules (2005) User Reviews (47)

Recipe for a Sword & Sandal Movie

[robert_deveau · 7/10 · 18 May 2005]

What are you all complaining about? NBC's HERCULES had everything I want in a Hercules movie:

Recipe for a Sword & Sandal Movie:

Ingredient 1: A Hero With Muscles. Step aside, Kevin Sorbo. The young actor cast as Herc is no Steve Reeves -- but then, neither was Reg Park or Ed Fury. At least he had big muscles and an enthusiastic delivery. Given that he plays Herc at the beginning of his heroic career, his lack of facial hair was perfectly acceptable. Mythology often characterized Herc as somewhat of an oaf, and the likable goofus who becomes a confident hero worked well in the context of this movie.

Ingredient 2: A Heroine With Big... Hair: The six foot tall Leelee Sobieski would have been better cast as an Amazon rather than a wood nymph, and her golden body makeup, subtle and effective in close-up, turned bright orange in longshots (not her fault), but she's always a likable presence and in the final battle she wields a bow with the best of 'em. As soon as she fondles the wounded Herc's pecks, she falls for The Big Lug, and eventually gives him the loving family he so desires. What more motivation does a sword and sandal character need? (The obligatory "heroine caught bathing in the river" scene was also nicely done. )

3: A Hissable Villain: In this case two of 'em, Eurystheus the gay king and Antaeus the brute whose strength comes from contact with the Earth. Though the movie takes liberties with the identity of Antaeus, they were perfectly acceptable within the context of the convolutions of mythology (Oedipus just happens to meet his dad on the road and kill him? What are the odds of THAT?). Its called Dramatic License.

4: A Villainess With Eye Shadow: Herc's mom Alcmene is a B-level Livia (from I, CLAUDIUS), and Elizabeth Perkins plays her for all she's worth. She and her younger accomplice Megara make for a nice tag team of bad girls.

5: Monsters: Though some of the CGI was on the level of a Terrytoon, the Hydra was very nicely done, even moving like a Harryhausen monster. Add centaurs, satyrs, harpies and a Nemean Lion more like a Lion Monster, and I'm a happy viewer.

6: Speeches Delivered To The Gods: Any movie that opens with Timothy Dalton (as Herc's dad Amphitryon) standing on the bow of a storm-tossed ship bellowing "ZZZEEEEEEEUUUUUSSSS!!!!!!!" is off to a good start. Sacrifices to Hera and Herc's speech to The Gods -- sounding like a modernization of The Lone Ranger Creed -- add up to plenty of enjoyably cheesy histrionics.

7: An Oracle: In this version, its Alcmene who castrates the hermaphroditic Tiresias, turning him into the Oracle of Delphi. Gotta getta prophesy.

8: Battles & Fights: Lots of 'em, with swords, bows, clubs, men against men, men against monsters, The People against soldiers -- if they'd had kitchens in ancient Thebes, Herc would have wielded a sink, I'm sure.

9: A Comic Relief Sidekick: Linus the lute player, played by everyone's favorite sidekick of the moment, Sean Astin. A few pratfalls and wisecracks, and loyalty to The Hero.

All in all, this movie was far more faithful to the Hercules myth than any other version made. They even tackled Herc's murder of his own children, successfully weaving it into the story of Herc's self-actualization. The violence is bloody, the sex is sexy, and Herc's weapon of choice is a big fat club. When this comes out on DVD, I'm watching it again.

mixed bag

[maddymoo · 6/10 · 30 December 2005]

I saw this advertised as "featuring Sean Astin", and I watched it *for* Sean Astin. I was quite disappointed, and in fact, felt rather embarrassed on his behalf, that he took this role at all, because compared to the character of Sam Gamgee, Linus as faithful servant to Hercules is pitiful. Surely Astin didn't do it for the money? Maybe he did it to work in New Zealand again, who knows.

The second-saddest thing, I felt, was the CGI. I was mostly impressed by the rendering of the centaur, but where young Hercules lifts the white colt... urrrgh. And the deer looked like claymation. Horrendous.

Most of the characters, though, were interesting to look at. Megara was gorgeous and I found no fault with her (other than being a scheming bitch, of course). But as to why she seduces Hercules then runs off afterwards remains a mystery to me.

I consider this, the 3-hour version, a useful diversion from a lackluster Friday night, but I wouldn't bother to see it again.

Um... well...

