Read Mixed User Reviews for Clash of the Titans (2010)

4

SamS.Apr 2, 2010

How does Metacritic work??? Roger Ebert gave the movie 3 stars (shows how good a critic he is...) and somehow metacritic turned this into a score of 73. Whoever is doing the math for you guys should be fired. I flunked my maths exam at How does Metacritic work??? Roger Ebert gave the movie 3 stars (shows how good a critic he is...) and somehow metacritic turned this into a score of 73. Whoever is doing the math for you guys should be fired. I flunked my maths exam at college and even I can work this one out!!!!!… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful

6

MattConSep 10, 2010

The new, so-called "up-dated", version of "The Clash of the Titans" does not go very in-depth and into very much detail about the vast universe of the subject matter it is attempting to tackle. I'm speaking, of course, about Greek MythologyThe new, so-called "up-dated", version of "The Clash of the Titans" does not go very in-depth and into very much detail about the vast universe of the subject matter it is attempting to tackle. I'm speaking, of course, about Greek Mythology and the tales surrounding the hero Perseus. The overall pace of the movie seems very rushed, as if the filmmakers were trying to squeeze as much of the storyline as possible into a picture meant solely as a summer blockbuster. The acting is terrible, aside from a few of the minor characters throughout the film. Sam Worthington's acting is about as good as it's going to get, which is completely stale and uninteresting. The scenes involving the slaying of Medusa were the only somewhat enjoyable moments of the entire film, to me anyway. I say somewhat because the computer-generated animation of Medusa was difficult to stomach, as it seemed too "cartoon-like" to be considered realistic in movement as well as appearance. If they had used a real actress to portray at least the upper-half of Medusa's body then I would have enjoyed the segment much more. Overall, this movie was a waste of my time. I give it a 6 out of 10.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

6

MovieLonely94Jun 11, 2011

Based on the 1981 movie of the same name, this remake tells the re-imagining of the Greek mythology and also tells the story about Perseus, who learns that he is the demigod of Zeus and the only one who can stop Hades from summoning theBased on the 1981 movie of the same name, this remake tells the re-imagining of the Greek mythology and also tells the story about Perseus, who learns that he is the demigod of Zeus and the only one who can stop Hades from summoning the Kraken that would wipe out the Titans and cause chaos to the world forever while being aided by Argos finest soldiers.

I am going to make my opinion to make this review pretty much shorter.

This remake isn't really bad, but its just wasn't groundbreaking. The CGI was good and sometimes the action scenes were a lot of fun, but the plot and characters were undeveloped and the storytelling was weak.

Clash of the Titans suffers from its thin plot and lack of character, but has great amount of action scenes and very cool-looking CGI effects.

6/10… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

4

ReviewCriticMar 20, 2012

Pretty good visual effects don't make up for it's cruddy story and writing.

5 of 7 users found this helpful52

All this user's reviews

5

HarbingerAug 14, 2010

COTT was underwhelming, and I expected more out of it. With such problems as one-note characters, some very dull dialogue, an anti-climatic plot, and an ending with no pay-off whatsoever, COTT cements its place for this year's biggestCOTT was underwhelming, and I expected more out of it. With such problems as one-note characters, some very dull dialogue, an anti-climatic plot, and an ending with no pay-off whatsoever, COTT cements its place for this year's biggest dissapointment. Thankfully, it features some enjoyable fight scenes, and of course, a great turn by Ralph Fiennes as Hades. Which by far, is easily the best thing about this film. I give it a 5/10.… Expand

3 of 6 users found this helpful33

All this user's reviews

4

grandpajoe6191Sep 25, 2011

The movie was so obvious, I just retreated to my house from the theaters.

4 of 9 users found this helpful45

All this user's reviews

6

ArkonBladeOct 27, 2010

a very shallow film that is action packed with some nice visuals . the original was better as it usaully goes with remakes . they basically trimmed out more story for more CGI. its a ok film but forgettable .

