Clash of the Titans

Clash of the Titans
Movie Blurb by Shale
April 2, 2010

This was a legitimate remake of a classic movie. While I grew up on Ray Harryhausen special effects in such movies as Earth vs the Flying Saucers (1956), 20 Million Miles to Earth (1957) and The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (1958) and still like them today, by1981 with Clash of the Titans, those effects were not state of the art. Remember, Star Wars came out in 1977.

However, while I enjoy the advancement of CGI effects, I am getting tired of this new 3-D fad, which is exactly what the 3-D in this movie was, a fad trying to cash in on the success of Avatar. This movie was originally made as flat, 2-dimensional and they used that computer wizardry to make it 3-D after it was shot. And, not too successfully.

Take my advice - see the regular version of this movie because the 3-D was not the dynamic stuff of Avatar where ashes were falling in the theater seats in front of you, but almost 2-dimensional. Besides that, it had errors in it that were distracting. While I appreciated the more subtle 3-D effect in some scenes, in the close ups there were mismatched double figures, especially noticeable on Hades (Ralph Fiennes) and Zeus (Liam Neeson) in their scenes on Mount Olympus.

Other "Experts" Agree:
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=398825

I had intended to see this movie in the flat version, but the theater close to the beach where I spent this beautiful day and which had not shown 3-D films before, had no other choice today, so I was forced to waste extra money to see this terrible visual mess.

Anyhow, by now you probably know the story. It differed a little from the 1981 movie but all the main parts were there. Perseus (Sam Worthington) is the bastard son of Zeus with a mortal woman, hence a demigod.

When humans quit worshiping Zeus, all hell breaks loose. Really, Zeus starts losing strength and Hades gains it.

Brothers, Hades & Zeus having a family spat


Perseus is pressed to save Argos before the monster Kraken is released by Zeus. To fight the Kraken, he needs the head of Medusa. To find Medusa he needs to consult three witches who share one eye.

Perseus and the 3 Witches


To get the goods to the Kraken Perseus needs to fly on Pegasus (this time black to match Perseus' dark duds).

All the while being attacked by a man-monster Calibos (Jason Flemyng).

Calibos being strengthened by Hades


Yeah, that's pretty much what went down in the original movie, so it is a fairly true remake. Also, just like the original movie, the people of Argos are going to sacrifice the Princess Andromeda (Alexa Davalos) to the Kraken to spare their city as promised by Hades.

Andromeda - Kraken Food


I would recommend this movie - wait a minute, what's to recommend. You guys know you're gonna see it, no matter what anyone else says. So, enjoy. (Just don't see it in 3-D.)

 

Today I saw Clash of the Titans in regular 2-D and as expected, it was a much more rewarding movie experience.

The visuals were far superior to the 3-D version I saw on Friday.

There was no reason to artificially make this a poor-quality 3-D movie except to squeeze more money out of the movie-going public. It irritates me no end to have to pay $3 more to see a poor quality movie.

 

I'm looking forward to seeing this movie--I saw the original when I was a kid, and I thought it was good then! I'm curious to see how the remake compares to the original--although I'm sure it's just as good now as it was back then!

 

Well, you will at least spot an old acquaintance from the old movie in the new one, too... even though Bubo only has a very short appearance. I'm sure that the people in the cinema I went to tonight were merely laughing about its funny sounds but not recognizing the in-joke and reference to the old movie...

And, yeah, you're right Shale... please, everyone, do not spend extra money on the 3D version... it's a waste of money, for sure. Wish I had read your review a bit earlier. Nevertheless, the movie was quite entertaining, even though Liam Neeson's Zeus is a bit too flat in comparison to Laurence Olivier's. Funny thing though, Sam Worthington really can act out the involuntary hero... I had the occasion today to have a double Sam feature, since Avatar is shown right before Clash of the Titans at my nearest multiplex. And, well, with these two movies, Worthington is definitely typecast as the hero who has to grow into his shoes (even though he was barefoot in this one a lot of the time, too, even though his toes weren't blue... ). And it's again a girl saving his ass at a few occasions. However Neytiri is sexier than Io. Period!

About the monsters I have to say, the Kraken looked a bit too much like some level or end boss from a Final Fantasy Game... When it first swam towards Argos, I was reminded quite a lot of Sin, main nemesis of Final Fantasy X, when it destroyed Kilika Port. And compared to the 1981 version, Medusa was far too beautiful... she had a really sweet-looking face compared to the ugly one from the old movie.

Oh well, a far as 3D tech and FX are concerned, I am looking forward to what's to come according to the trailers I saw today... Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole - 100% computer-animated, but never have I seen more convincing animated raindrops or ruffled feathers in 3D. Let's just hope that this movie hasn't shot all its powder in the trailer alone. And another upcoming 3D movie is advertizing to be special, since James Cameron's Oscar-awarded 3D cinematography tech (the fusion camera system) was used to shoot it - Resident Evil: Afterlife. Zombies and Milla Jovovich in 3D! Yum. Oh, yeah, and Shrek 4... that'll be fun due to the alternate reality idea...

