Clash of the Titans (2010) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
696 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Not as good as the classic Clash of the Titans
MR_Heraclius23 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.
47 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Occasionally entertaining, yet ultimately hollow
Apemangalore2 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.
333 out of 468 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Garbage from beginning to end
bryanchristopher112 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
There are SPOILERS here, so beware....

I remember years ago, a friend and I discussing how awesome a remake of Clash of the Titans would be. 10 years later this comes along. The remake deviates way too much from the original. I get the attempt to make a stand alone movie, but this remake is pointless. In the original, the whole journey is for one reason only: Love. Perseus is attempting to save Andromeda from the wrath of the Gods. The remake makes it a journey based only on revenge. Perseus in the original was a young, naive boy who discovers his inner hero. The remake shows Perseus as a defiant muscle-bound idiot who automatically has the kind of skill the warriors he travels with have devoted their lives to attaining. in the original, Perseus had to tame and gain the trust of Pegasus. Not here.... he just shows up. Convenient. Bubo, the golden owl (as cheesy as he was) is nothing more than a sight gag in the remake. Calibos poses no threat here. He was such an integral part of the original. The addition of the character Io is just annoying. Her presence is completely unnecessary. The Medusa training/seduction scene...ridiculous. The Medusa scene was easily the best part of the original... here it is anti-climatic. The Kraken? Besides the creature being way too big, the whole movie hinges on what a threat this monster is. Yeah, it looks cool (I'll give it that)... but for being such a threatening monster, he sure is dispatched easily. Perseus spends more time chasing a blurry harpy around than actually dealing with the Kraken. Perseus's relationship to Andromeda is nothing more than casual, the 3-D and slow motion are pointless and there is no giant vulture. Sam Worthington should not be allowed to work again until he can do so without his accent. The director, Louis Leterrier is just the wrong person for this job. Transporter 2...sure. This? No. Liam Neeson, Pete Postlethwait and Ralph Fiennes are truly slumming it on this one. I'm sure no matter what is said, people are going to line up for this one. I'm aware of how I sound here. But this movie truly is a let down on every level. While they had the chance to make a fun popcorn movie in the vein of Jurassic Park, Iron Man or even Star Trek (2009), they really missed the mark here. The film is terribly cast, acted and directed. A true waste of the title... but, hey... it sure looks pretty, doesn't it?
277 out of 411 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Just your basic, run of the mill, average action best.
blackmambamark2 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Is it wrong to remake a movie just so you can update its special effects? Hollywood doesn't seem to think so. The classic claymation and stop motion sequences of old are some of the first things we think about when bringing up the subject of mythology movies. But one still cannot help but think how totally awesome it would look if it were updated.

Anyone who has ever read mythology knows that every single tale is of epic preportions. And by epic, i don't just mean the battle looking more towards the actual time line. Each individual book always tells a story of one mans struggle against countless odds that stretch over a long period of time. So normally about halfway through, you begin to say to yourself "How much more can this guy take?". And in saying that, i think that is where this movie failed. I didn't feel hatred towards these gods. I didn't feel the need to have my thirst for revenge quenched. I didn't feel sorry for the main character Perseus.......because i didn't feel any depth to his character or the plot. This movie focused way to much on the action scenes, as opposed to the story.........which is suppose to be epic, right? But yes, the action sequences are really great, and the scenes with Medusa and the Kraken are awesome. But thats all i can really give to this film. It just felt empty.

The transitions between each action scene were really poor. You can tell that the director was trying his hardest to make you feel for these characters by adding one or two lines of pathetic dialogue. And since we are on the subject of it was bad. There was no emotionality, all the little tid bits of humor fell flat at every turn. It was like Michael Bay wrote the dialogue.

