Clash of the Titans (2010) User Reviews

Mishmash of the Titans...

[Chalice_Of_Evil · 7/10 · 31 March 2010]

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.

Oh how the mighty titans have fallen

[scott-tomasso · 5/10 · 6 April 2010]

I, being a huge fan of the original, was probably more excited to see this movie than anyone. And in 3-D no less. So...I walk into the theater with my 3-D glasses on my head, holding my $5 popcorn and get ready to watch my favorite childhood movie and...and...and...oh no. Oh no. This is awful. I sat through the movie wondering why I don't care about any of these characters. On top of that, I'm wondering why I spent the extra money to see it in 3-D. The best 3-D effects came during the opening credits. Other than that, I could have thrown the glasses away. Now I know why James Cameron is not a big fan of making films 3-D after the fact. To make a long story short, I was incredibly disappointed. I would not recommend this movie to anyone. Go see the original "Clash of the Titans" if you want to lose yourself in a good movie. After seeing this one all I could think of was "oh how the mighty titans have fallen."

An entertaining and action-packed movie, but don't study for your Classical Lit exam with this

[rooprect · 15 May 2016]

"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.

Fun, but not enough Titans

[JimD73 · 6/10 · 3 April 2010]

Clash of the Titans, from the title alone, made many promises. We expect to see many monsters of Ancient Greece, and we expect them to do battle, alongside humans and the Gods. We expect many many epic battles, lots and lots of CGI and appropriately over the top performances to go with them, but mostly, we want the monsters. While Clash delivers on some level for each of these promises, it surprisingly really lacks in the monsters department.

It must be said as fair warning, you do not get to see Kraken VS Hydra or anything like that in Clash of the Titans. The action is centered squarely around demigod Perseus, who for our purposes is basically a man secreting badass. After Hades threatens to unleash the Kraken on the city of Argos, Perseus and a group of soldiers go in search of a way to kill the Kraken, encountering many perils along the way.

The problem is its always Perseus and the soldiers who end up fighting the monsters. I'm sure I'm not the only one who expected the beasts to fight one another at some, mythology be damned (not like its particularly close to the myths anyways). Only four real combat beasts emerge anyways: the Kraken, Medusa, a mutated Acrisius and some random giant scorpions. Not even the Gods get to fight much, despite the much-hinted battle between Zeus and Hades.

The Kraken in particular really should've had a battle with another beast thrown in, and its use seems like a wasted opportunity. The scorpion battle is quite exciting, though is broken up as its really four fights with different scorpions simultaneously. The Medusa sequence is easily the best of the film, as although we know from a plot perspective Perseus can't die, the fate of the group of soldiers is considerably less clear. It all makes for a very tense and rewarding sequence, somewhat hindered by the surprisingly poor CG on the Medusa character model. Shame, as the rest of the monsters are quite good looking.

The cast is quite good on paper, but it doesn't work as well as expected. Worthington is a suitable lead, but I see him heading to Stallone-esquire B-movies quickly if he doesn't find more interesting characters. Liam Neeson is fairly underused, and aside from the "Release the Kraken" line, never gets any moments. Ralph Fiennes is the biggest disappointment as Hades, spending far too much of the time whispering like a bad Sith impersonation than being actually menacing. The standout is easily Mad Mikkelson as the leader of the soldiers. While not a terribly meaty role, he has more than enough charisma to be much more interesting than Perseus himself.

Clash is definitely not a waste of a matinée ticket, and I felt I got almost what I expected. But I know it could've been more, and it seemed to be purposely saving certain creatures for a sequel. Its solid fun, but hardly the must-see some might think from the trailers.

Entertaining enough but not memorable. Slightly disappointing

[mrcibubur · 6/10 · 11 April 2010]

This is one of those movies of which I had high expectations as a blockbuster. sorry folks, this is no blockbuster, it is nowhere as good as 300 and the recent Percy Jackson and Lightning Thief scores for me a whole lot better in terms of interpretation of Greeks mythology.

Sam Worthington as Perseus is likable but thats about it. He is no Sean Bean and doesn't deliver a strong enough character performance for me for a 'demi God' and the women throughout are models rather than actresses delivering good lines.

The opening boat scene is intriguing enough but the first let down is seeing the haircut of Perseus on the beach as a child, trying to connect where he was and what he was doing, it didn't wash for me. His taking to the Argos King and Queen and the confrontation inside the Palace was bizarre.

I agree with comments about the Krakken and the Medusa, they could have made more of Medusa and exploited more the real myth of Perseus and Medusa. My 11 year old son liked the film and things like Zeus giving Perseus the coin to enter the Hades underworld (same as in Percy Jackson) was interesting.

I don't say the film wasn't interesting or entertaining and there were some great scenes but I didn't go to see a mix of King Kong meets Lord of the Rings. Too much wizardry for me and the logic of Greek mythology became lost. Too many corny lines, poor lines, too much emphasis on the action without really connecting it to the story.

