Clash of the CLASH of the Titans…
I
Surprisingly, I beat them to it.
Gathering with some buddies to revolt against the Hollywood machine, we rented the classic “Clash” and – for a fully satisfying double feature – The Beastmaster (the ONLY Beastmaster, mind you – like Highlander, there can be only ONE). Determined to have a fantastic time, we kicked back and waited for Laurence Olivier – NOT Liam Neeson – to demand the release of the Kraken. What happened, however, is that they released the CRAPPEN.
Don’t get me wrong, 80s fantasy movie lovers. Beastmaster is still bombastic, Tron is still terrific, and even Condorman is cool compared with the utter waste of everything but Ray Harryhausen effects in 1981’s Clash of the Titans. The acting isn’t bad, it’s nonexistent, and the plot is… oh, I’m sorry, I’m laughing at the notion that it even HAS a plot. Hairy Harry Hamlin makes Mark Hamill look like Peter O’Toole, Burgess Meredith was better as The Penguin, and even the Kraken looks like he’s eyeing a Greek watch on one of his four arms wondering when the paycheck will clear so he can get out this wretched excuse for cinema. WORST of all is the utter contrivance of Bubo the Owl – a forced compilation of C3PO’s face with R2-D2’s beaps to make Star Wars loving kids swallow poor man’s Greek mythology.
Don’t believe me? Ladies and Gentlemen, I present Exhibit A:
To be fair, the new Clash of the Titans is no Lord of the Rings. By Zeus, it’s not even 300. It’s EXACTLY what I’d expect from Leterrier, the man who brought us Transporter and Hulk movies… a lean and mean fight flick with swords, sorcery and superhuman action. Whereas the Raimi-produced Hercules and Xena TV series always skewed too absurd for my tastes (chariots peeling out with squealing tire sounds, and puns that even made ME groan) the new Clash lands itself squarely in the campy court of 80s fantasy flicks that the original ought to be. There is cheesy dialogue, but not the dripping Velveeta that oozes off of the original like decade old gas station nachos. This is a guy film, a fun film, not epic but exciting, and surprisingly even the converted 3-D works well in several scenes to enhance the visual experience.
3 simple reasons why it’s superior to the original:
#1: Liam Neeson actually gives us some enjoyable ACTING as Zeus, instead of the previous offering of Laurence Olivier, who looked vaguely amused with his own cue-card reading, phoned-in performance. You can actually sense Neeson’s inner glee when he gets to say “release the Kraken”.
#2: Sam Worthington may be a bit flat as Perseus, but he doesn’t stand gaping like the seemingly mentally-deficient Harry Hamlin, who may be a hunk… but only a hunk of something. Seriously, in another “kids-these-days-like-Star-Wars” bid they tried to make Hamlin look like a genetic hybrid of Han Solo and Luke Skywalker. Result? Zero charisma. Greek EPIC fail. Worthington established himself as a Terminator and Avatar (believable butt-kicking cred). If not stunning, he suffices.
#3: The villains: Hades is slithering sweet, like a Greek Starscream, Charon is breathtaking, and the new Kraken looks like the appropriately hideous offspring of Japan’s Gamera turtle and the Star Wars Rancor, which is simply spectacular in every way imaginable. I think Harryhausen would be proud.
Last but not least, the film offers some intriguing commentary on the nature of god(s) and man that begs for some Pauline-style unpacking. In the following two posts we’ll look at the film’s other tagline – “DAMN the gods” (click here) and the polarized polytheism the movie waves like a flag for thought-provoking conversation.
For a primer, you can also check out my short video-review of Clash of the Titans at The Resurgence.
Don’t be dissin’ the Bubo, bro! As for the rest… well… umm… err… ok you may be right.
Nice review man… are you trying to see how many times you can fit the phrase “release the kraken” into one review?
How DARE you insinuate I’m up to something, Rayment! RELEASE THE KRAKEN!
I actually preferred the original until I read an interview with Louis Leterrier where he said he made the movie for his inner 8 year old. When I watch it in THAT context I know 8 year old me would have loved it.
I did notice some swipes at Christianity in the movie – the mention of blood sacrifice for sin, Zeus saying something along the lines of “what kind of god would I be if I sacrificed my only son?”. Seem to be a subtext there of not damning the gods but damning THE God. Just something I picked up. No idea what the intent was.
Oh, there were certainly swipes, and I’m sure some hands involved in the movie laud a pro-human “we don’t need gods – PERIOD” mentality. The other interesting thing is when a film is made by a community (screenwriter, director, actor interpreting the lines, test screenings) the message often gets layered facets or even muddied so that multiple perspectives shine through the author’s original intent. I’m always curious what got cut, rewritten, or nuanced by an actor’s tone that alters that and how a good message may be twisted… OR how a sovereign storyteller can even squeeze some living water from a stone.
Oh, there were certainly swipes, and I’m sure some hands involved in the movie laud a pro-human “we don’t need gods – PERIOD” mentality. The other interesting thing is when a film is made by a community (screenwriter, director, actor interpreting the lines, test screenings) the message often gets layered facets or even muddied so that multiple perspectives shine through the author’s original intent. I’m always curious what got cut, rewritten, or nuanced by an actor’s tone that alters that and how a good message may be twisted… OR how a sovereign storyteller can even squeeze some living water from a stone.