Bottom Line, this is just your basic, run of the mill, average action best. This is certainly not one of those movies that you will be telling your friends about the next day. Its action is really good, its story is bland, its dialogue is weak........all things that i really wouldn't consider epic. Also, and this is important for you people who are tight on money. This is the first time i have ever said this, but please, do not see this movie in 3-D. It is a giant waste of money. You will get the same satisfaction seeing it in regular me. There really was no point in making this movie in 3-D at all, other than to squeeze every dollar they can out of a average action flick.
220 out of 327 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Release The Crappen!
fwomp11 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!
95 out of 138 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The uneven original is remade into an abysmal, joyless adventure
Maciste_Brother3 November 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Remakes these days are almost always terrible and having seen production photos of COTT before its release, photos that didn't inspire much confidence, I decided not to see the remake on the big screen, opting to wait for it on DVD or download. I always had a love/hate approach to the original which I saw at the cinemas when I was a young teen. So take this as someone who's not a fanatic of the original and was going to hate any remake from the get go. With that said the new film is thoroughly awful in almost every way possible. Except for the beginning (which is OK, not great), the action packed but not suspenseful Medusa scene and the clearly OTT ending, there's nothing much else to see. The entire cast of characters is uniformly unpleasant. Not one likable character in the whole thing, including a growling Perseus (played by one-note Aussie actor Sam Worthington). This is difference with the original. I basically liked almost every characters, no matter how cardboard they were.

Here's a breakdown of the film:

  • the changes to the story (humans vs gods) doesn't make any sense.

  • Adding the religious/cult storyline with the crazy leader was awful. It added nothing and the character was annoying as hell.

  • It doesn't really look Greek at all but more Pompeiish than anything else. The design of Argos, though spectacular during the climax, has absolutely nothing to do with Greek design/architecture.

  • the look and design of Mount Olympus is tacky. Looks like a cheesy sci-fi movie.

  • Like the original, the other Gods do not have much to do.

  • In the original, Perseus had to tame Pegasus which made sense, for a Heroic journey. In the remake, Pegasus, who's black, appears to him and, well, that's it. Totally dull. The original was much better in this regard. And the reason they made Pegasus black because the CGI is more forgiving than if it was white. 

  • the scene with the scorpions doesn't make any sense whatsoever. In the original, the Medusa's blood mutates the scorpions into big monsters but in the remake, Calibos' blood (after his hand was cut off) drips on some sand and the scorpions appear from the ground, killing most of the men from Argos but then Perseus and his men team up with the mysterious beings that use the big scorpions as transportation like nothing had happened! Huh?

  • the set for the Medusa scene is pretty good and the Medusa is OK as a superfast slithery creature but the scene is more action than suspense. And Sam wears flesh-colored tights during many shots, which makes it look very silly.

The ending is so over-the-top that it's almost a thing of beauty. Here's a breakdown:

  • It takes the Kraken 15 minutes to surface. There's slow and slow, but man, that beast is constipated.

  • The Kraken looks like a turtle/octopus/that monster from Return of the Jedi thingy

  • The climax occurs during an eclipse. Why?

  • The ending or confrontation between the Kraken and Perseus is ridiculously drawn out, extended by having those winged demons snatch the bag with the head of the Medusa (how did they know what was in the bag?)

  • the action is often so confusing that the characters have to tell us what's going on such as when the winged demons snatch the bag, Perseus yells that they stole it because we clearly couldn't see what was going on.

  • Andromeda, which is not the love interest in this version, hangs from the sacrificial altar hundreds of feet above the sea, strung up by her arms, which she never seems to find painful. Unlike other Sword & Sandal films where people were in extreme pain when hanging from their arms, Andromeda is remarkably calm and nonchalant about it all.

  • When the Kraken becomes a statue, the whole thing is beyond silly. It looks like the monster has a sudden rash. It crumbles from its own weight and Andromeda falls in the ocean and yet Perseus is able to find her underwater amidst the whole chaos. He must have a heat seeking device on him.

- Sam Worthington's Aussie accent can be heard throughout the movie. Plus the fact that his hair is not in style with the times, the less time Sam is on screen, the better it is.

The score is totally forgettable, unlike the Laurence Rosenthal score for the original, which is beautiful and soaring.

All in all, this remake is at times so bad that in its own way becomes a thing of beauty. I mean, how can a film get it so wrong on so many levels? Even the brief cameo of Bubo, which was a sight for soar eyes, was mishandled. The film was a huge success and even though the Kraken is dead and the Medusa is headless, Warner has already greenlighted a sequel!

