Badmovies.org Forum

I could have sworn there was already a thread for this, but if there was, I cant find it.

Just got back from a midnight showing, and decided to react to it like any self-respecting nerd: by going on the internet to complain. Granted, cgi spectacles usually arent my thing to begin with, however, clash of the titans was a favorite movie back in the day, and I was curious what they would do with it. Since its late, and I'm tired, I'll just list what I hated:

* The story moves too fast, to the point that we dont care about the characters or anything that happens to them

* The changes made to the story were completely unnecessary and felt at times like a lecture on the evils of religion, with the Gods (or, rather, Zeus) being inconsistantly portrayed as tyrants

* Medusa looks like she-hulk, and isnt really scary (it really says something when claymation is more effective than your effects)

* The stygian witches were kind of creepy, but once again, the original is more effective

* Someone I was with fell asleep a couple of times

* The 3d was barely noticeable

* Several of the characters served no purpose whatsoever and could have easily been removed

* I seriously wondered, at several points, whether I'd wandered into a Uwe Boll movie by mistake

Needless to say, I do not recommend it.

Thanks for the head up, but I still plan on seeing it for myself.

I've seen several trailers and it looks awful. The stop motion from 1980 looks way more realistic than all the CGI gorgons some giddy production monkey clicked together. The lead guy just looks like some charisma devoid Gerard Butler clone and everything does indeed look like it moves to quick with no care for story, for heart, for soul. It's not film making anymore, it's not storytelling anymore and I've said it countless times, but it's just money making...

That is disappointing.  :bluesad:   The original was on last week and I got the kids to sit down and watch it, they weren't impressed.. kids today   :buggedout:   I loved the original and had a sinking feeling they would butcher it. I haven't seen it yet but I will.. I have a thing for Sam Worthington.. sue me.   :tongueout:

 :question: Damn, I LOVED the original and was kind of curious to see the remake, I'm still gonna go see it though, only not in 3D. Medusa and those 3 witches were scary in the original  :buggedout:

I actually thought the trailers looked good.  I do like a CGI spectacle once every 3 or 4 years.  Too bad, should have known.  Why waste effort on storytelling and characters when you've got CGI.

Damn, and I was hoping Legendary would actually make great out of this.  I do intend to see the movie eventually, but I never held up any high hopes of it being great.  At best, I hoped for fun.  We'll see how that pans out.

Gee, never knew hair clippers had been invented in the 1700s  :lookingup:

A few more I thought of while at work:

* Ralph Finnes as Hades (the main villain) completely recycles his role as Voldemort

* Sam Worthington, as someone mentioned, is a stock action hero, complete with revenge as motivation and little actual personality.

Wow sounds like it sucked, I hope this remake is forgotten by everyone.

I guess I am easily amused.  It was a fun popcorn flick.  Liam Neeson was well cast as Zeus, but Fiennes was a rockin' awesome Hades!

The Medusa was OK; didn't care for the Kraken as much.   The giant scorpions were pretty cool, though.


Saw the preview for the new NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET and Angelina Jolie's upcoming movie, SNOW.  Both look worth a watch.

Even as a stand alone film it is a crappy modern action film at best, absolute garbage! 5 skulls! A million skulls! Burn it!!!!

Lets just compare a few things shall we.

1981 Medusa:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_LZ92yTgKeAQ/SNwQ0LntSeI/AAAAAAAAElY/yxdxE6qxCKQ/s400/medusa2.jpg)

Looks realistic and damn sinister.

2010 Medusa:
(http://www.superheroes-r-us.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/image4.png)

Looks like screenshot from a Tekken videogame...

2010 Kraken:
(http://moviecultists.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/clash-of-the-titans-kraken-575x328.jpg)

Looks like a turd with teeth, or even worse the '98 Godzilla!

1981 Kraken:
(http://www.fpsmagazine.com/blog/kraken.jpg)

A piece of hand crafted, artistic mastery from the legend that is Ray Harryhausen rather than sitting at computer and playing connect the CG dots...

