Clash of the Titans (2010)
"Titans Will Clash."
Rated PG-13 / Color / 106 Minutes

WARNING: THIS CAPSULE REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS!

It is no secret that I despise Hollywood remakes. They are pointless, emotionless efforts made only to cash in on the nostalgia factor of the classic films many of us have grown up with over the years. (i.e. "Nostalgia-rape") Granted, there have been remakes that have been decent, though the majority of those seem to have cropped up in the 80's, and began with the word "The." (e.g. The Fly, The Thing, and The Blob)

Ralph Fiennes sees the Clash of the Titans script for the first time.

Now granted, I've seen a handful of remakes in recent years that weren't too shabby (e.g. My Bloody Valentine 3D and Friday the 13th) but in general the constant stream of "reimaginings" are awful. Case in point, Clash of the Titans, or as I like to refer to it, "Ass of the Titans" (or occasionally, "Ass of the Shite-ans").

The original film from 1981 is a respected classic and tells the epic tale of Perseus, the mortal son of Zeus, who battles monsters and quests to save the woman he loves from being sacrificed to a titanic beast known as the Kraken. At first glance, the 2010 remake seems to be heading toward this route, but instead deviates into a totally different, and ultimately unsatisfying direction.

In the new Clash, Perseus (played by Sam Worthington, fresh off of Avatar) is the bastard child of Zeus, born after the mighty King of the Gods morphed into King Acrisius and had his way with the king's wife. In anger, Acrisius tossed his wife and her newborn child into a box (more like a coffin really), and dropped them into the raging seas to die. For this despicable act, Zeus sends down a lightning bolt that disfigures Acrisius, turning him into a deformed monstrosity called Calibos.

The newborn demigod and his mother are eventually found by a kindly fisherman named Spyros. Sadly Perseus' mom doesn't survive, so Spyros and his wife take it upon themselves to raise the child as their own. Ah yes, things are just fantastic for this small family of fishermen, until they happen to be sailing by a large group of soldiers that are knocking down a gigantic statue of Zeus. Moments after sending the enormous monument crashing into the sea, the Greek soldiers are attacked and wiped out by the winged demonic minions of Hades (Ralph Fiennes).

"No I can't reverse what my brother Zeus did to you... BUT... I can give you super-scorpion blood! Now doesn't that sound cool?!"

With the defilers of Zeus' statue taken care of, Hades turns his attention to Perseus and his family. The evil lord of the underworld sinks their boat, and causes Perseus' adoptive parents to drown. Being a demigod, Perseus manages to swim to safety and vows vengeance against the cruel Greek gods. Yeah, that's right, he doesn't go on a quest to save a beautiful princess and a kingdom, he's just out for revenge Charles Bronson-style, against foes that he cannot possibly hope to defeat.

While this isn't really a bad thing in itself, one has to wonder why the film makers even bother introducing Princess Andromeda into the scenario, because ultimately she isn't the reason Perseus goes on his quest, or the prize he will receive once he is (most likely) victorious. Nope, Andromeda is relegated to third-rate character status, and instead a new love interest is introduced, in the form of a fellow demigod named Io (played the suddenly popular, and quite cute, Gemma Arterton).

There are several problems with the romance that develops between these two main characters, but the big one is that their love feels so entirely contrived and forced. Io claims that she has watched over Perseus since he was a child and her actions are genuinely akin to that of an older sister.

But by the third act, they are ready to "do the deed" within the bowels of Charon's ferryboat. Neither of these two share similar bloodlines, so it is cool if they ever decide to knock boots, but why paint these two as a sort of brother / sister duo, then have them become lovers by the third act of the movie? That doesn't really make sense to me. Does it make sense to you?!

"Sorry Andromeda. You're pretty cute and all, but I kinda have the hots for my demi-sister."

Anyway, Perseus goes on a quest to save the city of Argos from the ravages of the gods, and find a way to save Andromeda and her citizens from being destroyed by the mighty Kraken. Perseus enlists the aid of a handful of soldiers, and a pair of "monster hunters," to be his cannon fodder, then sets out on a journey to find the Kraken's weakness.

There are two gruff soldiers in Perseus' posse that really began to win me over as the film progressed. Sadly, due to a weak screenplay, these characters end up being likeable but forgettable fodder (what the Hell were their names?!) for the likes of the dreaded Calibos, giant scorpions, and eventually Medusa.