Because of this remake, I have to re-evaluate the original, which, after watching this suddenly comes out as brilliant on almost every level, including the fact that its more in tune with Greek mythology than this unpleasant version. Well, I still find the original uneven at best but it's also more enjoyable, memorable and far sexier too.
23 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It made me sad watching this ...
dimitris-tripakis6 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 :)
456 out of 730 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Mishmash of the Titans...
Chalice_Of_Evil31 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.
219 out of 349 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
One of the worst directions I ever witnessed
limgauci21 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Yesterday I watched Clash of the Titans at a local theatre and I have to be sincere, the direction of the movie was so bad that I was speechless for a few minutes for all the wrong reasons. I'm still trying to understand how someone could leave such a rich tale so undeveloped on every front with 106 mins of running time at his disposal.

It's one of those movies which offer you over 1.5 hours of nothingness. The introduction is insanely rushed as you see the main character go through different stages in his life within 3-4 minutes giving you just enough of each for the director to squeeze in a couple of supposedly memorable quotes regarding the character's destiny (which you forget in about a minute).

Now I have to mention this because my friends seemed to notice this issue too: Worthington stood out like a sore thumb in this movie. He just looked too modern. We agreed that it was due to his look being too 'clean'. His head is shaved (the same exact look he's had in both Terminator Salvation and Avatar, which is just lazy) and his look never changes during his supposedly long (epic?) voyage. No scars, barely a hint of a beard after days of travelling and the occasional fight. I like the actor and I don't think he was miscast but he was not used well imo.

The characters in general were left TOTALLY undeveloped. People walked in, walked out and died throughout the story and you never care about any of them. Important characters go from looking invincible to dying all of a sudden. I'm serious. WHAM! They're dead. Some 'important' characters die so quickly that you're not even sure you understood how they were actually killed.

As I said before, this movie lacked all direction. Some supposedly comic situations begged to be re-shot. The delivery was terrible and the director simply seemed in a rush to wrap things up. Not even the accepted clichés worked well in this movie. One ends up looking at the people sitting next to him to see whether he was supposed to laugh or whether they were sharing his same agony as this mess unfolded. The cuts from one character to another also seemed very odd. You cut from a character,then to another and then back to the first one and each time the character is looking in a completely different direction! It was so surreal, like a low budget 70s movie.

Anyways, this movie has so many problems I can't relate all of them or this review would end up being more epic than the movie itself. I won't even go into how cheap and useless most of the dialogue was or the shocking LACK of action meaning that the first battle, which is supposed to be against minor enemies, ends up being the most noteworthy 'CLASH' in the whole movie!

Bottom line: this movie was a complete mess. The direction was terrible and the story was incredibly boring, leaving some moviegoers asleep as the end credits rolled.
49 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It's what it promised to be.
ailexq4 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
People who went in to this movie expecting an accurate depiction of Greek mythology and/or an accurate remake of the original Clash should have paid more attention to the previews. First off, the original movie wasn't even correct with regards to the mythology. Yes, it was much closer than this rendition, but given that the whole story of Perseus and Medusa were never really quite "on" in either case, I don't see how deviation from the original Greek myths is a fair argument against this movie.

Clash 2010 promised to be an action/adventure set in the world of the Greek myths - and it delivered. It was fun, fresh, and to be honest, I thought Sam Worthington did just fine as Perseus. Let's face it - the guy (Perseus) was never a "deep" character to begin with, and Worthington did a hell of a lot more with his character than Hamlin ever did.

The "new" stories they created with these characters, while not to be taken seriously or as a replacement of their correct myths, were still enjoyable. In fact, I really rather liked it - some differences were so far off that they don't even count as "inconsistencies," but rather complete rewrites. And given that, the rewrites were okay - I preferred the love interest in this scenario over the first movie, even though correct Greek mythology says "WHAT?" to it. Kind of a big obvious sign that one should not be taking this movie as a serious depiction. Anyway, it was fun to squint and be like, "that's... not.... okay, I'm hitting Wikipedia when I get home." Because then I got to refresh my memory on why I loved Greek mythology so much as a child in the first place.