I rest my case.  :smile:

Circus, I can't see your photo of the new Medusa, so here's one with a Photobucket link:

(http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr154/Raffine/clash-of-the-titans-medusa-face.jpg)

Interesting - Harryhausen's Medusa was bare chested but the new version seems to be wearing a sports bra. This new one looks a bit too sexy, too.

(http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr154/Raffine/medusa2-1-1.jpg)
Harryhausen's Medusa: BOOBIES!

In one interview I heard the director brag whereas the 'old' Medusa was slow his version was fast and snappy.  Well, Harryhausen designed the scene as a suspense sequence, not an action sequence. There's really no reason for Medusa to flit around like a gecko - I imagine she rather enjoys slowly stalking her prey.

I haven't seen it yet, but I heard if you look close there's a cameo by Bubo the Owl.





NOTE: If you do a Google image search for  'Bubo' be aware it is also a term for swollen lymph glands infected with the Bubonic plague, so in addition to Harryhausen's goofy mechanical owl you'll get lots of photos of lumpy armpits.

The new movie does not look nearly as fun as the old one, but I still plan on seeing it and hopefully in the theater.

By the way, the new Medusa's face looks too pretty! It needs scales or scabs or something hideous!

alright let me start by saying that im 16  but i enjoy B-movies and movies through 70's - 90's but dammnit this was a good movie i watched the original and it was good for its time but this 2010 remake is good for its time im probably guessing that all of you are gonna hate on the new elm street remake too huh
(granted the new freddy does look kinda stupid) but dammnit im so sick of all of you people crying and complaing stop it just enjoy the movie and if you dont like it go see hot tub time machine i love that movie

... People can have different opinions you know, it's called freedom of speech.

Hey man, I ain't "people".  :tongueout:

Um, isn't that what you are doing?  :lookingup:   

Hehe, ironicly you are complaining about people complaining.

I so completely agree with Circus on this. To me with today's CGI, you get what I consider to be the equivalent of soulless paint by numbers cartoony monsters with no real distinct personality whereas with old time FX (and the technique could be stopmotion (Ray Harryhausen, Willis O'Brien, Dennis Muren, Phil Tippett, Rankin/Bass), suitmation (Eiji Tsuburaya's work on Godzilla and other Toho films, Gort from The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)), puppetry (The Monster That Challenged the World), claymation (Wallace & Gromit, Nightmare Before Christmas, James and The Giant Peach), make-up (Rick Baker, Jack Pierce) , etc.) you tend to get a much more vibrant monster characters with personality plus.

I Am A MASSIVE Fan Of The Original , But I Am Tossing Around The Idea Of Going To See The Remake.......I Still Haven't Decided Yet

This is why Hollywood keeps making remakes.  Even though a lot of you realize ahead of time this is likely to suck, you're still planning to go anyway.  If you would stop going to these movies, they would stop making them. 

Kind of looks like Cloverfield, or his inbred cousin...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bf/Cloverfeildcloseup.png)

What can I say, I kinda liked it (I can understand why others would despise it).  Honestly, when I re-watched the original recently, I couldn't help but notice how dull the movie was outside of Ray Harryhausen's special effects.  The new movie isn't a classic by any means, but I kinda like some aspects.  The original Love affair with Andromeda (which was always pretty contrived IMHO) is redone with something better, but I particularly like how the soldiers with Perseus are somewhat more fleshed out, and useful.  Yes, they are cannon fodder, but they help Perseus much more then in the original, indeed save his ass on more then one occasion.  And they give tribute to Harryhausen's best ideas, in particular that Medusa actually had the lower body of a snake, brilliant move on Harryhausens part, and they kept it.  Making Medusa otherwise kinda sexy was a acknowledgment that they couldn't really improve on the original Medusa so they had to do some things different.  Also the action scenes didn't suffer quite as badly from shaky cam as some recent movies.  Plus I appreciate they didn't take the easy way out and make the whole movie campy.

Bubu (How I despise that proto Jar Jar) does have a cameo, and don't worry, you cant miss it.