Wiggling toes in anticipation,

~*Ganesha*~

 

I've been reading some features on this film and Sam Worthington REALLY didn't like that scene with Bubo. He was fighting with the director over doing it, but was made to under protest.

I agree with Sam. I didn't like Bubo in the first movie and personally thot it was a gimmick to compete with R2D2 in the very popular Star Wars four years earlier. They seem to be speaking the same language.

 

To make it short and simple: this movie is total shit. beside the horrific 3-D effects (which look like they were added later to the movie), this movie is just BAD in many different ways.

first of all, the dialogues sound like a 14 year old had written them - they are absolutely standard, a friend of mine was jokingly foretelling what they would say next.... guess what? he pretty much hit it every time.

the costumes: the costumes of the "gods" look like having been taken from the charmed - set and the costumes of the cityziens look like from a better "hercules" - episode.

another few things that are just WRONG:
1. the greeks, people known in ancient times for their mastery of the seas, start an expedition purely per foot.
2. the people are given light bread (!!!!)
3. Zeus transforms himself into an eagle that only exists in america (hilarious!)
4. dschinns in greek mythology
5. titans? clash of the titans? do you have an idea how many titans the movie featured? 0. nada. absolutely no titan.
6. why on earth does shed blood grow into giant scorpions?? i mean, there are things in greek mythology they could have used, but SCORPIONS???
7. the "party" was a joke - pale, no personality, absolutely 1 dimensional roles - and they didnt even die spectacular.

dont waste money on that movie, its not worth it.

 

You are right about the crappy, added on 3-D and I hope everyone who read my blurb takes note. DO NOT SEE THE 3-D VERSION OF THIS MOVIE!!!

However, you miss the whole point of a "Popcorn Cruncher"
See it as a matinee - you save money and get the whole childlike experience.

This was actually a remake of the 1981 movie - not some modern "reimagining."

Therefore they went with the scorpions of the original, the lame dialogue, the somewhat hammy acting of Zeus, (Which Olivier apparently had more fun with than Neeson) and all the other errors of Greek Mythology. They even brought that lame unflyable metal owl out of storage for an appearance.

You have to lighten up on your expectations sometimes to enjoy some fictional mythology movies.

 

i didnt expect much to begin with - not with the plot or the dialogues. however, it was just boring to watch - i dont need an over - intellectual or accurate movie to have fun with, but it should at least make some fun to watch it. the only reason all those things i listed (and many more) even came to my mind was because i was simply bored when watching and i had the time to look out for them. there were even ppl leaving the movie and my GF fell asleep for a while. remake or not, the movie is just bad - and i dont watch a movie for its predecessor, but for the movie itself.

 

Score: 4/10
actors: Sam wothington , ralph finnes

I have to agree with gleich on this one, I found the movie to be pretty crappy. There was some decent action sequences but even in the end I found it to be anticlimatic with the giant kraken basically laying its two arms down before getting turned to stoned followed by no sort of battle with hades whatsoever. The dialogue was crap which I expected but still I didnt feel like some of it even belonged in a movie like this. Totally cliché and corny inspirational one liners. I was expecting to see maybe slightly more involvement of the other gods, at least posiedon since he was brought up in the opening introduction. With the bar set higher by movies like Lord of the rings and Avatar a movie like this can't stand alone on larger than life action. I really do enjoy Greek mythological gods and creatures though. I only hope that a God of war movie is in the works which follows the video games because I think that done right would make this garbage completely forgotten.

Only If you are really into fantansy do I recommend this movie, and wait to rent it on DVD or netflix.

 

I saw "Clash of the Titans" earlier today.

This movie was based on the Legend of Perseus. That is a legend that is alluded to in Homer's Iliad. It is told completely in Ovid's Metamorphoses, and in The Library, by Apollodorus. The Legend of Perseus is at least three thousand years old. It influences the story of St. George and the Dragon, and appears as "The Tale of the Two Brothers," in Grimm's Fairy Tales, as well as in Italian fairy tales.

In 1896 Edwin Sidney Hartland wrote a book entitled The Legend of Perseus. Years ago I read it in the Library of Congress. More recently, it has been republished. I bought it and read it again.

Obviously, I am intrigued by the Legend of Perseus. Unfortunately, the movie was barely based on it, and a disappointment to me.

If I was going to write a movie script or a novella about a legend that hallowed, I would write it as close to the extant versions as I could.

 

I saw this film yesterday, me and the other 5 people I went with thought it was kind of crappy.

I can take the cheesy acting and historical mistakes and what not- but the characters were flat and as somebody else said they just died... the journey never really went anywhere and the demigod never proved to be anything brilliant either.

Sorry, not for me. And I love Greek mythology. Shame.

 

Those of us who love Greek mythology and literature are most likely to be disappointed with "Clash of the Titans," because it fell far short of the original. All the special effects did not compensate for a poorly written screen play, and bad acting.

I think there is a good chance that I have studied the Legend of Perseus more thoroughly than the screen writer of this movie.

The movie was not a disaster. I would give it two stars, but I wanted to watch a movie that deserved five stars and a collection of Academy Awards.