Certainly not a film to see in 3D.

Occasionally entertaining, yet ultimately hollow

[Apemangalore · 4/10 · 2 April 2010]

Ah, the pre-summer action movie. Admittedly, due to word of mouth from those who had attended earlier screenings of the film, my expectations for Clash of the Titans were fairly low. On top of that, many of the initial casting choices appeared to be somewhat suspect. So, what's my verdict? Well, I didn't hate it…

The plot of Titans is extremely straightforward – practically to a fault. Often, the film acts as though it's in a hurry, attempting to get from one action sequence to the next as quickly as possible. The scenes that occur in between each of these battles ultimately amount to nothing more than brief segments of exposition delivered by Perseus' "guardian angel" of sorts, Io (Gemma Arterton). So, while the film never really drags, it feels very soulless.

And while we're on the subject of these action sequences, none of them end up being particularly memorable. About half of them are so frenetic to the point where they're almost disorienting - honestly, I'm glad that the 3D screenings were sold out this time 'round. On top of that, there's virtually no character development outside of Worthington's character (and even he isn't all that likable), so I never really cared about the outcome of these action sequences either. Also, as I mentioned earlier, my biggest fear with Titans was in regards to the acting, and thankfully, most of the cast do what's expected of them. Neeson's Zeus aside, none of the performances truly stand out, but they're nothing cringe-worthy either.

Ultimately, Clash of the Titans ends up being a forgettable piece of entertainment with a couple of gaping plot holes, hit-or-miss action sequences, and performances that fail to leave much of an impression. It's not horrible – just hollow.

~Great CGI effects, very enjoyable, worth your money~

[The_Fifth_Echo · 7/10 · 27 March 2010]

I saw Clash of the Titans in an early screening, and I didn't expect the film to be good. I thought it was just another ripoff. But at the end of the film I was really liked it. The creatures looked great, the acting was good. And I thought it would be corny, but the majority of it wasn't at all. I am actually really glad that I saw this film. I really think Sam Worthington did an okay job as an actor, it was certainly believable. If he keeps doing films like Avatar and Clash of the Titans, he could have a long career in his life.

The special effects and the CGI was okay. However there was some disappointments, the Kraken scene felt very rushed and it wasn't as epic as I wanted it to. There should've been more fighting scenes to make up for the poor story.

An overall fun, good CGI film that is recommended. 7/10

Little to take away; good or bad

[Simon_Says_Movies · 7/10 · 16 April 2010]

Clash of the Titans reminds me much of my feelings towards last year's blockbuster Wolverine; satisfied, but far from enamoured. During the running time we are roused by the numerous action sequences, the special effects are well done and the plethora of A-list stars keep the story grounded (at least to some effect). Yet after the screen last grown dark there is little to remember; bad or good. You know you had a fun time no more, no less.

You will not find me clamouring for the DVD upon the films home release date but I would not be above having another look if I came across it on TV. Mostly, I am torn (As you can surmise by this pseudo- recommendation). I went in expecting dumb fun and hammy acting and I got just that but to that same effect, Clash is nothing to write home about so to what standard should this film be held? Pondering aside, I will move forth and let you make your own final ruling.

The 1981 original of the same name (which I admit I have not yet seen) has those devout followers in equal part to those who find it a dated clunker. With 2010's Clash I can by no means foresee this following any trajectory other than that of a by-the-numbers blockbuster; cult status is not in this movie's stars. But as I alluded to it is entertaining popcorn fluff, bogged down however by an overabundance of mish-mashed lore and mythology. Clash does not play by any sort of rules but seems to make them up as it goes along. Whenever our heroes find themselves in peril a character or creature pops up with a unique skill to save the day. There is never a sense of tension or danger as you can tell that a hidden gift or plot contrivance will appear to vanquish all foes along with narrative coherence.

Clash of the Titans is at its best during the action set pieces and I suppose that is the only real reason to venture out anyways. Whether it be giant scorpions, the monstrous Kraken, the cackling Medusa or the gods themselves the battles are first rate. Amidst these, dare I say clashes, our half man half god Perseus (Sam Worthington, who was proved himself to be a charismatic leading man) sets out on a quest spurred by the deaths of his mortal parents. Prophecy has foretold he will be the one to defeat the mammoth see creature called the Kraken and weaken its master Hades for good (or something like that). Despite the aforementioned oodles of mythology, plot takes a back seat and truthfully would you expect anything more?

As the immortal brothers we have Ralph Fiennes as Hades and Liam Neeson as Zeus and both are the real stars of the movie in my opinion. Neeson brings the appropriate level of pomposity and empathy to the character while never playing it too straight; he knows what movie he's in. Nobody can play evil like Fiennes and his Hades apart from being realized skilfully in a visual sense, is very menacing portrayed in a forced whisper. Kudos should also be given to Mads Mikkelsen as Draco (a gritty companion or Perseus) who strikes a delightful balance between humour and badassery.