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

MetalMan95Oct 30, 2010

This movie has really entertaining action, really good CGI, and somewhat good lines. The acting is meh, Sam Worthington and Liam Neeson definitely stand out. And the ending, with the kraken, It was good, but way too short. It took maybe 5This movie has really entertaining action, really good CGI, and somewhat good lines. The acting is meh, Sam Worthington and Liam Neeson definitely stand out. And the ending, with the kraken, It was good, but way too short. It took maybe 5 minutes to rise from the depths of the ocean, and 3 minutes to die. But it's an entertaining movie.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

TonyOct 15, 2010

The tone of the film is inconsistent and bothersome. At times it takes itself far too seriously, and then the next scene will have over-the-top scenery chewing. Thankfully I saw it in 2D because everyone I know who saw it in 3D said it wasThe tone of the film is inconsistent and bothersome. At times it takes itself far too seriously, and then the next scene will have over-the-top scenery chewing. Thankfully I saw it in 2D because everyone I know who saw it in 3D said it was unwatchable. And I'm not really on board the Sam Worthington train having not been terribly impressed with his performance here or in "Avatar."… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

roddersj04Dec 29, 2010

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Alright, I haven't seen the original, so I can't compare the two versions, but heres my review It wasn't that good Things are a bit rushed throughout. We see Perseus with his family for barely 5 minutes and then they're dead. Pegasus appears only twice: once to introduce him and the second for Perseus to ride him. Theres no bond signifyed between the two, so we can't believe in their companionship like we would Ash and Pikachu Gemma Artertons character is basically summed up as "Appear, dispense wisdom, dissapeer, repeat above until tedioum sets in, make googley eyes with Sam Worthington, flee from scorpions, die, resurrection" and shes Perseus' love interest. Andromeda shared less scenes with Perseus, and I felt more of a connection between their characters. And Andromeda and Perseus are meant to be together! Ignoring that is like having Guenivere go with Merlin instead of King Arthur. The Djinn. Unimpressive. They were cool characters, but seriously, they reminded me of Seamus from Family Guy. They were tree men! Scorpions. Pretty cool, and I liked the Djinn riding them and the two guys fashioning a scorpion shield for Perseus. Medusa. I liked how her snake physicallities extended from just her hair to her being part snake. But thats all I liked about her, really. The rest, her firing arrows, toying with prey, just meh for me. The Kraken! Talk about unimpressive. I watched an episode of Better Off Ted the day before, where they named a piece of meat they were growing Blobby. When I saw the Kraken, the name Blobby just stuck in my mind. Zeus' armour. Seriously? Sparkly like Edward Cullen? Boo! Ralph Fiennes is brilliant as always, as the evil Hades (thats who he was, right?) but the black tornado look when he first appears in Argos is crap The robot owl was a nice throwaway gag. The guy who convinced citizens of Argos to sacrifice Andromeda, he gets my award for "Biggest **** of the film" simply for being annoying and having the ugliest look since, well, ugly All in all, Good in places, but the bad points outweigh the good.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

rotkuJul 3, 2011

Big budget fantasy adventure let down by a poor script, poor acting and a waste of the talents of Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes. Will appeal to anybody who like the action thick and CGI heavy but it's predictable nonsense that get monotonousBig budget fantasy adventure let down by a poor script, poor acting and a waste of the talents of Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes. Will appeal to anybody who like the action thick and CGI heavy but it's predictable nonsense that get monotonous about half way through, prepare for the inevitable sequel.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

davenbettridgeDec 18, 2011

There is so much potential in Greek mythology for a great movie but this is boring and the action lame. I never cared for any of the characters or events in this film and ended up rolling my eyes through most of the drama. Sam Worthington isThere is so much potential in Greek mythology for a great movie but this is boring and the action lame. I never cared for any of the characters or events in this film and ended up rolling my eyes through most of the drama. Sam Worthington is only one step above a horrible actor. Clash of the Titans is disappointing and a missed opportunity.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

