I am pretty mixed with “Immortals.” There were some amazing and badass moments, but there were a lot of odd moments too. I was a little sad because this really had a lot of potential. The commercials looked awesome. But as I remember the commercials for “Pan’s Labyrinth” vs. the actual movie, I have to remind myself that the ads don’t always represent the real product. That being said, if you don’t expect too much, you may actually enjoy this. After the first quarter was over I decided to stop thinking about it. I know it’s my job to be critical, but when you stop criticizing you actually have a good time.

Without further ado: welcome to ancient Greece! It is a time with virgin oracles and maze-like temples where the people can pray their devotion to the gods. You have your skeptical men and your faithful women. You have gods that look like young hot studs and studettes. The studliest of them all is Zeus. He takes a special interest in a young man named Theseus and trains him to be a lead an army against an evil king. Evil King Hyperion, played by Mickey Rourke, is angry at the gods for not saving his family from a plague. So he amasses an army to unleash the Titans: the only other creatures that can kill the gods.

Things get rolling when the virgin oracle sees disaster ahead. King Hyperion needs her to tell him where a mystical weapon is to help him with his evil plan. The oracle flees. Meanwhile, Theseus vainly tries to save his village and mother from the onslaught of Hyperion’s forces, but fails. Destiny throws him and the oracle together along with a band of misfits. The gods help a little bit and voila: an adventure movie. But later, Zeus rescinds his assistance and orders all the other gods to stay out of human affairs. That threw a tiny wrench into the plans. But if the gods can’t help, why are they in this movie at all?

I feel a little bad for whoever makes a Greek mythology movie. It is such a beautiful culture with a lot to play around with. The problem is it’s been done a few times now. And the stories that haven’t been done aren’t really good for movies anyway. There were many moments when I saw allusions to “God of War” and “Clash of the Titans.” I felt pretty bad for director Tarsem Singh. The story has been done. This is the formula: the gods choose one man to defend their honor against a non-believer…they help him in his journey…they give him the tools to succeed…it’s the same as every other Greek mythology movie/game out there. The only difference is in the character portrayals.

The best performance came from Mickey Rourke. He is one of the best bed guys I’ve seen in a movie. Even though his motive for villainy was cliché, he was still ridiculously badass. Never cross paths with Hyperion. He doesn’t care about life whatsoever. The other actors’ performances were mediocre at best. Not bad, but not great. Not even really worth mentioning by name. Besides, this movie really isn’t about the characters anyway; it’s about the over-the-top special effects.

“Immortals” is a nice separation from all the other work Tarsem Singh has done. Singh is known for his dark and fanciful movies where there is no limit to the craziness he can add. With that said, he made some interesting choices in post production. There were some surprising scene transitions and some cool special effects. Too bad you could barely see them. I don’t know if it was the 3D or the time of day this movie was shot, but everything was really dark and fuzzy. The best scenes were ones with the gods. They were all brilliant and golden. They had the coolest costumes I have ever seen in any Greek mythology movie. I’m sure you’ve already seen some of them in the cool advertising posters. But everything else looked like you were watching the movie through a pane of tinted glass.

You can only see this movie two ways: 3D or IMAX 3D. Unfortunately, 3D doesn’t really add anything. Nothing jumps out at you and the setting isn’t bright enough to be highlighted. It was more annoying to keep the bulky glasses on and they distracted me more than they aided me. The best parts of “Immortals” are the action sequences. The fighting moved at a good clip and the violence was very tasteful. I never thought I would say that about any violence, but I guess I have become a little numb to all the blood now. If you can make it through the poor dialogue then the movie is actually enjoyable. You don’t need to think too hard about anything. Just sit back and enjoy the action. I would say go ahead and give this a go. Enjoy “Immortals” for what it is: a shallow and violent Greek epic.

The official trailer for “Immortals” was recently released. The film comes from the producers of “300,” Gianni Nunnari and Mark Canton, and will hit theaters nationwide on November 11.