It often annoys me when people affirm that people should take a movie 'for what it is', especially for outwardly awful cinematic blunders. Clash of the Titans is neither one of these blunders (at least not entirely) and frankly in this case, it is what it is.

6.5 / 10.0

Read all my reviews at simonsaysmovies.blogspot.com

It made me sad watching this ...

[dimitris-tripakis · 3/10 · 6 April 2010]

The myth of Perseus is based on deep philosophy and tragic elements, which have been popular throughout the centuries. You may want to Google it and read the original. You might discover a few things that didn't know, for example that there is no Cracken, no scorpions, and that Medusa's head ended up decorating goddess Athena's shield, just as real shields had often Medusa painted, to scare the opponents.

The Cracken and the scorpions were "invented" by Ray Harryhausen in 1981, because this was his job: to display fantastic creatures on the screen. In doing so, he based the stories on existing myths, respecting the characters and plots as best as he could. Great work.

Now, why in 2010 they had to copy the copier, and not the original, it is a mystery for me. Scorpions AGAIN ? Cracken AGAIN ? I mean if you're going to deviate from the myth, why not deviate in an ORIGINAL manner ?

Mythology is the legacy of the centuries gone by. Film makers should respect it and learn from it. It's funny how they think they can do better :)

Release The Crappen!

[fwomp · 1/10 · 11 April 2010]

And once again Hollywood proves it has run out of original ideas. Why else would they remake this movie? Back in 1981, when special effects were beginning to take serious root in films, we had the original CLASH OF THE TITANS. It had some cheesy claymation mixed with some less cheesy special effects. But it did have a story. A damn good one. Sure there were action sequences, especially when Perseus (Harry Hamlin) met up with Medusa. But these action scenes were barely a few minutes long. The story of the gods, how they felt about humanity (and how humanity felt about them) dominated the storyline. Yes, there was an ACTUAL story.

Fast forward to 2010 and you get this ...this ...this mess-of-a-remake that relies almost solely on CGI and, well, basically nothing else.

The brief understanding of the god/human relationship is thrust aside in favor of action scenes galore which have squat to do with the story. There are so many throwaway characters as to be laughable. And 3-D? For marketing purposes only. Save yourself some cash and see it in 2-D ...if at all.

My son went with me to see it (he's as much of a movie junky as I am) and we both nearly fell asleep for lack of anything approaching a viable understanding of who was carrying the storyline. We still ask each other, "What was the point, again?" Sam Worthington seems to be a hot commodity in today's movie market. TERMINATOR SALVATION and AVATAR are two of his more recent accomplishment. And although I found those two to be lukewarm in terms of story, they at least kept me engaged enough not to yawn. And Liam Neeson has also been splattered all over film posters (from TAKEN to KINGDOM OF HEAVEN). But a god? And Zeus for that matter? Not the best casting choice. He just didn't have the presence I was expecting. Perhaps the story (or lack thereof) stifled his performance. Probably.

I also MUST caution women against seeing this if they enjoyed the strong roles in the 1981 original. You'll find no such comparisons here. There's really no good female character to be found. The closest was Alexa Davalos (DEFIANCE) as Perseus' love interest, Andromeda. But her role is so laughably short and misunderstood that you won't care what happens to her (and things do happen).

My final word of caution comes to those of us (all of us) struggling in today's economy. We need our escapism, and sometimes (occasionally) Hollywood allows us to have it. But not here. You might as well sit on the toilet and release the crappen!

Not as good as the classic Clash of the Titans

[0U · 23 February 2020]

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.

Juvenile adventure-fantasy about the valiant Perseo who undergoes a perilous journey to free Andromeda from monstrous Kraken

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 8 May 2011]

Imaginative spectacle based on mythological Greek legends spectacularly realized by Louis Leterrier and formerly adapted (1981) by Desmond Davis and Ray Harryhausen. Exciting fantasy derived from Greek mythology about a valiant and handsome hero (Sam Worthington as Perseo , role formerly played by Harry Hamlin ), the mortal son of God Zeus (Liam Neeson whose character was interpreted by Laurence Olivier) who must face a variety of extraordinary challenges in pursuit threatening Medusa and kill Kraken. Winsome Perseus, the son of Zeus , must save the gorgeous Princess Andromeda (Alexa Davalos in the role previously acted by Judi Bowker) who is daughter of Cassiopea ( Polly Walker) . As the son of Zeus embarks on a risked voyage along with a brave group (Mads Mikkelsen , Vincent Regan, Luke Evans and Gemma Arterton), all of them go to stop the underworld ruled by Hades and its minions from spreading their evil to heavens as well as the earth. Trouble appears in the shape of monstrous Calibos (Jason Flemyng in double role also as Acrisius) and the God Hades (Ralph Fiennes). In order that the horrible Kraken not be released, virginal Andromeda has to be sacrificed . Then Perseus fights giant scorpions , gargolas , monsters and searches for the three Stygian witches , confronts the snake-haired Gorgon and slays her ; her head is the only mean that can defeat the sea giant called Kraken . Perseus attempts to rescue the beautiful maid from the terrifying massive monster freed by Poseidon .