CRLAug 14, 2011

This is what happens when a film depends too much on CGI. Mediocre acting, a mediocre plot, and too many deviations from the actual mythology makes Clash of the Titans and utterly underwhelming hour and a half.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

KivaJun 11, 2013

The action was good and it had good plot. Much better than the sequel. it was enjoyable. I liked it i can say

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

kyle20ellisMar 29, 2022

Despite its flaws(the uneven acting and the episodic storybook-like structure) I really like the original Clash of the Titans, especially for the set design and the Harryhousen effects. In short, it is flawed but good nostalgic fun. This 2010Despite its flaws(the uneven acting and the episodic storybook-like structure) I really like the original Clash of the Titans, especially for the set design and the Harryhousen effects. In short, it is flawed but good nostalgic fun. This 2010 remake is very well done in the costume and set design and some of the effects are truly incredible, but emotionally it is ultimately hollow.

While I do agree the effects were incredible, especially the Kraken, some of the scenes could have been better done. In particular with the gorgon Medussa. A scene that terrified me when I was little in the original and still does to some extent, but as has been pointed out once or twice before there was more emphasis on too much action not enough suspense which diminished that scene's appeal in this.

The music comes across as rather generic. It strived to be rousing, energetic and bombastic, something you would find with Erich Korngold and Bernard Hermann, but sadly it came across as generic and boring. Pacing was an issue as well, it was very uneven here. It felt as though the not-so-important scenes dragged and the important bits felt rushed and skimmed over. The direction was disappointingly lethargic too.

My main complaints though are with the acting, story and script. As I have said, the story and acting weren't the strongest points of the original, but both elements had their moments. However, the story has a very uneven structure, it is quite episodic, but it is also rather unexciting. On the whole the dialogue is awful and very banal, and there were some scenes where it came across as cheesy or forced. The acting wasn't much to go on either. Sam Worthington was merely alright, he has the heroism and charm, but then there is the accent that comes and goes and I got the sense that the delivery of some of the lines and the action sequences didn't come naturally to him. I was more disappointed in the bigger names. Ralph Fiennes doesn't seem to have a clue what he is doing here, and Liam Neeson looks lost and embarrassed. Gemma Arterton can be good(BBC's Tess of the D'Urbevilles) but while she is very pretty, her character is rather vapid.

Overall, it had its moments, but it was unengaging and disappointing. 4/10 for the production values. Bethany Cox… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

MikhailRApr 2, 2010

Excellent source material, but it still didn't deliver. The only reason I saw this was to see Liam Neeson be his awesome self, yet he was barely in the movie. In the end it inspired me to hurry up and beat God of War 2 so I can play God Excellent source material, but it still didn't deliver. The only reason I saw this was to see Liam Neeson be his awesome self, yet he was barely in the movie. In the end it inspired me to hurry up and beat God of War 2 so I can play God of War 3. On a side note I would have much perfered 1hr55min of Liam Neeson breathing and repeating "Release the Krackin".… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

DonnieBApr 3, 2010

My favorite movie critic, Confused Matthew, once said, "A movie does not have to be good in order for you to like it." That is how I felt about this movie. I enjoyed watching this movie, but it was not good. First of all, our protagonist, My favorite movie critic, Confused Matthew, once said, "A movie does not have to be good in order for you to like it." That is how I felt about this movie. I enjoyed watching this movie, but it was not good. First of all, our protagonist, Placebo (ok Perceus, but he's so bland and useless, he may as well be a placebo) was a sorry excuse for a protagonist. He had no personality and no likeable traits that make the movie watcher like it. The character Lo, the leading lady, did a terrible acting job and everything about her character screamed "plot conveinence". She only spoke to explain the plot. The gods were lifeless and bland. The soldiers did a really good job and I really liked them. However, they only got 5 seconds of screen time and were either killed or disappeared from the story. The bright side was the graphics, the different gods and creatures looked phenominal, but again all good things in this movie only last 5 seconds. It was entertaining, but not good. It looks like they will try to make a sequel, but there's no reason to look foward to it!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