I didn't feel the 3D experience was really necessary, although I'd have to see it in 2D to tell for certain if it added much. The effect itself wasn't huge, but maybe it added to the overall visual crispness of the movie. But really you could probably get away with seeing it in 2D and not miss much, whereas Avatar and Alice In Wonderland really made lovely use of the medium and "should be" seen in 3D.

Overall, while I wouldn't call it a masterpiece, as a big fan of the original movie I wasn't at all offended or disappointed, mainly because I wasn't expecting a perfect remake. Sure, when the trailers first came out I was hopeful, but after seeing enough previews it became clear it was going to be a bit different. Oh well, now we have two fun Clash of the Titans movies.

All in all, "It didn't suck," and it should be seen on the big screen.
22 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Clash of the Plot Holes!!!
jlcdrama2 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I would like to start off by apologizing to all of the people who I assumed were giving this movie poor reviews out of loyalty for the original. Honestly, they weren't harsh enough.

This movie was awful, I couldn't believe how terrible it was. This has nothing to do with the fact that the movie was not at all faithful to the actual myth of Perseus. As you will recall, the original Clash of the Titans resembled very little of the myth. However, the original movie had deeply involved characters, an interesting plot that was well written and some decent action and special effects.

What did this remake have? I'll tell you. It had plot holes big enough for a barge to fit through, worthless characters who did nothing to help what little plot was there and a rather disappointing ending.

The movie starts off with baby Perseus being found by a fisherman after he and his mother Danae were thrown into the sea. Danae died, but Perseus survived. The fisherman raised Perseus with his wife and later his daughter. When Perseus is grown, Hades attacks his family (for no real reason than just because he could) while at the same time the kingdom of Argos is declaring war on the gods (once again for no real reason than because they could). Perseus is saved and is told by Hades that Zeus is his father. (Why Hades would do that, I have no idea.) Up on Olympus, Zeus is apparently finding out for himself that he has a demigod son which makes no sense because Zeus is the creator of Men, he would HAVE to be aware that he has a son.

Because of Argos's sudden desire to attack Zeus, Hades declares that he will release the Kraken on them in ten days. They will only be spared by letting Andromeda be sacrificed to the Kraken. Again, this didn't make sense. If Hades was mad at Argos, he wouldn't give them a way out, he would just destroy the kingdom. In the original story the sacrifice of Andromeda was brought on because of Cassiopeia's vanity and the insult it delivered Thetis. Here, it was just like Hades thought it would be fun to see Andromeda chained to rock.

Perseus agrees to help Argos not because of love for Andromeda, but because he wants revenge against the gods. At this point, Io shows up and talks a lot. That is pretty much all Io does throughout the movie is talk. My guess is that the writers wanted to introduce a strong woman to the plot, instead what they introduced was a wasted character who actually had no business being in the myth.

Hades meets up with Calibos and reveals his master plot to take over Olympus. Huh, where have I seen this before? Oh yeah, that's right in Hercules. It's a sad day when an action movie has to steal the plot of a Disney movie because they can't come up with anything on their own.

What follows is a lot of action scenes which aren't half bad, but are pretty worthless because they slow down the story. To be fair, there isn't much of a story to slow down. They kill off several characters who mattered to nothing during the fight with Medusa. After Medusa is killed, Calibos kills Io. I know that her death was supposed to be meaningful to Perseus, but it just seemed odd. Their interactions before were not very intimate, in fact there was only one scene that could be construed as some what romantic.

Pegasus appears from no where and takes Perseus to Argos where the Kraken is being released. The battle between the Kraken and Perseus consists of the Kraken ripping down some buildings for about two minutes then Perseus turns him into stone with the head of Medusa. Then he sends Hades back to the Underworld, my what marvelous revenge. You did a bad thing Hades, now you go home. Yawn.

Perseus saves Andromeda and then leaves her on a beach to go to some worthless rock in the ocean. Unlike in the original, Perseus does not fall in love with Andromeda. It wasn't a shock since Andromeda did basically nothing useful except for give bread to children and dangle a hundred feet over the ocean.

Perseus then meets Zeus who suddenly seems pleased with his son though Mankind still hates the gods. He then brings Io back to life so she and Perseus can be worthless forever.