Overwhelming fantasy based on Greek legends with breathtaking special effects in computer generator and 3D . However I miss the primitive creatures made by the pioneer and maestro of great illusion Ray Harryhausen and his assistant Jim Danforth in the first and classic version directed by Desmond Davies . Extraordinary support cast playing the Mount Olympus Gods as Zeus -Liam Neeson- , Hades -Ralph Fiennes- and many others . However , everyone are overshadowed pretty much by the spectacular but excessive special effects . The FX technicians bring to life mythological monsters as the ferryman , Pegasus , giant scorpions , Medusa , the Kraken and several others . Well filmed in Llanddwyn Island, Anglesey, Wales, Longcross Studios, Chobham Lane, Longcross, Surrey, Newborough, Anglesey, Wales, Pinewood Studios, Iver Heath, Buckinghamshire, England,Shepperton, Surrey, England, UK ,Snowdonia National Park, Snowdonia, Gwynedd, Wales, UK and Spain : Lanzarote , Gran Canaria, Teide National Park, Tenerife, Tenerife, Canary Islands and in co-operation with Mediterranean film facilities . Mind-numbing musical score by Ramin Djawadi and colorful cinematography by Peter Menzies. The motion picture is professionally directed by Louis Leterrier who directed successes as The incredible Hulk 2, Danny the dog and Transporter . Rating : Good , well worth watching .

Remake the Kraken!

[gregyolen · 6/10 · 1 April 2010]

This CLASH OF THE TITANS, it turns out, is a marked improvement over its original version, at least for someone (me) who has no nostalgia for the original. That it's almost an hour less than AVATAR is one of the best things about the film; whereas AVATAR was predictable and long, CLASH is predictable, but brief. The plotting is brisk and action-packed, eye-roll dialogue is kept minimal, and, it's good, stupid fun watching Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes partake in the time-honored tradition of great British actors slumming it for blockbusters. As divine brothers Zeus and Hades, these guys are clearly havin' a laugh, just as Sir Laurence Olivier and Maggie Smith did in '81 when they screwed around Mount Olympus for a hot shilling.

Read more at STEVENSPIELBLOG.COM ...

My least favorite movie of all time!

[zabullock · 1/10 · 12 July 2011]

I just want to start out saying this movie sucks. Rarely does a movie make me mad, but this movie made me furious. The action sucked, the acting sucked, the comic relief sucked and the 3D was so bad I took of the glasses off to make it more interesting. The only thing that could have saved this movie was Leam Neson yelling "release the Crakin", but i could have just stayed home and saved 12 dollars. Maybe I'm so mad,

because I paid extra money for a pair of glasses, because there was no 3d whatsoever. Whoever made this movie stole my money and they should never make another movie again. Please do not see this movie, do not buy this movie, do not rent this movie, don't ever speak of this movie ever.

Good Story but Presentation Failure

[vanishtrail · 6/10 · 9 April 2010]

The change of story is a definitely fresh choice which is great. The emphasis on more action is definitely fresh as supported by great Visuals.The Plot being switch to Perseus revenge is a great move also. (You cannot follow the same old story) However the movie failed to present itself properly throughout the end with loopholes and unexplained being noticed everywhere.

Still the lack of different type of monsters (e.g the two headed dog, Calibos with his tail, the great Vulture) is the biggest disappointment though the CGI for the scorpions and the Kraken looks great. The flying Cyclops is really wasted the budget efforts as I cannot see their face at all.I really expected more to come from this highly budget movie over the original stop motion movie which makes me begging for more.

There are also not enough invention and ideas to make the plot look meaningful such as the riddle from the original, special powers such as the helmets and the shields.

The appearance of Hades on the mortal world looks silly. (No Gods will appear in their true self before man), Statuttes or material forming his face will be a better choice.

The addition of Io is hampering the direction in the movie because she only knows how to talk. The loss of Bubo role as a sidekick to Perseus also contributes to the unliveliness in the movie. The soldiers accompanying Perseus on the quests still appears feasible and helped to make the quest more interesting.

The witches scene was also unimpressed as I found that the witches had foreseen Perseus is ready to visit them. For the battle of monsters, the action on the scorpion looks great though there presents many loopholes. It is contradicting on what the hunters gives the scorpion's armour as a protective shield while Draco could pierce the top of the scorpion with a spear.

It is strange that Perseus could survive inside the scorpion after there is a great impact when the scorpion rams through the cement structures.

Medusa looks unreal in her face and her secondary appearance which have sharp teeth put her even more unconvincing. Furthermore she does not even look scary at all and it is ridiculous as she moves so fast as though she is riding on a bike.The original with her scary and fearsome appearance create more buzz in such way.

