Topic: Clash of the Titans (2010)

[Dragonfire]

I went to see Clash of the Titans last week.  I have seen the original several different times on television, but it has been so long, that I've forgotten most of it.  From what I remember, the basic story has stayed the same, though I thought Perseus went on the quests and stuff in the original because he wanted to marry Andromeda, not because he wanted vengeance against Hades.  There isn't a lot of background for the characters, though enough is done to set up the motivation for what Perseus does. 

The plot really isn't that complicated even though a lot of things happen.  Action and the special effects receive way more attention than plot and character development.  I did sort of expect that before seeing the movie.  The effects are done well, though there are so many obvious effects shots that they lose impact after a while.  The different monsters and creatures do look cool, though I really could have done without seeing so much of Medusa.  I didn't see this one in 3D..I didn't want to because of Medusa and my snake issues.  The cast is all right, though no one really stands out that much for me.

Even though the movie has issues, it is entertaining overall.  This is one I would have rated 3.5 stars on Epinions if I had the option.  Since I don't, I rounded up to 4.

I did get a review posted on Epinions if anyone would like to take a look.

Clash of the Titans

[karmesinrot]

I seen this last week too, I thought it was quite entertaining but my 13 year old brother thought there would "be more monsters" Sam Worthington is popping up as the lead in so many movies recently!

[lyonsden5]

I went to see Clash of the Titans last week.  I have seen the original several different times on television, but it has been so long, that I've forgotten most of it.  From what I remember, the basic story has stayed the same, though I thought Perseus went on the quests and stuff in the original because he wanted to marry Andromeda, not because he wanted vengeance against Hades.  There isn't a lot of background for the characters, though enough is done to set up the motivation for what Perseus does. 

If what you say if true then it does vary from the original version. CotT is a love story. Persesus goes on a quest to solve a riddle and ultimately win Andromeda. His desire for her (I don't think it can be called love) is what fuels him throughout his quest. If they took that out it will certainly change the story and not for the better IMO.

I know I commented and everyone feel free to reply but please don't say too much more about the plot. Since it has obviously changed fromt he original we're crossing into spoiler territory. At least use the spoiler tag. 

[Najemikon]

Why are script writers so unimaginative these days, when a properly delivered sub-text was the norm and proved very successful? You only have to look at the Hitchcock movies we've been reviewing. They are usually love stories, with thrillers getting in the way. This really annoys me because that's the sort of plot for a computer game, not a film.

[Dragonfire]

If what you say if true then it does vary from the original version. CotT is a love story. Persesus goes on a quest to solve a riddle and ultimately win Andromeda. His desire for her (I don't think it can be called love) is what fuels him throughout his quest. If they took that out it will certainly change the story and not for the better IMO.

I know I commented and everyone feel free to reply but please don't say too much more about the plot. Since it has obviously changed fromt he original we're crossing into spoiler territory. At least use the spoiler tag. 

That's what I thought about the plot of the original, but since it has been so long since I last saw, I wasn't sure I remembered right.  There is still...motivation for Perseus going on the quest, but it is a different type of motivation.

[DJ Doena]

The "adventure" 3D is over for me for now. I my opinion it adds nothing to the experience of watching a movie or enhances it somehow.. In contrast to well-used special effects I don't get the feeling that the movie is getting better just because there's a depth perception now and then.

But now to the movie itself. I'm not naïve. When I'm watching movies like Independence Day, Armageddon or Transformers then I know exactly what kind of intellectual level I have to expect. I've got no problem with that as long as I'm well entertained. It's like a ride on the roller coaster. You end up where you started but you had a lot of fun while riding it.

