David O'ConnellClash of the Titans
March 31st 2010 23:11
In a battle for the unwanted title of most ludicrous cinematic experience of the year, a clear frontrunner – one unlikely to be surpassed – has emerged. The vacuous Clash of the Titans, though armed with a degree of entertainment value likely to have 11 year-old boys grinning madly with glee, manages to insult the rest of its audience with a dodgy merger of mythology, descending armies of CGI excess and atrocious acting. I admit to having never seen the original but it hardly matters. The remake, directed by Frenchman Louis Leterrier - who most recently pounded a spike through the heart of the Incredible Hulk franchise - is a standalone train-wreck, the finest example of technology run amok you’ll ever witness.
Sam Worthington is the demigod Perseus - born of a mortal mother from the sperm of a vengeful, body-morphing God, Zeus (Liam Neeson) - charged with saving mankind from the wrath of a smorgasbord of Gods furious they are no longer being worshipped in the way they are accustomed to. After his human family is killed by Hades (Ralph Fiennes), Perseus vows revenge whilst simultaneously getting roped into saving the city of Argos. With ten days to spare before the monstrous Kraken is released to destroy it, Perseus sets out with a merry band of men to defeat all manner of creatures. These include sweeteners like giant scorpians and the fabled Medusa - with the power to transform all who look upon her, including the audience, to stone - before the main meal arrives in the form of the Kraken. Only then can he have his revenge against Hades, the prize he really seeks.
Clash of the Titans is silly beyond imagining. Misguided and extraneous, it’s another frivolous but expensive error in judgement. Men in skirts will always seem preposterous in the 21st century. You’ll jeer this mess of a film for the same reasons Troy (2004) and Alexander (2004) stunk up cinemas. All these films look like childish charades and given the inane dialogue that seems inevitably attached to them, failure is imminent from the first frame. The imagining of the lofty, cloud-entangled site of the Gods, encircled on pedestals with glowing attire and wispy beards, is just embarrassing. My first glimpse of it drew an inward groan of horror. Meanwhile the 3D aspect fizzles badly, betraying the fact that it was an afterthought to cash in on an increasingly unnecessay, irritating trend.
Worthington may possess a modicum of physical presence – 8 year-old girls might actually shudder at the sound of his grave pronouncements or the sight of the single mean glare in his arsenal - but emotionally and intellectually he’s a mortifyingly blank slate. To say he’s a very limited performer would be the understatement of the year. He’s a mediocre actor at best – nobody will ever convince me otherwise.
The decision by Neeson and Fiennes in particular to appear in this film defies belief. Their roles are so unintentionally comical you can’t help cringing whenever they appear. There’s a host of decent actors in minor roles but don’t overtax yourself trying to identify who they are if you ever want to maintain an ounce of respect for them.
Do you have two hours to kill and need a good laugh? Then this is your film: a turkey being prodded along an assembly line conveyor belt to be dusted over with 3D afterthoughts and the work of CGI technicians indulging their boyhood fantasies.
Sit through the trailer here.
| 206 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Matt Shea
Comment by Spring-Heeled Jack
Over.Exposure
Comment by David O'Connell
20/20 Filmsight
Screen Fanatic
Jack, you're right I should be familiar with the original, but it just never appealed to my early teen sensibilities at the time. I'm half-curious to go back and take a peek at it actually - once I've recovered from this mindless debacle! Look forward to reading your own report on the film.
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
I actually have a soft spot in my heart for the Harryhausen original but the OTT trailer soon quashed my need to see this remake.
And remind me why Sam Worthington is a star?? Not that he is bad, just uninteresting.
Comment by Mountain Fog
Infognito
Screen Trek
QUOTE ME NO QUOTES!
hehehehehehehe!!!!
Wonderful stuff David!
I know NIDA will love to read this! Particularly after Worthington gave that poisonous swipe at NIDA, (in a newspaper interview), for having the temerity to tell him he was a hack going nowhere!
I shall forward on your review to certain people in NIDA, whom shall, without doubt, roll over with laughter and glee reading your finely crafted admonishment.
cheers
fog
Comment by David O'Connell
20/20 Filmsight
Screen Fanatic
Foggy, you crack me up!!!
Please pass it on, we need to make a concerted effort to get back at Worthington after all the millions he's been raking in!
The history of the universe tells us that many things remain inexplicable even to the most advanced scientific minds. Sam Worthington's pulling power seems to be rivalling that of the Loch Ness Monster!
Comment by Mountain Fog
Infognito
Screen Trek
QUOTE ME NO QUOTES!
I sent on the link to NIDA with an intro about your review!
Here's to "Lochie"!
By the way, I caught an interview with him recently, in which he hoped to get as many films as possible before someone realized he didn't have any talent!!
cheers
fog
Comment by David O'Connell
20/20 Filmsight
Screen Fanatic
Comment by Christopher Soall
The Passion Of The Chris
I'm pretty new to the Orble set-up; and 'Clash' will be my next review, so it's great to see how it's done.
I couldn't agree more about the film. It just all seemed a little soulless. At least the original had a little bit of that campy, not taking itself too seriously 'Excalibur' edge (the Gods' OTT Mithras armour being a bit of a nod there I think!).
Please have a look at my page (the passion of the Chris). Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
Keep up the good work.
Chris
Comment by David O'Connell
20/20 Filmsight
Screen Fanatic
Comment by Christopher Soall
The Passion Of The Chris
Thanks again,
Chris