There are many loopholes in her scene however I found that the most important why the charcoal man is ahead of Perseus and ambush Medusa at a certain place where he is not running at all.

The final scene with the Kraken is better than the original though the flying Cyclops is uninteresting themselves is getting on my nerves.

Conclusion the more invention of special powers,more monster, more interesting scenes and less loopholes on the original gives a better edge over this.

3D ripoff

[nkaronis1 · 3/10 · 2 April 2010]

This film would have been in line with Louis Leterrier's previous work: highly enjoyable high octane action movies that even adults can appreciate. Then somewhere along the lines, the greedy and short sighted producers decided to cash-in a meager few extra bucks by "converting" into 3D a movie shot in 2D. The result is fake at best with fuzzy, dark and double edged images. For most of the movie you'll feel the urge to remove your glasses. Too bad for the decent cast (special kudos to Mads Mikkelsen as usual), nice photography and music by a promising newcomer Ramin Djawadi. Bottom line: Recommended 2D, Disaster in 3D Not everybody is James Cameron.

Pretty decent action movie

[drpainters · 6/10 · 9 April 2021]

A pretty decent action movie, better then the sequel wrath by a decent amount. Good 3d , moves along at a decent pace though feels a little sluggish in the middle. Worth a look if you enjoy this type of movie.

Just Say No to Crrrrahhken

[rkjar · 6/10 · 4 April 2010]

Ah, another great movie opening yesterday: "The Clash of the Titans". What I mean by that is not that it was a great movie, but a great opening; I mean, what's not to like? It's a summer movie in the spring. Grab your popcorn, kick your feet up on the seat in front of you, and enjoy. Almost any movie can hold up under these favorable conditions.

Well, "The Clash" does hold up okay. Now, I'm not one to expect Oscar-worthy performances from a movie like this; but it was a bit disappointing to see Liam Neesan, Ralph Fiennes and that other guy who was recently blue in Avatar just PHONE IT IN. Liam Neesan plays Zeus. What a great role. It's like saying, "Liam Neesan is a Jedi." We expect great things. Or Ralph Fiennes as Hades. Hades!!! Wouldn't you expect some bluster, emotion, EVIL??? He looks bored as he hovers around in a black cloud. "I'm Hades...(yawn)...RULER OF THE UNDERWORLD...(zzzz)." Okay, but what's worth the popcorn? The Cracken, or as we say it with a bit of Ahhhhrish (you have to roll the "r" in the back of your throat - that's it) - the Crrrahhken. This is a great creature from the deep. I think it's the same Cracken that was in Pirates of the Caribbean, but it's been working out. "Release the Crrrahhken," says Zeus, now a little upset that the movie took this long for him to get to his line. You can almost picture Liam Neesan saying, "Release the Crrrahhken so I can get out of this really hot armor," or "Release the Crrrahhken because Ralph Fiennes is SOOOOO boring." Don't take this as a negative review. I mean the Stygion witches and the giant scorpion pack animals are really quite nice, and the CG version of Medusa is okay too (actually, I thought the Umma Thurman Medusa in Lightning Thief was better). And there's this dude with blue eyes who looks kind of like a mix between a tree trunk and a Transformer, with very halogen-blue eyes. This reminds me of two Hollywood producers sitting around talking about the plot, and one says, "Hey, my cousin has this really cool alien costume that he never used in 'Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull' so how about we put that in the movie for all the kids. They love aliens, and this movie doesn't have ANY aliens! GIVE ME ALIENS!" You'll see what I mean.

For those who remember the original movie, with Burgess Meredith as Perseus's "trainer" and the robotic owl (it actually makes a brief appearance in this remake), this movie is prettier, but just as campy as the first one. For you youngsters out there, "campy" means you'd rather GO camping than try to explain the plot. The plot is so dismal...ugh! But here it is in one sentence: Demigod Perseus has to show the decapitated Medusa to petrify - literally - the Crrrahhken before the princess - yes, she's very pretty, but who really cares if she dies - becomes Crrrahhken fodder.

Regardless of what you may think about this show, it's great summer movie stuff. So go kick your feet up and enjoy your extra butter popcorn.

Wait to rent it on Blu-Ray.

[Troy_Campbell · 5/10 · 1 April 2010]

3D is not perfect. Avatar may have shown its full potential whilst Alice in Wonderland and How to Train Your Dragon have continued to prove it can be utilised successful, but if not given the time and effort it requires, the third dimension on screen can actually detract from the movie. Unfortunately this is the case here. The last-minute decision by the filmmakers to add the extra dimension feels tacky and lazy. The objects in the foreground don't seamlessly meld with those in the background and a lot of the action is blurry and unfocused. The desert-brown palate is dimmed even more by the glasses – something the aforementioned movies could cope with due to their vibrant colours – and all of the wide shots are blotchy at best.