I gave this movie two stars because there were only two things good about it: the CGI and the music. I'll stick to the original movie because while the graphics aren't as good as the remake, at least I actually care for the characters and the storyline makes sense.
70 out of 109 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It exceeded my expectations
locke_1116 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Is worst than I expected. I walked into the theater ready to see a bad remake of one of my favorite movies of all times, but this movie was a lot worse than I could even imagine. It wasn't half the movie and my wife wanted to leave the theater, and how can you blame her? Since you heard the narration at the beginning of the movie you got that feeling: "there is something wrong here". And that feeling just grow every single minute while you watch the movie. The whole plot of the movie is based on the hate and resentment of the human against the Gods? In the original movie, Perseus grows to be a hero because of love and because this was his destiny. In this movie Perseus is just a guy with bad attitude who suddenly changes from a fisher man to a one man army with a huge ego.

It turns out that everyone knows but Zeus knows that Perseus was his son, it doesn't make any sense to me. The only thing they respected from the original version was the name of the characters, and they added a lot of unnecessary ones: Io? The Hunters? The Genies? The crazy preacher at Argos?

This was just an awful movie; they destroyed one of my favorite movies with this remake. What was the deal with the joke about Bubo? I feel it like an insult to the original movie. Anyway, I'm sure some people enjoyed this movie, and that cool, but if you ask me this was one waste of time and money (and half the theater agreed with me, I just saw them leave one by one).
27 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Oh how the mighty titans have fallen
scott-tomasso6 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."
164 out of 277 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
3D ripoff
nkaronis12 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.
274 out of 474 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Wait to rent it on Blu-Ray.
Troy_Campbell1 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)
128 out of 219 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
1981 versus 2010 - A de-evolution in movie-making
fionagreen13 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
By remaking The Clash Of The Titans the director, actors/actresses and all those involved are opening up opportunity for comparison to the original. There's no denying that, so that's the angle I view it from.

The Original is dated now, in so far as the effects department is concerned, which is hardly surprising given year of release. That aside though, the nineteen eighty one version is a classic, memorable slice of mythological nostalgia, something the remake will not be in twenty nine years time.

For me its flaws are many, but the most notable are the scene choices of the director and the lazy reliance on CGI.

Where are the elements that made the original story so compelling? The riddles of Calibos, delivered to the dreaming Andromeda, Perseus falling in love with her (the REASON for his quest in the first instance), the politics of the gods and their chess-piece-like manipulation of the mortals who worship them.

Instead we have an inaccurate tale, rushed through in small, stuttering scenes, and lacking in any creativity of its own.

The actors/actresses assembled make a fine cast-reading, but are universally wasted in their chosen roles. None of the gravitas of the original is conveyed by any character in this version.

The CGI further reduces the movie's impact. The mythological beasts look cartoonish, and hardly befitting an epic tale of such importance. Look to the original yet again to see how, even stop-motion triumphs over CGI. In particular the scene in Medusa's lair is tense in the nineteen eighty one showing, contrasting greatly with the routine, ridiculous remake.

That's not to say that CGI cannot work. Jurrasic Park is a rare example of effects being used well.

Sam Worthington, quickly becoming a name to avoid movies by, has a character arc that is almost non-existent, such is the hurry to transform him from fisherman to warrior. Notice the fact also that he requires no training to wield a sword skillfully! All things considered, the original will remain a classic for some time, despite the ropey effects, while the remake will be quickly forgotten by a fickle audience looking for the next CGI bonanza.

Just as Avatar before it, Clash Of The Titans 2010 is a simple money-making machine, not concerned for a moment with anything close to an imagination or REAL characters. Or for that matter, with any heart.

