Le Choc des Titans

The Clash of the Titans remade is more like a brute version of it. It's fun but its a mess. It's more of a spectacle rather than telling a story bout the whole mythology epic with its characters though I'm seeing a lot of CGI extravaganza with over the top results which my eyes are bleeding like hell . This is one of those films where there are a lot of super good casts in a bad production.

I totally agree with JoeB131 that wrote in the title of the previous review: "There should be a rule against remakes". "Clash of Titans" (2010) has great special effects, but without the charm of the original movie of 1981, one of my favorite fantasy films ever. The plot of this remake is very weak; uses a black Pegasus; forgets the delightful mechanical golden owl Bubo that makes a cameo only; and creates a diversion to the viewers with gorgeous actresses and stunning special effects. The awesome "Total Recall" seems to be the next victim of these brainless greedy people of Hollywood. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Fúria de Titãs" ("Fury of Titans")

"Clash of the Titans" (2010) provided everything its cover image and trailer promise, except for the part about authentic Greek Mythology, but if you can get past that you'll have a good time. The draw of the film is fast paced, adrenaline pumping action, a lot of tough guys & gals who never smile, and really cool monsters and special effects for 2010.

It's rated PG-13 for some violence and gore, and there is no sexuality, nudity or profanity (except 1 awesome use of the word b*tch). The "violence and gore" is shot very fast, so even though it depicts people being ripped in half & such, it's not quite as disturbing as, say, a Quentin Tarantino film where you watch a guy slowly bleed to death for 15 mins. In other words, this is good stuff to watch with your teenage kids or puritanical parents, either way.

There are some big names on the cast, and all performances were solid, but nothing really stood out as remarkable. That is to be expected in a fast paced film. But I would have preferred a powerful monologue or two just to use the talent to its full potential. I will say Ralph Fiennes did a chillingly original portrayal of "Hades", making him to be a twisted, limping, bitter wretch who still possessed terrifying power and fury. He is definitely my favorite part of the production.

Now on to the bad, which others have covered in detail so I'll just graze over. If you think you can study for your Classical Literature exam by watching this, you're going to get flunked all the way back to James Whale's 1931 "Frankenstein" (the most successful yet inaccurate adaptation of literature ever). Different characters in mythology seem to have been transposed, juxtaposed and just plain posed for the sake of this 2010 story. The biggest liberty is that here our hero Perseus is fighting against the gods when the original literature shows that he was tremendously helped by the gods by being given special weapons and gifts. In this film he is given those same gifts which he indignantly refuses but then later sheepishly accepts them because they'll save his life. I'm not sure if that was meant to be hypocritical, ironic, or just a sloppy oversight in the screenplay, but it's worth noting. Just what exactly is this film saying below the surface? That humans have outgrown gods? Or that we ultimately still need gods?

But for the most part, this gives us a decent taste of Greek Mythology which was truly the origin of the timeless scifi/fantasy/horror genre thousands of years ago. Chances are, most people will simply enjoy this movie for its action, fantasy and special effects. For that, yes, it delivers. But for literary accuracy... well I would be terrified to approach any literature teacher with the mere mention of this movie. That teacher would kick my Assaracus out of school and I'd be crying all the way Homer.

I've never seen the 1981 original version of Clash of the Titans. I wasn't originally planning on seeing this new updated version either. Going by the previews, this looked like nothing more than a CGI-fest...which is what it pretty much ended up being. To quote Sam Worthington from various interviews, it's basically him "in a skirt with a rubber sword, killing monsters". If you're expecting anything more than that, then yes, you will probably be disappointed.

Some of the cast manage to make the most of what they're given to work with. Having not seen Sam Worthington in anything prior to this film (except Terminator Salvation), I don't really have anything to compare his acting to. He was good in Terminator Salvation and he's good in this as well (despite the occasional slip-up of his accent). He serves his purpose as Perseus, playing the action hero well enough. His interaction with the humans who accompany him on his journey is probably the most entertaining part of the film. Mads Mikkelsen, who was a memorable villain in Casino Royale, actually gets to play a fairly decent good guy in this film (Draco). Sure, it's the role of the typical grumpy guy (who's reluctant to follow the "saviour" and is a bit of a bully) teaching the hero how to fight and who eventually comes around to respecting the hero and ending up on good terms with him...but Mads manages to make his role a bit more than a cardboard cutout, thankfully. The other men who accompany Perseus aren't too bad either (they do provide a bit of humour), but they're not given much character development at all. Actually, there's very little development for any of the characters.

As far as the gods are concerned, they're basically just a bunch of folk who stand around in Cloud City (I mean Olympus) and talk. Liam Neeson isn't given a whole lot to work with as Zeus (shining in his silver armour as brightly as Marlon Brando did in the original Superman movie wearing his tinfoil costume). Ralph Fiennes, while good, is kind of irritating with his raspy voice as Hades (though, thankfully, that goes away by the end). The rest of the gods have jack squat to do or say.

I really didn't like Jason Flemyng's satyr character. Alexa Davalos pretty much just plays the damsel in distress in the movie and leaves very little impression as Andromeda. Gemma Arterton (as Io), however, proves to be the most successful female character in the movie. As a sort of angel on Perseus's shoulder, she guides him, teaches him and actually proves *useful*. Her and Worthington work well together/have good chemistry and I enjoyed watching the two of them share scenes. I was happy with how they ended up in the film.