The 3-D film is directed by Tarsem Singh (“The Fall”) and tells the story of an ancient Greek king searching for the Bow of Epirus and a young villager who challenges his quest.

King Hyperion is played by Mickey Rourke (“The Wrestler”) and the villager, Thesus, is played by Henry Cavill (“The Tudors”). Hyperion and his army are ruthless in their search of the weapon and kill Thesus’s mother during a village raid. Thesus is then determined to stop Hyperion in order to avenge his mother’s death and protect all humanity.

In 2005, director Christopher Nolan released “Batman Begins,” and a new film-making commandment was born: “Thou shalt not smile.” Whatever that film’s excellent points and gifts to the film canon (and believe me, there are many), it will forever be known as the picture that killed the fun in making a superhero movie. Producers, looking for their next cash cows, mined the DC and Marvel universes for their darkest, most nihilistic tales, and found actors who could deliver the best glower to be their protagonists.

Then came Jon Favreau, a man best known for following Vince Vaughn into a pit of sin in “Swingers.” He wanted to make “Iron Man.” But more than that, he wanted to make “Iron Man” what it should be: a comedy. And what do you know, it turns out American audiences also wanted to have a laugh.

“Iron Man 2″ is more of the same- a lot more. This episode has Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) fighting on several fronts: he’s battling the U.S. Government for control of his Iron Man suit, a rival businessman (Sam Rockwell) who’s trying to build his own suit and a crazed Russian physicist who’s trying to avenge his father’s ruined career. It’s a crowded docket.

There’s no great changes to film culture, no Oscar-winning performances, or fascinating forays into psychology. Stark is a manic, self-serving and self-destructive billionaire playboy. He has a giant suit that fights evil, usually by blowing shit up. It’s simple. It’s straightforward. And it’s awesome.

It’s major gift, of course, is the cast. Downey, reprising his role as the crusader, puts on all of his performances like a well-tailored suit- he always looks good, but it’s never like he’s trying to hard. He’s there, first and foremost, to have a good time. Don Cheadle makes a good replacement for Terrance Howard as Lt. Col. Rhodes, and even Scarlett Johansson, who I usually barely tolerate, is likable (probably because she’s best in films where all she has to do is look hot and try not to talk too much.) And Mickey Rourke, enjoying an actor’s second summer, is terrific as Ivan Vanko, the Russian who might just be smarter than Stark. Rourke, of course, is best when he’s just playing himself. He may not be a physicist (or Russian, for that matter), but he is a hulking, intimidating form, which belies unexpected intelligence. I simply enjoyed watching Rourke move throughout this film, striding confidently through a laboratory wearing a sleeveless shirt that exposes his many worn tattoos along with a snappy pair of spectacles.

Writer Justin Theroux and Favreau both wanted to create something driven by good styling and a sense of fun. One could read into the plot lines- the private business owner versus Big Government, the nature of war in the modern age, blah, blah, blah. Lame, and done before. But you know what is entertaining? A ten-minute long scene where Col. Rhodes and Stark, both in Iron Man suits, gratuitously destroy Stark’s fabulous home in Malibu.

Favfreau’s not a great director, but he is one who delivers on his promises, which is almost as important. He promised us a spicy, funny action flick with nerdy in-jokes, sexy women in catsuits and tons of Shit Blowing Up. He lets “Iron Man” be what’s it’s supposed to be. These days, that’s an art form in itself.

Be sure to pick up Entertainment Weekly’s second annual Comic-Con preview issue this Friday which will feature the awesome cast of Iron Man 2 and exclusive photos of Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow, according to EW.com.

The film, which is set to release in May of 2010, includes new stars Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow and Mickey Rourke as Whiplash and is welcoming back Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark, along with Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts.

In addition to some new enemies, there will be a little more sexual tension in this film, Downey told EW. ‚ With Potts’ promotion to CEO of Stark Industries and the introduction of Natasha (Black Widow) as Stark’s sultry new assistant, the audience will be praying for a catfight.