3d adds nothing to this movie btw, save your money and see it in 2d.

Also, I'm actually kind hopefully for the Nightmare on Elm Street remake, the trailer looks very good.

Exactly! Everyone listen to Rev. Powell!!!!  :hatred:

You damn kids today, with your Ip3's, MTVspace and fast food, fast everything. Get a soul...  :wink:

(http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/12/6/128730261626224518.jpg)

I was going to say the same thing. Rev said it more succinctly than I would have. When will you ever learn that CGI-laden remakes of classics is a bad thing. Stop supporting it. American film and television is in need of a revolution. Our films are remakes, and our television shows are American versions of shows started in Japan and the UK. If there is anywhere that this message should hit home, it's here. You should know better.

Okay....rant....over.....anger.....subsiding....Whew.

I saw it last night, and really enjoyed it, a good popcorn adventure film. As a big fan of the original I had a lot of reservations concerning the souless CGI, but it was all done pretty well, except for the Kraken's head/face which was just a lazy design. The Bubo sequence was really funny, and I am glad they included it in the film. I think the Medusa in this film worked on a different level than the Harryhausen one (which is one of my all time favorite film sequences), her face went from being beautiful to hideous whenever she froze people, it just harkens back to the idea that her beauty was once to rival that of the goddesses. The addition of the Djinn to the film was a plus, very nice designs with cool make-up.

My complaints: the goddesses except for a few mentions get practically nil screen time, and I don't remember any of them actually speaking. Poseiden gets one line as does Apollo so it's basically the Zeus and Hades show.

Sam Worthington makes a pretty good action hero, the few swordfights are good, but I just didn't buy him as a Greek. Maybe it was the marine haircut where everyone else in the film had long braided hair. I also expected him at any moment to say ' if it's all the same to you, I'll drive that tanker.'  :wink:

Saw it yesterday, have to say it was just ok. I'm a really big fan of the original; the remake kept the basic story elements but lacked the originals wit, storytelling, character, originality... well basically it lacked everything but better special effects. The whole beginning scene was completely botched and made no sense, the part with Pegasus made no sense, they never clearly explained what these humans were planning on doing to overthrow the gods or exactly why, they tried to fill this movie with so much action, but completely forgot what made the original such a classic. Also I don't know why but did anyone else get the feeling that the original was more adult than this one: there were several scenes of full nudity in the original, most of the fights I felt were much bloodier (even though it was all stop motion), there were people getting burned at the stake.But, all criticism aside the movie was relatively fun to watch and I would say check it out if you want lots of action and cool CGI, but the original will always be better to me.

 :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle:

(http://www.filmofilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/robertdjr.jpg)
Whaddaya mean "you people?!

I'm actually working on a review for "Clash of the Titans." I thought it was awful...ly GOOD.... to make fun of. Such a disappointing movie, if only because the script was absolutely worthless: Perseus is a lousy hero (waaaahhh... I'm not a demigod... I'm a MAN!), the far-more-entertaining supporting characters are basically cardboard cutouts whose names you can't even remember, and there's just so many stupid moments and lots of awkward dialogue that it'll make your head spin. ("Calm your storm.")

Another epic fail from Hollywood; Louis Leterrier should be ashamed. Go sit on a bench with Kevin Smith and you think about what you've done Louis!

I hereby dub this remake.... ASS OF THE SHI TE-ANS!

I haven't seen it, but I do find these CGI blockbusters in general just remove all other movie elements...plot, acting, story, humanity and humor just to show effects. 

I'll go see it if I don't have to spend much money.  I like an escape film.  But I'm aware I may not like it much as well.
-Ed

I haven't seen it, nor intend to spend my money on a ticket, but I have no problem believing your assessment. Except for one part, when you said it was disappointing. That presupposes that you expected it to have value. Can't go along with you there.

The movie sux in all kinds of ways.  The post production 3d blows, the plot blows, the pacing blows, Sam Worthington's acting blows, the unnecessary characters blow, but it made 61 million in its opening weekend which makes it a success.  A trilogy is already planned, and it will follow the same model.  Just as other movies will, because it gets rewarded.

