Furia de titanes

This film opens with a woman and her child being shunned by her kingly father and the city he represents, and banished to the depths of the sea. We soon find out that this child is the son of Zeus, king of Mt. Olympus and king of the gods. Zeus then releases this terrible beast called the Kracken to destroy the city. The child is saved and grows to manhood. His name is Perseus. The film is then a chronicle of Perseus's adventures as he battles the deadly, deformed Calibos, giant scorpions, a two-headed giant dog, and the evil Medusa herself, as well as the mightiest of all titans, the Kracken itself. We also see him befriend the magical Pegasus, and meet Cheron on the river Styx. This movie is great fun and makes all these mythological names come alive. The credit for this goes to the wonderful stop-animation work of Ray Harryhausen, in his (unfortunately) last film. Credit also goes to the wonderful supporting cast of British stage nobility playing the gods and such, Laurence Olivier plays Zeus, Maggie Smith is Thetis, and Claire Bloom, Ursala Andress, Flora Robson, and Burgess Meredith play memorable roles as well. Harry Hamlin as Perseus and Judi Bowker as his love-interest Andromeda are lackluster(although Ms. Bowker is VERY easy on the eyes). But their lack of acting savvy is one of the few detriments of the film. This film is fast-paced adventure that is magical, mystical, and memorable!

Clash of the Titans! A story of daring adventurers, on the spot romance and cheesy dialogue can be considered a classic but is very much flawed both for better and worse.The setting of Greek mythology opens up a gateway to a whole cast of "epic" stop-motion creatures which is Ray Harryhausen's specialty but if you've never tried stop-motion before it may be harder to appreciate his great work which is the best part of this film As for the films weaknesses, it has many. However my biggest complaint is just how dated it feels. It looks and sounds like a film from the 1960's, like another Hausen picture "Jason and the Argonauts". The characters are fairly 2-dimensional and the romance sub-plot is a bit confusing with just how silly it is but at the same time it works to the films advantage. Its silly but entertaining, sometimes you'll be laughing your arse off but in a good way. The film doesn't exactly take its self seriously. When it comes down to it the films at its best when there's monsters on the screen, especially one fight with a medusa which blew me away but I won't spoil it, but besides that its not particularly strong in the other categories. I give a strong recommendation nonetheless for just how entertaining it is. If you see it in a shop, don't hesitate to pick it up.

This film is one of the reasons for my being a student of the classical world! After being spoiled by the talents of Harryhausen, I just do not get excited about today's CGI effects... Not quite accurate portrayal of Perseus, but that just doesn't affect the enjoyment of this film. Fantastic film, fantastic cast!

One of the all time great sword-n-scorcery movies. All star cast. And to top it all off Ray Harryhausen effects.

This movie has been a favorite of mine since i was a kid--i was very into Greek mythology during grade school, so i loved this film, even though i've seen it about two dozen times (it continues to be a Sunday-afternoon staple on TV). There are a number of mythological inaccuracies in this film (the Kraken wasn't a mythological monster; Perseus didn't have Pegasus, but actually borrowed Hermes' winged sandals, etc.), but it's still a good kids' introduction to ancient mythology. While the actors playing the "mortals" are definitely inferior to those playing the Gods, i suppose it works in the sense of their being the Olympians' puppets and, well, a little limpness in the thespian department is somewhat de rigeur (as is the wise/comic sidekick of Burgess Meredith and the 'little and cute' factor of the mechanical owl) for the kind of classic matinee swashbuckler that "Clash of the Titans" is.

But all these complaints that the Harryhausen effects are crap and it would be so much better done with CGI... well, that's pure craziness. Sure, the monsters don't look convincing, but they look a hell of a lot more convincing then they would as cheap computer animation--can you honestly imagine the Medusa sequence being done any better with some cartoon computer program? (Why? So it could look like the crap in "Phantom Menace"?) I've always felt that Harryhausen's stop-motion technique and the resultant odd way in which the monsters moved added to the sense of their mythic status, their unreality, the sense that these are creatures from another world, another plane. (The recent Asian fantasy/action film "Onmyoji" paid tribute to the master by having a CGI demon army move in Harryhausen stop-motion style and damn me if they didn't look scarier, more unearthly for it.) In my opinion, CGI looks even less "real," more like a painted-on cartoon. There's a depth and detail to creatures that have actually been created in the three-dimensional real world that those who have only existed on a computer screen don't have. Also, no matter how good an actor is, there's a difference between someone who's in the same room with the monster he's fighting, or who at least knows what it looks like, and someone who's just trying to "act scared" in the general direction where something will be inserted later. (Imagine the "Alien" movies made with a hyped-up animated creature: you know that even motionless and plastic squeezed between light stands, that giant H.R. Geiger monster gave everyone on set the creeps.) Maybe people like CGI because they feel safer with obviously fake monsters, things that never even existed as a three-foot high model next to the ham sandwich in someone's shop.