That's about the best way I've found to describe the 2010 remake of the 1982 adventure classic "Clash of the Titans." Emerson assures us that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." Whether that's true or not, any kind of consistency, even a foolish one, is necessary for art. Now "Clash of the Titans" doesn't bother to posture itself as high art; it's just plain pulp. However, even a thinly invented world created purely for the sake of entertainment needs some unifying "truth" to so that the audience can suspend disbelief. The lack of a unifying "truth" to the film is the one great weakness of this remake. "Clash of the Titans" can't decide what kind of world it's trying to immerse us in. Are the gods really damnable? Well we only meet two of them. Hades is definitely damnable, but Zeus comes off as more conflicted and weak than evil. Should men rely only on their own strength? Then why does Perseus need to use the gods' gifts to win? Is the way of things that the younger gods always overthrow the older, as the film's beginning implies? Then why doesn't Perseus overthrow the gods at the end? He even takes the bribe of getting Io back and then bustles off like a good little boy.
These things said, it's really the film's only real weakness given its objective: to re-make the 1982 "Clash of the Titans" with better special effects. It had great monsters, great sets, fun costumes, and non-stop action. I went to be mildly entertained and I got my $8.50 worth. I'm glad the old Greek legends, however marred by Hollywood, are being re-told again. In the end, it was pulp. Would a few more re-writes have raised it above the lowest-common-denominator-thrill-ride? Sure. Should they have striven for that given the original film that they were trying to remake? I guess it depends on whether you believe that movies should ever be made "just for fun." Or to restate that in a more sophisticated tone: "is low art necessarily bad art?"
Bottom line: Three stars out of five: see this if you're interested, but you're not missing anything big if you don't.
P.S.- If you're looking for a more faithful rendition of the Perseus myth, check out Jim Henson's "The Storyteller: The Greek Myths." Now there's a series I would love to see resurrected.
Comments
Which starts me wondering: how important is it for a film to have a consistent world view and if it fails on this count, how justified am I for trashing it? I've trashed movies for bad acting, bad story, bad message, bad character development, and bad production values, but is it right/honorable/appropriate for me to trash something based on its world view? Especially a movie like this that isn't trying to say anything profound about life, the universe, and everything but to tell a story that sufficiently strings together a bunch of action sequences.
As far as critiquing a film based on its worldview, when studying literature I've been told its important to always take a book on its own terms. You can't wrench it to be something its author never intended it to be and still give it a fair hearing. I don't see why that rule wouldn't apply to film.