Wait, did I say dreaded Calibos? My mistake. That would mean that he was well-known and feared, and in this film he is neither. In the original, Calibos is punished by Zeus for killing off his herd of flying horses and turned into a twisted man-beast with a tail, horns, and claws.

Calibos retreats to a vast marsh where he starts a new kingdom and places a curse upon the city of Joppa. Although Calibos is a secondary character in the 1981 film, he has his own story arc, and proves to be a formidable antagonist over the course of the movie.

In the "new and improved" 2010 version, Calibos is the complete opposite. He sits beneath the city of Argos completely forgotten by everyone, except for Hades, who bestows supernatural powers to the former king, and tasks him with ridding ancient Greece of Perseus.

"There can be only one!"

Now you'd probably believe that from this point on, Calibos would become a major thorn in Perseus' side and doggedly pursue our hero throughout his quest, but you'd be terribly wrong. Calibos shows up twice in the film to confront Perseus, before biting the dust.

And this is the film's biggest overall problem; the characters are so horribly written! Perseus is a whiny demigod that constantly defies his Olympic parentage because he doesn't want to turn into a douchebag deity. Hell, even when Zeus (Liam Neeson trying vainly to bring a little class to a poorly conceived role) bestows several helpful gifts to Perseus, who refuses to use them, resulting in the death of every likeable character in the film!

Had he just accepted that he is part god and used his patented "retractable godly sword of death" and pet "Black Stallion Pegasus" before the final act, then I think I would have found the movie a bit more enjoyable. But no, our "hero" continues acting like a self-righteous prick, even after he finally accepts his lineage and uses his godly gifts to save Argos.

However, unlike the original film where Perseus arrives just in the nick of time to save Andromeda and the people of Argos, in the new film, he arrives a bit late, resulting in lots of Kraken-related death and destruction. However, in my opinion, the people of Argos deserved to become Kraken snacks. I realize things were bad there, but who in their right mind would become desperate enough to follow a Hades worshiper that looks like a raver strung out on Ecstasy?

Sam Worthington's bodyguard and concubine.

But as usual, I'm getting ahead of myself, because I've failed to talk about Perseus' quest. Traditionally, in a film like this, the protagonist goes on a journey where he or she must overcome obstacles in order to achieve a goal, and along the way they learn lessons and grow as a character.

They also tend to build strong ties with their fellow brothers-in-arms who join them in their quest, and as a result, the audience becomes attached to these secondary characters. So when a supporting character dies heroically (or tragically), the emotionally invested viewers should feel some sense of loss.

There is absolutely none of that in the redo of Clash of the Titans, and it annoys the hell out of me! The only person in the movie with anything resembling a backstory if Perseus. Everyone else is a two-dimensional character that might as well have a target painted on their chests, because most of them don't make it to the climax.

The bulk of the Argosian soldiers perish during their scuffle with Medusa, as does the self-destructing Djinn (who hailed from one of the many vast Greek deserts that don't exist), while the two comic relief monster hunters introduced in the first act take a leave of absence for the remainder of the film.

There is no excuse for such terrible writing, since the bulk of the story was lifted from a screenplay that is (as of my writing this review) nearly thirty years old, and "doctored" by a whopping three writers! Then again, maybe I should be pointing my accusatory finger at director Louis Leterrier.

Perseus: "For Zeus, Argos, and the Harryhausen!"

From what I've read online, several key things that were in the final draft of the script were excised during the shooting of the movie. For instance, the Greek gods all had more screentime and dialogue, and several of the Grecian deities helped Perseus on his quest, which is infinitely more interesting than just having Zeus pop up and deliver divine gifts to his bastard son.

The gods were always at odds in Greek mythology, so having Apollo, Athena, and others aiding the young demigod in his quest would have been great. Instead, all we get on the big screen is a room full of oddly-dressed giants who stare on as Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes chew some scenery.

It is all just one giant clusterf*ck, and I'm shocked that A.) Roger Ebert gave this film a good review, B.) that Clash of the Titans currently has a rank of 6.1 out of 10 stars on IMDB.com, and C.) that this film has grossed over $145,000,000 domestically. The Hell?! Either I'm living in an alternate universe or I'm becoming a hardcore film snob....

