Clash of the Titans(2010)

"RELEASE THE KRAKEN!!"  The original Clash of the Titans was released to theaters in 1981, and it starred Harry Hamlin as Perseus, and Sir Laurence Olivier as Zeus, the king of the gods.  It was one of Ray Harryhausen's last films and arguably his most famous one.  This is one of the movies I grew up watching.  It had fantastic creatures, and some nifty special effects.  Unfortunately, the special effects in the original Clash of the Titans don't age well, especially on Blu-Ray, where it is PAINFULLY obvious.   As a remake, Clash of the Titans is going to be the subject of.....discussion among moviegoers.  Louis Leterrier directs this remake that stars Sam Worthington as Perseus, Mads Mikkelson as Draco, Gemma Arterton as Io, Ralph Fiennes as Hades, and Liam Neeson as Zeus.

The film starts off with a fisherman(Pete Postlethwaite) discovering a casket floating in the sea.  Inside lies a woman and a child, Perseus.  Years later, Perseus grows to be a fisherman, like his adopted father.  Later the family is killed when Hades appears to punish mortals for defying the gods.  Only Perseus survives.  When he is brought to Argos, the queen, Cassiopeia is comparing her daughter, Andromeda(Alexa Davalos) to the gods.  The gods are angered and send Hades to force them to respect and worship the gods.   Apparently, the gods need the worship of humans to survive.  As a result, Hades threatens to unleash the Kraken upon the city unless Andromeda is sacrificed.  

Obviously, there will be comparisons to the original film.  The way the film starts out is somewhat similar, but for the most part, many of the elements of the original film are thrown out.  For instance, in the original Clash of the Titans, the city that is threatened is Joppa, not Argos, which was destroyed in the opening scenes of the original film.  Perseus is a completely different person than the Perseus in the original film.  In the new film, Perseus wasn't put into a different city by a god, although a god IS the reason for him being in the city.  The backstory of Perseus is also changed: Zeus didn't make love to Acrisius's wife to punish him in the original film.  The new film also introduces new kinds of characters/creatures known as the djinn.  These guys live in the desert and ride the backs of giant scorpions.  If that's not a lift off of Star Wars, I don't know what is.  Not all of these changes are bad.  To make a shot-for-shot remake is a really bad idea in this day in age, so changes were to be expected.  The overall plot remains the same.

Casting-wise, there were some really interesting choices.  I honestly can't say I would've pegged Sam Worthington as Perseus.  Don't get me wrong, Sam is fantastic when it comes to action movies, he's a decent actor, but I think he comes off a little to strong as Perseus.  He handles the action very well as he does most of his own stunts.  Gemma Arterton is fantastic as Io, as she brings grace and beauty to the role as Perseus's guide and possible future love interest.  I may not have pegged Sam Worthington as Perseus, but Liam Neeson as Zeus is brilliant.  Neeson has a very commanding presence whenever he's on screen, as he has a deep and powerful voice.  Ralph Fiennes is....interesting as Hades.  I say interesting, because lately, Fiennes has been playing very creepy characters like Lord Voldomort in Harry Potter.  He doesn't really come off as threatening as Hades.   He doesn't do a bad job, as he makes a fantastic villain, but his version of Hades seems like a cross between Voldomort and Gollum.  Mads Mikkelson does a fantastic job as the gruff but experienced captain, Draco.

Now on to the special effects.  First things first, the special effects in the original film really weren't all that special, particularly if you've seen the movie on Blu-Ray.  The miniatures are blatantly obvious, and the blue-screen scenes are extremely.....fake.  Granted there was no CGI in the early 80s, so stop-motion animation was the only real option.  It has its charms but the fact is is that Harryhausen's visual effects were already on their way out, when the original Clash of the Titans was released.  Simply put, Star Wars did those kinds of effects better in every way.  In the new film, CGI is the name of the game and it's kind of a mixed bag.  Certain effects such as Hades showing up in smoke and fire isn't really convincing.  It's cool, but it's pretty obvious.  The giant scorpions were pretty good as they used a combination of practical effects and CGI to help the "reality" of the scene.  When they get to Medusa's lair things get a little interesting.  Medusa herself has been revamped to be a more of a femme fatal kind of character.  She's sleek and sexy and monstrous, and completely CGI.  While it was definitely cool and well done, CGI like that doesn't really work on such a small scale.  It's when we get to the Kraken that the CGI really kicks it up to a whole new level.  Simply put, the Kraken is one of the most impressive CGI creatures I've ever seen.  The way he comes out of the see is astounding.  And when Perseus flies around him on Pegasus, it really gives you a sense that this thing is fucking massive.  This is the creature that according to THIS movie, helped the Olympians beat the Titans, and it's not hard to imagine why.  This was the big thing that was hinted at in the trailers, and I was NOT disappointed with it whatsoever.

