Hercules (TV 2005)
Great Zeus! This production leaves the Gods of Greece on Olympus

First, this is a review of the three-hour movie version which played on NBC on May 16, 2005. According to the Internet Movie Database, this was planned as a four hour mini-series. It's possible that the mini-series might be substantially different from this movie, and address some of the issues I have with the film. But I doubt it.

This three-hour version bears all the earmarks of being the product of development hell. That's where a script is written, the production is planned, the cast is assembled, the shooting begins, but the network sends out endless memos wanting changes, causing the schedule to gradually unravel and eventually everyone's just extremely happy to make it to the wrap party. Development hell can also strike in post-production, when everyone begins to start second guessing and screwing around with what was shot in the editing room.

I'm not saying that's what happened; I'm just observing that it bears all the earmarks. Something sure seemed off with the film I saw on May 16.

I'm not a mythology expert, but from what I remember, having read it way too many years ago, the film sort of follows some of the Hercules legend, but completely ignores or drastically alters other parts. The script by Charles Edward Pogue ("The Fly," "Dragonheart") delivers several mythological creatures, placing the story well within the mythological age of men and monsters, but also turns the battle between Zeus and Hera into what I interpreted as nothing more than a psychological metaphor for the endless war for power —or at least balance — between men and women. No Greek God makes an appearance in the film, and by the end of the movie I wasn't sure if we are to believe that they even exist. So let's see: harpies, centaurs and hydras, check; actual Gods and Goddesses? No way, Jose! Not in this mythological world!

This made me suspicious; could it be that NBC — who for the past several weeks has been kissing the ass of the Christian right with the end of the world hokum of "Revelations" — had sent out a memo early on to make it perfectly clear in "Hercules" that Hera and Zeus CAN'T exist because everyone knows there is only one true God and all that jazz. I don't know how else to explain this perplexing choice

There are a lot of fine actors appearing in the film, but performances are uneven; the cast is not always on the same page on how to play their scenes. Timothy Dalton — as Olivier did in "Clash of the Titans" — lends gravitas to the proceedings by drawing on his Shakespearean training, and Elizabeth Perkins plays Alcemene, Hercules' mother, with an ambitious ferocity that rivals Lady MacBeth. But Sean Astin basically reprises his role as Sam in the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy (could be he took the role out of homesickness for New Zealand where both "Hercules" and "LOTR" were filmed), and Leelee Sobieski makes an easy-on-the-eyes forest nymph, but she at no time conveyed the weird sense of eternal mystery you might expect from an immortal being; here, she's basically just a hippie chick with a shiny golden tan.

Paul Telfer, as Hercules, does follow a character growth arc, moving from a slow-thinking muscle dude to an eloquent champion of peace and justice, but his character seemed anachronistic. He is a throw-forward to a more enlightened time; Hercules as a Sensitive New Age Guy. It doesn't help his cause, either, that the filmmakers for some reason try to cast doubt on Hercules' parentage late in the movie. Is he really the son of Zeus, or isn't he? Why are they making it an issue? Again with the downplaying the Greek gods aspect.

Having grown up with the Charles Schneer/Ray Harryhausen epics, I have no idea why the producers of "Hercules" so assiduously sidestep the issue. What's the deal? They worked so hard to keep the gods out, but for what purpose?

What attracted me to the movie was the chance to see some good old Harryhausen-style Hercules vs. monster showdowns. Ray Harryhausen, I needn't tell you, is, of course the genius behind the stop-motion effects that pitted Jason and Sinbad against all the great mythological beasts of the ancient world. Come to think of it, he also handled the effects in the aforementioned "Clash of the Titans."

But "Hercules" is a disappointment in this department. In order to do penance for accidentally killing his sons, Hercules embarks on a series of quests that largely pit him against some monster that is ravaging the countryside somewhere in the kingdom. The encounters go something like this:

Hercules: "Well, I'm off now to slay the Beast of Jabberwock!"

King: "Do not fail, Hercules."

Hercules: "Don't worry, I won't."

Then — talk about let down — often the very next scene puts Hercules in battle proximity to the Beast of Jabberwock, and his vorpal sword goes snicker-snack, and he takes its head, and goes galumphing back. From departure, to battle, to return are all contained in but a few minutes' perfunctory screentime. Beast after beast is dispatched in this very anti-climactic way, and there's no sense of wonder or beauty in the moment. There's a poetry inherent in one of these mythological encounters; every time one of the creatures is killed, a little bit of the mystery of the ancient world goes with it; humans, as a species, take another step closer to the modern world, but we always mourn the loss of that old mystery. But in "Hercules" there is no poetry, or even a sense of awareness of the poetry. The creatures are just a series of plot points to be checked off the list.

Some viewers will also be disappointed that many of the CGI effects are not very convincing. While that is true, it didn't bother me all that much. A lot of Harryhausen's effects looked fake, too, at times, but I still believed in them all the same. The downside of the computer graphics revolution is that audiences have forgotten how to bring their imaginations into play: "Oh, that looked so fake!!!" Well, of course it looked fake, you silly ninny! That's because it IS fake. There's no such thing as dragons, you know; they live only in your imagination, no matter how real the effects look. So if a technical glitch prevents you from buying into the fantasy, it is your imagination, not the effects, that needs improvement.

Between creature quests, "Hercules" is a lot of talk about power struggles for the throne and such, and with each new victory, Hercules becomes more popular with the people who don't view their king with much regard. Hoping to get rid of Hercules once and for all, the king dispatches Hercules to what should have been the best battle of all. The challenge would seem impossible: the king orders Hercules into the mouth of Hades with the mission not to kill, but to capture Cerberus, the many-headed dog who stands guard there, and bring him back alive.

Here is where the film finally draw my full ire, and the following is a SPOILER ALERT.

When Hercules gets to Hades, or at least the fiery cave that's supposed to be Hades (there's no proof that it's anything BUT a fiery cave), he doesn't find Cerberus or even any sign of the underworld. What he does find is an ultra-strong assassin sent by the king and queen to kill Hercules. And it is revealed that the assassin, who Hercules previously captured on an earlier mission, may in fact be Hercules' real father, not Zeus after all.

Once again, it's interesting that when "Hercules" runs up against something that would directly contradict biblical teaching, the filmmakers chicken out and offer a more prosaic explanation in its place. Again, this makes no narrative sense at all, so why do they do it? What's the point? Well, consider this: If Hercules rows up the river and finds Cerberus waiting there, then Hades — both the place and the God — might be real, too. But that would fly in the face of biblical teaching, so they side-step it completely and utterly. Nope, forget it: no Gods or three-headed dogs for you here. Move it along, nothing to see here.

Is my theory correct? I do not know. All I can say for sure is that none of the Greek gods make an appearance in the movie, in spite of the fact their toying with humans is a central part of the original story, and at all times when the filmmakers have a chance to bring a god into the story, they steer well clear of that chance. Why? Again, why? Was NBC anxious to avoid the possibility of some stupid boycott? I don't know.

It's interesting, is all I'm saying.

Meanwhile, over on NBC's "Revelations" it's Anti-Christ this and Anti-Christ that all over the place, with no dodging the issue at all and without the slightest trace of incredulity or skepticism.

Why the makers of "Hercules" took the path they did is something I can't explain; I think it's an odd choice in a story that is set in motion by the gods and their complex relationship to human beings. Their film will likely only anger mythology purists, disappoint people like me looking for a Harryhausen fix, and bore and perplex most other viewers with its emphasis on political infighting and battles for the crown.