 

Yeah, same. However I am supposing they wanted to keep the dynamic of the original, be it botchy.

But I love and have read quite a lot about it and been to a few great museums (Altes in Berlin's Museum quarter springs to mind). I would have loved to sink my teeth into the stories a little more, but it was very meek as to perhaps not alienate a lesser read audience.

I would give it exactly the same as you, 2 out of 5.

 

No, this movie was based on "Clash of the Titans" a 1981 movie of the same name with cheesy special effects.

If you want a serious dissertation about Perseus, watch a PBS show or similar documentary, not a popcorn cruncher that is best served in matinee.

Again, not to defend a movie that does have all the flaws mentioned but one of my axioms is to not compare movies to books, plays and other media, because they are different.

Movies tend to be more visual and less literal. IDK if perseus and crew actually fought with giant scorpions - doesn't matter, it makes a good visual on screen.

Oh, I also enjoyed Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightening Thief. I guess that is loosely based on Perseus - or at least Percy Jackson cuts off Medusa'a head. That movie, like Clash of the Titans does not purport to be true to any Greek Mythology. It just took some of the characters and events and ran in a different, more modern entertainment.

 

The movie was not very successful in 1981. It is not very successful now. The Legend of Perseus has lasted for three thousand years. My point is that a movie that was more true to that story would have probably been more successful, because it would have appealed to aspects of the human psyche that have made the story enduring.

I say this as one who has read many books by Carl G. Jung. The first time I saw "Star Wars" I recognized the archetypes of the collective unconscious that Jung wrote about.

The novels of J. R. R. Tolkien are appealing because they appeal to the collective unconscious. The movies based on those novels have been successful at the box office because they were true to those novels.

 

I read a bit on Jung and don't see the connection there

Excuse my ignorance, as I studied it for a Management Theory and Practice course, but didn't he just distinguish personality types based on extrovert and introverted people, and then broke down these groups based on a persons sensitivity and cognitive capacity?

I am not trying to be a pain, actually interested to know how it all becomes relevant to somebody's ability to enjoy a movie more based on the similarities between originals and remakes. Of all the personality types you could make from Jung's model, none were better or worse- just different. Which boils down the this exact argument, some people like different things

I didn't like it much either you see, as I previously mentioned. I can see Shale's point through and through though.

 

Actually, after a quick google I realise I am talking about something else, although Jung, just something other than this particular thesis you mention.

It's been a longgg time since I have heard anyone talk of him, and by inspection I do remember this 'collective unconscious' idea

However, it still only expresses ones personality type, and just how a human would think or act without knowing. Doesn't leave any subjectivity to people acting differently based on their environment (in this case, the movie)..

I am guessing you have done psychology or something, so am happy to understand a little more.

 

ACTUALLY, LOL, NEVER MIND. I GOT IT

I'm such a wanker. The ultimate quest for knowledge eh? haha

 

I recently saw the original Clash of the Titans (1981) on cable (encore has been showing it Ad naseam)

And for such cheesy special-effects it has a surprisingly strong cast including laurence olivier, maggie smith, and burgess meredith


Hotwater

 

Jung developed the dichotomy between extroversion and introversion. He exoplained his ideas in this essay:
http://psychclassics.asu.edu/Jung/types.htm

Sigmund Freud introduced the concept of the unconscious mind. This consists of events that have been forgotten, or suppressed, but which continue to influence how one thinks, feels, and behaves. For example, someone who was punished by his parents as a child by being locked in a closet, and kept there for hours during a thunder storm might have forgotten the incident, while retaining an irrational fear of thunderstorms and darkness.

Jung theorized that behind the personal unconscious there is a collective unconscious that consists of the human mind responding to instincts. For example, many cultures have developed the mythological image of the dragon. The dragon can be seen as the image of the instinctive fear humans share with other primates of snakes. The fire that comes out of the dragon's mouth can been seen as a mythological image of the snake's poison fangs.

In his essay, "The Concept of the Collective Unconscious," Jung wrote, "the archetypes are the unconscious images of the instincts themselves."

Other archetypes are the hero, the wise old man, the anima, and the shadow. In Star Wars, Luke Skywalker is easily recognizable as the hero, Obi-Wan Kenobi is the wise old man, Princes Lei is the anima, and Darth Vader is the shadow.

An explanation of the archetypes can be found here:
http://changingminds.org/explanations/identity/jung_archetypes.htm

Movies like "Clash of the Titans" that are successful are movies where the screen writer reveals a thorough study and understanding of the writings of Carl G. Jung and also Joseph Campbell, as well as the myths, legends, and fairy tales Jung and Campbell based their theories on. I am not only thinking of the Star Wars Trilogy, but also the movies based on the novels of R. D. Laing.

Movies like this that fail, like the "Clash of the Titans," itself, are pale reflections of these. They have little to offer but special effects, unbelievable characters, and implausible situations. It would not surprise me to learn that the screen writer of "Clash of the Titans," had never heard of Jung or Campbell, and that he never made a study of the Legend of Perseus.