Clash Of The Titans Bluray

Posted In: Clash Of The Titans

Magdalen Mcculloch says...

First, this has nothing to do with the original; if you expect it to-you will be disappointed.They even cast away the cool mechanical owl and basically exclude the pegasus that were so prominent in the first film (foreshadowing their total disregard for the original and storytelling in general).The original had bad special effects with a great story and likable characters.While this version has awesome special effects that are very realistic and impressive, the characters never develop and are honestly not very likable.I so wanted the other marginal reviews to be wrong and to love this movie. I had HBO growing up in the 80's and would watch the original every time they put it on (which was a lot; this is back when there was only one HBO and it actually played movies!).I like Sam Worthington and love Liam Neeson but found myself feeling very detached from their characters.I think this movie is worth watching for the special effects but I certainly don't want to watch it again.Too bad!

Posted on October 24, 2010

Lawrence Larcom says...

I purchased this move because I love 3d veiwing.The 3d in this move is almost noexistant.

The movie itself was OK but the 3d portion is beyond weak.I bought this movie thinking the 3d effects

would be great seeing the different monsters it had in it but you had to stain to see any 3d effects.

None worth even mentioning. If you want to see this movie just buy the bluray version and save your self money and aggravation of trying to fine and good 3d in it. I just want to say I have bought many items on Amazon and have always been happy with there service. It is not there fault this movies 3d sucks.

Posted on October 24, 2010

Dessie Fantauzzo says...

So with the limited number of 3-D movies out there and wanting to make a purchase other than another animated half-rate movie available on 3-D format, I was hoping to put my expensive investment to something more adult like.With hopes, I purchased "Clash of the Titans" Blu Ray in 3-D.I was really looking forward to the film and being amazed because the two animated movies I have, "Monsters vs Aliens" and "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" are quite enjoyable in 3-D.



As soon as I put "Clash" into the Blu Ray player, I wondered if there was something wrong with my glasses.I changed the batteries on my glasses, tried different pairs of glasses, and even checked to make sure I had the correct disc in the drive.Everything seemed to be working.I even replaced the disc with one "Monsters vs..." just to make sure my TV had not broken down.The result is this: I do not believe that "Clash of the Titans" was even made into a 3-D version.If you are hoping to be amazed with your TV's 3-D display capabilities, you better buy something else.All "Clash" is, is simply a blurred background with no, AND I MEAN NO, 3-D imagery.In fact, I am so disappointed, I plan on returning it (I hope) tomorrow.



Don't get me wrong.I think "Clash.." is a fairly decent movie for entertainment.But if you are looking for 3-D graphics, spend your hard earned cash elsewhere.

Posted on October 25, 2010

Alvaro Millener says...

In short 1981 was a romance/adventure story with real character development, whereas 2010 is nothing more than a cheap action flick watched once and quickly forgotten.



The Amazon Reviewer, Robert Horton, discredits the original 1981 version in many ways during his "comparison" of these films. The 2010 remake shows its lack of respect for the 1981 version quite clearly within the first twenty minutes when Perseus looks through the "trash" of old equipment and pulls out a replica of the 1981 golden owl and the head of the expedition tells him to just leave it. The golden owl is then tossed back into the crate like a piece of garbage, so was the great story and characters of the 1981 version.



The 2010 version harvests all the action sequences of the original and throws them together one right after the other non-stop with no breaks to really tell a story or advance character development. In this 3D state of the art film, the characters are left with all the depth of 1D stick-figures - especially compared to the 1981 version where their leads are fleshed out - even the golden owl of 1981 has more personality than 2010's Perseus.



My rec: rent this one then buy the 1981 version.

Posted on October 26, 2010

Olivia Muthler says...

When it comes to Ray Harryhausen there is no bigger fan of his work and films. When I heard about this remake I was excited, but after reading many reviews I decided to wait until it came on cable before seeing it. I happened to come across this Blu Ray very cheap and I took a chance. To my surprise, this remake isn't as bad as many have claimed, but does nothing to improve on the original either.



