The 12 labors in the film aren't myth but intertwine with the teasing nature of whether Hercules may or may not be the son of Zues. His nephew Iolaus (Reece Ritchie) is responsible for telling the tales of Hercules and the 12 labors everywhere they go, from placeto place, a mercenary getting paid for his services. Over the years, he's picked up his own posse (Rufus Sewell, Ian McShane, Aksel Hennie, and Ingrid Bolsø Berdal), with specialized fighting skills to go along with them.
Three years prior to the current storyline, Hercules was banned from Athens by King Eurystheus (Joseph Fiennes) after being suspected of killing his family. Always seeking a good price for services rendered, Hercules and co. are asked by King Cotys (John Hurt) and his daughter Ergenia (Rebecca Ferguson) to help rid Thrace of a warlord named Rhesus (Tobias Santelmann). Hercules agrees to help, eventually realizing that he and his friends might be in way over their heads.
We get glimpses of the famous 12 labors of Hercules, but nothing concrete. This is essentially a story that the filmmakers pulled out of their butts and thought it would make a good movie to attach Hercules' name to it. There's good action, and some humor, which is very welcome and which there should have been more of (especially from McShane and Sewell, who are really the highlight of the film), but the movie ultimately fails because of its lack of concrete narrative. Is Hercules the son of Zeus, or is he not? Why are we forced to question his lineage to begin with? Perhaps it is to cover up the fact that the story isn't very inspiring to begin with, nor are the theatrical speeches that are dripping with mock seriousness and cheesy over the top lines being thrown here and there about heroes and fate.
It's disappointing that they don't really show us in detail any of the 12 labors. This is what Hercules is partly famous for in Greek mythology, and to this day hasn't been given any justice onscreen. The filmmakers choose to obviously ignore certain aspects of the Hercules stories and only pick ones they think would suit the story, which might have worked if their actual story had been more concrete.
In Braveheart, we stand behind Mel Gibson because we see his story develop. So that when he gives his speech, it's inspiring and a true rallying of his troops. I mention Braveheart because it feels like Brett Ratner and co. were going for that same kind of effect, but without much ambition or inspiration. The film starts out ok, but spirals shortly after. It doesn't seem to know what it wants to be. Sometimes, it gets a bit serious and its serious tone is so sincere that it might make you laugh at its audacity. The film alleviates this by using humor, which isn't used often enough, making some parts of the film seem far too serious.
There's no doubt that Dwayne Johnson is buff enough to be Hercules, but the capacity to tell the story of a man weighted by the events of his past and the responsibilities of his present isn't used to its full potential. Most of that blame can fall on Brett Ratner since his non-comedy films tend to be over-the-top and don't do a good job telling character stories (I'm looking at you, X-Men: The Last Stand). Will you still be mildly entertained? It's possible. But that still doesn't detract from the fact that even the aspect of the Nemean lion is used to simply make Dwayne Johnson look cool and bad-ass, which he does, that can't be denied. The point here is that someone like Johnson could have been just as cool and bad-ass playing any character, without tainting the name of Hercules in the process. Sure, in the past, Disney's Hercules may have changed around the mythology of the Greek hero, but they made him someone you could root for and stand behind because he had the plight of any person. The last two Hercules films only create a hero who doesn't deserve the praise as easily as he receives it.
