Today on Blogcritics
Home » Film » Movie Review: Clash of the Titans (2010)

Movie Review: Clash of the Titans (2010)

In 1981, director Desmond Davis and screenwriter Beverly Cross brought the Greek myth of Perseus to the big screen in grand fashion as Clash of the Titans. It's not a perfect telling of the myth, but its epic blend of action and adventure is quite spectacular. Sure, it looks a little dated now, but it still terribly infectious and entertaining. Now we are faced with a retelling of the story at the hands of Louis Leterrier (The Incredible Hulk) and the trio of screenwriters Travis Beacham, Phil Hay, and Matt Manfredi. This time around the story gets altered a little bit more than in the previous film, but I still feel it is well within the realm of acceptance for the overall myth.

This new telling of the story begins with the fisherman Spyros (Pete Postlethwaite) discovering the infant Perseus (who will come to be Sam Worthington) locked in a crate with his mother, Danae, floating in the sea. They pluck him from he sea and raise him as their own, while convinced that he was born form some great purpose that will be revealed to him in time.

Perseus's fate is revealed when he and his stepfather happen upon the soldiers of the neighboring Argos attacking a village and toppling a gigantic statue honoring Zeus. This attack leaves Perseus orphaned and picked up by the Argos soldiers. Meanwhile, the gods are none too happy with what is transpiring below. Zeus (Liam Neeson), brother Poseidon, and banished brother Hades (Ralph Fiennes) plot a way to punish the humans. You see, in addition to the toppling of the statue the people are becoming considerably bolder in their defiance of the gods and their desire to be master of their domain.

These events point Perseus towards his fate. The bastard son of Zeus is apparently destined to save humanity from the wrath of the gods. This is that special purpose his adoptive father told him about. The young Perseus sets out on a quest that never feels fully defined or explained. I understand what he is meant to do, but the way it is revealed is lacking, seemingly more focused on getting us to the next effects sequence at the expense of good storytelling.

Perseus sets out to fight against gods who act like petulant children all in the service of a film that has surprisingly little plot. For as much story as there seems to be, you would think the movie would be better. Seriously, you see the gods stomp around and try to punish humans while Perseus and an intrepid band of soldiers wander around trying to find a way to repel their attacks. Perseus also has the secondary goal of avenging the murder of his adoptive family.

As I sat there watching the film unfold, I couldn't say it was terrible. There is a certain level of skill employed in the creation of the film. There is plenty of action and the pace is generally quite good. The problem is that I didn't care. I did not see any reason to care. The screenplay lacked heart and the performances did nothing to bring any heart to the characters. With this being true, my mind wandered a little away from the story to a couple of slightly related ideas. I felt it was safe to do so as it was clear early on that the story was not going to need my complete attention. I just let the action carry me through, and it became more of a sword-swinging poem than a traditional narrative.

One of my thoughts concerned the look of the film. I felt it looked cheap when there was no real need for it. The Kraken sequence was quite spectacular but that was about it. It reportedly had a $125 million budget — where did it go? This led to the idea that perhaps the cheap look of much of the production was on purpose. Was it done as an homage to the dated look of the 1981 film? I cannot truly believe that is the case, but it is an idea. This led to thoughts of Bubo, the mechanical owl from the prior film. He has a cameo, but it feels more like an afterthought so they can say he is in the film. I felt it was a little backhand swipe and while that may not be the case, it just felt unnecessary.

About Draven99

  • http://tributetomariaduval.blogspot.com Maria Duval

    Yes, I agree with you that the only saving grace in the movie is Io. The girl was gorgeous and portrays her character well. On the whole, I enjoy the movie but it’s not going to be memorable. Glad I watched it in 2D.

  • http://quotes-on-life.blogspot.com Jason Harson

    The movie was originally made for 2D screens and later converted into 3D. It’s really bad that studios have started this new thing – to shot film using 2D camera and convert it afterwards.

  • Dude

    3D doesn’t work becuase of depth of field issues. When something is blurry in the foreground, yet still popping out, the veiwer will look at it, even if its not the focal point. It works better in cartoons because they have to atricfically create blurry foreground/backgrounds so they don’t do it that much.

  • Alferd

    The original titans was one of the first well done creature/fantasy films were not made or popularized by other than sinbad and the seventh voyage, king kong etc.new critics need to give the old one a bit of credit and a bit of a break lol. 53 more remakes for 2010-11 to go.

  • Manish

    This moview is absoletly gr8. I liked it so much. I saw it with my girlfriend as both of us love action-packed movies. It looked awesome, but its plot packed a lot. The effects were awesome and acting was superb. It’s much much better than original “Clash of the Titans”,

  • Carlotta

    Eh, Alfred I don’t know if you could go so far as to say the original Titans was “well done”. Some would argue that and say considering when it was done, etc. But comparing that movie to something like Lucas’s Star Wars, those reasons/excuses sort of evaporate.