It's a shame really as some of the action scenes are quite impressive and boast fairly decent special effects. The various creatures we encounter aren't quite always photo-real, although the sheer size of them – especially the tentacular Kraken – are impressive enough to wash away any glaring flaws. However seeing as this blockbuster lives and dies by its amped up, large-scaled sequences – the screenplay is utter tripe and doesn't even bother to try to make the links between the action interesting or reasonable – it regrettably falls on its own sword, thanks once again to the indolent 3D. Take that away and you might actually be able to enjoy the CGI and the ridiculously big set-pieces with the picture clarity they deserve.

New Aussie on the block, Worthington, takes a misstep in his recently flourishing career; his acting is wooden and unconvincing. It doesn't help that Perseus is a massively underwritten role and only requires Worthington to look good and occasionally mutter something heroic. Neeson and Fiennes come across as cheesy in their roles of Zeus and Hades respectively, their experienced acting chops can't save them from atrocious wigs and laughable costumes. Standing out – which isn't overly hard to be honest – is Arterton and Mikkelsen, they give decent performances as the heavenly Io and the disgruntled Draco.

If you must see this on the big screen then do yourself a favour and see it in normal 2D. Or, even better, just wait to rent it on Blu-Ray.

2.5 out of 5 (1 - Rubbish, 2 - Ordinary, 3 - Good, 4 - Excellent, 5 - Classic)

The Clash is unmemorable but too fun to ignore

[denisvn93-1 · 7/10 · 11 April 2010]

During the era of divine defiance, a man named Perseus is forced to see his family killed under Hades' hands. He vows to kill him and stop his evil from spreading onto the worlds of Man and God. The plot is as paper-thin as can be and provided opportunities for big action, sounds fun for an adrenaline-fueled director but not the audience during their sit-through. As for me, it was entertaining as hell but sure is forgettable by the next morning.

ACTING: Sam Worthington is certainly capable of showing rage alongside with being tough and all bad-ass, which is something you only see in 1/3 of Avatar. However, there is a sequence where he absolutely does not show how Perseus is tormented by his childhood or torn at the incident that fuels his revenge. This is the same when at Medusa's Lair where he has to face the losses of characters quite close to him. In the end, what we have here is a character so "stone" that he seems more artificial than realistic, or in this case, more God than Man. Thankfully, he seems more versatile now rather than when he was Marcus 'Mechanical' Wright in Terminator Salvation. But then again, he has room to improve. Being Io, Gemma Arterton is under jeopardy the most as story-wise she is unnecessary to say the least and her accent is a bit of a turn-off (remember QoS?). Gladly, she proves that she is one tough shell when directly in the fight with Perseus and that accent only adds to her alluring exoticness. Her chemistry with Sam albeit not solid on any level but you can sense some light relationship tension between the two, which is good enough considering the movie is not about developed characters. The supporting cast is full of familiar faces, but they are heavily underused or written. It is so sad to see Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes are so expendable for a story about Greek mythology (where is Poseidon?!). And don't get me started on Alexa Davalos and Mads Mikkelsen. In short, the characters are really put to where they are in this film - that is, if you are a main one, you are put to the highest spot and the opposite otherwise.

SCRIPT: Like I said, people will be easily put-off by the too straightforward of a story that 'Clash' has. Even more, the dialog twists the common knowledge on Greek mythology just to give sense to the plot e.g. the Kraken does not attack near shore and it is not a creature that belongs to the Greek myth universe. The lines are sometimes quite good but most others they are just sub-par (probably due to the delivery?). Yet, in general they do not add more dimension to the character. The Gods are script mannequins, as they are just there to do nothing when expectations run high about seeing them. In reality, none of these issues are even bothered with since viewers are already so drenched in the ensuing chaos.

DIRECTION: Louis Letterier will always be to action-philic and hating story. Having seen him doing exactly so in The Incredible Hulk, in which the character literally (and visually) screams "destruction", this movie has the formula that he can effortlessly bind to. And it shows. The action sequences are huge, better choreographed than Hulk, consistently fantastic and perhaps more fit-to-context than the horrendous Transporter 2, where realism of automobile sequences is bent to madness. It was smart that after a CGI sequence, a shot of real-set scene is immediately followed and this helps in grounding the audience in believing the universe in 'Clash'. Very well done, I might say. As an action-first director, it is wise to beforehand expect some quick cut shots. However, in my opinion, they will not be as hurtful as Bourne series that many seem to complain.

MUSIC: While the music is more along the lines of John Powell or Harry- Gregson Williams for 'Clash', that does not mean Ramin Djawadi will not put a hint of rock in the score, which is what he did so well in Iron Man. It amps things up to an extent and serves the situation properly. Most notable is the score for Hades, where Ramin employs a typical repetitive tune that just oozes homage to the antagonists of cinema. Oh, the nostalgia! In short, Ramin Djawadi's take on Greek myth is perhaps a bit more techno than what we should expect but he does it with absolute flair that to not love is just impossible.

