The new 'Clash of the Titans' makes a poor case for 3-D and remakes.

Rating: 5/10 (2 April 2010)

Sam Worthington stars as Perseus, the half-human son of Zeus, in this 2010 remake of the 1981 classic, Clash of the Titans. In this version, Zeus is offended by man's lack of deference to them and, along with Hades (Ralph Feinnes), allows the Kraken to attack the city of Argos. The only way to satiate the Kraken's wrath is if princess Andromeda is sacrificed. Perseus and a band of warriors go in search of the head of Medusa which will defeat the Kraken, thus saving Andromeda.
Now, I grew up with the original and have loved its creature-creator Ray Harryhausen's work in the film and other classics he did. If anyone made a remake, the bar had already been set by the original. Well, I was disappointed when the remake's trailer came out (see my article). Sorry to say, I'm now equally disappointed with the remake itself (and I wasn't even expecting much).
The biggest problem with this movie is the 3-D, especially in light of the fact that the 3-D glasses have been the reason we've been paying more for films these days. Many scenes here looked concave (when they shouldn't) or like cardboard cut-outs, much like those children's pop-up books. Some scenes (in the beginning) gave me headaches (a problem I've never had before). A note to future 3-D filmmakers: Don't do short quick-cutsbut if you do, make sure they're less stereoscopic (or just make it 2-D in those scenes)—it's a strain on your eyes. I'm willing to bet that this aspect clouded my enjoyment of this film, which might've been okay otherwise.
Sam Worthington felt miscast as Perseus. A bit on the emotionally stiff side, it didn't help that his character was written like a two-dimensional character. Most of the time, he wasn't given much to do (or love) but fight, and well, his Australian accent just didn't sound Greek enough. The warriors that come along with him are generally cookie cutouts from other films. Liam Neeson does fine in the role of Zeus, even if he didn't get to do much—he manages to sound quite majestic. I loved Ralph Feinnes' version of Hades—it was original and he embodied a more subtle, lonely kind of menace. He was simply the best thing about this film. I'll add that I did like some of the sets and I felt the film's musical score helped give some drama in some scenes.
The story of this new version is loosely based on the original, which was loosely based on Greek mythology. It would've been better if they had went straight to the source, but...oh well (a laziness on the filmmakers' part). Some characters and story arcs have been omitted, familiar elements from other movies have been added in (eg. Gladiator, Hero), and this film is now pretty much an action film. One of the aspects I didn't like (and this isn't a spoiler since she appears only for a bit) is that Andromeda is now no longer Perseus' love interest—which pretty much means we don't care if she gets sacrificed on not (in fact, her sacrifice might've saved a lot of trouble and many dead soldiers). A pity, really, because Perseus is quite two-dimensional enough as it is, and could've used more motivation for his mission.
The creatures in this version are mostly CGI unlike the original's stop-motion, which was designed and hand-animated by auteur Ray Harryhausen. His creatures had personality and looked cool—the original's Medusa scene was freaky and atmospheric, and her beheading scene was gruesomely cool. In this version, many of the creatures felt generic, were overly CG-looking (where's the dirt?), and there was little tension, including the Medusa scene. Pegasus appears only briefly. There's no Bubo (except for two seconds). Kraken has a newer design now and a bigger sense of scale, but he wasn't particularly engaging as a monster, either.
Overall, as a remake, as a 3-D film, and for the possible potential for the material, this film is disappointing. As an action film, it's not bad, even though there's nothing new. There's a mixture of many sources, "dramatic speeches" we're familiar with, yet very little of the actual good parts were lifted from the original film. It doesn't help that it shares the same title, which would invite comparisons that would make this film seem much worse than it probably is. Had it been a film based or named after a video game—let's say God of War (Playstation)—I might've liked it more. The presentation is helped even less by the 3-D (which I've heard was added later in filming), which is a shame. I strongly suggest watching it in 2-D. Or, better yet, watch the original. Based on the overall experience, I give it * ½ out of **** stars.
For more of my article updates, you can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/d_art