A few days ago, I went to see Clash of the Titans at the cinema. It was without doubt the worst film I’ve endured since that other waste of 2 hours of my life, Avatar. I’m aware that this is not going to be a popular opinion, but the two films have a lot in common (and not just that they’re expensive overwrought nonsense).
Clash of the Titans is a re-working of the famous 1981 film. It tells the story of Perseus, son of Zeus, and his journey to destroy the god of the underworld, Hades, before vengeance is taken on the men and women of Argos for their rebellion against the gods.
Back to the similarities between Clash of the Titans and Avatar. Firstly, they both star Sam Worthington in the title role. Worthington was good in Terminator 4 but in these two films he’s the onscreen equivalent of cream emulsion. I just couldn’t give a damn. I cared about some of the supporting characters, but let’s imagine Clash of the Titans’ hero, Perseus, had died half way through the film… It probably would have been a blessing.
The real problem is this: they are not films in their own right, but showcases for 3D Imax cinema. They’re like spun sugar; they look beautiful but really there’s nothing to them. They substitute a good script and solid acting perfomances for fantastic Computer Generated Imagery (CGI). Sure, you may leave the cinema thinking “wow” but the films fail to make any lasting impression. They have money thrown at them, but in the end they aren’t great- they’re just shiny and big and utterly devoid of character. Avatar even received an Academy Award nomination, presumably to honour all the money that was spent. The same thing happened with Titanic, another James Cameron megabucks production, but at least that film was an enjoyable disaster movie and at least people were moved enough to cry when Leonardo DiCaprio plunged to the icy depths of the Atlantic Ocean.
I believe modern special effects are
the curse of cinema. Okay, they gave birth to the likes of The Lord of the Rings trilogy and some other fairly incredible films, but these only succeeded because the effects were there to tell the story; the story wasn’t written to showcase the effects. Take Avatar for instance. In so far as it has a plot, it’s a tale of Western colonialism, environmental destruction and genocide, with obvious parallels to what happened to the Native Americans. It would be typical Hollywood do-gooder fare, saccarine but watchable, except a good 90% of the film is devoted to exploring the beauty of the computer-designed scenery. I didn’t fall for it. The whole thing looked like a Herbal Essences advert.
Clash of the Titans is possibly even worse. I didn’t find it anywhere near so boring or overworked, but if the film makers had any integrity they would never have made the thing in the first place. They should have left the original alone, instead of attempting a big screen portrayal of Greek myth that is so intellectual vacuous, it makes Katie Price’s autobiography look like Dostoyevsky.
Generally speaking, where the special effects are poor (or better yet, non-existent) films have to focus on possessing a strong script and a stronger cast. When the special effects are good, the opposite is true. The 70s/80s Star Wars films are infinitely better than the more visually accomplished modern prequels. Likewise, the old Doctor Who episodes, with their cardboard sets and cardboard daleks, are considerably better than the ones airing on the BBC today. The online review site, Rotten Tomatoes, neatly summarises my conviction in its review of Clash of the Titans: “An obviously affectionate remake of the 1981 original, Louis Leterrier’s Clash of the Titans doesn’t offer enough visual thrills to offset the deficiencies of its script.” Quite.
Want to save cinema? Kill CGI.