So it's quite obvious that I do not care much for this new Clash of the Titans, but are there any redeeming factors at all? Yes, there are a few good things to be seen here folks, just not enough to warrant full price at a movie theater. A lot of the effects in the film are quite good, especially any moment that features the Pegasus in action.

During the huge climax where Perseus rides his flying stallion into Argos, we get to see the winged stallion dodge flying demons and Kraken tentacles in the air, then hit the ground at a fierce gallop before seamlessly lifting off into the sky again. The Pegasus moves so fluidly in these scenes and it is so obscenely impressive that it eclipses the rest of the films effects sequences.

"C'mon son! Let's go hit the slot machines on Mt. Olympus!"

The other three main creatures in the film all look pretty cool too, though admittedly the Kraken's design didn't blow me away. (It looks like a cross between the monster from Deep Rising and the Rancor from Return of the Jedi.) The scorpions were nifty, but they quickly turn from a threat into a joke when they are saddled up and used as transport across a desert. And finally, there's Medusa, the Gorgon...

Medusa was portrayed via motion capture by a Russian-born supermodel named Natalia Vodianova, and this is probably the hottest incarnation of Medusa I've seen since Jennifer Richards' snake-haired horror hostess persona from TerrorVision. (First she'll give you wood; then she'll turn you to stone! Zing!) The only downside here is that Medusa wears a Gorgon-bra (really? No scaly boobs? Would that really have made this an R-rated film?) and looks horrifying.... ly unconvincing when she turns her victims to stone.

For some reason, instead of doing something simple and effective like having Medusa's eyes light up when she turns a man to stone (a la Clash of the Titans in 1981), her entire face sort of mutates into something resembling a lion/snake hybrid that is rendered in terrible CGI. While I'm sure this scared small children to death, I think it really detracted from any menace this mighty Gorgon had.

And while I'm still talking (i.e. ranting) about Medusa, if her gaze can turn any living creature to stone, then why couldn't she turn the Djinn into a statue? (Probably because it is a mythological creature from an entirely different culture!) Damn you movie, make sense!

Lastly, before I give this film my final judgement, I would like to point out that the real star of the film should have been Mads Mikkelsen, who portrayed Draco, one of the main Argosian troops that aids Perseus on his quest. He is without a doubt, a bigger bad-ass than Sam Worthington is in this movie, and has one of the most suicidally heroic deaths you'll ever see!

FIRE BAD! FIRE REEAALLY BAD!

After being shot with an arrow by Medusa, he breaks off the tip and the fletch, then scales a wall, leaps onto a huge stalactite, hacks it from the ceiling with two daggers, and rides it to the ground as it impales Medusa's tail to the cavern floor! He somehow survives this fall, only to be turned to stone, and then shattered into a pile of debris by a righteously pissed Medusa.

This insane assist wounds the Gorgon, and gives Perseus a fighting chance to lop off her snake-bitch head. Yeah.... why isn't Mads Mikkelsen the star of this movie? Oh right, because he didn't star in Avatar or Terminator: Salvation. (However, Mads stars as the mysterious "One-Eye" in an upcoming Viking-era epic called Valhalla Rising that looks pretty darned cool!) Well I think I've harangued enough about Clash of the Titans, so I suppose I'll wrap things up.

This movie is exactly what is wrong with Hollywood these days, and its existence is completely unwarranted. If you are going to remake a film, choose one that can be improved upon and don't substitute flashy special effects for a good story.

Contrary to what the studio execs believe, audiences like it when a movie gets their brain working, so even if film makers from Tinseltown can't come up with anything original, they can at least stop insulting our intelligence with poorly conceived dreck like this.

Clash of the Titans is big, stupid, and sometimes fun, but overall it is pointless and not worth the price of a theater ticket. If you're curious, give this one a rental when it hits DVD and Blu-ray, but otherwise, you'd be better off watching the far superior 1981 film.

Though I am tempted to cast this film straight to Tartarus and give it my lowest possible rating, I am an honorable demigod (of b-movies, natch!) and shall bestow unto this remake a rating of:


- TWO 'RADS' -

---

DISCUSS THIS MOVIE IN THE B-MOVIE FILM VAULT FORUM!