Yeah I know, I actually had high hopes (the previews and early positive buzz had me fooled, plus it didn't hurt that the "Clash of the Titans" Blu-ray came with a "free" ticket). The same thing happened to me last year with "Transformers 2" which proved to be a far more painful viewing experience. I'm hoping that "Kick Ass," "The Losers," and "The Expendables" all at least turn out to be fun worthwhile action movies.

My real hopes rest with "Iron Man 2." IF that movie sucks.... I think I'm swearing off of Hollywood productions for a while.

Iron Man 2 WILL suck. Guaranteed. But, I understand, you'll go anyway. That's why Hollywood continues to make CGI-filled remakes and comic book adaptations. Question, and I don't mean any disrespect: did you actually have high hopes for Clash of the Titans? Sorry to be so misanthropic, but that's just who I am.

Remakes automatically raise red flags with me.  Looks like the red flags are completely justified.

Hey Fausto, bet you can't guess who I am.

Well...lets think...who else would call herself Dodger... :teddyr:

If anyone is going to see it despite the mainly bad reviews in the thread, I would definitely suggest you not see it in 3D.

The film was made with 2D in mind and they wedged in the 3D effects after the fact.  As such there are many instances where the 3D elements just look like people floating on an image of themselves [this happens especially with Zeus in his fancy armor]

As for me, I didn't mind it, good mindless entertainment at best.  But for the life of me the plot was god awful and like somebody mentioned, the Gods were too inconsistent. 

"Zeus wants to destroy a city of humans, but also wants to help his son save the humans".  It was a poor script.  At no point did I believe Worthington to be a poor fisherman's son, but that's not really his fault, more just a crappy script.  He played his meat-head 'I'm gonna get revenge' roll well enough. 

But yeah, when you have a plot that involves people trying to overthrow the Gods, surely SURELY you can get a bit more drama out of it than 'do what we say or we kill the pretty girl...'

So yeah, the gods were pretty crap, although they looked sparkly enough [egads!] the Kraken wasn't too bad, but is it just me or did all the fight sequences seem to be really really quick?

Anyways, I don't rate the movie that highly but its certainly not the worst movie I've ever seen.

JUST SEE IT IN 2D and SAVE YOUR MONEY!!

That is all.

If anyone wants to go see another Hollywood hack remake, that's their business. But could someone explain a phenomenon I just don't understand? Here in the 2000 millenium, I hear people alot say that they are going to go spend their money to see a film that they know is going to be terrible. I'm not talking about bad in the b-movie sense, I'm talking about soulless, CGI-filled, unentertaining crap. Then they come back and tell me it was terrible and to save my money. Well, no s*** Sherlock, you knew that going into it. Personally I would rather go into a movie with no expectations whatsoever and be disappointed. At least there's the thrill of a gamble there. But, for the life of me, I can't understand why someone would spend their hard-earned money to go see something that they know ahead of time is probably going to be unentertaining. I can just shoot myself in the foot instead, at least that wouldn't be boring. Now, I know that different people find different things entertaining, but what I'm talking about is a little different. I'll actually hear people say that they're going to the movies to see some crap remake that they've heard many times is terrible, that it's probably going to suck, but they're gonna go see it anyway. Someone please explain this phenomenon because I don't get it.

The whole damn thing was pretty quick. No time to develop anything beyond "this is this, and that is that."

As for why I bothered to go in the first place...I have no excuse, other than that it was with family, and I rarely ever get the chance to go to a theater. Plus general curiosity. No other reason.

You sir, may just be my new hero.  :thumbup:


Sidenote: Screw 3-d too!  :hatred:

It's funny that the orignal Clash of the Titans inspired the God of War games, which in turn where clearly the bases for this movie, which is getting a video game based on it, which looks like it's a God of War clone.  So Clash of the Titans has started this self perpetuating cycle of re-imagining.

And if you think I'm exagerating with the video game inspiration references-one of Perseus' men looks like Zangeif from Street Fighter.

