"Decent" = Disappointment

Rating: 6/10 (4 April 2010)

To label a movie like this as being "not bad" is in itself an oxymoron. If you had to call it 'not bad' to cleverly avoid calling it 'not good', than the movie didn't live up to it's hype, and left you disappointed. You should instead think about it for a second and say 'Could I have spent my money on something better?' Sadly in my case the answer is yes. This movie had plenty tense action scenes and some awkwardly placed humor (which was hilarious) for me to call it decent but to be 100% honest, let me get to the point. Redbox it. If you've got money to blow, and you insist on seeing every popular title for yourself, than have at it! Make sure it's in 3D, and I hope you enjoy! But if you're on a tighter budget and would enjoy a more satisfying theater experience, save this title for the Redbox - rent it for a few nights, hell even let the dog get a hold of it and drag it under the couch, and return it a few days later. Whatever suits your fancy. But if you are on a tight budget, don't spend more than 5 dollars total on seeing Clash of the Titans. We spent 30 for two 3D tickets. Shamefully, this turned out to be a waste of money. I never check IMDb for fear of being misled but in this case I must say, the current rating of 6.8 is about right. Don't expect an epic phenomenon, the movie is simply Decent. Impressive CGI can sometimes glorify mediocre movies, so take that into account when reading some of the more Grand 10-star reviews. Movies like Avatar or Lord of the Rings (plenty others. dare I mention Titanic?) would have still been amazing movies even if made in 1990 with minimum use of CGI. But astonishingly realistic CGI is what takes them from 'Amazing' to 'EPIC'. Again, sadly this remake would flop horribly if it were made in 1990 with more basic CGI.