The special effects are a highlight in both versions, but in this film they are used sparingly. You never get a good look at the monsters, only quick cuts and fast motion I assume to hide the cracks in the CGI work? I know the younger generation see Ray Harryhausen's(RH)work as old fashioned or even quaint, but he is one of the pioneers of the craft and has and will continue to inspire generations of film makers long after this remake disappears into obscurity. It was fitting of the makers of this fim to put in a cameo of BoBo the owl as a nod to RH.



The story has been changed, but not for the better, only adding confusion and depriving us of a real hero. In RH's original film the story was more straightforward and even though a little corny at times, it did a better job of keeping the motives of the characters more believable.



Back to the effect as this is really the reason to watch any Harryhausen film remake or not. I'm glad that they kept RH's design for Medusa as is it one of the coolest interpretations of her, even though not accurate by Mythological standards. As far as RH's stop motion work, I really don't think people are aware of the amount of work that RH put into the Medusa sequence in the original. Medusa's snake filled hair, her tail and all body movements are painstakingly done with the upmost finesse and skill. Even more amazing is that the flame lit lair is also something he had to take into consideration. Switching the light reflection frame by frame to make it look like flames flickering. Add in the fact the man was in the twilight of his career at almost 70 years old! It was nothing short of breathing taking in its time and I doubt it could ever be duplicated. If we factor in the money and time allowed to create this and all the other creature effects, it is unbelievable that it was completed. I would have loved to see what he could have done with a budget of the remake!



The Medusa in this film looks very good, but I think there is more tension in the original scene with her slowly stalking her intruders. In fact most of the creatures in this remake serve only as a reminder of how great Harryhausen was at his craft, giving his creatures life and personality. The original film suffers from budget restraints that actually effect the look of the film, as all the prints I've seen of it are dark, grainy and the matte shots stick out like a sore thumb, so naturally this remake looks incredible by comparison.



The original has more creatures and the story is told in a more entertaining way, but the remake has some impressive special effects and a story that is not as corny. If only we could combine the two to make one great film. Clash of the Titans is a solid action adventure film with some nifty effect, but I will watch RH's version far more times than this one.

Posted on October 26, 2010

Laura Pellham says...

I'm usually fairly easy going when it comes to popcorn flicks that serve no real purpose except to exist as breezy, silly fun. I love The Mummy and The Mask of Zorro, Pirates of the Caribbean and Sherlock Holmes, particularly since you can tell the writers, cast and crew have embraced the idea of making a film that has sheer entertainment as its fundamental goal. These types of movies have been around for a long time, not excepting the original Clash of the Titans film. Sometimes you're just in the mood to sit back, turn off your brain, and enjoy the action that unfolds in front of you.



But then there are movies that require an extra amount of brain-power just to understand the convoluted events of the plot, and which leave you feeling frustrated and drained at how little sense it makes. Thus we have the remake of "Clash of the Titans", which is really an excuse for one hundred and six minutes of CGI monsters, with a vague plot, non-existent characterization, and semi-passable fight scenes on the side. Of course, this all may still float your boat, but if you prefer to have some *semblance* of coherence in your popcorn flicks then either stick with the campy fun of the original, or skip it altogether.



As an infant Perseus is found by a fisherman floating in a sea-chest alongside his dead mother, and grows up without any knowledge of his origins: that he's actually the son of the god Zeus. Now an adult, Perseus is witness to the death of his foster father, mother and little sister when a group of soldiers from Argos destroy a statue of Zeus and pay the hefty consequences of hubris. For reasons best known to themselves, human beings have decided that ticking off deities is a really good idea, and the Olympian gods respond with releasing an onslaught of monsters in order to increase the prayers that they need to retain their immortality. Why not just call a summit meeting?



Due to this nonsensical state of affairs, Perseus and a group of interchangeable soldiers who exist only as cannon fodder head out on a mission to kill some monsters, accumulate some weapons, and walk across impressive panning shots of the countryside, which will somehow help them defeat the kraken that Hades, Lord of the Underworld, has promised to unleash on Argos if they do not sacrifice Princess Andromeda within ten days. Joining them is Io, an immortal hottie burdened with the terrible curse of being young and beautiful forever, a character that in the original Greek mythology was turned into a cow, tortured by a gadfly, and had nothing whatsoever to do with Perseus. I suppose these days a female isn't considered a worthy love interest unless she tags along with the boys on their adventure, but she never does much to help and her inclusion renders Andromeda's role largely pointless.



