Cyclops Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1920x1080 | 8137.78 MiB | 1080p | |
|
720x416 | 1499.87 MiB | hidivx | |
|
320x186 | 431.61 MiB | ipod | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
The Rise of CYCLOPS... Is the Fall of Rome!
The corrupt Emperor Tiberius (Academy Award Nominee Eric Roberts) forces his bravest general, Marcus (Broadway star Kevin Stapleton), to subdue the monstrous Cyclops that has been decimating the countryside. Once the Cyclops is brought to the dungeons, Marcus is forced to fight in the gladiatorial games. Eventually, he and the Cyclops become allies and they fight together to defeat the corrupt Emperor and his evil nephew, along with the beautiful barbarian Barbara (Frida Farrell).
| Eric Roberts | Emperor Tiberius |
| Kevin Stapleton | Marcus |
| Frida Show | Barbara |
| Craig Archibald | Falco |
| Mike Straub | Gordian |
| David McFarland | Severus |
| Dan Golden | Master of the Games |
| Scoop Wasserstein | Julian |
| DeMorge Brown | Cyclops |
| Raicho Vasilev | Tarquin |
| Harry Anichkin | Casca |
| Ioan Banzourkov | Young Slave |
| Velizar Binev | Cletus |
| Dimitar Dimitrov | Old Slave |
| Declan O'Brien |
3.10 out of 10 (225 votes)
Visitor Reviews
So Bad, So Bad, So Bad... But Entertaining!
posted on 16 Aug 2009The 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.
I admire the film-makers' ability to get paid for this.
posted on 27 Jul 2009First 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 just plain dumb! (I've seen better amateur efforts!) It has to be seen to be (dis-)believed. — And I don't recommend it.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.)Sic transit gloria mundi, sometimes Tuesday is worse.
Another great background noise film for cooking or cleaning
posted on 01 Jul 2009This 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 ;)
Good production value
posted on 17 Jun 2009Given 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.
I Like This Film
posted on 24 May 2009I 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.
A Cyclops movie with no vision
posted on 26 Apr 2009Needless 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.
There's A Cyclops On The Loose
posted on 13 Mar 2009One 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?
Dumb
posted on 17 Feb 2009Yes, 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.
Wow...Just Wow....
posted on 28 Jan 2009How 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.
"Shut up you one eyed bast*rd!" More Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' crap from Roger Corman.
posted on 20 Jan 2009Cyclops 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.
Hair awful
posted on 12 Jan 2009I 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.
Eric Roberts As Tiberious
posted on 15 Dec 2008Well, 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.
Worse than bad!
posted on 20 Aug 2009Plot 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.