CINEMATOGRAPHY: I'll be short with this one since you have to see how amazing it is for yourself. There obviously are plenty of swooping angles and wide shots that display the grandeur of the locations. Interestingly included in the combo is decent hand-held camera-work in fight scenes that greatly enhances the battle's intensity and makes the effects believable. Lens flares are used, making the images lively and "not sterile", as J.J. Abrams put it. In other words, Peter Menzies Jr. is just an awesome cinematographer.

VISUAL PRODUCTION: Flying horses, a snake-head woman and a colossal octopus might seem far-fetched but the visual effects team makes you feel they are really there. The sets are detailed, gigantic and adaptive to the current mood of the plot. My only hitch I got is the scorpions, where their movements are a bit iffy at times and their close-up shots display some hazy effects build. Besides that, can I get a "WOW" for it?

'Clash' is the very definition of style over substance. Greek myth has a huge effect on viewers but it was left to dust for this one, making this ride unmemorable but too fun to ignore. See it for what it is: a popcorn flick (and in 2D is enough).

From Vietnam, Denisvn93-1

For better or for worse, this movie is a kick

[dave-847 · 8/10 · 10 July 2010]

Most people, yours truly included, usually approach writing a review of a movie as a chance to rip it. Finding faults with historical misrepresentations, factual blunders, inept acting or direction, even criticizing the composer of the soundtrack for a less than stellar score. This review is different. While I have read some of these criticisms about this movie, I personally do not think that any of them apply.

This movie is, above all things, great fun.

Anyone who watched the Harry Hamlin version of this story back in 1981 and wants to compare it with this one would do well to remember the differences in cast and production capabilities. The special effects for this new trip with Perseus are excellent. The creativeness and production values are way up there on the scale. And, while the dialog may occasionally slip into the region of corn and cheesiness, the story flows in an entertaining manner and doesn't leave the viewer wanting for much.

Probably the only real criticism I had was regarding the Kraken. Yes, it was fearsome, ginormous, loud and, in general, everything you expect a mythical monster of mass destruction to be. But you never get to see a complete picture of it. OK. I'm picky. So sue me.

So grab your popcorn, Jujubes, sodas and hot dogs and sit down for a rousing and action-packed movie. And if you think about Harry Hamlin even once while you're watching it then I hope you spill your hot buttered popcorn all over the furniture.

A waste of money

[vladtopliceanu · 6/10 · 1 July 2013]

Clash of the Titans is a bad fantasy, adventure film. I have not seen the 1981 film of the same name, but I might be interested in checking it out in the future. I could not believe my eyes when I saw that this movie cost 125 million $ and that it grossed almost 500 million $. It makes me sad that such movies earn so much money.

First of all, I can't believe I'm saying this, but I didn't understand anything from the action scenes of this film. I found it weird that some people could not understand the action in Transformers and its sequels when I had no problem figuring out what was going on. This being stated, the action scenes in this film are very confusing, especially a scene involving giant scorpions. At first there was one scorpion and minutes later, there were about 5 more and I couldn't figure out where the hell did they come from. I blame this on Louis Leterrier, the director of this film. Definitely, the worst part of this film is the directing and I can almost say that it is one of the most poorly-directed films I have ever seen.

Second of all, the script is full of stupid lines and a lot of scenes in the film feel cheesy and worthless. The characters suffered because of this and not once was I actually rooting for Perseus to defeat Hades. And when some characters stood out and I actually got interested in them, they immediately did something which put me off.

The acting of the film is most likely the only good aspect, but not a stand-out. The actors who did a great job were Liam Neeson as Zeus and Ralph Fiennes as Hades. They were awesome, although after thinking of it, Hades' voice was too similar to that of Lord Voldemort, but no biggie. Definitely the two of them worked great when they were on screen together and they possibly represent the only good aspect of this film. Another character I liked, but was barely in the film, is that of Spyros, foster father to Perseus, portrayed by Pete Postlethwaite. Maybe Gemma Arterton as Io and Mads Mikkelsen as Draco are also worth mentioning. Now I don't know if his acting was the worst in the film but it definitely annoyed me the most. I'm talking about Sam Worthington. Can he be more hollow than this?! He is the same character in every film and I can't understand how he gets so many important roles.

Overall this film is a 6. I was wondering if I should go higher but after further thinking about this film, it's definitely the correct rating. I suggest you avoid this film unless you are very bored and are in the mood for some mythological-related action.

Plenty of CGI and noise fills the time left by an absence of anything else

[bob the moo · 18 November 2010]

The original film is a nostalgic mix of mechanical owls, Division One footballer haircuts and lumbering beasts in my head – no more than that. I'm sure if you put me on the spot to comment on it I would have fond things to say but perhaps this is only due to the passage of time. Perhaps the original Clash of the Titans was nothing more than a rather wooden effects movie like this remake is – but yet for some reason the 1981 film is given praise for it and this remake was battered for doing just that. Well, I don't have enough memory to be able to compare and contrast so I will just focus on what I watched last night.