It will gross vast sums of money nonetheless, which further proves that the public don't really want creative or intelligent movies (Moon, Pans Labyrinth, Amelie) but are content to settle for 'plastic' and patronising movies that dis-encourage thinking.
166 out of 294 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
~Great CGI effects, very enjoyable, worth your money~
The_Fifth_Echo27 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
228 out of 419 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Nutshell Review: Clash of the Titans
DICK STEEL1 April 2010
Clash of the Titans is one of the earliest films I can remember having watched it as a kid in a big theatre, not the multiplexes we have today, and I liked it so much, it probably ranks up there as one film that I've watched the most times, on television reruns, or off a recorded video tape. The story's fairly simple, but to a kid it had plenty of charm, and a basic 101 guide to Greek mythology, of which the promiscuity of the Greek gods struck me as quite odd, save for the need to produce plenty of demi-god heroes from which stories are spun of.

Percy Jackson probably drew first blood in saturating the market about the new adventures of a fresh teenage demi-god, having him battle creatures similar to those found in this mythology. In fact, Clash of the Titans would find it difficult to beat the fun factor of the original film, and the modernized spin that Percy Jackson had to offer. There's little story here, and everything that happened was a sad excuse to get the story quickly moving onto the next big set action sequence. Lead character motivations had been changed significantly, especially with Andromeda (Alexa Davalos) being nothing more than a flower vase, and having her romantic subplot with our hero Perseus (Sam Worthington) being totally removed. I felt that was the first sign of narrative trouble.

Then it became more generic approaches in how to string the action scenes one after another. Each battle will last a significant amount of time, then a little more posturing, before going onto the next. It can easily be split into this sequence of scorpions-medusa- kraken, and each creature design was a shadow to predecessors like Scorpionok's attack in Transformers, Uma Thurman's rendition of Medusa, and Hollywood's Godzilla flop, coming complete with that foam on water approach to the mainland.

If anyone wants to make a film about a hybrid character, then look no further than Sam Worthington, who has been half man half machine in Terminator: Salvation, half man half Na'vi in Avatar, and now, half-man half-god who's tasked to save Andromeda of Argos from being monster sacrifice, should he be able to defeat Hades' Kraken, the source of his power and threat to mankind. Worthington seems pigeon-holed into these kinds of role, and because of Hollywood's current dearth of worthy action heroes, Worthington becomes the latest It boy with his physique and perpetual scowl, being suited perfectly well into this scarcity of actors who can act with their fists, without the compelling need to launch into lengthy dialogue as a professional and career development.

Otherwise the other star studded cast don't do much but pose and prance about in their costumes, with Liam Neeson looking constricted by his Zeus armour, Ralph Fiennes playing Voldermort all over again with his rendition of Hades, and Mads Mikkelsen as Drago the Argos general who has the nicest smirk caught on screen. Gemma Arterton is a surprise inclusion in the film as Io the immortal, which is a new character and given a lot more significance in the mythos now, and is in part one of the major changes in Perseus philosophy, tutoring and motivation, so much so that if I were to use a modern term, the word "cougar" would suit their relationship just fine.

And it is these kinds of little artistic license taken, that will likely leave the purist in you perturbed. Bobo the Golden Owl has a quick cameo to appease fans, but like the gods who are never satisfied with the pittance of worship obtained from the humans, we too think that it's not enough, since Pegasus too went through a none too subtle change in skin colour. Sorry, but to me, Pegasus the winged horse, will forever remain white. There are a few conversational pieces in the film that brilliantly introduces us to the world of the jealous Greek gods and they work wonderfully, such as their innate differences and why the brothers Zeus and Hades hate each other so much, but some were rather cringeworthy, especially when modern curses somehow found their place in a swords and sandals film as this.

I suppose you'll know by now that the film was never shot using 3D technology, and that it was only during post production, thanks to the mega box office success of Avatar, when it was decided to have a 3D version made for this film as well. The result? Millions spent enhancing nothing. Sure there's depth of field, but nothing to wow a jaded audience familiar with what a 3D film is expected to bring to the table. In fact, this film would be better off seen in a digital 2D format, since none of the action sequence even had a whiff of a suggestion of being in your face, since after all, it was conceptualized for a flat presentation.