[maritas4 · 5/10 · 17 May 2005]

I had hoped it would be better but... well it never got better. If you just wanted some man meat, there you have it. The graphics were - sorry, I kept laughing at the centaur and I am a HUGE Robert Taylor fan. I almost felt bad for him that the CGI was so bad. They could've made it so much better - I could've photo chopped something better! And I swear, if Linus had started talking about a ring, I so would've busted up laughing.

I know they meant well - really, they did.

The locations were pretty cool but again, I felt like I was watching a bad remake of Lord of the Rings.

Absolutely marvelous movie, beside dodgy effects at times

[blueseat · 16 May 2005]

Absolutely great miniseries. Great cast and locations. Don't get caught to this pointles 'it isn't word for word Hercules story' complaining. That's just pointles. Story id of course very loose take on the legend but it doesn't matter since this movie and not a book Also great acting from everybody. Paul Telfer was great as Hercules and did great perfect job. Much better than Sorbo ever could. Real surprise was Timothy Dalton who obviously really had fun doing the role and it showed as great performance. Same with Perkinks as evil mother.

Only negative side is that special effects aren't very good at times.

Great movie ! Watch it. Can't wait for the 4 hour version !

Guilty Pleasure

[squeeje_ij · 7/10 · 18 October 2005]

I saw this movie as a part of the Scifi channel two part-four hour mini series and I must admit that I stayed up the second night to catch the second half. Like most other commentators, I must agree that it wasn't an Emmy award winning show or anything, however it was entertaining and light in spirit. The speeches that Hercules made were at times a bit too...how do I say...overwrought and cliché at times, but that can be forgiven because it's a made for TV movie. Another complain I had was that the older Hercules (Paul Telfer) was not a very good actor and his emotional scenes were really awkward to me. In any case, he was good eye candy. Overall I gave this series 7 stars just because I was kind of excited to see the second half of it and because I enjoyed the humanity of the drama that unfolded. There were no divine interventions (except one, but that's debate-able) and most of the excitement came from intrigue and plotting. Pretty cool take on a Greek myth.

not that bad

[cutie101_7 · 6/10 · 17 May 2005]

I have a particular interest in Greek mythology and actually found this movie quite interesting. It was sort of boring in some parts but not all that bad. I'm not really familiar with the story of Herculies and i don't know if the movie followed the actual story. But I don't think it's fair to say it was a horrible film. If you sit through the whole thing it really is quite interesting. But if you just watch the beginning and then turn back to the end you miss all the important parts and don't fully understand the plot. I give it a 6 because some parts were really fake and a little too unreal for my taste but the film over all wasn't all that bad.

Horrible, Horrible Movie

[desslok-1 · 2/10 · 17 May 2005]

I thought there might be some level of worth to this movie, and sat through the whole thing. I can summarize by saying it left a bad taste in my mouth.

The movie started out OK, I think the initial characterization of Herc was true to the myths. Both as a child and a young adult he started out pretty strong but not the brightest bulb. But later on he somehow transforms into a charismatic speaker beloved by all. Huh?

Other problem: terrible CGI. The satyr looked OK, but the rest of the critters just looked terrible, especially the hart, the phoniest looking beast in the movie. And how come Leelee Sobieski's skin was sometimes golden, sometimes normal? The worst part for me--and everyone should cringe at this--was the twelve labors of Hercules. Because the producers obviously didn't want to cover all of them; maybe they thought us primitive screw-heads watching this garbage couldn't count that high. Instead of the TWELVE labors of Hercules, we got the FIVE labors of Hercules. Yes, the five labors! WTF?!? He did't even finish the last one, so it was really the 4 1/2 labors! Just terrible. I'll take Hercules: The Legendary Journeys over this piece of crap any day of the week.

