I saw this in 3D at the weekend. There may have been an enjoyable film here trying to get out but the poor 3D was just too distracting. I wanted to see this in 2D but my local cinema didn't have a 2D copy.

Yawn, Yawn. The 3-D debate again!



If anyone wanted a demonstration why the good Dr didn't get the Film 2010 gig.



Q.E.D.

On the 3D debate, I saw this movie short before a film I saw yesterday which I think satirises the whole thing wonderfully. It's one of the Virgin media shorts things:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/filmnetwork/films/p006szd6

I have yet to see a scary CGI monster. The old stop motion Harryhausen models were creepy BECAUSE they were stop motion, it gave them an unnatural air and movement. I still think the huge statue "Talos" is very creepy to this day.

Also they were solid looking, being real models and all.

LoTR trilogy is one of the few films which used CGI to illustrate a point rather than make it the point.

Yes, "Talos" is absolutely the scariest Harryhausen creation in my book. Stunning use of sound too. Modern directors beloved of tedious fast-cutting 'techniques' could well learn a few lessons studying this 10 minute sequence.

A technical thing, I listen to the Kermode&Mayo podcast, and it's really irritating that there are a lot of jokes and material intended for the live web stream and don't work on radio. Can't you just put out a video podcast instead of an audio one?

Its amazing the amount of times I hear Kermode reaffering back to a various Gremlins film.

When a film gets no advance reviews you know it's going to stink.

I've never heard anyone say "remake something" so fast!!!

Yes when I discovered it was retro-fitted "2.5D" then i've decided to boycott the "2.5D" release and seek a flatter plane of existence. Other than that; one of my fondest childhood cinema memories was going to see "Clash of the Titans" in 2D (actually 3D as you have up/down, left/right and time).

Best rant of the year so far :D

A movie. Filmed 'in flat'. In one plane. With no depth. Would that be any Richard Curtis movie?

I too avoided 2.5D and watched at the multiplex in 2D this evening. I found it hard to believe that 3D was not considered during filming as it felt more like a 3D film with the 3D removed > in focus foreground out of focus background, needless swingyatthecamera shots, the whole film looked bereft of color and looked washed out



The film itself has no redeeming features and makes little sense with no characterisation at all, I couldnt care less that the princess was being fed to the Krakon as she was only in the movie for 90 secs in the previous 1hr45mins, why should Perseous give a hoot either....good old Zeus playing father / son moment after he effectively raped Perseous mother was forgotten. It was 2hrs of poorly linked CGI episodes with Ham Worhtington playing Gladiator



To round things off saw a trailor for the new Robin Hood, its like of all the stories is ANOTHER robin hood story needed. I wonder what happens in that story.......

Peter Jackson loves the original 1933 version of King Kong, so by the Doc's rationale, his 2005 take (gotta love that Kong vs. V-Rex family scene) has no reason to exist. Provided one ignores its infinitely better SFX and acting, I guess he's right...

..and yet they were still having to turn people away from the box office at the Stratford picture house because "Clash" had sold all tickets for all performances that day but the screen I saw "Kick-Ass" in was barely half full.

I despair.

Plodding, bland, soporific and unintentionally funny rubbish. There's no drive to the story, really and it's a bad retread of events from the original film.



I can't even say 'well at least the action scenes were good' cause they weren't. They were routine and dull. The camera keeps panning back and forth akin to Michael Bay's directing.



Who knew a war among Greek gods could be so lackluster?



I'd advise people to see Kick-Ass and/or How to Train Your Dragon. I occasionally go to Stratford Picture House, but never to see a blockbuster (as it's too far to travel when there's a multiplex nearby that's decent enough).

re Remakes: what do you think of remaking Marnie (I wish someone would)?

So pleased to hear your words on remakes - I've been saying that for years. Why remake a good film when there's plenty of shite to play with.

Having just been to this film, and considering I have never posted a comment on any web forum before in my life, I feel absolutely compelled to say a few words on how truly atrocious this film is. It's a genuine 0 out of 10. Being quite emotionally charged with rage I haven't really read any of the other comments but if the general consensus isn't how bad this film on every level I'll be amazed, as there surely isn't anything else to discuss. To avoid this being just another unproductive rant, we might picture the studio meeting after the final cut, which would have undoubtedly gone as follows:



'right.... well... this is a terrible cut. the dialogue fails to get past embarrassing attempts at pithy (or epic/heroic/emotively tragic) declarations. we've failed to construct ANY depth of character across the board, even having splashed out on neeson and fiennes. luckily we drafted in worthington to bring in the avatar faithful, shame we might have just ruined his budding career by making him the most one dimensional protagonists that the flailing 'sword and sandal' genre has ever seen, not to mention dressing him like a mythical action man in what immediately strikes even the most cretinous of audiences as horrifically misguided, lazy and budget wardrobing. it's not all bad, though, because the two completely unknown females we clearly banked on being aesthetic rather than dramatic merits have succeeded. great shame then that neither offer the kind of romantic or seductive atmosphere that is so quintessential to the role of mythical heroine, because our lifeless script has no room for it. how didn't all the things we stole from lord of the rings come good anyway? i don't get it. the select group of 'unlikely' and brave men were supposed to gradually arouse a real sense of camaraderie and 'warrior-turn-comedian' banter in the face of its supernatural and dehumanized adversaries. instead they are all completely superficial stock idots who all die within 3 minutes of each other in the medusa scene... wasn't one of them the boy who was in 'about a boy'? who cast him as a young valiant? and how come 'the underworld' didn't look as atmospheric and haunting as mordor??? i don't get why this film doesn't work... it was supposed to be troy meets lord of the rings... how can we save it????



well. we could can it, because it might make people loose faith in the art of cinema.



no no simon. be serious.



well. we could tag about another 10 million onto our already inflated budget and convert the whole thing into 3d, that would probably increase box office figures by around 15 percent and cover out losses... then anything we make on the dvds with loads of features about special effects is profit.



3d? like that really cool movie avatar? yea, that sound like a good idea lets do that.







shame then, that even the 3d aspect of the movie is lackluster and clearly a botched last minute job. this film is a joke, a stain on even the failure-prone genre 'epic', and a life-long burden of guilt and shame on the shoulders of anyone involved in its creation. its like an episode of xena warrior princess, but lasts longer and is less interesting.

to number 4 - Huggster



Well, I was watching Jurassic Park the other night, and it occurred to me that while it started the CGI ball rolling, at the same time it used a lot of really good animatronix (the sick triceretops, for example) for close up scenes. And I still think the T-rex in Jurassic Park is pretty scary; they blended the CG elements and the close-up animatronix very well. I agree that real models have a certain gravitas, presence that I doubt CG will ever capture. For example, there isn't anything to match the majesty of the queen alien in 'Aliens' which is still the biggest marionette every constructed.

Does anyone else enjoy the irony of more and more films going 3D, while the acting, script writing and story telling become ever more wooden and 2D? There's a lesson in there somewhere...

Couldn't agree more. The 3d in Clash of The Titans is exactly the reason films should't have last minute makeovers.

www.filmeye.wordpress.com