SKYFALL: So Much For My Promising Career in Espionage

Skyfall (2012) – The 23rd James Bond Film; the 3rd Daniel Craig Film – Directed by Sam Mendes – Starring Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Javier Bardem, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Bérénice Lim Marlohe, Ben Whishaw, Rory Kinnear, and Albert Finney.

If you’re new here, be aware that SPOILERS are coming. Lots of them. I am not bound by your inability to have seen the movie before me. I’ve seen it and I want to talk about it, so if you don’t want anything ruined, go away, see the movie, and then come back and tell me why I’m an idiot. If you’re looking for the answer to the question, “Should I see it?”, the answer is Yes. If you really want to read about Bond, though, I’ve reviewed the other Bond movies, which you can find right here at the James Bond Review Index.

Whenever a new story in a long-running series comes out, there’s this immediate, infantile urge to locate the story’s place in the greater scheme: Best Bond film ever! Worse than Quantum of Snoozefest! Not as good as Octopussy but better than Die Another Day/!

These kinds of comments and lists are ridiculously tiresome. It’s like people are out there waiting for an opportunity to update a list rather than watch a movie. I think they are generally created by people who can’t prove their better than you by buying a Ferrari so they try to shame you with knowledge, or who have perhaps mistaken their fandom for identity and fear new fans enjoying what they’ve been enjoying and thus, the argument goes, somehow ruining it. (I thought this way, too, once. Of course, I was fifteen.) If people have fun with them, that’s fine, but if they’re using it to make you feel dumb, then I hope they sit next to the loudest, dumbest fourteen year old the next time they go to the theater. Why? Because it will be like they’re sitting next to themselves, that’s why.

What irks me the most about them, however, is that the idea of accurately comparing the immediate experience of watching a film in the theater with films that have been around for decades.

No, I take that back. What irks me the most is the person who doesn’t have fun with their lists, who uses the creation of a list or the comparison of one film to another in the series simply as an opportunity to toss some predictable, tired snark around.

I bring all of this up, in part, as a way to call myself out. (What? You thought that I thought I was perfect? You really are new here.) While watching SKYFALL this afternoon in a very crowded theater on the 23rd Bond film’s third day of release, I found myself occasionally thinking of where I’d place SKYFALL in the Bond pantheon. Instead of, you know, simply enjoying and analyzing the movie on its own merits. If you’ve kicked around the Anxiety, at all, you know I hate lists. I think once you get past a few movies, trying to argue that, say, the 14th best Bond movie is better than the 15th best Bond movie is a little specious. I prefer to do my rankings using the tier system; it’s more general, but for me, at least, it’s more accurate. I can make a very convincing argument that CASINO ROYALE (2006) is the best Bond movie ever, but I can also make a convincing argument that GOLDFINGER is the best Bond movie ever, too.

The truth is that sometimes I think ROYALE is the best and at other times I think GOLDFINGER is the best, so I’m content to call them “Tier One” movies and leave it at that.

Is SKYFALL a Tier One Bond movie?

Yes. Probably. Talk to me after the Blu-ray comes out and I’ve seen it a few more times. That snarky comment that kept rattling around my brain during the film was, “This is good, but it’s not CASINO ROYALE good.” For now, I’m confident in saying that it’s not nearly as good as CASINO ROYALE, but then, I consider CASINO ROYALE the single best action movie since Die Hard. I am happy to say that it was worth every penny of the $9 I would have paid if I had paid for my ticket this afternoon. It’s a mature, serious espionage film, dotted with brief moments of wry humor. It’s well-written, well-acted, and well-directed, although on this last point it must be noted that Sam Mendes’ action scenes succeed because of their narrative strength and not because of their visual flair.

There’s nothing wrong with that, of course, and it shows how smart a director Mendes is to play to his strengths and minimize his weaknesses. It also gives SKYFALL a uniqueness to it; there’s a very real sense throughout the movie that SKYFALL is raising the bar and making a real attempt to push action movies in a different direction.

Which is to say, it’s not a Jason Bourne movie. In fact, SKYFALL owes more (visually and narratively) to Steven Soderbergh’s Haywire than any of the Bourne movies, or even many of the Bond movies.

