MovieChat Forums > Clash of the Titans (2010) Discussion > Frankly this was no worse than the 1981 ...

Frankly this was no worse than the 1981 Clash of the Titans.

posted 9 years ago by nightwing60
7 replies | jump to latest

I mean other than the fact that it was Ray Harryhausen last movie and the special effects. Is there really anything that great about the 1981 Clash of the Titans. Because The Acting is differently not Oscar Worthy and The Story isn't exactly great either. Sure Sam Worthington isn't a super great actor. But Harry Hamlin is not exactly an shakespearean actor. I don't know if people are just blinded by nostalgia. But if you are going to bitch about a movie because it has a mediocre story and acting. Then don't defend a movie that has a mediocre story and acting. Now im not going to say that the 2010 version is great or better than the original. But i would say they both serve the same purpose and that is To be cheesy fun popcorn movies where the effects are star of show. Because the 1981 version is very cheese. Frankly i cant decide which is cheesier. Im not trying to bash Ray Harryhausen. The guy did great work. But the reason why they are known as "Ray Harryhausan Movies" is because nobody went to see them for great acting or directing.

[–] Big G-2 9 years ago

The difference is the 2010 version had all the advantages of money and modern technology and still came up short. The 1981 version was not Ray Harryhausen's greatest movie, but the story was a lot more straightforward and not to mention his stop-motion critters were more interesting (particularly Medusa) than what 2010 gave us (and it was not because it they were CGI, but rather how they were executed).

[–] TwoFace224 9 years ago

I think the point if you are going to use the same yardstick that people use for this movie on the 1981 Clash (aka Story and Acting) Then that movie also comes up way way way short of being a great film. The acting form the protagonist is very weak and the story is just as cheesy. Really Maggie Smith and Donald Houston as Acrisius were really the highlights as far as acting went. Burgess Meredith, Laurence Olivier, and Jack Gwillim were totally wasted in that movie. Either Way It sure as hell isn't Star Wars, E.T or Citizen Kane. All that is left is the special effects. Just like in this movie. Regardless which method people prefer.

[–] Big G-2 9 years ago

Yes, but NO ONE has said that the original was an Oscar-worthy film. I don't even think it was Ray Harryhausen's best movie. However, the points I described are indeed why many still prefer it to 2010. You have the 1981 feature. Let's do it in 2010, minus the flaws one may think the original had. We have the money and technology to do it better. However, in the end, it's execution on virtually every aspect is what hampered it, especially the story. People prefer the original because it was more straightforward, regardless of anything else.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DarcyBrandon 8 years ago

The 1981 version had charm. Charm was lacking in this version.

[–] captkirk_4 8 years ago

Well the original was a story about a brave man who ends up saving the princess and marrying her and living happily ever after. Here there is some strange woman along for the ride that defeats the entire Perseus Andromeda Love Story that was the THEME of the Tale. What was Perseus' motivation here? He didn't even stay with the girl? We also got ridiculous CGI fight scenes that pale to the tense moments in the original where Perseus is hiding behind the pillar with the shield while Medusa is slowly approaching. Despite the crude stop action special effects, that original scene worked a lot better than impossible law of physics defying CGI fight scenes.

[–] HarlemEagle42 (16275) 4 years ago

I just watched the original film last night. It still holds up as a wondrously imaginative adventure movie with heart and joy. The 2010 remake does boast amazing CGI but it's glum and afraid to admit its own silliness.