“We’re horny,” said Downey. ‚ ”Not, like, can’t-bring-your-kids horny, but just”¦horny.”

LOS ANGELES — Bethesda Softworks has a lot of money to develop new games right now. Everything they touch is gold. Oblivion was huge. Fallout 3 is legendary. Video gaming is up in a down economy.

So Bethesda Softworks can bring in Mr. SEAL Team Six, Richard Marcinko and the voice of Mickey Rourke to put you in the boots of a real American badass.

But there’s more to this than just action and explosions. The SEALS have a special meaning to guys in their 20s. It’s the only reason Steven Segal had a career. We all watched Michael Biehn, Charlie Sheen, Bill Paxton and Rick Rossovich in “Navy Seals.” It’s an awful movie, but it’s the stuff of legends. We love that shit.

Enter Bethesda’s Rogue Warrior, which we saw up close at E3. Playing as Marcinko, you go behind the iron curtain to disrupt a suspected North Korean ballistic missile program, uncovering a conspiracy that could turn the Cold War in the commies’ favor. Death and destruction follow.

On your black ops, you’ll mix stealth and assault to infiltrate communist strongholds, swearing like a true sailor along the way.

In the hands off demo, done by Bethesda producer Charles Harribey, the best part of combat were any of the 25 different “brutal kills” moves you can perform by sneaking up on an unsuspecting bad guy, like throwing him off a ledge or stabbing him in the face. Yeah. Brutal.

This is a single player game with multiplayer combat modes. It’s very story driven, and it’s not a Solid Snake type stealth game. There’s a ton of overt combat as well.

The graphics and sounds are beautiful, and this will be a winner when it comes out in the fall for Xbox 360, PC and PlayStation 3.

Here, for what it’s worth, are my 2009 Oscar predictions in the six major categories:

Best Picture:

Will Win: “Slumdog Millionaire”
Should Win: “Frost/Nixon”
Common consensus is that Sunday night will belong to the Little Movie That Could from India, but for my nerdy journalistic sensibilities, the best movie of the year was Ron Howard’s engaging adaptation of “Frost/Nixon.”

Best Director:

Will Win: Danny Boyle, “Slumdog Millionaire”
Should Win: Danny Boyle, “Slumdog Millionaire”
The British director’s crafting of this Indian fairytale into the feel-good movie of the year makes him the favorite, and deservedly so.

Best Actor:

Will Win: Mickey Rourke, “The Wrestler”
Should Win: Frank Langella, “Frost/Nixon”
The Academy loves a comeback, and Mickey Rourke certainly seems to have reinvented himself with his utterly sacrificial turn in “The Wrestler.” Keep an eye on Sean Penn though, who might emerge as a dark horse victor for voters who might use their ballot to make a political statement in light of Proposition 8′s passing in November.

Best Actress:

Will Win: Kate Winslet, “The Reader”
Should Win: Kate Winslet, “The Reader”
Backlash against “The Reader” and, in turn, Winslet’s performance has been building ever since it surged ahead of (presumably) “The Dark Knight” and “Wall-E” to nab a Best Picture nomination. Behind “Frost/Nixon” it was my second favorite movie of the year. Between this and her un-nominated performance in “Revolutionary Road” Winslet cemented herself as the best actress working today.

Best Supporting Actor:

Will Win: Heath Ledger, “The Dark Knight”
Should Win: Heath Ledger, “The Dark Knight”
Even setting aside the tragedy of his untimely death as a factor in this race, Ledger’s performance is undeniably the standout of the bunch. It’s inconceivable that the Academy would give the award to anyone else. Our condolences, Michael Shannon!