It is just what it suggests it will be by producing endless CGI beasts and effects in one serviceable action sequence after another. I only saw it in 2D (3D still not really attracting me) but I have to admit that the size of the creatures and so on was impressive even if only in terms of being to see all that money up there on the screen. Of course this is not the same as saying as the film is particularly good – because it isn't really - it is only "OK". Part of the problem is that it is a very hollow movie; everything looks pretty good on the surface of it technically, but there is nothing below this. I'm not suggesting that the film must be some worthy epic with layering and character depth, but to be honest I would have settled for a bit of fun or a bit of actual excitement rather than just lots of things to look at. As it is though the film is all about the effects and nothing else is really forthcoming.

You can see this in the cast – not so much their names (because there are some big names in here) but more in their performances. Worthington is a solid actor and good looking guy – that is what he brings to the table and in this film he probably does enough with that. Neeson and Fiennes have nothing to do – Fiennes in particular looks awkward and uneasy with his character and it is clear this film is a "job" to him rather than a project. Flemyng is OK under all that makeup while Atherton is pretty but pointless. None of this is a surprise though, it is not a film for actors but rather for effects.

Clash of the Titans is a shrug of a film. If you are looking for undemanding noise that will not tax you one bit mentally but will provide big creatures and spectacle to stare at then this will do the job. It won't do the job particularly well, but it will do it and then move on – you'll have forgotten it within a week though as generally it doesn't have much special or of interest about it.

Shallow, Hokey, kind of fun (not quite enough though)

[Samiam3 · 6/10 · 2 April 2010]

The year is young, but Clash of the Titans qualifies as the hokey semi-epic of 2010, the same way Forbidden Kingdom was to 2007, or 10 000 b.c. was to 2008. From a lobotomized point of view, I suppose the action scenes make up for the total lack of story and the frustration generated by the pointless use of characters and bad acting. So I guess, the film is superior to the 1981 version, but it's got a long way to go

the story is a retelling of the Perseus myth, and the screenplay does it no justice. It feels rushed and cheesy, with not a moment of time spent on intelligent dialogue. Director Louis Leterier likes to stage his fights in martial arts cinema tradition, and although he takes it a bit over-the-top with too many slow-mo shots, I suppose it's fun stuff. Of course, it has nothing on his last movie, The Incredible HuIk. Also, would've liked to see a little more from the climax, which is far too short, and presents a pretty big plot hole (which for obvious reasons I wont describe)

The geology of the movie is fascinating, but half of it is not Greek. (I know I've been to Greece). It's pretty easy to recognize the volcanic ash fields of Argentina, used in numerous movies before, or the lush green wet forests from the Pacific coast. Not like any of this is a real problem. I also like the make-up jobs on peoples faces, although to be honest Ralph Finnes and Liam Neeson look more Viking than Greek, and ironically Zeus's beard 'clashes' with the color of his armour.

Sam Worthington is hot stuff, but he cannot act. He's the new Jason Stathum. It's not like he has much to do or say though. Clash of the Titans is just another case of poor script = mediocre movie. The special effects do make a difference next to Ray Harryhausen, but the movies intention to honor him, is inept, and I think it could've delivered more.

Fun fantasy movie

[riva-910-797068 · 6/10 · 3 January 2011]

After his roles in Terminator 4 and the blockbuster Avatar, Sam Worthington continues his fantasy leading man roles as Perseus in the remake of the 1981 cult classic, Clash of the Titans. This is a new imagination of the timeless mythology of the world of gods, monsters and men. No stop-action animation and obvious miniatures this time.

Perseus begins his life simply enough as the son of a fisherman. But life soon takes a cruel turn when the only family he knows is taken from him by the gods they serve. Soon he is presented with an opportunity to get justice by a chance of birth, his own. He is told he is the son of Zeus. But Perseus takes no pleasure in this information, he spurns it. He even turns down an offer from Zeus himself to be given sanctuary and end his quest of revenge. Ultimately he embraces being a demi-god to strike a blow at the gods that no mortal man ever could.

In this adaptation Perseus is not motivated to battle medusa or the kraken to save the damsel in distress, Andromeda. No, he is on a mission of revenge. This is what I liked most that gives this contemporary Perseus an edgier demeanor. He is of the mindset that if Andromeda or anyone else happens to benefits from his conquests cool, but that is not his goal. He is a man with a single focus and determination, destroy Hades.

Continually catching my attention in this movie were the locations. There were views from mountain tops overlooking a sea of clouds, barren inactive volcanoes to jutting cliff sides, visually stunning.

The story line is predictable, so what is there to like? The fight scenes! He and his companions battle witches, gigantic scorpions, a deformed king, medusa and finally the kraken. With the new digital technology you believed they were fighting those scorpions. Medusa on the other hand; hey, even with new technology medusa and her head full of snakes is only going to look so real. But, I love to watch a good fight. In Clash of the titans I got 'em.

www.rivareviews.com