SamLedApr 3, 2010

The acting in this movie was good. The action was pretty cool. Thats about it. The story was dull, in my opinion, it could have had more kick to it, either be a little more original, or have some different circumstances. But nonetheless, the The acting in this movie was good. The action was pretty cool. Thats about it. The story was dull, in my opinion, it could have had more kick to it, either be a little more original, or have some different circumstances. But nonetheless, the film overall wasn't particularly bad. But wasn't that good either. If you haven't seen this movie, have it as a last resort to the movies you want to see.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

RobWApr 3, 2010

Not what I had hoped. This movie was not the 3d specticle that I thought it would be. I like the original much better.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

elij.Apr 5, 2010

Louis Leterrier could have made this movie decent if he would have improved the main character and the dialogue. oh well, at least we still have the last great Greek mythology remake to look forward too, Jason and the Argonauts. Trust me its Louis Leterrier could have made this movie decent if he would have improved the main character and the dialogue. oh well, at least we still have the last great Greek mythology remake to look forward too, Jason and the Argonauts. Trust me its gonna happen, and if they completely ruin that one like they did this one, i will be disappointed.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

NeilBApr 5, 2010

Not very good. They changed the story to match Disney's Hercules.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

DevonCApr 7, 2010

As a Big-Budget popcorn blockbuster, the 3D will attract audiences everywhere in North America. But as an epic of Greek mythology. The movie fails in the eyes of the director, writers, producers, special effects artists, and especially As a Big-Budget popcorn blockbuster, the 3D will attract audiences everywhere in North America. But as an epic of Greek mythology. The movie fails in the eyes of the director, writers, producers, special effects artists, and especially cinematographers. This movie is complete at being enjoyable, but is filmmaking at it's worst. Thank god the 3D only lasted less than 2 hours.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

ChadSApr 7, 2010

Dressed in a shiny white tunic, Liam Neeson looks like he'd rather be starring in Robert Greenwald's "Xanadu", but rollerskating isn't an Olympian sport. It's hard to be omnipotent when you're a fashion victim. Dressed in a shiny white tunic, Liam Neeson looks like he'd rather be starring in Robert Greenwald's "Xanadu", but rollerskating isn't an Olympian sport. It's hard to be omnipotent when you're a fashion victim. Laurence Olivier, on the other hand, wore a more befitting tunic(basically, a toga) in the original "Clash of the Titans". He was a God's God. His Zeus wouldn't be caught dead wearing something so gawdy(gawd-y). One look at Zeus, and it's no wonder that Hades(played by Ralph Fiennes, who has enough self-defeating hair outgrowths to be a "Battlefield Earth" extra) thinks he can outsmart his brother. When the Greek people of Argos declare war on the gods, Zeus should handle the insurrection by himself. He's the "Father of Gods and men", after all. Why is he taking advice from Hades? Olivier's Zeus was a badass, a wrathful deity who didn't need the god of the underworld to do his bidding. If you're backtracking to the 1981 Desmond Davis-directed flick, Zeus' expedient, wholly irrational need for vengeance is downright jarring next to the current old(old, old, old, old...) softie interpretation of the all-mighty posed by Neeson, who only accedes to Hades' machinations as a last resort. Like "Percy Jackson & the Lightning Thief", the filmmaker contemporizes Zeus. The concerned father doesn't give Persius(Sam Worthington) the keys to the car(chariot), but he does give his son some spending money(a gold coin in order to bribe the ferryman) for his big night out at the bog. While the new "Clash of the Titans" improves on the listless narrative of the original, it's less bold in the sense that it uses a reductionist approach to Greek mythology. Hades is an absolutely extraneous character, but morally ambiguous gods(e.g. Maggie Smith's Thetis) wouldn't sit well with a studio-sanctioned focus group. In the original, the Kraken belongs to Poseidon. If anything, Hades exists, perhaps, for the sole purpose of being a dangerous pet owner.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