Some of the action scenes seem a little chaotic because the director, Louis Leterrier likes to use "shaky-cam" techniques to help it seem more real.  Truth is, is that the shaky-cam technique only serves to give people headaches.  We would like to see what is going on, thank you very much.  Stop the shaking!  Overall, however, the action scenes were cool, but there's nothing in here with the exception of the Kraken, that would strike me as memorable.  The acting for the most part is standard fare in a film like this.  It seems to me that the remake of Clash of the Titans was rushed, no doubt in part to Warner Bros. wanting to release the film in 3D as a result of James Cameron's Avatar.  That did not serve this movie well, it didn't need to be in 3D.  I think with a little more time, the special effects could've been more polished and the story a bit more refined.  I still think this is a good movie, and I think the good outweighs the bad, but there are more than a few things that keep this movie from being something special.  I give it an 8.5/10. 

Predators

"If it bleeds, we can kill it."  The original Predator film is one of the most iconic films of the past 27 years, and infinitely quotable.  The original film starred Arnold Schwarzenegger, Carl Weathers, Jesse Ventura, and Sonny Landham.  It was a stellar cast, and combined with the story and an alien enemy, Predator was a major hit, back in 1987.  3 years later, a sequel was released, Predator 2.  With a new cast, starring Danny Glover, Gary Busey, and Bill Paxton, it looked like it was going to be another hit.  Not so.  I enjoyed it a great deal, but the problems with the movie, i.e. the blatantly obvious special effects, the overly complex story involving drug cartels and government intervention, just got in the way of what could've been a really spectacular film.  Unfortunately, by taking the Predator out of the jungle, and sticking him into the middle of a big city, it just doesn't work as well.  The Predator, played by the late Kevin Peter Hall, became even more of a bad-ass, but the rest of the film, aside from the performances of Glover and Busey, just fell flat.  And we wouldn't see another Predator until 2004, when Alien Vs. Predator came to the big screen.  What a colossal disappointment that was.  PG-13 rating?!  Half-baked story involving two of the biggest screen monsters ever, the Alien and the Predator?  While I didn't think it was as horrible as most people think it was, it simply didn't do either franchise justice.  And neither did the sequel, Aliens Vs. Predator: Requiem.  While Requiem was slightly better, and that the violence was upped to the nth degree, making it extremely bloody, it was also too dark to see anything, and the throw-away characters just really brought the house down.  AVP: R was released in '07.

Now, in 2010, a new Predator film is unleashed, Predators.  Directed by Nimrod Antal, and produced by famed filmmaker, Robert Rodriguez, Predators is a much needed shot in the arm for the Predator franchise.  The film starts off with Royce(Adrien Brody) in a free-fall into an unkown jungle.  He runs into other people that have been seemingly tossed out of a plain, including a cartel enforcer(Danny Trejo), a special ops soldier(Alice Braga), a doctor(Topher Grace) and a death row inmate(Walton Goggins).  They eventually discover that they were abducted from Earth and brought to a different planet for some unknown reason.  It's actually a very interesting set-up, with fairly unique characters.  And the Predators themselves, there are several, hence the name of the movie, Predators.  Turns out that the humans were brought to the new planet to hunt.  I would never have picked Adrien Brody to play a bad-ass mercenary, he just doesn't come off that way, in most movies.  But he really pulls it off here.  Of course, I would be remiss if I didn't mention Laurence Fishburne.  I like Laurence, he's a fantastic actor, but his character brings the movie down a little bit, but I'll get into that later.

This film has done a lot of things right, the suspense, the violence of the Predators, and even having them use "dogs" to sniff out the humans is an interesting touch.  When it comes to doling out the punishment, the film spares no expense when the shit hits the fan.  It's a little slow before getting to that point, but once it starts, it does not stop.  The visual effects are pretty good even if some of the explosions look a little iffy.  The musical score by John Debney is second to none, mostly because he keeps the themes from the original Predator film intact, while adding some new stuff of his own. 

Okay, now it's time to get to the negatives.  Laurence Fishburne.  This was nothing more than a glorified cameo, he couldn't have been in the picture for more than twenty minutes, and his character comes off as a lunatic, as someone who has survived being hunted for years.  It doesn't really work the way he explains things including some dumb thing about a blood feud.  And Fishburne just comes off just a little too over-the-top, with the character.  I will say this, when the character leaves the film, he does so in a spectacular way.  The other main issue with this film I have is a "twist" with one of the characters towards the end of the film.  I mean, really?  I won't spoil it, but I will say, that it was pretty cheap.

Overall, I was actually quite impressed with how Predators turned out, given the amount of work that went into the script and screenplay.  Nimrod Antal is a very talented director, and combined with the talents of Robert Rodriguez, he managed to make a very compelling and suspenseful thriller, that both honors the original film that came before, while adding some new stuff of it's own.  This is, without a doubt, the best Predator film, since the Arnold Schwarzenegger picture.  No question.  It blows Predator 2 and the AVP movies out of the water, although, that really wouldn't be too hard.  Predators is rated R for graphic violence and language.  I give this film a solid 9/10.  I can't wait to see where they go next.