Movie review: Clash of the Titans

4/5/2010
By Dan Pickles
Staff Writer

It’s obviously no secret that I’m a nerd. As a nerd, I’ve held some long-term affection for the original Clash of the Titans.

I saw it for the first time, I think, when I was in the 8th grade. We watched it for English class. As with most movies experienced in youth, it was grandfathered in to my list of favorites without a very in-depth examination of its quality. When I was 14, a movie was the pinnacle of success if it could hold my attention and perhaps give me some inspiration for my next D&D campaign. Check and check.

I felt some small twinge of that stuttering, old nerd-love when I saw the preview for the Titans remake; but being the hardened film curmudgeon that I am, I used my heart (hardened long ago by previous remake catastrophes) to beat those feelings to death before burying them in the icy graveyard that is my soul. I’ve been burned too many times in the past - some of which, you’ve read about.

So it was that my icy soul and I went to see the Clash of the Titans remake on Friday.

I’ll start with the high points, both of which will be completely contradicted when I get to the low points.

1. The visual effects of the movie are very impressive. I don’t typically make observations about the creative content of special effects, but you can hardly miss it here. The gods, monsters, and environments show an exceptional amount of creativity - so exceptional, in fact, that I feel compelled to call it out, specifically. There are exceptions (Medusa), but overall, the effects and design are top-notch.

There are also some well-picked cast members. Liam Neeson as Zues, and Ralph Fiennes as Hades are both well chosen for their respective roles. I could have done without Sam Worthington with his insincere speeches peppered throughout the film, but that’s just me. For the most part, the cast is one that you would expect to work well.

Or, that’s what I expected, at least.

Now, for the low points.

1. The visual effects are gratuitously manipulative. In the original movie, the effects (expertly done by Ray Harryhausen, and no less effective than those of the remake, might I add) were built around the story; in this remake, the story is built around the effects. The deficient plot (which has been altered from the original in incomprehensible and horribly ineffective ways) exists only to provide holes into which shiny effects sequences can be inserted. The hope is, of course, that we’ll be excited and titillated by these effects to such a degree that we won’t even notice the fact that everything else is suffering. Frankly, I’m tired of pointing this out - but it just keeps happening. What’s a critic to do?

2. The acting, which should be stellar considering the cast, is also strangely ineffective. I can’t even tell you how many times I rolled my eyes as Hades delivered one of this simpering “I’m evil” speeches, or Zues delivered one of his “I’m good, but wrathful” speeches. And don’t get me started on Worthington’s “I’m a man that’s gonna take the gods down a peg” speeches. At times it felt like I was surrounded by football coaches, each attempting to sermonize a losing team during half-time.

If you’re going to try to go angsty and epic for every line, you’d better bring your A-game; otherwise you’ll wind up with a movie filled with circa-episode-three Hayden Christiansens, and no one wants that.

To wrap this up, I’d give you the following recommendation: see the original. It won’t be the best movie you’ve ever seen (god knows, it has it’s own surplus of cheese) but it won’t try to trick you, either. The remake has some flashy effects, but nothing worth buying a ticket over (especially an over-priced 3D ticket). If you absolutely can’t wait to see the Kraken or the Stygian witches, I won’t begrudge you that; I had the same compulsion, after all. But beware - the influences of the plot-god are not to be found here.