CLASH OF THE TITANS (2010) Remake.

→ in
Tools    





An Auto-Bot that reviews movies....
THE CLASH BEGAN April 1st.


Clash of the Titans in the long anticipated action film, remaking its passed popular stop motion version. The film takes the viewer on a journey with Perseus (Sam Worthington) who is a DemiGod. None the wiser that he is only half man, and half God, Perseus lives his life as any normal man would until the Gods wage war upon Earth. Zeus (Liam Neeson) is defied by his creations (mankind) and decides to strike, smite and destroy anything and every one so long as faith is restored in the Gods. Perseus sets out to stop the destruction of a city, and stop the Gods from prevailing (coming to terms with who he is along the way).

A rather simple story line for a long anticipated film. I have not actually seen the original version of the film, hence making comparisons is not going to be an involvement in this review.

For a film that has been delayed due to the amazing success of Avatar with its 3D, i honestly can't see any difference in if they delayed or not. The three dimensions did not seem improved, nor did the three dimensions seem obvious at all (in fact at times) i found myself thinking that the film would be fine in its regular screening. This even resulted in me removing my glasses, and quickly throwing them back on to notice a three dimensional sequence. I was actually rather pleased however to see that there wasn't much three dimensions; perhaps slowly, Hollywood is easing out of their 3D Craze. (Also coming to be known as 'The Death of Good Movies')

Director Louis
Leterrier seemed to know what he was doing on direction terms, and with this the film gave a great look on the working of the crew, as well as the camera men. Shots were well done, and camera angles actually allowed you to see the combat going on (It wasn't like you could tell there would have to be a stunt-double there). Louis clearly wanted to have a some what 'real' look to the film - based of the camera angles he used. The film was beautifully shot, and was hardly as studio like as many thought it would be. Most of the out door scenes are really beautiful scenes and actually possess a nice feel to them (until battle starts). Once battle hits the screen, the audience is completely in that dark world that Director Leterrier wants the viewer to be in.

Actors put in a solid performance, and hence, allow the movie to live up to its genre's expectations. Worthington creates a fierce and warrior-like Perseus, whilst Neeson creates a Godly and Wrathful Zeus. However, the best performance in the film would be one supplied by Ralph Fiennes as Hades. The immense fear that this character shoots into the audience is amazing. Without Hades in this film, the drive that the film needed wouldn't be there. However, with saying this, a little more in depth on Hades is that you expect a large fight between him and Perseus... however, there isn't. Don't be shocked by that when you view this film. Over all, every cast member held their own, from main to supporting.

Humor. Something a film like this more than often never possesses, but this time, you can be sure to get a laugh. Liam Cunningham as Solon ensures that you will get a few laughs throughout the film. He truly is the tension breaker of the film.

At saying all the positives, the film seemed some what rushed. Disposing of enemies rather quickly, and main characters alike. It was like the Director wanted to get the movie out of the way, and quickly through the movie together to set itself in a certain time slot.

All in all the film was entertaining and satisfying, but will it find itself engraved in History like Greek Mythology? Doubtful.

__________________
For your dose of Movie Reviews:
BumbleBee's Reviews





Agree with the nearly zero 3D in this movie. Maybe they should have saved me the extra $3 a head and not touted it as such.

Comparison review:
Special effects in this were absolutely better than the 1981 version. Characters were more likeable and interesting in the old (ala Burgess Meredith). Storylines are nearly the same except for some characters and differently ordered scenes. Sam Worthington is easier on the eyes than Harry Hamlin.

Wait for the DVD, wish I had.



THE CLASH BEGAN April 1st.



For a film that has been delayed due to the amazing success of Avatar with its 3D, i honestly can't see any difference in if they delayed or not. The three dimensions did not seem improved, nor did the three dimensions seem obvious at all (in fact at times) i found myself thinking that the film would be fine in its regular screening. This even resulted in me removing my glasses, and quickly throwing them back on to notice a three dimensional sequence. I was actually rather pleased however to see that there wasn't much three dimensions; perhaps slowly, Hollywood is easing out of their 3D Craze. (Also coming to be known as 'The Death of Good Movies')



I'm tellin' you this 3D nonesense has already ran it's course. Nothing artistic about it at all and this film just reinforces that. Piece of bizarre technology designed purely to profit that help immerse. I ain't seen Clash Of The Titans yet and the only reason i'd watch ever watch it is for that honey Gemma Arterton, but I already know what kind of film it is and watching the adverts I get the feeling i've seen it all before. 3D will not save this film from becoming another overblown remake. In fact i'll tell you what, i've told my colleagues and friends and family that I am so against this '3D revolution' ******** that i'm thinking of trying to find an anti group of 3D haters. Saddest part is that people buy into this thing only to be disappointed when they see a film in 3D.

Simply put, Christopher Nolan set the blueprint for how to further immerse your spectator. Thanks for the review anyways, Bum.



TBF, this is a 2D film that they've 3D'd up to cash in. I'm not interested in seeing 3D either (except where it 'belongs', i.e. weird films, horror and, possibly, animation) but this isn't a film that 3D should be judged on. It is, however, an excellent example of Hollywood business at work and how little they care about their product. There again, we don't really need yet another example of that, do we?



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
It is a film that up-converted 3-D films should be based on. Which means they should stop up-converting.

“After Toy Story, there were 10 really bad CG movies because everybody thought the success of that film was CG and not great characters that were beautifully designed and heartwarming,” Avatar’s James Cameron told me recently. "Now, you’ve got people quickly converting movies from 2D to 3D, which is not what we did. They’re expecting the same result, when in fact they will probably work against the adoption of 3D because they’ll be putting out an inferior product.”

I'm not saying that his characters were heart-warming, just the adoption of 3-D.

This and Alice in Wonderland were both upgraded Alice was horribly done. From what I hear, Clash is too.
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



I thought that while the new movie was very enjoyable; it lacked some of the charm of the original. Every other aspect of the movie was better, but some of the magic did not translate.

Anyway, that is my take; for a full opinion, check out my review: http://bit.ly/c4liP6



Far from satisfactory. What is the latest policy or trick of Hollywood is regardless of a film’s merits, all you have to do is convert it to 3D, and moviegoers will jumps to it. That's why the movie was 'TOP' position in first 2 weeks.



3D reminds me of the "Scream Machine" at 6 flags in Atlanta. If you only ride it like once every 5 years it is amazing, but - if like one summer when my friend and I got to ride it nonstop for an hour or so because the park was rained out, then all of a sudden it wasn't and everyone left leaving us and a few others the run of the park - then after like 3 rides in a row it is still fun, but not exciting.
__________________
“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton



I'm a bit behind, but I liked it. After I saw the remake I relized I had the original and watched it...how far we have come with CG. I'm not a fan of computer graphics, but I thought it was well done. The only problem I had was the ending. I was kinda expecting more of a finish.

Favorite quote, "Calm your storm".
__________________
But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have spread my dreams under your feet, Tread softly because you tread on my dreams. W.B. Yeats



The only thing well done about this steaming pile of manure is that it was short.
__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...



Unregistered Illegal User
With the new age of CG, its expected that this movie is going to have good CG. I prefer the old one though, this one did attempt to be as good as the old one, but fell short. As much as i like CG and enjoy them i will always prefer the old way like the works of geniuses like Ray Harryhausen and his stop-motion animation in the old Clash of the Titans, Jason and the Argonauts, The 7th Voyage of Sinbad etc etc.
__________________
"Evil will always triumph because good is dumb "

Grill me, I dare you!
My Reviews



I love the old one... The new one failed to live up to any expectation.

But what can one excpect from a remake of a movie that failed during its own time.
But I don't hate the new one at all, it wasn't that bad.. In fact I prefer it a lot over Prince of Persia.



I actually enjoyed the new one very much, all nostalgia aside from the old-one, I thought this was actually better than the original.... but then again, so is the technology.