They also pick up an eastern-style character who is called a Djinn but which looks like Pinocchio's deformed brother, and a couple of guys who I think are meant to be the comic relief, except that they never actually tell any jokes.



Throughout the running time, the movie seems to want to make some sort of point about humanity and the gods, but it keeps changing its mind on what exactly this point is. The population of Argos is arrogant and sinful for rejecting the gods; but then the gods are petty and corrupt in their dealings with humanity. Zeus gives Hades permission to "set an example" for those who oppose them, but then tries to help Perseus in his god-defying quest to prevent Hades from destroying Argos. Draco (one of Perseus's mates) demands in one scene that Perseus accept Zeus as his father in order to spare the lives of his men, and in the next he says: "I'll smile when I spit in the face of the gods." Io solemnly tells the men the tragic tale of Medusa, who was raped by Poseidon and then cruelly cursed by Athena, which is followed by a scene in which Perseus pep-talks his men outside her lair by telling them to: "kill this bitch." Perseus rejects his godly heritage (though he doesn't pass on the flying horse, immortal girlfriend or built-in demigod powers) and declares to anyone who'll listen that mortality is superior to godhood, even though there's not much evidence of that.



Despite all the railing against the gods and the rah-rah cheerleading for Team Humankind, the movie ends with an odd reestablishing of the pecking order, in which Zeus and Perseus are reconciled, Hades is sent back to Hades and Io is magically resurrected because.... hey, why not? There's some sort of message here, in which the writers desperately want to tell us something about the nature of humanity and its relationship to gods, if only they could figure out what that message was.



It's been a while since I've watched the original Clash of the Titans, but there's no doubt that it's a superior film to this, even discounting the nostalgia quotient that leaves me with fond memories of its inherent campiness and stop-motion monsters. Not only does it boast finer actors and a more faithful adaptation of the Perseus legend, but it is also nobler in content and theme. There, Perseus was on a heroic quest to save innocent people and win the love of a princess. Here, he's just after vengeance, a far less worthy goal.



Though this remake will undoubtedly be an instant favorite for any 10 to 12 year old boy, they'd be better off getting a slice of cinematic history by watching the last film that featured Ray Harryhausen's stop-action monsters. Speaking of which, there's a throwaway gag in the remake that will have fans of the original film fuming, in which Perseus picks up a mechanical owl and then dismissively chucks it away again. I think it's meant to be a "tribute" of sorts to Harryhausen's Bubo, but it just comes across as mildly insulting.



All of the actors, from Liam Neeson (who seems to be wearing mirror-plated armor) to Ralph Fiennes (once again portraying the much-maligned Hades as a baddie), and Sam Worthington (why does he have a buzz-cut?) to Gemma Artherton (who is always immaculate no matter how dirty her traveling companions get) are on autopilot. I have no doubt they picked up their checks at the doors and scurried onto their next projects without looking back.



If "Clash of the Titans" is not what I would call a good slice of entertainment, it at least will provide plenty of snarky commentary if watched in a group. Perhaps a drinking game could be designed for whenever the mortals complain about the gods and visa versa - though given the writers' insistence on repeating this plot-point at every available opportunity, your liver may not survive the experience.

Posted on October 27, 2010

Alesha Vandenbos says...

WOW, I am so glad I only spent $1 at a Red Box vending machine to see this. It is terrible. No story, stunted acting, cartoon CGI. Give me the original any day. This was a classic example of the film makers thinking all they needed to do was throw a bunch of money at the screen and it would be a success...



A total waste of time...

Posted on October 27, 2010

Manuela Florance says...

Zzzzz... yet another movie with terrific CGI, a garbled plot, no human emotional connection, and a mixed bag of awful to above average acting.I actually started to fall asleep at various points in this movie....