Best Supporting Actress:

Will Win: Viola Davis, “Doubt”
Should Win: ????
Penelope Cruz seems to be the favorite here for her turn in “Vicky Cristina Barcelona” which I can’t comment on, not having seen the film. But the Academy always reserves it’s WTF vote for one of the supporting categories (see: Alan Arkin, Tilda Swinton), and since Heath Ledger is the closest thing this year to a lock, you can bet this race will end up being a crap shoot. My reasoning is that if voters thought enough of Davis’s 15 minutes of screentime to reward her with a nomination, there’s no reason she can’t take home the prize.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — Professional wrestling is an exceptionally mysterious beast, and that’s saying something.

Despite constantly being broadcast into people’s homes, so much of what happens isn’t in front of the cameras. There are people back behind those curtains. They are athletes, stuntmen, and actors. They are professional wrestlers. They can get thousands of people worked up into frenzy, and still manage to perform precision moves and fly like trapeze artists. I will always have a great deal of respect for these people, who live on the road, and hurt themselves every night so others can be in high spirits. Then there is another layer beneath the shine of Titantrons that people see on TV, and that is the independent wrestling scene. The polish is rubbed off, but the wrestlers don’t change. This is where most of “The Wrestler” takes place.

Between this grime and the ring is where we find the protagonist, Randy “The Ram” Robinson (Mickey Rourke).

I don’t want to tell too much of the plot, but it’s pretty simple. We follow Randy, a former wrestling superstar who has fallen on hard times, as he tries to continue living his dream of wrestling, while paying the rent, finding love, and rebuilding bridges he burnt down over his 20 years of living life in the fast lane. That’s essentially the whole movie, and there is nothing wrong with that. This movie doesn’t try and do more than it needs to, but for such a simple premise, the movie carries a lot of weight. The heavy themes of this movie don’t drag it down, but rather raise it higher than any movie about a Wrestler and a Stripper should go.

Don’t let the idea of this movie fool you, it isn’t about some meathead clichƒ© and his comeback. It’s about a real person, like you would find walking down the street. He’s a wrestler, but has to do double time working at a supermarket to make ends meet. He’s a local hero to all the neighborhood kids. He’s not a dumb man either, just burnt out. In the end, the parallels to Mickey Rourke are fairly obvious, and it might be one of the reasons that this is Rourke’s best role of all time.

About 5 minutes into this movie, I forgot that Randy wasn’t a real person. I actually forgot that it wasn’t a documentary. Rourke dives into this part head first and embraces it. From being slammed on the mat, to showing up outsides his daughters house, begging for a second chance, Rourke fills every aspect of the character and then adds more. His pitted face and sunken eyes are things that you can’t act.

Marisa Tomei plays the aging stripper, Cassidy, and is the mirror to Randy. She does a great job, but is overshadowed by Mickey in this. It’s not a knock on her, but rather a statement about just how good Rourke is in this.

The acting and the script were both phenomenal, and the rest of the movie matches up. The wrestling matches have a purpose and interject action into a redemption story. The sets are amazing, and are actually accurate. I know it’s not hard to make someplace look like the back of a deli counter or an Elks Club, but it is difficult to avoid making them into movie sets. There are no bright lights, or well lit corners. You see the shadows, and you see the cracks. You see how something so normal, and so basic, could be someone’s Valhalla, and that is just what the ring was to Randy.

Ironically, one of my least favorite musical genres, “Hair Metal,” provides an amazing soundtrack for this. The whole movie kicks off with “Metal Health” by Quiet Riot and it sets the pace for what you’re about to see. There is even a scene, in which Randy says that he hates the 90′s because it killed his beloved hair metal. He relates to just always wanting to have fun, and eventually getting tossed to the side, despite never changing what you did. It’s just another layer on this movie, and it works.

When all the smoke settles, this is without a doubt one of the best movies of the year. It is also one of the most authentic. It looks real, feels real, and as far as I am concerned, might as well be real. So I hope for Mickey Rourke to get every award he is nominated for, and the same for this whole movie. And more importantly, I hope you gather yourself up, find the nearest place this movie is playing, and go see it. You won’t regret it.

Don’t miss “The Top 5 Un-Scripted Pro-Wrestling Moments” on Blast’s This is God Given blog