But that's the minimum requirement: Fun. And this is where Clash of the Titans fails abysmally. The same guy who portrayed the hero in Avatar tried it again and failed again at this relatively trivial task.
One doesn't bond with any of the characters - maybe with the exception of Zeus - especially not the main character.
So what's left? Battles and CGI effects of course, they were the reason we went into that movie. But on that front, too: Oh, well. Only 2.5 things that one might call battles and once again they were cut so fast that one couldn't really follow and at the same time they were not really spectacular. There's a giant Kraken that comes out of the water and demolishes an entire city? Honestly, it didn't feel that way at all. I also had the feeling there was something wrong about the fight against the scorpions. It seemed as if more warriors were involved that the group had heads and despite the casualties nobody seemed to be missing afterwards.
Nothing really worked for me.

You know the scene, in which William Wallace/Aragorn/President Mitchell gathers the troops and gives a speech, to motivate them one last time to hold the line against the darkness and to be the last line of defence against doom. Perseus tried that one, too. I can't even slightly remember what it was about...

PS: And the worst thing of all: Two thirds of the time you didn't even get the feeling to watch a 3D movie; just a 2D one while wearing sun glasses. Only in the panorama shots you got some depth. But you have to pay an additional 3€ because they don't even play the 2D version!

[Jimmy]

I don't always agree with the guy, but I agree 200% with him on that.

3D had always been a bad gimmick who came back from the dead every 30 years... The last waves in the eighties was nothing but headaches inducing for me and it would have been probably the same with the one in the fifties and the actual one.

Time to put the horse to death for another 30 years and start doing real movies again (not that I think it's possible that Hollywood will do real one again)

[Antares]

When you see Lawrence of Arabia growing from a speck as he rides toward you across the desert, are you thinking, "Look how slowly he grows against the horizon" or "I wish this were 3D?"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Omar Sharif in Lawrence of Arabia who approaches from the horizon?

[Tom]

Great 3D-like effects can be archieved in 2D movies. I really liked the Big Daddy origin scene in Kick-Ass (spoilerish).



Sorry for the bad quality. In the theatres this scene looked really great in my opinion.

[Achim]

Sorry for the bad quality. In the theatres this scene looked really great in my opinion.

Strange then, as the YouTube video was filmed in the cinema and still it looked different.

(click to show/hide)

just to be clear for those who may not have known. First off, I agree that 3D is a gimmick. However, if filmed in 3D (like Avatar) at least it doesn't get in the way of the experience. But, Clash of the Titans was also retro-fitted, hence they can only do so much to get 2D turned to appear 3D...

[Najemikon]

I think it does still affect the experience, even in Avatar. Some of the regular drama scenes, like in the medical centre, looked weird and out of proportion.

Tom, I thought the same as you when I saw that sequence. It's probably easier with animation, but cinematographers can also employ depth of field tricks augmented with CGI to create a subtle atmosphere of depth without needing daft sunglasses and a headache! I do wonder what some of the old school photographers think of this so called "revolution".

[Dragonfire]

I haven't minded 3D for the most part, though in many of the movies, it hasn't added that much really. 

[karmesinrot]

I don't notice 3D in a film enough to justify the extra couple of pounds you have to pay to see it in the cinema. I'm not sure if that's maybe because I've been seated in the wrong place - I think I read somewhere that 3D in cinemas is only optimised for a certain number of seats in a cinema, i.e. those few seats in the very centre.
The films I can remember seeing in 3D are Bolt, Up, Alice In Wonderland, and Avatar, and none of them even compared to the effects in the 4D Goosebumps show that I seen in Universal Studios a couple of years ago!

[Najemikon]

I don't notice 3D in a film enough to justify the extra couple of pounds you have to pay to see it in the cinema. I'm not sure if that's maybe because I've been seated in the wrong place - I think I read somewhere that 3D in cinemas is only optimised for a certain number of seats in a cinema, i.e. those few seats in the very centre.
The films I can remember seeing in 3D are Bolt, Up, Alice In Wonderland, and Avatar, and none of them even compared to the effects in the 4D Goosebumps show that I seen in Universal Studios a couple of years ago!

 

"Welcome to the cinema revolution! Thank you for paying pounds upon pounds so you can wear stupid sunglasses indoors! By the way, if you don't see anything 3D-ish, just ask the 12 people who sat in the middle what it was like..."