Clash of the Titans 5/10
As we all know this is a remake of the original film of the same name. When that's the case, comparisons are always made. So first and foremost the question that comes to mind is does this film hold a candle to the original, was it done well enough that it's existence is warranted? The answer? Sorry, I don't have one just yet. We'll have to figure this out together. What I do know, is that there's something wrong with this film that's preventing it from being what it could be.
Despite the rumblings of negative initial reviews, I went into this one wanting all the original had to offer, (because really, if you watch the original with a critic's eye, it's got a lot of it's own flaws and plot holes, taking it's own liberties with the mythology it was based off of.) I was looking for an enjoyable time. The problem here is that even though I went into it without the negative baggage, I still went into it biased. I wanted to like this movie. But the difference here is the original piece has a few qualities the modern one does not: a sense of mysticism, charm, an epic other timely feel, and people who stand by what they believe. Without these pieces of the puzzle this film feel soulless, and in the end we don't care about what's happening because we don't care about the people.
Several points of confusion: What do the gods want? What do the people want? I know the gods need the prayers of the people to remain powerful, and I know the people want to either a) survive or b) be god-free. The problem is, the writer spends the entire time telling this to us, by repeated bashing us over the head with myriad exposure to the phrase "I do this as a man" from Perseus, or Zeus or Hades uttering they need the prayers to remain strong. What the writer and the actors don't do is reveal to us through their actions this is what they feel, or explore variety using other dialogue the conflicts within the characters themselves. In fact they all come across as so wishy-washy that there are several points of self-contradicting actions. Why do the gods help Perseus defy them? Why is Perseus told to accept the gifts from the gods when they are on a mission to defy the gods? And why are the other men in such disbelief when Perseus does not want to use these items for that reason? I never really got a sense for why any of these things were the way the were. There's no cohesiveness at all to the characters or the plot, and due to poor writing you either don't know why they do what they do (there aren't any motives revealed) or you are only TOLD a very basic why they're doing what they're doing. There's no depth. In this film, and I know in old mythology it usually is the case, but this makes him uninteresting, Zeus is a kitten and shows no real care for the humans what so ever, even though he's been stated as having loved man too much, but for some reason he cares about Perseus, his son. I understand this should be a simple fill in the blank conjecture: he's his son, that's why he cares. But none of his other actions within the film show that this is a possibility, that he can care for anyone other than himself. He's just an outright kitten. There's an instance in the film during the exploration of the Calibos origin, where Zeus goes to Earth and sleeps with Calibos' wife, impregnating her because Calibos waged a war against the gods. ... Seriously, you are a god who wields lightning like a javelin and the best you can come up with for revenge is something petty like knocking up his wife? So not only is he a kitten, but he's petty too. Where as in the original, he is hesitant about his decisions to attack humans and it is only because of the politics of 'the gods' that he ultimately decides to do what he does, and he is shown, in the original, genuinely concerned for Perseus numerous times, asking the aid of other gods in private for tools they can give Perseus to succeed.
Also, there's no sense of urgency in between the action scenes. It really feels like they're just clipping along, hitting all their spots and that's that. Not once do I feel like the characters feel there's any importance to what their doing. Perseus, not once does anything for anybody other than himself. He's not on this mission for the one he loves, like in the original, but for revenge. And I know there are great films built around revenge like "Oldboy" and "Batman Begins" but in those films the characters are passionately seeking revenge, in this one Perseus just gets upset about Hades killing his parents and then says he's not a demi-god, then says "If I do this, I do it as a man." <Death> Seriously, this seems to happen in between every fight seen. And here in I think I discovered a cause for disconnect: Sam Worthington. I hear he's a nice guy, but honestly he's truly a case of 'the right look, but just not right for the role.' I want to like him, and he looks the part, but he just never really has me believing anything he does. He really really mugs his emotions. I know there's the whole argument that if you simply look a certain feeling on camera the audience will project whatever they think you're feeling onto you. That might be true but it can't feel forced or needs to feel natural, and there needs to be variety to help create a sense of depth. Just because we believe the first reaction doesn't mean we'll believe that same reaction every time. Mr. Worthington just hasn't shown me he has variety or depth yet.
Another problem the film has is that thematically, it's a mess. What do you take away from this film? Fate is not certain? Humans create their own fate? Humans don't need the gods? None of the above holds true do to the actions of the characters and the story. Fate is not certain: but Perseus is told he was born to do a certain thing in the film. And he does just that. Scratch that one. Humans create their own fate: Okay, so he's told he dies but doesn't. Okay, but then he still does what he's fated to do. So that one is half wrong half right, meaning it's pointless. Humans don't need gods: But he needs the gifts of the gods to succeed. So that one's gone too. Essentially you walk away with no morale or theme, no message, everything you watched was unimportant. I know there are movies that people enjoy with no theme or morale compass to learn of, but none of those movies literally present a morale in the film and then contradicts it, or they're so bad they're funny. This one is not the later.
The ultimate problem is that this movie relies heavily on audiences having seen the original and simply hitting all the marks of the original, essentially going "See, look at all the things that look better now that we've got this technology." And it really does this without making the film anything special that stands out from the original, other than the special effects. When that's the case, it may have well not been made at all. Look at the first Star Wars re-release with added footage. One phrase: CGI Jabba.
