"Clash of the Titans"

[George Ebersole]

I went and saw "Clash of the Titans" last night. I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this film?

[Guest]

I went and saw "Clash of the Titans" last night. I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this film?

 

I love that little silver mechanical owl, he's really cool.

 

Lawrence Oliver delivers a top quality performance in this movie.

 

Great film over all.

 

R,

[George Ebersole]

Heh, I meant the remake that's in the theatres. Thanks for the reply.

[Guest]

Heh, I meant the remake that's in the theatres. Thanks for the reply.

 

The re-what? No way!!

 

R,

[Tom Lowe]

"Clash" was my second-favorite film of all time as a child - right behind "Star Wars." The summer that "Clash of the Titans" came out, my neighborhood buddies and I saw it more times than I care to admit! I have always loved the film.

 

But I see this "remake" as a cruel, crass mockery and insult to the original. Now the producers have decided to add insult to injury by slapping on "Fake 3D" -- which only further exposes the whole project as a cynical ploy to extract money from wallets.

 

Any time that a remake or franchise is on the line, only one thing matters --- who is the DIRECTOR????? If you want to reboot a franchise or remake a film, there is only one way to do it: hire the most insanely talented director available, and make sure he has a passion for the subject matter. (Think "Dark Knight".) If you told me that Darren Aronofsky was directing this "Clash" remake, I would be very excited. But sadly, the best director they could pull for this remake has "Transporter 2" on his IMDB. Fail.

[George Ebersole]

Wow, lots of pent up hostility here :)

 

Okay, I admit it, I saw the original a couple of times in the theatre with my then best friend, who absolutely LOVED the original "Clash". Me? I was luke warm to it. I loved Harryhausen's stuff growing up, but at the tim I thought effects technology had evolved enough to add more magic to Harryhausen's touch. But, when the film rolled all I saw as the same stop motion that had been used since "King Kong" (the first one). As a kid I thought it was okay.

 

I'm actually wondering what you all think of the cinematic aspects of the thing. Visually the film seemed pretty dark to me, and I'm wondering if that was a stylistic choice or if there was some weird technical thing happening here.

 

Thanks for the input :)

[Guest Tim Partridge]

I haven't seen the new one.

 

I loved the innocence of the original, the sense of adventure, and some of the great iconography recreated in the direction. I love the moody opening shots of the beach and that awesome low angle shot of Perseus holding Medusa's head against the ruins. I loved how Burgess Meredith (one of my favourite actors of all time) supports the whole thing so charmingly. I also love some of the less conventionally approached Harryhausen effects that never get mentioned, such as the Man in suit Kracken underwater, Olympus, the fantastic disaster sequence in which the city gets hit by a tidal wave and the great astrological shot at the film's end. Loved The Who's laserbeam behind Zeus' throne. Laurence Rosenthal's score was also spectacular. Great to see so many top actors/stars in minor roles (Olivier, Andress, Philips, Smith).

 

I do think the film was quite technically variable. The opening aerial shot of the crudely animated stop motion buzzard is an underwhelming start to the film. I also thought Ted Moore's cinematography let things down for being so bland but grainy (Leslie Halliwell I believe said "muddy"), though I think the director seemed to exploit that for aeshetic effect, shooting much of the film in moody overcast, backlight and muddy looking day for night for dramatic effect. There's a really clumsy push in shot on the Olympus set where a huge dark fill shadow carelessly drapes over Maggie Smith, who is wearing a bright white costume against a bright white set!

 

This new Clash seems to boast some super looking production design work. Interesting that once again, it's shot at Pinewood with a Bond girl in the cast.

[Ravi Kiran]

Don't make the mistake I did and see it in 3D. You'll end up paying extra for mediocre 3D effects and a dimmer picture.

 

As for the film itself, meh. I never got sucked into the story, and the action was rarely impressive.

[George Ebersole]

I was afraid of the 3D thing, so I went and saw the standard version.

 

I'm watching the original now, and I have to admit that it's got more character depth and character charm than the remake. But a couple of those effects shots still make me cringe a little.

 

EDIT; I dunno, I still like the remake a bit better.