DamianBApr 7, 2010

I was very much looking forward to watching this film, having been a fan of the original. Unfortunately although the visual and action sequences were excellent, I felt the passion and emotion of the film didn

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

DavidP.Apr 9, 2010

Well, I liked it. Some of the effects actually gave me the chub. The battle with Medusa only gave me a sconge however, so that was slightly disappointing. Worth seeing in 3D if only for the part where you can clearly see Liam Neeson's Well, I liked it. Some of the effects actually gave me the chub. The battle with Medusa only gave me a sconge however, so that was slightly disappointing. Worth seeing in 3D if only for the part where you can clearly see Liam Neeson's heat seeking love missile. If Gemma Arterton got a bit more flesh-generous, two things would have happened - my tally-whacker would have perked right up and I would have scored this as a 7 instead of a 6. Let that be a lesson to all of us.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

BillyBApr 10, 2010

the actors did their best, but it all came down to the story, it was just ridiculous. i feel i could of wrote a better script then that.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

JoradTApr 18, 2010

Definition of mediocrity. This film was really dull. Never do I fall asleep in films but this almost made me fall asleep. None of the characters were at all interesting (were the exception of the two hunters who barely had much screen time), Definition of mediocrity. This film was really dull. Never do I fall asleep in films but this almost made me fall asleep. None of the characters were at all interesting (were the exception of the two hunters who barely had much screen time), and almost all the scenes were dull, even the action scenes. The gods seemed like wimps and the last battle between the kraken was a big disappointment. One final point is that if you do go see this film do not, and I repeat DO NOT, watch it in 3D. There is literally NONE in the film. Biggest waste of 3D ever.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

ChrisGApr 4, 2010

You will hate this if: You can't stand bad acting, don't like huge somewhat confusing action scenes, or want to see an accurate protrayal of the greek stories. If you can keep from thinking to much about what's wrong with it, You will hate this if: You can't stand bad acting, don't like huge somewhat confusing action scenes, or want to see an accurate protrayal of the greek stories. If you can keep from thinking to much about what's wrong with it, it can be entertaining.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

PhilVApr 4, 2010

I gave this a 6 because i was entertained by some of the action but like a lot of movies lately i did not connect emotionally to any of the characters and the story just fell short. I liked the story much better in the original and was I gave this a 6 because i was entertained by some of the action but like a lot of movies lately i did not connect emotionally to any of the characters and the story just fell short. I liked the story much better in the original and was really looking forward to this with the updated visuals. They only really showed 2 of the gods in this one but they were well done by Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes but i enjoyed the different interactions all the gods had with each other in the first Clash. I also liked when Perseus was in love with Andromeda in the first one and that her queen mother said she was more beautiful than the god they prayed to instead of the humans waging war on the gods and they had hades instead of posseidon (trying to please the god of war crowd i suspect, which i am one and god of war is way better than this movie by the way), Also Kalabos and Pegasus were much better integrated in the story in the first one. If you haven't seen it do so and you'll agree thought the special effects are laughable. The special effects were very good and the sets were good in the new one but very dissapointed in the story. The Last Airbender i believe will deliver the story i am looking for because its being done by a director who believes in telling a good story. If that one dissapoints I am going to shed a tear for the lost art of good storytelling in a summer blockbuster type movie.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

JimWApr 7, 2010

A decent action film, nothing special. Poor script-writing, great CGI, weak and predicable story. Neelson and Fiennes are great as the gods but are the rare shining light in this mostly dull film. Some moments such as the kraken fight and A decent action film, nothing special. Poor script-writing, great CGI, weak and predicable story. Neelson and Fiennes are great as the gods but are the rare shining light in this mostly dull film. Some moments such as the kraken fight and medusa chase brighten it up but mostly this is a fairly weak film. Only worth seeing if you REALLY like CGI filled action films. No where near as good as the trailer suggests.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