Interesting approach, disappointing story-telling

[coradenice · 6/10 · 14 March 2007]

At the start of the movie, I was amazed by its bold and unique take on the legend of Hercules. The perspective from which the story was told is fairly nuanced and modern, insisting on the complexities of the immediate relationships between characters and their personal motivations throughout their interactions, rather than on their monumental proportions found in the original myths. Hercules, for instance, especially as portrayed in his teens, is such a refreshing, sweet boy compensating his feeling of loneliness and neglect with childish boasting. He appears far more human and familiar to us, with strong touches of self-doubt, clumsiness and endearing vulnerability. While still a boy, all he wishes is to be noticed and valued in equal terms with his half-brother. Therefore, he often takes foolish actions of so-called bravery and fails lamentably. Yes, he's someone any human being can identify with. Also, I liked the character of Deianeira, who is stronger in this directorial vision than the pale, innocent maiden in the myth, but also very feminine and helpful in responding to Herc's questions and concerns. What also captivated me was her particular knowledge of rituals, and her sad comment on how they degenerate in the hands of man and lose authenticity and spiritual meaning. It was clever and relevant for the way people have progressively lost ties with the sacred. Alcmena, too, is a very strong and complex character, and it was interesting to observe her relationship with her husband and the opposition between the two supreme gods each of them believed in, Zeus and Hera, which their marriage both entailed, and stood as a symbol for, at the same time. However, she later is pictured as closer to Satanism when desperately trying to kill her son, which is way too histrionic. Also, we see at first the passionate love between Alcmena and Amphitryon, then the twists and cracks in their relationship as they worship rival gods and relate in opposite ways to son Hercules, but we don't see her reaction, her grief when he dies, which is a huge flaw, as this detail is essential to shed further light on the dynamics of their feelings and bring them to an explicit climax and conclusion. And although it appealed to me in the first forty five minutes, it somehow got lost in the process, in very poor shooting and dialog and in far-fetched, overly dramatic and unconvincing acting. Most actors were far too exaggerated and insubstantial, Paul "Hercules" Telfel above all. From a certain point on, I was under the impression that the film had become a playground for kids who wanted to play roles from the movies. The best acting is provided by Timothy Dalton and Elizabeth Perkins, the two jewels that almost validate this flick. Too bad, with such an approach and a much better director, better-chosen actors, and more focus on particular details that were ignored or in disproportion throughout the movie, it might have actually been great.

poor storytelling

[cherold · 4/10 · 22 May 2005]

My guess would be this was originally going to be at least two parts, and thus at least a quarter longer, because otherwise how can one explain its confused, abbreviated storyline. I was never completely lost, but I was often partially lost and usually unclear on character motivation. The movie feels as though joining plot points were dropped to squeeze it into its time slot.

If it were longer, it might make more sense, but it still wouldn't be much good. The movie's most interesting idea is of the war between Zeus and Hera as being a war between the male and female, but the movie drops the ball on this, making Hera's followers fairly horrible while not being clear on what Zeus' followers do or believe. The movie is also interesting because you don't see the gods and there's no real certainty that they exist. So it's got a couple of intriguing ideas, but it doesn't do anything useful with them.

Bad dialog, cardboard characters, and one interesting scene involving Hercules and his three antagonistic sons. Not unwatchable but also not worth watching.

Look at those rippling abs

[thesmilingbandit · 6/10 · 20 January 2006]

I never thought I would lament the days of the old Kevin Sorbo Hercules, but I think I do. This movie was decent and very much tried to be slightly more historic than the old TV show, but I wouldn't rate this one much past a 6 or so.

The basic premise of the movie is a slightly more realistic (assuming monsters are realistic) approach to how the Hercules legend might have evolved. It was a bit bizarre actually as at times, it would portray characters who were real with a mysticism and build myth around them, yet at the same time, was using mythological creatures within the movie itself. Overall, I think that the premise of the film, while interesting, was a bit ill-conceived and contradictory.

That being said, I think I enjoyed it well enough. William Shimell as Hercules was good enough and he at least looked the part with his ripped abs and roguish good looks. Sean Astin I think stole the best lines of the film and I can definitely see why he took on the role. Leelee Sobinski was slightly less irritating in this role than I've ever seen her so kudos there. All of the acting was decent but not great. Nothing to get super worked up over but nothing to not want to watch either.

The effects were surprisingly good for a low-budget TV mini and while the monsters looked pretty hokey on the cover art, I was actually happy with them in the movie. Not great but not horrible either. Music was pretty unremarkable which I suppose isn't really a bad thing as it is supposed to be the background motif.

Overall, I would say this movie is worth renting but not much more (not that it ever was in the theater or anything). 6 out of 10 stars.

Criticism of Hercules

[ShadowKeeper · 1/10 · 13 June 2005]

Eh. I watch this movie in class because someone taped it and brought it in. I was expecting some half hearted attempt to portray the Herakles myths, and because the commercials for it looked serious, I was expecting something that was halfway decent.