One's senses are not quite as assaulted as with "Transformers - Revenge of the Fallen", but this movie falls into that same class of an action movie hyped mainly for its special effects and yet unable to hold our attention just on that basis.Yes, there was a time, back in the days of "Jurassic Park", when merely seeing this awe-inspiring CGI onscreen was enough to keep a moviegoer awake, but no more.Nowadays, terrific CGI is so ubiquitous that it is easy to be blase about seeing it onscreen;the CGI nowadays is just part of a movie's landscape, like the potted plants and furniture.



Enough, my eyes and ears tell me, so what if the Kraken/Medusa/Giant Crab/Monster Du Jour is attacking - do I care enough about the characters and plot that it means anything?Without that essential emotional connection to the story and characters, watching massive quantities of CGI is just as sleep inducing as watching potted plants grow.



Sam Worthington is in this movie, which might be enough to keep his fans awake, but I am baffled at how he has managed to become a mega-movie star in such a short time.A published critical review of his performance said that his CGI "Avatar" character had more facial expressions than he did in this movie.Another said that his acting was so wooden that it belonged in the lumbar section of the Home Depot.



Mads Mikkelsen was one of the few actors to squeeze a capable performance out of this movie, as Draco, the co-leader of Perseus's merry band of monster-chow.Kudos to him for managing to retain his dignity, much more than Liam Neeson or Ralph Fiennes were able to do in this movie.The presence of these two stars bring to mind the latter days of Sir Laurence Olivier, who was willing to appear in almost any bad movie as long as they paid his fee.I would love to know just what was going through Liam Neeson's mind as he was walking around in that silly mirror-polished suit of armor and scraggly beard.Come to think of it, he did once do both in "Excaliber"... so maybe that's what he was thinking.Ralph Fiennes - has playing one of the most effective evil Nazis of all time onscreen ("Schindler's List") made him a lock for all the blockbuster Evil Bad Guy roles in Hollywood?Take the money and run, is what seems to be going on here.



One interesting visual effect of this movie was that all of the males were tanned a dark shade of bronze, whereas the two main female characters were left strikingly pale, which made me think that in the time of the Ancient Greeks,men and women were of different races.Or, perhaps the women were just locked up indoors all the time.Both women were cute and did a decent job in their roles, but the shag rug carpetwhich Io wore in her last scenes made me want to burst out laughing.Poor Gemma Arterton.



Yes, the costume designer for this movie was beyond horrible.I could go on and on about the horrible costuming.



Even worse, the Continuity Director must have been on drugs during the entire shoot.Or maybe it was just really bad film editing, combined with a fractured screenplay.Did anybody else notice the beautiful shot of sunlight breaking through the clouds....... during the total eclipse?Right, it does get awfully dark during a total eclipse, and that entire Kraken vs. Argos scene (with Alexa Davalos getting strung up as Kraken food) should have been in the dark, or twilight.



But then, almost nothing made sense in this movie.The initial entry into the palace of the King of Argos - was it a festival or something?What was with all the music and dancing girls?Perseus and his group journey into Hades - Charon is mentioned, but barely seen - not enough left in the budget for a better Charon?Then, having crossed the River Styx, they are not in Hades, but in Medusa's lair.WTF?And when Perseus comes out, he is seen exiting a cave.What happened to recrossing the River Styx?



More questions - Why is Pegasus black?What happened to Calibos's hand? (an interesting teaser, watching his hand come back to life... and then nothing).Why is it mentioned that Medusa can only turn men to stone, not women, and then the Kraken gets turned to stone when it sees the Medusa head? Does the Medusa head turn fish and crustaceans to stone also?How about insects?And oh dear me, WHY IS MEDUSA WEARING A BLACK BRA?Imagine putting a bra on your pet snake, yes that's what that looked like.



And of course, one cannot go through the list of what's totally bad in this movie without mentioning the obligatory Hollywood caricature of the Extremist Religionist, who is stuck into this movie like a sore thumb.He appears as this skinny bare chested guy with mascara eyeliner shrieking in a British accent about offering up Andromeda as a sacrifice.In between trying to stay awake, I could only groan and sigh "Not again" at the grating appearance of this character....



There were lots of things like that which made me want to close my eyes during this movie...