Yeah, I just got back from seeing it as a matinee, so get ready for me to throw my two cents in.

First off, I agree with Fausto when he said The changes made to the story were completely unnecessary and felt at times like a lecture on the evils of religion, .  I couldn't count the number of times Sam Worthington's Perseus said something to the equivalent of "I do this not as a god, but as a man."  Seriously, that's like every third or fourth sentence out of his mouth.

Another change that was pointless was the addition of the Djinn.  I got the feeling that they existed soulley becasue the screen writer wrote himself into a corner, and couldn't figure out how to end a scene or resolve a plot point with some sort of deus ex machina.

Which brings me to thethe Bubo cameo.  Yes, I know Bubo is not well liked amongst many of the Clash or the Titan fans.  Being called an R2-D2 rip off, but here it felt more like an underhanded slap towards the original movie, as opposed to a loving nod.  

Now let's talk about monster designs.  The worst by far was Calibos, who looked more like someone who had been in a bad car wreck as opposred to being some short of man-beat.  Next is the Kraken.  Had there been a sequal to the 98 Godzilla remake.  This would have been the monster he fought.  Meduasa: well, it's not the first time I've seen a sexy Gogan-but it does make the origianl desing from Harryhausen seem a little more unique.  The stygygian witches were a little better, but not by much.  The one redesign I liked, and nobody seems to be talking about is Charon,the boatman to the river Styx.  In the orgiginal, he was just a skeleton in a cloak, but in the new one, he's basically a living extension of his ship (or is it the other way around)  I'll admit, I thought that part was kind of cool.

  The really sad thing is, If there had just been one or two more rewrites of the script it could have been a decent enough remake.

Here's the thing though, and I know everyone is entitled to have an opinion...BUT, it didn't NEED to be remade. That's the HUGE, MASSIVE POINT. It doesn't matter even if it was half decent, because it is pointle$$ and worthle$$ (wink,wink).  :hatred:

Their seems that a radically different version of the film had been shot, with more gods in it and a Perseus and Andromeda love affair (you know like the original).
http://scifiwire.com/2010/04/the-version-of-clash-of-t.php (http://scifiwire.com/2010/04/the-version-of-clash-of-t.php)

I was going to see it on Sunday, but I wasn't feeling well that day, and the thought of all the movie I'd save if I didn't see it, and I didn't go. But, there was another reason I didn't go. I saw the trailer for "Clash of the Titans" (2010.)

Ray Harryhausen's films, I've found, are of various qualities, but one thing I could always count on in one of his films, was having fun watching it. On the other hand, with this remake, while I did think the SFX were better, the filmmakers seemed to have sucked all the "fun" out of the remake, and what is the fun in that.

Still, I might yet go see it, as it is the only film still playing in my area that looks vaguely interesting, that I haven't seen.

Yeah, we're back to my earlier thread. It sounds like you already know the movie is going to suck. So, the question is, why are you going to go see it? You'd probably get more entertainment staying at home watching South Park reruns.

Which goes back to my thread, it may not be any good, but it still seems to be the best thing playing in the theaters. And as for watching "South Park" reruns, I can't. I'm one of the few who have neither TV nor dvd player, and I have no interest in inquiring neither.

Well, then, you may engage in any number of other activities that would beat paying money to see another hack remake, including, but not limited to, playing with your pet, going for a hike, going to the bar, visiting a friend with a tv and dvd player, shooting someone in the a**hole with a dartgun, or watching one of thousands upon thousands of great "good" and "bad" movies on the computer that you appear to have, all of which would be preferable to me than paying money to see a movie I already know is going to be a piece of crap.

I mean, I know this is a "bad" movie forum, but to me I see a difference between Clash of the Titans and a b-movie that I would actually be entertained by, but I understand it's all subjective.

I'm not trying to be a d***head, Kevin, really I'm not. I you really want to see Clash of the Titans, then you should go see it. If it was something you felt you would enjoy then that would make sense. But you seem to be confident that you won't like it. I just don't get the point of buying tickets for a movie that you pretty much already know you're going to be disappointed in. Again, I asked in my earlier thread why people do this, and so far nobody has provided an explanation.

