Ulises y la isla de la niebla

I didn't think SciFi Channel could broadcast a worse myth-&-monster movie than MINOTAUR. I was wrong.

It's okay to make a movie on the cheap; not everyone has access to a big budget, and amazing things can be done with a little imagination and talent. But there's very little of those commodities here. Acting is at a high school level. Direction is worse. Dialogue is trite. Scenes lurch from one dull monster attack to another, with occasional babe (er, goddess) interludes to break the monotony. The goddesses look and sound as it they're reading cue cards at a second-rate beauty contest.

Why must the makers of such movies mess with Greek myth, about which they clearly know (and care) nothing? Here, Homer the tale-teller appears as part of Odysseus's crew. That's an okay idea. Except this Homer (played by the worst actor of the lot, which is saying something) scribbles notes (with a feather quill!) and fawns over the heroes like an embedded reporter in Iraq. Legend tells us that Homer was blind, and recited his stories from memory. There is great power in that idea, a hearkening back to a prehistoric, preliterate age of traveling bards and oral tradition.

A magical movie could be made about Odysseus, and Homer, but this is not it.

Truth be told, then I had no particular expectations to this movie. And I will say that the movie is entertaining enough, but it could have been better.

The story is a fairly common one; Odysseus sailing for Ithica and finding the Isle of Mist along the way. Yadda, yadda, yadda... Fairly average storyline with nothing overly impressive or new here.

As a movie of this type, trying to tell an epic tale of ancient history, the movie doesn't really manage to punch through and make a lasting mark or statement. It sort of never rises beyond mediocrity, which was a shame.

The effects in the movie were adequate, well most of them at least. The creatures were hilariously fake to look at. They looked like horribly fake rendered CGI rejects. Had the special effects team worked harder on this, the movie could have been more enjoyable. It is sort of difficult to take something serious when it looks like something that came out of an early 1990's PC game, back when 3D graphics were still an eyesore.

I will say that the props and wardrobe people actually did a great job in the movie, because the costumes and garments were really nice to look at; great details and it did seem valid enough.

Acting-wise, then the movie wasn't all that noticeable. Perhaps because the characters were fairly mundane and generic, not really displaying much personality of difference from one another. It should be said that Arnold Vosloo (playing Odyesseus), Randal Edwards (playing Homer) and Stefanie von Pfetten (playing Persephone) were actually doing their part to carry the movie nicely.

If you enjoy classic tales of this genre, then there are other movies that deal with the same tale and subject that does it better than this one. I am sure that if you are a hardcore fan of ancient history and legends, then you will find some enjoyment and amusement in this movie. For us who just want to watch it for the entertainment of a movie, then "Odyesseus & the Isle of Mists" turns out to be fairly mediocre and it is not the type of movie that is likely to be on the watch-list a second time around.

Actually I was using a bit of hyperbole, it wasn't as atrocious as I made it out to be in the summary, but to be honest it is still pretty bad. Some of the scenery and costumes are decent, some of the monsters are interesting and Arnold Vosloo is imposing and charismatic enough as Odysseus. However, the story is hackneyed and is very uneven in pace, the dialogue is a vast majority of the time absolutely abysmal, the direction is heartless, the pace is poor and the acting with exception of Vosloo is laughable particularly with Homer and the goddesses. While the ending comes across as rather cheesy. To conclude, pretty bad but there are some minor redeeming qualities. 3/10 Bethany Cox

I really wanted to like this film. I truly did. The cast seemed excellent (although the inclusion of "Homer" should have told me all I needed to know about the script). Sadly, the best looking men on screen could not save this one.

The language is always a problem, and I realize that it is hard to decide between going for pure period speech or making it all modern. I prefer the former with some latitude for comprehensibility, but too many writers today don't even realize how people spoke in times past, so the occasional slip into a modern cliché is just glaring.

So as long as you don't pay any money for it and put your brain in neutral you'll get through it fine. Chant the mantra: entertainment value.

I've come not to expect much from any SyFy "original" movie. This particular one, though, plumbs new depths of bad writing, atrocious plotting, mediocre-to-bad acting and weak execution. It hijacked names from Greek mythology and applied them to the movie's two-dimensional characters in an attempt, I suppose, to give them some apparent depth, and then to compound the theft shamelessly grabbed some material from Christianity and Bram Stoker, and THEN, not content with making a complete mess of things, swiped an ending right out of any one of the "Halloween" movies. It was flat, predictable and never more than minimally interesting.