Ten minutes into the film, I realized that it was utter CRAP. The only things in the film that are halfway true to the myth are the bare(and I mean bare) minimum. Parents, half brother, and labors seemed to be named correctly. Other than that, the rest of the film seemed to be one giant inaccuracy.

I would say that this was not much better than the Disney version of the film. The Disney version was made for little kids, therefore wasn't too serious. This movie, with all the sex, violence, and nudity, was clearly intended for an older audience, yet the story presented in this was nearly inaccurate as the Disney film.

Interesting and worthwhile, deserves a second look

[johna318 · 8/10 · 18 May 2005]

I liked this movie a lot. Yes, it's made for TV and has made for TV production values. Yes the special effects are less grand than they could be. Yes a lot of things its critics say are true. But the story, far from being a botched tweak on the standard Hercules myth, is a totally new take on the myth, and it's a very interesting one.

Think about it. Zeus and Hera, king and queen of the gods. Their names permeate the story from beginning to end. But where are they? They are not played by actors, they are not rendered by CGI. They are not there. True, there is that scene where Hercules tries to destroy himself after he learns he has slain his children, and his dagger is knocked from his hand by lightning and the flames of the pyre put out by rain. These actions certainly could be the work of Zeus, assuming he were around. But they could just as well be the work of Deianeira, who is after all a goddess of nature and was there on the spot at the time. Or they could have been simply nature itself at play at a fateful time.

Another big question. Who was Hercules' father? Of course anyone who knows anything about Hercules will know the answer. It's got to be Zeus. Or does it? What we see in the movie is Alcmene being raped by a powerful man who we later learn to be Antaeus son of the Earth. True, he bears the mark of Zeus, but that is just a cut put on him by Amphitryon, and if it has an effect here it is the only time, for Antaeus is from start to finish a servant of Hera. So who is the father? Is it Zeus acting through Antaeus (makes no sense); is it Hera acting through Antaeus (makes more sense than the first choice); or is it Antaeus himself (the most plausible choice of all)? Or could it be that Antaeus did not actually impregnate Alcmene with his violent act, and that the father of Hercules is Amphitryon after all?

A story that raises such fundamental questions is clearly not a simple retelling of the Hercules myth. So what is it about? I think the answer is pretty obvious. It's about divisions. Divisions between the followers of Zeus and the followers of Hera, divisions between the branches of the house of Perseus, divisions between husband and wife, between parents and children, between siblings. Divisions between noble instincts and base instincts, between societal values and personal values, between conflicting desires. Divisions everywhere, within society, within families, within the individual.

And so what does it say about divisions? Again the answer is pretty obvious. That divisions cause conflict and hurt, that the conflict and hurt will go on as long as the divisions exist, and that the only way to get out of the cycle is to break down the divisions and bring warring sides together and set about healing the wounds they have inflicted on each other. The process requires will and sacrifice and above all open-mindedness. Hercules' speech to the gods, the rising of the people, the (willing or unwilling) sacrifices of Alcmene and Megara, the marriage of Hyllus and Iole are all about this process and its goal.

Paul Telfer said something interesting in one of the interviews he did for the movie: "There is also an idea of these myths becoming so pervasive in culture and lasting so long because they are endlessly re-interpretable. All the problems and dilemmas faced by those characters are universal and outside of history, also part of story telling is to take your story and relate it to today. Our Hercules is very different than the Hercules of ten years ago and 20 years ago, as it should be." In our present age of red states and blue states, conservative and liberal, religious and secular, pro-war and anti-war, and so on and on, I can't think of a Hercules we need more than the one in this movie.

It's great that so many people know the myth well enough to see where the movie departs from it. But the myth is not as fixed as it seems. The version most people know, though clearly based on early sources, is quite late - in fact hundreds of years later the great age of Athens and Sparta. When we go back to that age we find variations that may surprise us. For example, most people know that Hercules performed his labors as a penance for killing his children; and yet, if they look in Euripides' play "Heracles", they will see him quite clearly killing his children after his labors, which were done for a quite different reason. Was Euripides using a different version of the story or did he change the story himself for his own dramatic purposes? All that's certain is that he offered a version that differs significantly from the one we regard as standard today.

We should keep such ancient differences in mind as we look into Charles Pogue's script and see, for example, that Iole's parents have been changed from two outside people to Megara and Eurystheus, and, that Iole herself has been changed from the cause of Hercules' downfall to the symbol of his triumph. The point is that the myth is as fluid today as it was two and half millennia ago. Which, as Telfer says, is the way it should be.

