my love for the original definitely fueled my disdain for the remake, but even if that weren't the case, I doubt I would have stayed interested in this video-gamey narrative

Rating: 4/10 (4 April 2010)

Let me state right off the bat that the original 1981 movie "Clash of the Titans" is one of my all-time favorite movies. The last film by special effects pioneer Ray Harryhausen continues to linger in my heart with a particular level of fondness. As apprehensive as I am to remaking a classic, I must admit that I was really looking forward to this one because "Clash of the Titans" is one of the few great films of the past that could be effectively remade in more ways than just updating the special effects. However, once again, the filmmakers have fallen for the illusion that if they merely flood the screen with flashy special effects and offer 3-D glasses to make things seem to leap at the audience that it automatically qualifies as being worthy of the original. And if all you are looking for is flashy visuals, then you will be absorbed. If you are like me, however, and do no fall for that flimsy, simple-minded gimmick, then your interest will fade out very, very quickly. As technically smooth as it is, the remake of "Clash of the Titans" is regrettably just a forgettable bore.
The basic plot (not the expanded story) is similar to the original, detailing the life of Perseus: the son of Zeus who was given the task of rescuing the princess Andromeda from a vicious sea monster known as the Kraken. Perseus is played by Sam Worthington in another picture where he mostly just snares out dialogue and glowers at everything around him. Perseus encounters (I think) more creatures and menacing situations this time around, but this is a turn for the worse.
By pumping the movie full of visual effects, that unfortunately pushes out more time for the story. The original "Clash of the Titans" may not have had the greatest narrative ever told, but it was a solid, thorough plotted tale. This remake has a narrative that plays out not as a story. It has more in common with a video-game.
And that is the reason why I became very bored with this movie. It was not merely because it did not follow the original very well; it was just that it was only an objective game course on screen. Perseus is introduced to us very quickly (and in a jumbled manner that might confuse new audience members) and right away he is forced to wade his way through locations (or levels to go again to the video-game analogy), takes out that scene's (level's) baddies, and works his way to the ending. He has no relationships (not even primitive ones) with the other characters or the monsters, and his adversaries are even blander. They are only in the movie to appear, be killed, and be gone for the rest of the picture. There is also no motivation behind Perseus's daring odyssey. In the original movie, he was compelled to face Medusa and the Kraken to save Andromeda, whom he was in love with. He's not in love with Andromeda here; he hardly even knows her because her part in the picture, though plot-important, is really just a cameo. Maybe it's a little unfair to compare this to a video-game. Heck, I've played games that had better constructed plots and story lines and with better character development than this.
Worthington is miscast as Perseus (he still looks and acts like a cyborg here) but he does an adequate acting job. He just doesn't have the charisma that Harry Hamlin in the original. Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes (who had previously gazed with untrusting eyes at each other in Steven Spielberg's masterpiece "Schindler's List") are also featured as the rival gods Zeus and Hades and their performances are good, but they are even blander than the human characters. I like Mads Mikkelson, but he does not have to do on the movie except look menacing, which he does well. Perseus has a primitive semi-romantic attachment not to Andromeda, the damsel in distress, but a demigoddess played by Gemma Arterton. She's good too, but there's no character for her to work with. Not even in a primitive sense. It's just a video-game.
On a technical level, "Clash of the Titans" does a good job. The special effects, though not dazzling or nostalgic like Harryhausen's stop-motion animation from the original, is persuasive enough to be commendable. The picture has some good visuals, but that's hardly enough to fuel the whole picture. The creatures look good, but they are only there to be wiped out. There's not even an attempt to give them presence. The Kraken in the original did not look as convincing as the new one, but it had a personality and was a great villain. This new one is bland and one-dimensional; it also is just a cameo in this video-gamey story.
In short, this "Clash of the Titans" is not an unbearable movie, but is completely forgettable. It's been less than twenty-four hours since I saw it and already I've practically forgotten about it. I haven't forgotten its existence; just the merits of watching it, because there were none to begin with. The whole movie just a video-game. And it's the equivalent of watching *somebody else* play a video-game. How long does it take for you to get disinterested? So what's the most important difference between this and the original? Well, not the story or anything like that. The original picture is a classic and remains to this day a very popular extravaganza. This remake has only been out for a short while and within a year or so, nobody is going to remember it.
footnote: fans of the original movie, fear not, Bubo the lovable mechanical owl does make a cameo in this movie.