Bottom line, it's extremely sterile and devoid of soul, whereas the original film had plenty of heart, and charming stop motion special effects to alleviate it to cult status. This one will likely be forgotten since it's nothing more than mediocre drama and ordinary set action pieces, though I will not deny that its marketing would ensure that it will garner some decent cash from the Easter holiday market segment. The original is so much better since this is all generic action and little charm.
144 out of 261 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Pretty Terrible (and not Terribly Pretty either)
Ajax16095 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Whilst waiting for this film to come out I must admit that I nursed a growing sense of expectancy: the cast seemed strong; the original film has achieved cult status; the storyline is a classic dating back to Ancient Greece and from the trailers it looked aesthetically pleasing. In my naivety I couldn't see where Hollywood could go wrong, after all it's never let us down in the past! Right?!

With this being said, I was therefore completely taken aback when the final credits rolled on this dismal, dithering train-wreck of a film. Before I critique this film though I must warn you that there are possible spoilers below, so if you are definitely going to watch this film don't read on!

I find it difficult to know where to start with this film, I think I'll first outline the few positives: The CGI (especially of the Kraken) is very impressive, Gemma Arterton is a stone cold fox, it has a beginning, a middle and an end. There, that's just about it.

Now for the negatives: The dialogue is corny, unlovable, embarrassing to watch at times and so contrived that it actually makes you uncomfortable, the exact same can be said of Sam Worthington and pretty much every other character in this tripe. The plot seems to make no sense as the Director spends next to no time on the background to the story, things just seem to happen randomly and for no reason that you particularly care about. The action scenes are as boring and predictable as you could possibly imagine, the giant scorpions in particular had me yawning. I'm not even exaggerating.

On top of that I found myself not caring at all if the island gets destroyed at the end by the Kraken, as both Perseus and Andromeda are so bland and shallow as characters that I felt no connection with them whatsoever. The 3D is also below-par, with everything appearing blurry and unfocused, and it just seems like an unnecessary gimmick that was added on as an afterthought. The finale is also abysmal to the point of incredulity, I point to the fact that Perseus spends more time chasing down one of those Hades-bird-creatures than actually trying to kill the massive titan currently hell-bent on destroying a civilisation. I also point to the cringe-inducing "comic relief" of the scorpion, ridden by two instantly forgettable characters, helping out Perseus by killing one of the Hades-monster things.

My last point is focused at the anti-climactic defeat of the Kraken, I mean just showing it the head? Is that really all it takes? A titan which was powerful enough for Gods to fear it, being killed by a frightful stare? I know that was consistent with the original storyline but it was very disappointing all the same and you're left thinking... was that it?

This film is another black mark on the copybook that is Hollywood high budget rubbish. Clash of the Titans would fit in nicely alongside The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor and Transformers 2 as an example of how a big budget can totally ruin, instead of enhancing a cinematic experience.

Final Thoughts: Go see the formidable and wonderful How to Train Your Dragon instead of this sleazy, rambling, thoughtless, shallow, pedantic embarrassment of a film.
38 out of 62 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Don't get your hopes up!!
jasonandnick65 June 2011
One word, DREADFUL!! Never have i felt so let down watching a movie, maybe i was just to hyped up so its easy to get disappointed, but no, it was just that poor? The acting was ridiculous, as was almost everything else in the movie.

Cant believe i wasted money and time watching this, one or two good moments where you start to believe things are going to get better, but guess what, they don't.

They could of made this an all time classic with a bit of real effort.

Same as 80% of all remakes, rubbish.

12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Beyond dreadful. Appalling.
george_mark8 April 2010
Think of the worst film you have ever seen. Now double it. That film is Citizen Kane compared to this utter dross. This film is so bad I almost don't know where to begin. Firstly the 3D is the worst I have yet seen in a movie. It's blurry, dark, the 3D effect makes things just behind the forefront - like people's ears and the back portion of their heads look really huge and fake. The special effects are pretty bad, with poor CGI. The gods look like rejects from a kids TV version of King Arthur, stomping around in glowing gold armour that is 1500 years too late for the period when the film is supposed to be set (yes I know it's a fantasy, but it's still set in Ancient Greece). Ralph Fiennes and Liam Neeson are incredibly hammy and unbelievable, especially Fiennes who comes across like a villain from a Kid's TV show.

