Film falls short despite star-studded cast, 3D
By James Hill III
I consider myself an eager promoter for the burgeoning 3D-film movement. I absolutely adored the likes of "Avatar" and "Alice in Wonderland" and firmly believe that 3D can be used to further immersion in any good film, not just action extravaganzas. With that said, "Clash of the Titans" is blatant proof that some things are better in 2D -- and that every aged, revered classic need not be remade.
Star Sam Worthington, playing Greek legend Perseus, seems to be Hollywood's current "it" action star, after headlining such big-ticket draws as "Terminator: Salvation" and the record-demolishing "Avatar." But, unlike other action heroes of years past, Worthington has shown no evidence that he can carry a film on personality alone. "Terminator" saw him secondary to Christian Bale, while everyone in "Avatar" was deferential to the effects. In "Titans," director Louis Leterrier (2008's "The Incredible Hulk") places him at center stage, with middling results.
"Titans" is, arguably, even more derivative than "Avatar" -- quite the accomplishment -- and far less entertaining. With plot points, acting and scenes stolen from "King Kong," "Harry Potter" and the abysmal "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen," all of which -- yes, even "Transformers" -- did it better. The main story and set pieces aren't very satisfying. Ralph Fiennes phones in his performance as Hades, and you can practically sense his boredom, seeing as he's already done this evil routine before and better as Lord Voldemort. Worthington is your standard badass action hero. Nothing to see here. Gemma Arterton -- last seen as Agent Strawberry Fields in "Quantum of Solace" -- is the pure, fearless Io, who flits in and out of the story for no apparent reason.
Even the usually reliable Liam Neeson -- who says the film's only truly awesome line: "Release the Kraken!" -- is painfully average as Zeus. The battles between Perseus and both Medusa and the aforementioned Kraken are both mildly entertaining, but neither last for much longer than the trailers we all first saw them in.
In fact, they fail to impress at such a level that halfway through the Medusa battle, I ended up entertaining myself by mockingly taking bets with sophomore Ryan Whitney as to how many of Perseus' comrades would die over the next five minutes.
And then there's the shoddy 3D. "Avatar," which is downright spectacular, was filmed the entire way through in 3D. "Alice" was filmed in 2D but Disney, with their seemingly-infinite resources, painstakingly transferred it to 3D sufficiently enough to improve on the overall experience.
Meanwhile, "Titans" was filmed in 2D and hastily converted because 3D was the hot new trend and because theaters can charge you a few more dollars for it. The haste shows. With 3D that is at times downright bad and other times just lackluster, there is no good reason this movie should have been released in such a visual effects state except to extract a little more money from all-too-willing customers.
As I was leaving the theater, I commented that "Clash of the Titans" wasn't a very good movie, but it at least fit the bill as a mindless action flick. But then I thought about it a bit more, and Ryan said "Well, it's not even that good of an action movie." That, sadly, is the whole truth about "Titans." If you still insist on seeing this film, at least don't subject yourself to the steep fees of 3D or IMAX. See it in 2D. That way, you'll have only wasted $10, instead of $15.
4.0/10
Contact James Hill III at jhill@scu.edu or at (408) 554-1918.