As for the FX, the previews basically give it all away (Clash of the CGI might have been more befitting a title for the film). Perseus fights giant scorpions, Perseus fights the Kraken and Perseus fights Medusa. As large-scale as the Kraken was, I personally enjoyed Medusa more. The fight with her proved to be the most interesting of the many fights in the film. I liked the 'look'/design for her and I also really enjoyed Pegasus, the flying horse.

I'll just come right out and say it: the movie has many a flaw. The story isn't great, the pace is off, the writing is slapdash and most of the dialogue is sketchy at best. While the movie does try to get across a message, it comes through in a somewhat haphazard sort of way. Having said that, if you go into this film not expecting much more than a Monster Mash of the Titans...then hopefully it should prove to be entertaining enough.

Crap of the Titans? Not quite. But at the same time, it's kind of forgettable. As Worthington describes it, it's a "popcorn flick". Take from that what you will.

Clash of the Titans is one of the earliest films I can remember having watched it as a kid in a big theatre, not the multiplexes we have today, and I liked it so much, it probably ranks up there as one film that I've watched the most times, on television reruns, or off a recorded video tape. The story's fairly simple, but to a kid it had plenty of charm, and a basic 101 guide to Greek mythology, of which the promiscuity of the Greek gods struck me as quite odd, save for the need to produce plenty of demi-god heroes from which stories are spun of.

Percy Jackson probably drew first blood in saturating the market about the new adventures of a fresh teenage demi-god, having him battle creatures similar to those found in this mythology. In fact, Clash of the Titans would find it difficult to beat the fun factor of the original film, and the modernized spin that Percy Jackson had to offer. There's little story here, and everything that happened was a sad excuse to get the story quickly moving onto the next big set action sequence. Lead character motivations had been changed significantly, especially with Andromeda (Alexa Davalos) being nothing more than a flower vase, and having her romantic subplot with our hero Perseus (Sam Worthington) being totally removed. I felt that was the first sign of narrative trouble.

Then it became more generic approaches in how to string the action scenes one after another. Each battle will last a significant amount of time, then a little more posturing, before going onto the next. It can easily be split into this sequence of scorpions-medusa- kraken, and each creature design was a shadow to predecessors like Scorpionok's attack in Transformers, Uma Thurman's rendition of Medusa, and Hollywood's Godzilla flop, coming complete with that foam on water approach to the mainland.

If anyone wants to make a film about a hybrid character, then look no further than Sam Worthington, who has been half man half machine in Terminator: Salvation, half man half Na'vi in Avatar, and now, half-man half-god who's tasked to save Andromeda of Argos from being monster sacrifice, should he be able to defeat Hades' Kraken, the source of his power and threat to mankind. Worthington seems pigeon-holed into these kinds of role, and because of Hollywood's current dearth of worthy action heroes, Worthington becomes the latest It boy with his physique and perpetual scowl, being suited perfectly well into this scarcity of actors who can act with their fists, without the compelling need to launch into lengthy dialogue as a professional and career development.

Otherwise the other star studded cast don't do much but pose and prance about in their costumes, with Liam Neeson looking constricted by his Zeus armour, Ralph Fiennes playing Voldermort all over again with his rendition of Hades, and Mads Mikkelsen as Drago the Argos general who has the nicest smirk caught on screen. Gemma Arterton is a surprise inclusion in the film as Io the immortal, which is a new character and given a lot more significance in the mythos now, and is in part one of the major changes in Perseus philosophy, tutoring and motivation, so much so that if I were to use a modern term, the word "cougar" would suit their relationship just fine.

And it is these kinds of little artistic license taken, that will likely leave the purist in you perturbed. Bobo the Golden Owl has a quick cameo to appease fans, but like the gods who are never satisfied with the pittance of worship obtained from the humans, we too think that it's not enough, since Pegasus too went through a none too subtle change in skin colour. Sorry, but to me, Pegasus the winged horse, will forever remain white. There are a few conversational pieces in the film that brilliantly introduces us to the world of the jealous Greek gods and they work wonderfully, such as their innate differences and why the brothers Zeus and Hades hate each other so much, but some were rather cringeworthy, especially when modern curses somehow found their place in a swords and sandals film as this.

I suppose you'll know by now that the film was never shot using 3D technology, and that it was only during post production, thanks to the mega box office success of Avatar, when it was decided to have a 3D version made for this film as well. The result? Millions spent enhancing nothing. Sure there's depth of field, but nothing to wow a jaded audience familiar with what a 3D film is expected to bring to the table. In fact, this film would be better off seen in a digital 2D format, since none of the action sequence even had a whiff of a suggestion of being in your face, since after all, it was conceptualized for a flat presentation.

Bottom line, it's extremely sterile and devoid of soul, whereas the original film had plenty of heart, and charming stop motion special effects to alleviate it to cult status. This one will likely be forgotten since it's nothing more than mediocre drama and ordinary set action pieces, though I will not deny that its marketing would ensure that it will garner some decent cash from the Easter holiday market segment. The original is so much better since this is all generic action and little charm.