I think I represent a minority of people who thought Clash of the Titans was amazing, profound, incredibly exciting and had great graphics. Hopefully less people dispute the soundtrack to Clash, which was absolutely fantastic thanks to Ramin Djawadi.
This film feels put together just to rake in sales from people like me who loved the first one, or people who probably didn't get out of the first one what I got out of it. Perhaps the studio, which perhaps (I like to think) saw some of what I saw in Clash realised that the market share I belong to was tiny (just me?) and that the market wanting to see big monsters fight Sam Worthington was worth investing in.
Story: It's alright. Not as upbeat as Clash. A bit depressing. I'm sure there were more gods in Clash than Wrath, so not sure where the others went. The romance was... who's idea was that??? Done rather awfully. And I'm not spoiling anything to declare that Io (Gemma Aterton) wasn't in it, but why? She was good. Because she didn't sign a contract? Maybe she didn't like the script. And for anyone out there who got something special from Clash (this whole rejection of patrons/gods/gifts for some dubious moral principle, despite going up against ridiculous odds) - you probably won't find it here.
Action: I recall Clash being well choreographed. Many action films rely on blurred/fast/over close up shots to give the impression of action and violence. At the other end is very slowed down fighting. My preferred (which I recall there being a lot of in clash) is fast paced, real time and followable action. I suspect this is a nightmare to direct, which is why it happens so infrequently in films. Matrix did it - and was amazing. Anyway, this film goes for close up and can't see what's going on action quite a lot, which is a waste of talent/resources (cool monsters) and money and doesn't look good. Maybe I should change careers and become a choreographer. They ought to be raking it in.
Graphics: Fine. I preferred the monsters from Clash though. And what there was was often too close to see/appreciate properly.
Music: Fine - but not special. Not like Clash. Clash music was AMAZING. I bought it and listened to it a million times and infiltrated it into most of my itunes playlists. This was what you'd expect for a high budget film of this sort when they had nothing left for anyone great, but not memorable or inspiring (I've forgotten it already).
Acting: I'm not an acting critic. No one annoyed me. Sam Worthington was unashamedly Australian and I was fine with that.
So perhaps they got another $25 million to spend, but maybe with inflation this was an equivalent budget? I guess someone decided to change the director and the music composer - why? Sounds like Leterrier was keen, at least from wikipedia. Changing directors might explain aspects of the plot - new male lion arrives and starts killing off what was done by the one before him.
This film feels put together just to rake in sales from people like me who loved the first one, or people who probably didn't get out of the first one what I got out of it. Perhaps the studio, which perhaps (I like to think) saw some of what I saw in Clash realised that the market share I belong to was tiny (just me?) and that the market wanting to see big monsters fight Sam Worthington was worth investing in.
Story: It's alright. Not as upbeat as Clash. A bit depressing. I'm sure there were more gods in Clash than Wrath, so not sure where the others went. The romance was... who's idea was that??? Done rather awfully. And I'm not spoiling anything to declare that Io (Gemma Aterton) wasn't in it, but why? She was good. Because she didn't sign a contract? Maybe she didn't like the script. And for anyone out there who got something special from Clash (this whole rejection of patrons/gods/gifts for some dubious moral principle, despite going up against ridiculous odds) - you probably won't find it here.
Action: I recall Clash being well choreographed. Many action films rely on blurred/fast/over close up shots to give the impression of action and violence. At the other end is very slowed down fighting. My preferred (which I recall there being a lot of in clash) is fast paced, real time and followable action. I suspect this is a nightmare to direct, which is why it happens so infrequently in films. Matrix did it - and was amazing. Anyway, this film goes for close up and can't see what's going on action quite a lot, which is a waste of talent/resources (cool monsters) and money and doesn't look good. Maybe I should change careers and become a choreographer. They ought to be raking it in.
Graphics: Fine. I preferred the monsters from Clash though. And what there was was often too close to see/appreciate properly.
Music: Fine - but not special. Not like Clash. Clash music was AMAZING. I bought it and listened to it a million times and infiltrated it into most of my itunes playlists. This was what you'd expect for a high budget film of this sort when they had nothing left for anyone great, but not memorable or inspiring (I've forgotten it already).
Acting: I'm not an acting critic. No one annoyed me. Sam Worthington was unashamedly Australian and I was fine with that.
So perhaps they got another $25 million to spend, but maybe with inflation this was an equivalent budget? I guess someone decided to change the director and the music composer - why? Sounds like Leterrier was keen, at least from wikipedia. Changing directors might explain aspects of the plot - new male lion arrives and starts killing off what was done by the one before him.