I Went To See It A Couple Of Days Ago .......The Movie Was Watchable But It Has Nothing On The Original



Hollywood Needs To Start Coming Up With Original Ideas Instead Of Reusing Old Ones And Ruining Them With Their So Called "UPDATING FOR A NEW GENERATION"

As some of us have been pointing out, why would Hollywood spend the energy to come up with something original when hordes of people keep going to see updates like CLASH OF THE TITANS despite bad reviews and bad word of mouth? 

People need to stop blaming Hollywood.  The audience is the one demanding this crap, Hollywood is just feeding them the pap they crave. 

I have to sort of disagree, I think Hollywood is trying to ride the nostalgia train and people want to try and relive the magical stuff they loved as kids.  No one sits around and says..."Hey I wish they would do a CGI remake of X film from the 70's or 80's" then spams the studios demanding i.t

But people will pay for a known brand, and the copyriight on a lot of this old stuff is probably running out.  That makes "reimaginings" easier than thinking of new stuff. 

But this is just talking

Thank you. I've been saying that several times in this thread. The hamsters keep hitting the feeder bar. Stop b***hing, put your democratic entertainment dollar where your mouth is, and stop going to them.

That's not disagreeing.  :wink: People don't "spam" studios for this stuff, but they do vote for "known brands" over original concepts with their movie-going dollars.   

Just think of all the great movies you could buy with the price of a cinema ticket these days!

For the price of one ticket you can get yourself a Mill Creek 50 Movie pack and be entertained for days and days and days!

CLASH OF THE TITANS (2010)
Run Time: 106 minutes  :thumbdown:

(http://www.millcreekent.com/images/350/826831070032.jpg)

Run Time: 62 Hours 23 Minutes  :thumbup:

I thought it was an ok Popcorn flick. But nothing good of course.

Well, I caved and went to see it.  It was ok.  Good popcorn movie. I didn't like the Kraken, but I liked Medusa. She had a pretty face ... snakes and all.

Well, he finally saw it. And he says this with some . . . ? Because I know everytime I see a remake, a sequel, I encourage Hollywood to make another remake, another sequel, instead of doing something more original.

Okay. Why did I see it?
Two reasons.
(1) I thought it had an "interesting" story. And with most of the "interesting" actors, directors being either deceased or retired. Story is one of the few things to get me into the theater. And I don't find that many "interesting" stories anymore.

(2) People insisted that I not see it. At some point, such insistence gets my back up. I don't like it. I don't like being told what to do or not to do; therefore, I do the opposite.
If the people insisting that I not see it had been less insistent, I might have let things slide and not seen it, but . . .

What did I think of it?
It reminded me of an earlier film I saw "Sherlock Holmes.

Were either film as bad as I thought they be? No.
Did either film surpass the previous versions? No.

I did think both films had their moments. I especially liked the hired help in this film. If you are ever in trouble, they're the ones you want behind you watching your back. I thought they were that good. And I don't say that about alot of characters. Actually, I'd rather have them behind me than the A-Team. But . . .

I found both films to be at best mediocre. But . . ;

As further proof I never learn my lesson, or, at best, am a slow learner. I'm going to watch an upcoming film I think is going to be a bigger suckfest than these two films. "Robin Hood."

And why do I think it'll suck so mightily?
Again,  two reasons.

(1) "Gladiator" anyone.

(2) Russell Crowe, at his best, will only turn in the sixth best performance in the role. Behind Richard Todd, Richard Greene, Errol Flynn, Sean Connery, and Douglas Fairbanks, sr. All of whom I've seen in the role.

And this will be my last post on this thread.

Kevin, I insist you post on this thread again!

IMO... sucked!... why did they have to diss Bubo owl like that lol?

Clash of the Titans 1981= MUCH BETTER.

I decided not to go see it.  :thumbup:

Hollywood remake=sucks balls. I decided to NOT go see it because the equation Hollywood remake=sucks balls is there.

