Clash of the Titans

David Howery · Mar 4, 2012

the best thing about the first movie was Judi Bowker. The best thing about the second one was Gemma Arterton. That sums it up pretty well...

Klaus · Mar 4, 2012

Water Bob said:
As a whole, I liked it OK, but some things in it did some real damage, imo. The Giant Scorpions were pretty cool, but the followed that up with the dumb looking Star Wars rejects in the desert:

He looked awesome! A wizard who encased his spirit in a body of petrified wood! That's a great example of how you can have a construct race in a fantasy setting (I'd use the same stats as a warforged).

Medusa is OK, if a bit too "CGI Computer Game Looking", but don't forget the stupid witches who held that silly eyeball in their hands.

They looked awesome! So grotesque and distorted! Sure, it was all very Pan's Labyrinth, but I can't fault them for drawing upon a pitch-perfect movie! The medusa was too CGI-game-cute.

But yeah, the plot and acting were horrid. 4 out of 10. Sam Worthington is one of the most overrated actors out there.

Eridanis · Mar 5, 2012

Moved to the Media forum.

Desdichado · Mar 5, 2012

ExploderWizard said:
The remake was dissapointing. I never felt any reason to sympathize with any of the characters and the film seemed to jump from CGI encounter to encounter without much story element.

Indeed.

Still better than the hoakier than belief original. But neither one of them was a good movie. Faced with two bad movies, I'll take somewhat incoherent special effects spectacle over the alternative, but I'm not really happy about having to make the choice either way.

NewJeffCT · Mar 5, 2012

David Howery said:
the best thing about the first movie was Judi Bowker. The best thing about the second one was Gemma Arterton. That sums it up pretty well...

IMHO, Judi Bowker circa 1981 > Gemma Arterton circa 2010

I loved the original when it came out in 1981, but I was 14 1/2 when it came out. To me, it was just a thrill to see fantasy on the big screen at the time (plus, the partial nudity helped at that age...)

However, when watching the original again, it does seem cheesy/hokey, though Harry Hamlin was better as Perseus, I think.

The new one had some great effects and some good moments, but the Djinn seemed out of place. I thought the overall battle with the medusa was very good - fast paced & harrowing. Though, the djinn playing a key role in it at the end ruined it for me.

Upper_Krust · Mar 5, 2012

Hey all!

Its interesting to compare the two. The original I saw in the cinema when I was 8 and I'm convinced it went on to inspire my love of fantasy.

However, taking off the rose tinted spectacles, the sequel is pretty darn good and probably the better overall movie despite some shortcomings.

In the sequel, the action sequences are tremendous. The giant scorpions, Kalibos, Medusa, the Kraken. Each of those scenes is utterly brilliant.

What totally doesn't work is the romance angle which seems a bit forced, on top of Arterton playing a sort of aloof character for the most part (contrasted against her much 'more human' performance in Prince of Persia).

Also I noticed when watching some of the deleted scenes on the dvd that a lot of the build-up to Andromeda getting kidnapped was cut from the movie. With those scenes back in, the ending would have been a lot more dramatic.

Equally, there are a few scenes wit the gods that were not in the movie release (Apollo was initially meant to give Perseus the golden coin to pay Charon - note the coin has the image of the sun on it) which sort of build on the tensions within the pantheon.

Overall I thought it was good. I'd give it an 8/10

Looking forward to the sequel in a few weeks time, even if it looks out of place for Sam Worthington to be sporting a 'Harry Hamlin' haircut.

Mark CMG · Mar 5, 2012

The recent Clash of the Titans was a bad movie remake of a bad movie. The original might be the worst of the movies that included Ray Harryhausen's cool special effects and his cool effects showed up in some really bad movies. I'm hoping the new movie makes a departure from the recent remake and discovers what Avatar discovered, and what Harryhausen did, that as long as you don't try to make the story of the movie into something it is not, you can use it as a loose way to string together cool effects into a passable plot and people won't hold it too much against you. These are movies about effects with thin plots and archetypical characters. Trying to pretend we're all watching Shakespeare is just going to ruin the point of the movie.

Zelda Themelin · Mar 7, 2012

I didn't like the remake. Original had certain charm and was rather cool in sometimes awkard ways. I don't even put that to special effects of the time, but rather to true nature of some stuff in mythologies.

Remake was overtly violent. Put on some nasty torture scenes. It was entertaining but rather forgettable. I didn't have much to say after movie was finished.

I didn't like the take on gods/titans. The idea to me was horrible stab on mythology.

I didn't like any of the characters.

For little extra not, they took stab on poor mechanical owl of prior version. "who would ever use something like this, har, har". Actually I laughted. Poor owl.

I might go see the follow up. For pointless cgi. It was pretty good actually. I don't expect much plotwise.

Jhaelen · Mar 7, 2012

NewJeffCT said:
I loved the original when it came out in 1981, but I was 14 1/2 when it came out. To me, it was just a thrill to see fantasy on the big screen at the time (plus, the partial nudity helped at that age...)

I was probably about 12 when I watched it and I absolutely loved it.

I very much doubt I'd manage to watch it these days, so I don't. I'd much rather keep it in fond memory.

I haven't seen the remake yet, but I might watch it if it's on TV and I'm bored. I recently watched Outlander and actually enjoyed it, so who knows?

Thunderfoot · Mar 8, 2012

Movies have these people in them, they are called actors, they are supposed to act.

In the first movies, there was a stupid firk..ding... owl, a crappy set of special effects (though pretty awesome for the time period), and a pretty abysmal script. But the actors, they acted, they immersed themselves in all the crappiness they were dealt and did their job.

In the second movie - the effects were awesome... everything else, script, directing and most of all the actors.... they all forgot to show up while the cameras were rolling and a few of them (Lian and Ralph, I'm looking at you) should have known better. I preferred Percy Jackson to this tripe.