Saturday, June 3, 2023


April 2, 2010 by · Leave a Comment 

Most critics seem to figure that Clash of the Titans is nothing to get worked up over. They’re writing mostly witty reviews, discussing it like a food writer might discuss a cheesy desert. In fact, Steven Rea in the Philadelphia Inquirer writes that Titans “is ancient Greece at its cheesiest. It’s a big hunk of feta comin’ at ya in 3-D.” Kyle Smith in the New York Post calls it “the biggest 3D feature since last week.” After offering a thumbnail description of the god-filled plot, Roger Ebert writes in the Chicago Sun-Times, “For its intended audience, I suspect this will play as a great entertainment. I enjoyed myself. … I like the energy, the imagination, the silliness. I even like the one guy who doesn’t have a beard.” Roger Moore in the Orlando Sentinel writes that contemporary digital effects makes Titans “a sometimes fun ride, a digital bastardization of Greek mythology with digital eagles, giant scorpions, wraiths and a Kraken — the sea beast to end all sea beasts. What hasn’t improved is the silly, archetypal story, or the stagy arguments among the gods of Olympus.” Virtually every review compares this Titans with the original 1981 version — mostly favorably. But Amy Biancolli in the San Francisco Chronicle observes: “No matter how you dissect it, Clash of the Titans will never, ever be a serious motion picture. No matter how much money you throw at it, no matter how many sequels it spawns, no matter how much lip service it pays to Big Ideas like humanity and sacrifice, it was, is and shall remain a story about guys in skirts fighting giant scorpions while others guys stand around acting annoyed on a cloud. Very bad dialogue is dispensed by very good actors surrounded by effects of assorted quality. This was true in 1981. It’s still true in 2010.”