I'm 14 and even I can understand how horrible this movie was. The complete first half was a lopsided mess that was way too fast. This movie can plausibly be compared to a blob rolling down a hill, and it just gathers a bunch of random things along the way. After Acrisius attacks Perseus and the mind-blurring chase begins, it really is a domino effect of whatever the hell a bunch of fat guys sitting in front of their computers could think of. I think they'll be shocked to know that Harryhausens effects look more human, are creepier in their convoluted movements, and can better tell the story through restraint of the special effects; Which doesn't seem to be the case in modern action anymore, it's more about just cramming whatever crap you can possibly think of into every shot. And maybe if they're lucky the audience will be so confused by the blur of effects that they won't know they are watching a horrible movie. I didn't care about any of the characters, and the whole movie I was complaining to myself about the needless changes in the storyline from the original. I don't quite understand why they decided to portray the gods as evil, but I'm pretty sure they just did it for the sake of Acrisius refusing them, in a desperate attempt to make him badass. Sam Worthington was a horrible choice for the movie, he's just a run-of-the-mill actor, and didn't put any personality into the roll. But maybe it's just because the script was so bad that he didn't have the chance too. The medusa scene should been creepier and slower like the original. Instead we just get yet another cookie-cutter CG montage. Their is no diversity to this film; it offers nothing more then being the remake of a classic for fans to pitty, which actually isn't an offering at all. Oh, and by the way, it's a bad sign when the audience would rather fantasize about medusa then cringe at her hideous face which is SUPPOSED to turn people to stone. THE FACE SHOULD BE HIDEOUS! This movie should be burned.

Impressive analysis from a 14-year old.  I wish I could give you karma!

^ I couldn't agree more, excellent post.

This movie is proof that, unless a film is specifically DESIGNED for 3D, it falls flat. There are times when it works (CG animated movies and Avatar, for example) but overuse has made it nothing more then a gimmick.

Just saw the movie.  I thought it was a big steaming pile of !@#%$!

I really wish Hollywood would stop rebooting old films.  It's almost like nothing new gets written any more.  They just keep re-making (and massacring) everything.  At this stage, I'm waiting for them to re-boot the classic, "2001: A Space Odyssey" as a galactic war flick with explosions and armies of monoliths attacking  and the Wayans brothers starring as the two astronauts who have to deal with HAL.

Oh... and Michael Bay will end up directing it.

I'm waiting for an edgy remake of E.T. with a street-wise smack-talking alien.

Did THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD "need" to be remade?

Sorry, but that is my pet example every time this issue of remakes comes up.  There are a few other examples that could be made (FIST FULL OF DOLLARS I think has some merit here, as well).

I'm not defending the trend of low quality remakes and I have not seen the new CLASH OF THE TITANS (biiiig fan of the 1981 version), and won't see it.

I think the real question is "Where are the John Carpenters and Sergio Leones that CAN remake an earlier, high quality film and CREATE something new and just as high quality?"

I don't oppose remakes on their face - but, I will say I abhor remakes that seem premised on "upgrading" the original.  I think a key term that I've seen throughout this thread is "soulless."

Carpenter's THE THING was certainly NOT a soulless make of the original.  The soul was brought by Carpenter, Bottin, Bill Lancaster, the ENTIRE acting crew and production crew.  For example, Bottin LOVED the original Hawkes version and felt honored (and humbled?) to be asked to work on the remake.

THAT, in my opinion, is what is missing from these hack remakes.  They're hacks!  So, I agree COMPLETELY with the opinions of 'vote with your dollars.'  Force those investing in movie production to invest in ARTISTS to make movies.  Even CGI, in the right hands, can be great (Pixar and ILM are two examples). 

It's not the CGI or the fact that it's a remake that makes these movies bad...it's the shortcut of bypassing talented production crew (including writers and directors) that makes them bad.