Posted on October 29, 2010

Danilo Sidell says...

Never mind that Clash of the Titans play fast and loose with the mythological story of Perseus. Never mind that Medusa wasn't a Titan. Never mind that the Kraken is from Scandinavian mythology, and that casting Lawrence Olivier as Zeus in the 1981 version was sort of typecasting.



The new Clash of the Titans is a darker, grittier more realistic Bronze age world than the 1981 version, but the story hasn`t changed all that much. The citizens of Argos have become disenchanted with the rule of the Gods. The Gods have caused too much chaos and ruin to their lives so they've decided to take their destinies into their own hands, and destroy the temples and statues of the Gods. In doing so, Perseus'(Sam Worthington) family is killed by a falling statue of Zeus. When Zeus (Liam Neeson) learns of the desecration urged on by Hades (Ralph Fiennes), he decides to destroy the city in four days or they can offer the sacrifice of the King of Argos' daughter Andromeda (Alexa Davalos). In a visit to the throne room of Argos, Hades lets it slip that Perseus is a son of Zeus, a demi-god. Being told of his near divinity, Perseus and a group of soldiers go off on their quest to save the city.



The special effects are great! The monsters look real and the characters realistically interact with them. In 3D the water roiling off the undulating tentacles of the Kraken must look really cool! The problem is they shortchanged the story in favor of the special effects. The story only follows the barest of outlines of the myth. Same with the 1981 version, although it's a little more faithful to the myth. The most glaring lapse is there really isn't any reason for Perseus to save Argos. In the myth his reason to save the city is for the love of Andromeda. In this version he's a stranger to Argos and doesn't fall in love with Andromeda. She's barely a consideration until she's needed to be sacrificed to the Kraken. The only reason he seems to take up the quest is because he's the nearest handy demi-god that can help out. Worthington's Perseus doesn't seem very heroic, there doesn't seem to be any emotional investment in Perseus in either the quest or the surrounding characters. Most of the time he has a stoically sullen, put upon attitude, and this keeps the audience at arms length from the character. He doesn`t seem to embrace the heroic at all. Yes, he kills the monsters, but the tasks he must accomplish like tricking the Stygian witches and figuring out how to survive the encounter with Medusa, he seems to accomplish almost by accident. It seems that Perseus isn't meant to be heroic. he repeatedly says he wants "to do this (the quest) as man, not a God," and he keeps refusing the gifts of the Gods. The message in the myth is for mortals to find the divine, to find the god, the hero within themselves, Perseus' refusal of the gifts of the Gods, is the refusal to find the hero within himself.



The 1981 version, although a bit campy in it's delivery tells the hero's story better. The 2010version delivers better on the special effects. If such a thing were possible as to merge the strengths of both, you would have a better movie.



DVD Bonus Features: The only bonus features offered with the DVD are deleted scenes.

Posted on October 30, 2010

Reinaldo Ohlemacher says...

3.8 stars



Yes, this one is all about the CGI, and that's what I liked about it. There was little pretense of creating a dramatic masterpiece, and much focus on action and thrills, both of which were delivered well, aided by an excellent score. The film starts somewhat slowly but soon ramps up and moves along nicely, and as a simple piece of entertainment I enjoyed it.



COTT doesn't hew very closely to the real Greek myths, but so what. Neither did the original, and I found this version much less hokey and much more enjoyable. Fiennes and Neeson add some dramatic weight to the proceedings (if not overly much), and Worthington contributes his two sides: dogged determination beset by underlying fear and uncertainty, and the curious puppy on the way to doggedness. Which is perfect, as we wouldn't want too much real acting to remind us how ridiculous this whole exercise is.



The effects are exemplary, which is the key to all the fun, and the sound effects and Djawadi's crackling score complete the visceral thrills. There are some fine action scenes, especially in Medusa's cave and the final Kraken battle, and the almost flawless blu-ray transfer does them justice. This was just plain fun to watch on a good set-up; crank the volume on your surround sound and prepare to be floored by good old goofy b-movie intensity. With an a-movie budget.



I didn't expect much coming in and got more than I'd hoped for, and I might even watch this again some day.

Posted on November 5, 2010