I hope everybody will take another look at the Hallmark "Hercules" when it appears again on TV or DVD and give it a chance to tell the story it is trying to tell. It will still be a TV movie and it will have its faults. But it's an interesting and worthwhile artistic work, flawed as it may be, and deserves a second look.

Hercules is fine but only if its the region 4 version

[Aussieman · 6/10 · 8 May 2007]

I really enjoyed this movie but I have purchased the Region 4 release. I thought some of the special effects a bit corny but overall the story was pretty enjoyable. I particularly enjoyed Timothy Dalton. This region 4 version was released in a widescreen presentation on a 2 disc set with a running time of 170 minutes. This is a full 3 hours with no advertisements. The Region 1 version clocks in at 127 minutes with a full screen edit which does the production no favours. I think the American release has short-changed its customers and I can't understand these vast discrepancies unless its a censorship issue?

Aussieman, Melbourne Australia

Embarrassing

[CTILA · 1/10 · 16 May 2005]

"Embarassing" is the only word to describe this laughingly awful production. From the blatant disregard of the source material (sure to infuriate anyone remotely familiar with mythology) to the predictably insufficient production value, this entire mini-series is a train wreck.

The cast (which includes some good actors, whom I pity) delivers the illogical dialogue in the same generic "European" accent so common to bad epics. Worse is the lack of originality in almost all other aspects, from costume and set design (blurring together styles from across time and space) to the score (which seems to poorly mimic many recognizable classical tunes as well as "Lord of the Rings"). Most offensive of all are the visual effects, which single- handedly prove that if you can't afford to do them well, WRITE THEM OUT.

It pained me to see yet another legendary tale bastardized by a cheap "adaptation." Maybe one day, someone will do it right.

Well....

[jwrowe3 · 17 May 2005]

Okay, I was never good with mythology. So you could have told me any version of a story, and I'd listen. My only other exposure to this tale was the Disney animated version, of the late 1990's. And THAT is flawed, too, as I have read.

Watched it with my eight and eleven year old daughters, who are also fans of the animated tale. Both of them seemed very interested in the story. They recognized Dalton, as Daddy is a big Bond fan, and Astin, from "Lord of The Rings". So we know they are paying attention. Neither asked "why is this different from the cartoon", so I'll assume they could follow the plot and it's difference from the Disney flick.

+++++Possible Spoilers+++++ Now, to the show, itself. It dragged in some parts, I admit. The SFX, at times looked really, really cheesy. Now, perhaps that was a desired effect, to "enhance" the mythology side of the story. Lele Sobieski was beautiful, and I can see Paul Telfer going on to bigger and "hunkier" roles. All the actors were well used.

The Hydra scene was a bit much for being shown BEFORE 9 pm Eastern time, and I was surprised at how graphic it was. I figured the networks saved the really heavy duty "death" for after most of the younger crowd is off to bed.

Final score: On a scale of 1 yawn being Excellent, and five yawns being "Glitter" rotten, I give "Hercules" one and a half yawns. I didn't hate myself for watching it, but won't catch it again, if it gets repeated.

And did I say Lele Sobieski is beautiful????

An uncut extended version should be released

[dreamweaver9580 · 6/10 · 16 April 2006]

Granted the cgi could have been better, but what do you expect from a low-budget B-movie. It was made for television. If Lions Gate Films had gotten a big producer, then they could have done a better job because they would have had a larger budget. Personally I think the cast was right on. I say there should be an uncut version released because I first saw a piece of this film on TV and when I rented it to see it in it's entirety it had been cut and you could tell it. There were scenes on the TV version that weren't on the DVD version. An uncut version would be 3-4 hours long and would involve more labors I believe. With the exception of the low-budget and the short story-line, I really enjoyed the movie. Paul Telfer played an excellent role as Hercules. As I said earlier, a longer uncut version should be released and I believe that anyone who truly enjoys mythology would enjoy this movie. If I had the money, I would gladly produce a re-make of this film for the big-screen and cast Paul Telfer as Hercules. So if you're the pessimistic type, there's about a 50/50 chance that you'll like this movie. If you're a true movie buff who understands that low-budget films don't have as great of special effects as big-screen blockbusters, then I think this movie is enjoyable.