{/soap box off}

I agree, I don't mind remakes on the face of it, but may I add the extra common theme that many bad remakes have: Heavy studio influence.  You just don't feel the hand of the studio on good remakes, and you certainly feel it on the terrible ones [eg.  Making it 3D badly when it was filmed for 2D, adding a romance with Gemma Aterton's character via a reshoot despite being filmed initially as a sister/mentor type]

Very good point.   :thumbup:

How about that little mechcanicat owl BUBO kind of cute when he made those hooting sounds and going nose to beak with PEGASUS

All you guys that are saying this is crappy really mean its so crappy its good right?

Because if not, I think I'm on the wrong site haha! It was so bad that it was great in my opinion! How about those cool Scorpions they got to ride on? That is pure adventure/fantasy storytelling/visuals to me. The only downer for me of the whole movie was Liam Neeson because he couldn't even ham his role up to save it for himself, he came off way too serious in a glorified B movie. Plus some of the cgi is the best I've ever seen in a movie.

Oh, you are going to have some interesting times here, my friend. No, I will go out on a limb and make the guess that well more than half of the members here would pan the Clash of the Titans as a hack remake of a classic B. But not all, certainly, so I'm sure you'll find some company. There are some movies I don't ever have to see to know they're not worth my time. This is one of them.

But, to each their own.

I'm missing this guy !  :bluesad:

I like Sam Worthington.. well, I like to look at him, but I have zero desire to see this movie. None.  :thumbdown:

I went in with low expectations and it turned out to be decent. Solid popcorn flick with top notch CGI (did I just type that? they really did a good job) and wild action. And Medusa? I loved her. She was totally awesome  :thumbup: The ending was a blast, the score was fitting - even enhancing the 'scary' at times.
Mindless entertainment far from "suck" in my opinion. Definitely a keeper in my Blu-ray collection :)

I'm curious, did anyone else think the Djinn seemed a lot like the Protoss from Starcraft? 

Seriously, I kept expecting them to go, "En taro Adun!" 

I finally caught in on cable over the weekend.

Nyeeeeh. It was marginally watchable. What was funny was that I watched Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief later that night and was officially saturated with Greek mythology that day.

Here's what I've always wondered about Clash of the Titans (either one). The Kraken is a part of Norse mythology, not Greek. What the hell is it doing in a movie about Greek mythology?

From www.tvtropes.org :

The original creature was Cetus, a giant whale... the switch was understandable because of that. The writer supposedly changed it because the Kraken's name sounded cooler. Ray Harryhausen gave it a more monstrous appearance for the sake of impressiveness as well

Plus theres' a lot of stuff in both the original and the new movie that got switched around and changed from the source material.  Neither was a direct recreation of one specific legend, and more of a mish-mash of various Greek (and some other) stuff put together.

For example: in the mythology, Cerebus (the three headed dog) guarded the entrance to Hades, not Medusa's lair.  I could give other examples, but I think everyone gets the point.  :)

I caught the second half of this the other day on HBO. I wasn't particularly bored with it but I have no desire to see the first half really. 

For what it's worth...

http://runolfr.blogspot.com/2010/04/movie-review-clash-of-titans.html

Posted shortly after I saw it in 3D.

I was very disappointed by this film.

It suffers from serious bad casting.  Had the right actors been cast, it might have been a little better.  But it wasn't and the film suffered as a whole.  All of Perseuse's companions were horribly cast.  They reminded me of the bad casting in The 13th Warrior for some reason.
I know I'm not the only one that thinks Sam Worthington should take a permanent hiatus from acting.  He flat out sucked as Perseus.

The only good scenes in this film were the confrontation with Medusa and when Perseus held up her head in front of the Kraken.

I'm giving this film 1.5 stars out of 4 and a big  :thumbdown:   :question:

Agreed on Worthington although there is no hiatus in sight.  He's been slated for a few films including this abomination remake;
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1647353/
Nothing is sacred in Hollywood anymore.

That's actually exactly what I was thinking when I first saw him. I was halfway expecting him to spam mass carriers at Medusa. God I hated when opponents spammed carriers in Starcraft, but it works.