Some minor things, Why did the creative team feel the need to add the Jin? I don't remember those being in the original. It adds nothing to the movie other than being a cheap quick get-out-of-jail- free card for our hero, immediately eliminating any tension possible when there's a danger to him like when they are faced with the giant scorpions, when our hero is poisoned, and when they need transportation. All those problems are solved by this character. When you add something to a film that really doesn't add anything to the story or character depth, there's no point in having it in the first place.
I heard a lot of the problems people had with the film is the decision to show it mostly in 3-D, and while I do have a problem with that aspect of the film, I more-so simply have a problem with 3-D in general. But that's a different discussion.
There are things I did like. Gemma Arterton for one, not really for her portrayal of Io, a fellow demi-god who never appears in the original story, I've just got a crush on her. You can see her again in a similar role, in a movie similar in style, in 'Prince of Persia: Sands of Time.' The design of the world and creatures are nice. But two things I think they should've done: Not shown the Kraken in the trailers. Everyone who's seen the original would've flocked to see this movie for a chance to see what it looked like. I know for marketing reasons they probably wanted to entice newcomers which may have also had an adverse effect since it's only in the movie for like 5 minutes. Probably getting a "that's it" response from the newbs. It would've gotten buzz simply from word of mouth from the people who have seen it. They also should've have shown the entire upper body of the Kraken in one shot, not just sections. I mean what we saw was an awesome design, and it's not a case of hiding it to enhance the atmosphere of the situation. In this case showing the awesome entirety of the creature would've been more effective, and would not have taken away from the colossalness of the creature. If anything seeing it's full stature vs the city would've improved that feeling of 'holy crap!'
Going into this film there was a hope of seeing a great action movie with awesome fantasy aspects and larger than life epic characters. What is shown is a by the marks re-hash of the original with a few added elements, very few of which add anything that defines this film and makes it stand on it's own two feet. In the end it's nothing more than a Clash of the Titans re-release with added CGI bonuses, making it's creation wholly unneeded, and in this case, unwanted.
Kick Ass 8/10
I haven't read the comics so I'll be reviewing this without that part of the puzzle. The movie is a kind-of spoof of the super hero genre. And the unrelenting real world that exists in this movie that wasn't in other super hero movies wasn't as harsh as hype made it out to be. With that being said, I did enjoy the movie, the characters, the action, the humor, and appreciated the story. I loved the fact that this was rated R. Comics that would be rated R as films should stay rated R as a film, otherwise it loses part of it's potency. Initially I said this film was a kind-of spoof on super hero movies. That's because despite it's initial promises as a film to show us what would really happen if there were heroes in situation, it soon conforms to a conventional super hero ending, where the villain gets his just desserts, don't get me wrong I love catharsis, but it feels like it copped out. But I loved everything else, it delivers on everything else it promises.
the AnitChrist 8/10
A brutal deconstruction of nature, human nature, and the nature of sex. Don't watch this movie if you're squeamish or conservative about sex.
Daybreakers 8/10
An interesting premise. A world taken over by vampires, where humans are the minoriy and are now cattle. I love the world they created, everything from small touches like blood coffee to cars decked out for day time travel. The story is simple enough. Obviously in a world where no one dies and no one, for some reason is not breeding humans, the blood supply would run low. In fact we enter at a point where the blood supply will run out within a month. Of course they've seen this coming but instead of breeding humans they are trying to find a blood substitute. Interestingly what they find instead is a cure. And interestingly vampires are somewhat like pigs. Where if they're left without something for awhile, in this case blood, they become feral turning into the winged monsters we've come to expect.Decent story, interesting world, recommended. And although I would've further loved to explore or know more about the world, it doesn't detract from the story
Legion 4/10
When a movie starts off with a narrative that ends with God 'being tired of all the bullsh*t,' you think that either A) going to laugh your @ss off or B) you're in for a sour time. Luckily its not B) but unfortunately it's not A) either. Basic premise: God doesn't believe in people anymore and he's going to kill them all... slowly with angel possessed human zombies. There's a key to humanities' salvation and that's the birth of a baby, one that needs to be taught by it's mother to lead. Kind of sounds like Terminator, nay? Essentially, but with Angels instead of machines, a main female protagonist who has no redeeming features until the last minute of the film destroying any credibility within that last minute, and a maybe? present theme about faith. This film essentially is the equivalent of a shoulder shrug.
Defendor 7/10
This movie created it's own problem when it revealed it's release around the same time Kick Ass did the same thing, which really didn't help it. Especially because it has a very similar basic plot and especially-especially because people are very put off by movies that try or seem to try to capitalize on the fact that a main stream studio movie is coming out with the same ideas and/ or characters. And this is bad, because Defendor does stand on it's own and is a good movie. Where as the protagonist in Kick Ass is a teenager whom wants to make a difference, the main character in Defendor is an adult with a below average IQ, who believes he is making a difference. I know, you hear the premise and you cringe, and that truly is the initial reaction I had because it's a touchy subject, mental retardation is. But it raises a good point that adds to it's main theme, about a normal person being able to make a difference. And this piece has a very strong ensemble too. Woody Harrelson does well to not go 'full-retard' as coined in Tropic Thunder. It's good. I'd say see it along with Kick Ass.
Edited by chouzu_tao, 14 May 2010 - 04:26 AM.