RyanDApr 8, 2010

The film was okay. Nothing special and quite a boring plot. Most the film was watching the main characters travelling from one place to another, which made it quite tedious, especially when the the majority of acting was very bad. However, The film was okay. Nothing special and quite a boring plot. Most the film was watching the main characters travelling from one place to another, which made it quite tedious, especially when the the majority of acting was very bad. However, there was some parts of good action, very good animations and quite nice visually. Nothing compared to Avatar though.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

JamesH.Apr 14, 2010

This movie isn't as good as the campy and fun 1981 version. It is completely humorless. It does have some good CGI, however, and that held my interest. The story doesn't follow the 1981 version - there are desert creatures that This movie isn't as good as the campy and fun 1981 version. It is completely humorless. It does have some good CGI, however, and that held my interest. The story doesn't follow the 1981 version - there are desert creatures that play a big role here not in the original, the scorpions are not created the same way, he falls in love with a different woman, etc etc. I've also seen many 3D films the last 2 years and this is the worse of them all. Some images are doubled, and some images of people's heads look like there is a growth on the back of the head. They obviously added the 3D after the movie was shot to capitalize on the 3D craze.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

ScrambledPixelApr 15, 2010

For all of its CGI wizardry, its kinetic action sequences and its retrofitted 3D, there is no masking the fact that Clash Of The Titans is a pretty flat film. A remake of the campy 1981 original, the film takes itself much too seriously and, For all of its CGI wizardry, its kinetic action sequences and its retrofitted 3D, there is no masking the fact that Clash Of The Titans is a pretty flat film. A remake of the campy 1981 original, the film takes itself much too seriously and, failing to see the absurdity of its hyper macho subject matter, is all the more amusing as a result. Clash Of The Titans opens with the camera drifting through the cosmos. The stars are forming diagrammatic constellations while an accompanying voice over delivers a patronisingly basic overview of Greek mythology. This introduction inadvertently sets the tone of the film in two distinct ways. Firstly the sequence is entirely CGI but makes no noticeable use of 3D, a foreshadowing of the disappointing implementation of the technology throughout the rest of the film. Secondly, the history lesson style of the prelude underestimates its audience dramatically, a condescending direction that again, is continued throughout the film. Even more clumsily plotted than the original, Clash Of The Titans focuses on Demigod Perseus (Worthington) as he seeks revenge against Hades (Fiennes) for the murder of his adopted family. His revenge is placed against a backdrop of war and anarchy, with the Greeks warring against the Gods. While this premise is an interesting one, the characters are so one dimensional, their motivations so artificial and their dialogue so forgettable that the film quickly boils down to: fighting, walking, fighting, walking, repeat ad nauseum. In the middle of the film the tangled plot lines becomes so contrived and clichéd that the writers simply kill off 80% of the characters to avoid writing a decent conclusion to their journeys, it… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

BrentPApr 18, 2010

"Clash of the Titans" fails on many levels. There is virtually no real character development that leads viewers to feel for Perseus and root for his success. The 3-D is fabricated and should have been left in the 2-D version. The excitement "Clash of the Titans" fails on many levels. There is virtually no real character development that leads viewers to feel for Perseus and root for his success. The 3-D is fabricated and should have been left in the 2-D version. The excitement is drained out of the film because of an over emphasis on special effect sequences and little attention to human experience. The highlight of the film is in the trailer. "Release to Kraken!" is the only reason for seeing this film. Of course, Liam Neeson could say anything and we'd all take him serious.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

KundKAug 27, 2010

Unfortunately, this was a waste of money and talent (where applicable). In the olden times they had stories but no way to put the spectacle on the screen. Now, when the imagination is the only limit, they cannot make a coherent story evenUnfortunately, this was a waste of money and talent (where applicable). In the olden times they had stories but no way to put the spectacle on the screen. Now, when the imagination is the only limit, they cannot make a coherent story even based on the Greek mythology - the treasure trove of some of the greatest stories in the history of mankind. It is best to ignore this mess and watch the original in all it's cheesy glory and than rent the other Harryhausen masterworks. Compared with this, Prince of Persia was deep, complex and three-dimensional.… Expand