Clash of the titans remake

If the story about the owl is indeed true then that makes Worthington a pretentious arse ..

I thought it was a quite subtle way of paying homage to the original film - I half expected them to have Harry Hamlin in a small role playing someone completely different.

Anyway, I saw it today and I was a little disappointed. Watchable for sure, but it dragged in a few places I think.

And dumping the original idea of Perseus and Andromeda was a bit stupid as well.

And as easy on the eye as Gemma Arteton is, she can't really act ..
 
I was very disappointed by the new version. The stop-frame animation in the original is much better than the dark CGI of the new version, and the shots were too zoomed in so that we could only see small segments of things flailing about.
 
My post wasn't aimed at you Ted. I was just drawing from experience. My nephews are fond of Harryhausen films but chuckle at how basic the sfx are, rightly so imo. They were only nippers when Jurassic Park came out so they're of the cgi generation... I'm not suggesting for one minute that youngsters can't appreciate old stop motion films, course they can - but giant walking statues, skeletal armies and huge cyclops creatures are exactly what *good* cgi was made for imo. I welcome those old films getting a remake.
 
i quite enjoyed it

loved the scorpions and the kraken and the goRAB walking aorund on earth kinda thing

liam neeson as zeus was not so great

most of the acting was kinda lame and the characters were flat 1 dimensional entities

ralph feinnes was fun though

medusa was crap and had nothing on harryhausen: genuinley more chilling!
 
Interesting, isn't it? Even these old films could be overpowered by SFX, much like the CGI overindulgences of today.

I bet there were people at the time who were saying "I can't stand all this stop-motion nonsense. It detracts from the story and doesn't convince me. It was so much better when we didn't have special effects in the good, old black and white days."

We'll probably find people talking fondly of the good, old CGI days of the noughties in twenty years time.
 
As apposed to when we actually create a Kraken for real in order to make a movie?

What we'll talk about is the days before The Star Wars prequels and Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow when occasionally, practical locations and sets got used.
 
I thought it was very good i really enjoyed it.
However i do agree about the 3d...totally pointless and i'd have been very annoyed if i had been charged more for it but 3d in my cinema is just the same as a normal cinema ticket.
 
Have to agree with you, like watching a plastic Action Man - I was waiting for a giant hand to come down and yank the switch that makes his eyes move from side to side.

I hate it when they think the film is so expensive they can cast any old dullard in the lead role, what happened to star quality?
 
I actually quite enjoyed it!
I wasn't expecting much after some of the reviews, which I think actually worked a little in it's favour.
True an awful lot of this could have been better and I'm very glad that I didn't see it in 3D.
I think this film needed to be about half an hour longer (whic is a rarity for this kind of film) as most bits just seemed far too rushed.
Gemma Arterton was better than I thought she'd be :) The 'ethereal' voice did get a bit on my wick though, so I don't think I'll be seeing Prince of Persia at the cinema.
 
Back
Top