Utter Train Wreck

[kensmark · 3/10 · 16 May 2005]

I hadn't heard anything about this project until I saw that it was going to be on, so I watched it with a completely open mind. And, gee, the cast is full of strong players.

Unfortunately . . . it's awful. I don't mean it isn't good; I mean it's extraordinarily bad -- sometimes laughably so, but mostly it's just boring. Its strongest appeal comes from having attractive people as naked as US network TV will allow, but it's all tease and no substance, and having nymphs as backup characters can't justify several hours of bad TV.

There are two basic problems that the cast can't overcome. First, the script is *awful*. Yes, making changes to the Hercules myth (which is certainly not a single monolithic story in the first place) is traditional, but this version is relentlessly dull and much too frequently dumb (and sometimes downright head-shakingly peculiar), with terrible pacing, bits borrowed from here and there (and several parts seemingly belonging in different films), and truly awful dialogue. The dialogue is frequently unbearably bad, in fact, to the point where you feel embarrassed for the actors. Sean Astin, apparently now typecast as second-banana, seems especially burdened by one awful line after another. There's no consistency of tone or atmosphere and little cohesion to the plot.

Second, most of the special effects are really bad. REALLY bad. There's occasionally a decent bit of CGI, but mostly, again, you feel really embarrassed on behalf of the cast. I have no idea what the budget for this project was, but it sure looks like crap compared to "Clash of the Titans" or even "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys" and doesn't even compare very favorably with the old Lou Ferrigno and Italian 'spaghetti' Hercules movies. Just painfully miserable.

There are plenty of other problems -- the story is needlessly complex and can't keep up with itself, and Hercules himself isn't presented as a very interesting character. Almost everyone who doesn't have a European accent tries to fake one of some kind, which is not merely amateurish and dated but never really made sense in the first place: drama doesn't become better just because the actors use British accents, after all. But the terrible script and equally terrible effects sink the whole thing right off the bat.

In fairness, "Hercules" was apparently intended as a four-hour miniseries but truncated (for this airing, anyway) to a three-hour TV movie. I don't know what they cut, but it's possible the edits made things worse. I don't think you could make "Hercules" good by adding to it, but that doesn't mean that the continuity, say, hasn't suffered from the network edits. There's no way I'll watch the USA version to see, though.

Weak movie

[nologin · 1/10 · 29 December 2007]

I don't know how expensive was the creation of this movie but the effects were awful. Half of the movie was filmed on stage in front of a movie canvas (that's sure that blue box wouldn't look so artificial). When they traveled on a boat, the background canvas was moved imitating the movement of waves but the characters weren't moving. The CGI effects: terrible (I am not sure but I guess the effect were created with Paint and made a GIF sequence of them - next time the creators should hire a professional CGI maker team). It looks like the CGI creator would have drawn on the picture strip with shaky hands. Awful, that's sure. When I first saw the trailer, I thought it was created in 1983. One of my friend told me the correct date: 2005. My jaw dropped, I was so shocked, I thought he was kidding. People, I recommend you to skip this movie, the story is also twisted, you won't enjoy it.

Throwback to 50's matinées

[El Gato-4 · 5/10 · 18 May 2005]

Not as bad as I anticipated. This frequently felt like the matinée movies of my youth with Steve Reeves et al, although a bit bloodier (but not necessarily more violent, however) and, unfortunately, talkier. OTOH there was a more interesting use of sexual politics, IMO a plus.

Judicious use of the mute button would solve the latter problem and make for a fun popcorn movie. Some might call the SFX cheesy - for me they were a nostalgic reminder. There was some abrupt, seemingly abbreviated, editing from time to time. I wonder if we might see an (as they used to say) European version on DVD? (Hey, that beats calling it the much overused "Unrated".)

My family and I would watch this movie again.

[dcbutterfly72 · 8/10 · 17 May 2005]

My sons and I enjoyed this movie. In fact the 3 boys were disappointed when it was over. It's a shame it was cut down to 3 hours. The acting was convincing (for a fantasy movie) and the scenery was breathtaking. I believe the action and bravery of the hero are what held my Sons' attention. Although the storyline didn't follow what I remember for mythology class, the story was interesting and entertaining. I appreciated that the action sequences as well as the sexual content were kept to what I would consider as a PG level. I would recommend this to anyone who likes action, romance, or has any interest in mythology. Unlike some of the other reviews on this site, this movie was perfectly enjoyable if you don't take it too seriously. My family and I are looking forward to either another TV presentation or the opportunity to see the movie on DVD.