The script is wooden, the editing is poor, with some serious plot holes. The casting is dreadful, with the heroes mostly spindly with puny arms and legs, that don't look at all believable. Jason Flemyng is sooo bad as Calibos, who was a very menacing figure in the original, despite being made of modelling clay (and much more scary than Flemyng in the remake). The acting is also very poor, but the worst problem of all is the atrocious Sam "the woodsman" Worthington.

His Aussie accent sounds totally absurd in Anciert Greece, he looks flabby and untoned as a demigod. His delivery is so bad as to make his screen presence almost totally absent...

Please don't just don't go and see this film. The 1981 original is far better (and that's no masterpiece).
39 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Even the fighting was rubbish
ImmortalAHC10 April 2010
I had read about 20 reviews, but still decided to go see this movie, aware of the fact that my expectations should be below zero... Then the movie started, finished and left me only to realise that this movie was even worse than I had expected...

There is no viewer connection with any of the characters and the dialogues are the worst I've ever seen. All that this movie existed of was battles with 2 lines in between broadly explaining the next creature to fight. Don't get me wrong, this I had expected. But even the fighting scenes were bad! All you could see was people running at yet another unoriginal monster, only to see them flying in the next frame as they apparently have been knocked back! or something anyways...

Why did I not listen to the warnings of all those reviews I had read saying that I shouldn't go... Would've saved me 12 bucks and +- 2 hours of my life time now wasted...
67 out of 122 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Just flat-out BAD, as in, BAD.
RomeyRome6 April 2010
I wish they hadn't remade this movie at all. It's completely insulting to the original. The acting was wooden, the dialogue matched it, and every sequence was just plain neutrally subpar, LOL. This movie was truly tragic in every sense. I hope that Hollywood doesn't think that they're going to get by with putting out rubbish in 3-D. We're on to you Hollywood, the jig is up. Please don't insult your audience and for the sake of all that is worthy, STOP DESTROYING THE CLASSICS!!! Hollywood, you could have easily taken upon countless other stories of Greek Mythology and tried to be fresh and different without compromising the greatness of the original "Clash of the Titans". Instead, you were too concerned about lining your pockets. SAD, SAD, SAD. Hmm, it's getting' close to the tax deadline. Can I write off my expenses for watching this trash? Of course not.

Thank you Hollywood for another display of glorified poop. You wanna kick my dog while you're at it?
35 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Crash of Titans
shamsee5 April 2010
Badness and worthlessness of this movie leaves me speechless.

Usually, there are certain aspects of a movie you like or dislike. One could agree or disagree certain take that director chose to do, certain changes, something that was below par, something that could have been better, that one could talk about. However, in this case, the task of reviewing this movie is difficult as from the very first scene to the last scene this movie is one unbearable, soul-less, boring, ugly and horrible disaster.

The original is a classic! It has heart, romance, soul, humor, sweetness, feel of an epic, beauty, nobility, overall feeling of an adventure, a quest, and yes it also had certain spooky quality, and deviousness.

This remake has NONE of those qualities. As if lacking anything interesting or worth liking was not enough, this movie tortures you with horrible darkness and senselessness. A fisherman comes up with empty catch, so declares war on Gods. Really? Why even be a fisherman then? Just sit at home and demand food and other necessities be delivered to you, and if that doesn't happen, just declare war on Gods.

From Andromedae to Zeus, the characters are either evil or robotic. Its a world of mindless creatures. There is no way to get emotionally involved, even though you go to the theater with every intention to like it, and enjoy and give it every break possible.

The girl playing Andromedae doesn't even appear to be a leading lady and appears to be sick and weak. The Princess is a meaningless entity in this movie. She was his love in the original. Even the monster, Cracken is boring. Medusa left a permanent scar in the original, but here it just might be a giant mindless snake. However, the soldiers trying to kill her are even more determined to be killed by her gaze. One of them could have simply avoided that fate, but the writers probably ran out of script for him, so he had no choice but to gaze straight in Medusa's eyes.

Just a bad movie. Avoid it at all cost. I am disgusted the time and money I wasted on this one. There is absolutely nothing, not one thing in this movie that is worth cherishing.
75 out of 142 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An entertaining and action-packed movie, but don't study for your Classical Lit exam with this
rooprect15 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.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed