(no subject)
April Movies 2: Clash of the Titans (2010)
Where to begin with this one? Well... (beware, there will be spoilers...)
I don't want to compare this to the 1981 original, I really don't, but in order to get a grounding I think I have to. The 1981 movie was the last gasp of the original generation of Sword-and-Sandal mythological epics, a genre that never took itself too seriously and always realised that the primary purpose of a movie was to tell a story. It took familiar elements of Greek mythology, mixed them around a bit, added a bit of Norse mythology for good measure, wrapped this around a fairly straightforward coming-of-age heroic love story, threw in a cutesy clockwork owl for the kids, a classically handsome male lead (Harry Hamlin) for the ladies, a classically beautiful damsel in distress (Judi Bowker) for the lads, topped everything off with a few thrills, just enough scares for its PG rating, and a smattering of cheese. In short, a great fun movie for anyone regardless of age.
Sadly, the remake isn't.
In brief, it's the tale of Perseus, half-human son of Zeus, and his journey to find a weapon that will allow him to destroy the Kraken (Cetus?), a creature created by Hades to defeat the Titans, which will either take the Princess Andromeda as a sacrifice, or destroy her home city of Argos. Perseus is hounded by the God Hades and the evil creature that was his step-father, King Acrisius, and has to battle giant scorpions and the Gorgon, Medusa, and then face the Kraken, in order to rescue Andromeda and gain his revenge on the Gods.
I'll try to go through what I didn't like about it as quickly as possible here, but it may take a while, as there was quite a bit I didn't like.
Sam Worthington is probably a fine actor; Gemma Arterton is probably a fine actress; Liam Neeson, Jason Flemyng, Pete Postlethwaite and Ralph Fiennes are among the finest actors out there. But in this movie, they may as well have telephoned in their performances. They were (with the exceptions of Feinnes, who chewed the scenery with relish, and Mads Mikkelsen, who excelled in a relatively minor role) dull, lifeless and insipid, though this probably had much to do with the lifeless, insipid and turgid script they were asked to work through.
The editing left a great deal to be desired. Almost every scene in the movie was either an action scene, the set-up for an action scene, or plot exposition (of which there was far too much). It rushed from one set-piece to another, with virtually no time given over to characterisation, and therefore I felt almost no emotional bond with any of the characters (the exception was with Mads Mikkelsen's character, Draco, who at least came across as having a character). The storyline was driven along by action sequences, exposition and absurd coincidence (I mean, this is a movie involving the Greek Pantheon! If there's a coincidence, it shouldn't be that hard to show that it was the action of a God or Goddess, should it? The original movie at least realised this!)
The original movie was essentially a classic against-all-odds love story, with former farm-boy Perseus undertaking the perilous quest for the love of Princess Andromeda. His heroic nature was never in doubt. "Go slay the Kraken? No worry. Have to kill Medusa first? Lemme at her! Smoke me a kipper, Cassiopeia, I'll be back for breakfast." And Andromeda is clearly in acceptance of her fate, her life for the lives of the entire city - she mightn't like it, but she understands the sacrifice that must be made and faces it with the grace and courage expected of a royal.
In the 2010 version, Perseus denies his heritage even when it is spelled out for him, and refuses to take the weapons he has been gifted by Zeus, even though he is told that by doing so he risks the lives of all the men going with him. And Andromeda, despite voicing her concerns about the people of Argos and saying what must be done, only accepts her fate whenever the people storm the palace on the day the Kraken is due, when it seems her choice is go quietly or be dragged kicking and screaming.
Several major threats or problems to the quest are sorted out by Something Just HappeningTM.
The Giant Scorpions have killed half your men and now there are more of them and they're bigger? No problem, a group of wandering Djinn with a beef against the Gods will just happen to be passing by to give a hand.
Perseus is left outside Medusa's temple with no way of getting back to Argos? No problem, Pegasus will just happen to show up out of the blue.
Nobody has the slightest clue what's happening? No worries, a mysterious know-it-all immortal woman whom we haven't seen before will just happen to turn up (in your prison cell, with no reason why she should be there in the first place) and tell you exactly what's going on. And then keep on telling you exactly what's happening. Sometimes while it's happening.
What, Perseus has to fight Hades after continually denying his demi-God heritage? No problem, he'll just throw all that denial aside and call down the Lightning of Zeus through the magic sword that he has shunned for all the movie.
And okay, the original movie may have taken a few liberties with the myth of Perseus and Andromeda, but much of the core story remains intact underneath the Hollywood tinkering. Not so in this, where only the absolute bare bones (Perseus, Gods, Medusa, Sea Beast, Andromeda) remain. Even the love story between Perseus and Andromeda, at the very core of the legend, doesn't survive; it is thrust aside for irritating know-it-all Io (what? Io? That Io?), who dies towards the end of the movie but is magically restored by Zeus as a gift to Perseus for defeating Hades. "Here you go Son, you've beaten my brother, now have some sex."
The movie is essentially a soulless, vengeance-driven tirade against the Gods, which isn't even that much vengeance-driven, and in the end isn't even about fighting the Gods as just making sure Hades doesn't come back (but if he does, Perseus will be waiting for him - anyone spot a sequel here? Clash of the Titans II - The Thrilla in Manilla).
Much has been said in interviews about the special effects, the translation from a regular 2D print to a 3D movie. Well, unless the interviews said "it doesn't really work in 3D" then they were lying, because of the 3D movies I have seen this year, this is by far the flattest. That isn't even to do with the fact that the movie was originally shot in 2D and therefore did not include any of the telltale camera tricks common in 3D movies; the 3D just does not work, period. Indeed, in several scenes (most notably the Scorpion fight) the 3D is actively obtrusive, getting in the way of the action, giving the viewer too much to focus on so that the (presumably) carefully constructed 2D effects extravaganza is lost in a general blur of not-quite-3D.
To be fair, it's not all doom and gloom, there were some bits I liked. The fight with the giant scorpions was pretty spectacular, and despite the sheer flukey outcome of that fight, the Djinn were pretty cool (there's only one way to travel across the desert!) I loved the depiction of Olympus, with the miniaturised Earth as the floor, complete with tiny mountains and clouds. And sod Harry Potter's Hippogriff, I want Pegasus.
But those are just bits and pieces, details that should be the icing on the cake rather than the only bits worth looking at. In all, Clash of the Titans (2010) feels like a movie that should have been at least 15-20 minutes longer to allow for more plot development, more character development, and some reason other than just plain vengeance for everything to happen, but without that 15-20 minutes could just as easily have been half an hour shorter, cutting out absolutely any attempt at setting a back story and just getting on with the shiny. It's a shame, a waste of immense talent (Neeson, Fiennes, Worthington, Arterton, Postelthwaite, Mikkelsen, Alexa Davalos, an utterly wasted Alexander Siddig, director Louis Leterrier and writer Lawrence Kazdan) and a waste of a chance to make a decent update of a classic movie.
Overall, a titanic (groan) disappointment.
3/10
Where to begin with this one? Well... (beware, there will be spoilers...)
I don't want to compare this to the 1981 original, I really don't, but in order to get a grounding I think I have to. The 1981 movie was the last gasp of the original generation of Sword-and-Sandal mythological epics, a genre that never took itself too seriously and always realised that the primary purpose of a movie was to tell a story. It took familiar elements of Greek mythology, mixed them around a bit, added a bit of Norse mythology for good measure, wrapped this around a fairly straightforward coming-of-age heroic love story, threw in a cutesy clockwork owl for the kids, a classically handsome male lead (Harry Hamlin) for the ladies, a classically beautiful damsel in distress (Judi Bowker) for the lads, topped everything off with a few thrills, just enough scares for its PG rating, and a smattering of cheese. In short, a great fun movie for anyone regardless of age.
Sadly, the remake isn't.
In brief, it's the tale of Perseus, half-human son of Zeus, and his journey to find a weapon that will allow him to destroy the Kraken (Cetus?), a creature created by Hades to defeat the Titans, which will either take the Princess Andromeda as a sacrifice, or destroy her home city of Argos. Perseus is hounded by the God Hades and the evil creature that was his step-father, King Acrisius, and has to battle giant scorpions and the Gorgon, Medusa, and then face the Kraken, in order to rescue Andromeda and gain his revenge on the Gods.
I'll try to go through what I didn't like about it as quickly as possible here, but it may take a while, as there was quite a bit I didn't like.
Sam Worthington is probably a fine actor; Gemma Arterton is probably a fine actress; Liam Neeson, Jason Flemyng, Pete Postlethwaite and Ralph Fiennes are among the finest actors out there. But in this movie, they may as well have telephoned in their performances. They were (with the exceptions of Feinnes, who chewed the scenery with relish, and Mads Mikkelsen, who excelled in a relatively minor role) dull, lifeless and insipid, though this probably had much to do with the lifeless, insipid and turgid script they were asked to work through.
The editing left a great deal to be desired. Almost every scene in the movie was either an action scene, the set-up for an action scene, or plot exposition (of which there was far too much). It rushed from one set-piece to another, with virtually no time given over to characterisation, and therefore I felt almost no emotional bond with any of the characters (the exception was with Mads Mikkelsen's character, Draco, who at least came across as having a character). The storyline was driven along by action sequences, exposition and absurd coincidence (I mean, this is a movie involving the Greek Pantheon! If there's a coincidence, it shouldn't be that hard to show that it was the action of a God or Goddess, should it? The original movie at least realised this!)
The original movie was essentially a classic against-all-odds love story, with former farm-boy Perseus undertaking the perilous quest for the love of Princess Andromeda. His heroic nature was never in doubt. "Go slay the Kraken? No worry. Have to kill Medusa first? Lemme at her! Smoke me a kipper, Cassiopeia, I'll be back for breakfast." And Andromeda is clearly in acceptance of her fate, her life for the lives of the entire city - she mightn't like it, but she understands the sacrifice that must be made and faces it with the grace and courage expected of a royal.
In the 2010 version, Perseus denies his heritage even when it is spelled out for him, and refuses to take the weapons he has been gifted by Zeus, even though he is told that by doing so he risks the lives of all the men going with him. And Andromeda, despite voicing her concerns about the people of Argos and saying what must be done, only accepts her fate whenever the people storm the palace on the day the Kraken is due, when it seems her choice is go quietly or be dragged kicking and screaming.
Several major threats or problems to the quest are sorted out by Something Just HappeningTM.
The Giant Scorpions have killed half your men and now there are more of them and they're bigger? No problem, a group of wandering Djinn with a beef against the Gods will just happen to be passing by to give a hand.
Perseus is left outside Medusa's temple with no way of getting back to Argos? No problem, Pegasus will just happen to show up out of the blue.
Nobody has the slightest clue what's happening? No worries, a mysterious know-it-all immortal woman whom we haven't seen before will just happen to turn up (in your prison cell, with no reason why she should be there in the first place) and tell you exactly what's going on. And then keep on telling you exactly what's happening. Sometimes while it's happening.
What, Perseus has to fight Hades after continually denying his demi-God heritage? No problem, he'll just throw all that denial aside and call down the Lightning of Zeus through the magic sword that he has shunned for all the movie.
And okay, the original movie may have taken a few liberties with the myth of Perseus and Andromeda, but much of the core story remains intact underneath the Hollywood tinkering. Not so in this, where only the absolute bare bones (Perseus, Gods, Medusa, Sea Beast, Andromeda) remain. Even the love story between Perseus and Andromeda, at the very core of the legend, doesn't survive; it is thrust aside for irritating know-it-all Io (what? Io? That Io?), who dies towards the end of the movie but is magically restored by Zeus as a gift to Perseus for defeating Hades. "Here you go Son, you've beaten my brother, now have some sex."
The movie is essentially a soulless, vengeance-driven tirade against the Gods, which isn't even that much vengeance-driven, and in the end isn't even about fighting the Gods as just making sure Hades doesn't come back (but if he does, Perseus will be waiting for him - anyone spot a sequel here? Clash of the Titans II - The Thrilla in Manilla).
Much has been said in interviews about the special effects, the translation from a regular 2D print to a 3D movie. Well, unless the interviews said "it doesn't really work in 3D" then they were lying, because of the 3D movies I have seen this year, this is by far the flattest. That isn't even to do with the fact that the movie was originally shot in 2D and therefore did not include any of the telltale camera tricks common in 3D movies; the 3D just does not work, period. Indeed, in several scenes (most notably the Scorpion fight) the 3D is actively obtrusive, getting in the way of the action, giving the viewer too much to focus on so that the (presumably) carefully constructed 2D effects extravaganza is lost in a general blur of not-quite-3D.
To be fair, it's not all doom and gloom, there were some bits I liked. The fight with the giant scorpions was pretty spectacular, and despite the sheer flukey outcome of that fight, the Djinn were pretty cool (there's only one way to travel across the desert!) I loved the depiction of Olympus, with the miniaturised Earth as the floor, complete with tiny mountains and clouds. And sod Harry Potter's Hippogriff, I want Pegasus.
But those are just bits and pieces, details that should be the icing on the cake rather than the only bits worth looking at. In all, Clash of the Titans (2010) feels like a movie that should have been at least 15-20 minutes longer to allow for more plot development, more character development, and some reason other than just plain vengeance for everything to happen, but without that 15-20 minutes could just as easily have been half an hour shorter, cutting out absolutely any attempt at setting a back story and just getting on with the shiny. It's a shame, a waste of immense talent (Neeson, Fiennes, Worthington, Arterton, Postelthwaite, Mikkelsen, Alexa Davalos, an utterly wasted Alexander Siddig, director Louis Leterrier and writer Lawrence Kazdan) and a waste of a chance to make a decent update of a classic movie.
Overall, a titanic (groan) disappointment.
3/10