Hot Hercules, but inaccurate, insulting story

[pyotr-3 · 1/10 · 16 May 2005]

Paul Telfer, who plays Hercules in this TV film, has to be the hottest thing on two legs EVER. Wow.

But this film is a 100% distortion of the Hercules story. Just like "Troy," this film has nothing to do with the original story. Zero. What makes it especially insulting is that they actually contrived a gay character just so people could hate him, making him as dastardly and evil as any character in the history of TV or cinema. This is triply insulting since Hercules may have had a wife, since that was the expectation of those olden days, but he also had at least a dozen male lovers. So it is ironic that they should create a gay royal adversary character for this film. No, not ironic. Evil. The creators of this travesty should hang their heads in shame.

Pathetic

[andrea-45 · 1/10 · 17 May 2005]

I survived the first hour of this and came back for the last ten minutes, just to say I saw the end. If you want *real* mythology, flawlessly executed, look for Armand Assante's "The Odyssey." Great storytelling doesn't need to be tweaked - the stories are fantastic on their own. I only hope Sean Astin needed the money. And Sophocles and Ovid must be whirling in their graves - wherever those may be.

At least with Sorbo's version, the tongue was poked relentlessly in cheek - we knew it was mostly balderdash, but perhaps enough interest was generated in the backstory to send someone to the library.I'm surprised Halmi could turn out something so amusing (the TV series), and follow it with something so devoid of quality.

Don't bother.

[joestank15 · 4/10 · 16 May 2005]

Hercules: The TV- Movie Hercules - A very twisted and molted version of the story about the Greek superhero. Paul Telfer makes a good attempt to play this hero. Sean Astin rehashes his Sam Gamgee image by playing Lupin, a thrown in character to make the whole thing a buddy-movie picture. I almost expected his to say at one point "We're in a bad situation Mr. Frodo, uh I mean Hercules. An unexpected good performance comes from Timothy Dalton (one of the lesser James Bonds) as Hercules's father. Herucles's love interest looks like Paris Hilton, something which just turned me off right away. Unfourtunetly someone has twisted and molted the original story into somewhat of a murky and sometimes incomprehensible story. The special effects don't help either. While the Hydra scene does the original story justice, the Nemean Lion and Harpies are just....well lame. I believe the creatures and effects from Power Rangers flashed across my mind at least twice. And the Golden Hind felt rushed and very computer generated. And they took out Cerberus! One of my favorite parts of what was originally a very cool story. The movie can't decide whether it's Greek, Roman, or American. And it almost ruined the original story; a classic epic. Don't bother looking for this one on the direct to DVD. - C

Brutal.

[DrLetoPicard · 2/10 · 13 May 2007]

This is easily the worst adaptation of Greek mythology I've ever seen. It utterly fails as an adaptation of the original myth, inventing silly plot twists and reducing the 12 labours to... 3 or 4, I think. It makes up utterly needless things to try to integrate other myths in clumsy ways which bring into question the writers' having ever read the myths, like changing birds to harpies, lions to sphinxes, the Oracle of Delphi to Tiresias, and bulls to a pedantic version of Proteus, even integrating aspects, never seen outside of Sam Raimi's entertaining series, concerning his first marriage, to a woman with the co-opted name of one of the Furies so it sounds appropriate to the period.

I could accept much of that, but it also fails completely in pure film standards; most painful is the dialogue, leaden, portentous pseudo-Shakespearean tripe. It is a poor re-interpretation of the myths, making a sad attempt at the kind of post-modern revisionism that Crichton's "The 13th Warrior" attempted in regards to the Beowulf legend, while still including the strictly mythological elements such as clear interference from the gods and magical super-strength. A sad, sad failure of an entertainment experience, who I'm sure many of the quality actors involved regret deeply.

Great Mini-Series, Bad DVD

[babenson · 8/10 · 18 October 2005]

It was a great mini series with the flavor of Clash of the Titans. The CG was just enough to force you to use a little imagination which I loved. The issue I have is that I liked it so much that I went and bought it at my local video store only to find that it was not the entire movie. It had been edited for time and unfortunately ruined the experience. It felt like a nonstop marathon because it was so fast. Additionally, the DVD showed that it contained the full frame version, which it did not and subtitles, which it did not.

Check out the Sci Fi channel for showings.

Love this movie.