Sure, there’s the tired, seen-too-many-times “Bond is getting old” trope trotted out one more time, and when SKYFALL is at its worst it’s indulging in this nonsense. (Which is really silly considering that ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE were the start of Bond’s career and they happened one immediately after the other.) James Bond is such the epitome of cool that giving him physical frailty is the easiest way to put a dent in his armor, but I feel about this plot the way I feel about superheroes who don’t want to be superheroes: this isn’t why you’re getting my money. It’s harder, but much more satisfying, when Bond films find other ways to give our supercool British spy a hurdle to overcome. Give them a love interest. Give them a personal vendetta. Give them Christopher Lee.

Thankfully, SKYFALL offers a bit of this, too. While it opens with Bond getting accidentally shot off a moving train by another British agent (Naomie Harris’ Eve Moneypenny, though the film doesn’t tell us her name until the end), only to come back a few months later looking haunted and beaten down, SKYFALL eventually moves us to Bond’s family home (named Skyfall) in Scotland. SKYFALL starts in the present with the damaged Bond, but then once he returns to active field duty, the rest of the film is a balance between who he (and the franchise) used to be and who he (and the franchise) is going to be.

That’s not unintentional, of course. This is the 50th year anniversary of the James Bond cinematic franchise, which makes it a fitting time to reflect and redefine.

On that note, it’s both satisfying and a bit disappointing that the answer to where Bond is going is back to tradition. By the end of the film, M (Judi Dench) is dead, Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes) is the new M, and we’ve been introduced to a new Q (Ben Whishaw) and Miss Moneypenny (Naomie Harris). The film tries to hold off on the new M and Moneypenny until the end, but given that we don’t hear Moneypenny’s name at the start and all of her dialogue with Bond centers around her maybe not being best suited for field duty, it’s pretty obvious where that plot is going. Similarly, the film introduces the idea that M is going to be forced to step aside and it’s pretty obvious that if she is going to be replaced, Ralph Fiennes is going to be her replacement.

It’s not just the reinstatement of Q and Moneypenny to the franchise, but the whole office set-up that played such a huge role in the pre-Craig era. As SKYFALL is closing, there’s Bond coming through a door, Miss Moneypenny taking her seat at a desk, and Bond entering a small but rich office where he takes a mission from M. Mendes makes these moments work, and it’s a confident shot at other movie franchises. Any franchise that survives for 50 years is going to have a certain amount of malleability to it, and that’s clearly in evidence over the course of Bond’s run. Sean Connery exchanged confidence for parody. Roger Moore went to space. Timothy Dalton made a Schwarzenegger film. Pierce Brosnan oversaw the rise of female equality. And Daniel Craig wasn’t allowed to smile.

None of that is, in and of itself, automatically a bad thing. Malleability is a good thing, in the long run, because it gets the franchise through the years where it has fallen a bit out of favor, and then every so often we’re rewarded with a SPY WHO LOVED ME or GOLDENEYE or SKYFALL that reasserts the franchise’s preeminence.

And that’s really SKYFALL’s biggest strength – this is a movie that does what it does without concern for the latest cinematic trends. SKYFALL is a movie that charts its own course, that’s respective of the past and cognizant of the future. When Bond exchanges M’s Jaguar for his original Aston Martin DB5, it’s not just symbolically cool to see Connery’s car back, but an assertion of the confident style that Bond represents. Far too often over the years the Bond franchise has been the Ford Mustang; no, not the pre-1970s Mustang which was as cool as any car ever, but all of those post-First Generation Mustangs where Ford ripped the guts out of their Pony Car and continually morphed it into whatever the populace was buying at the moment. The Mustang should always be THE MUSTANG. Other car manufacturers should change to rip it off but instead we’ve gotten nearly forty years of the Mustang trying to be the Toyota Celica or Mazda Rx-Whatever or Dodge Charger.

I like QUANTUM OF SOLACE more than just about anyone, but it’s not a traditional Bond movie. It’s a great action movie, but it’s far more Bourne than Bond. It took the grim Craig Bond one step too far into the darkness, and while that isn’t ideal, the reaction has been to bring Bond back into the light with SKYFALL. The care and attention here to not only make a great movie, but to make the reset to a Bond tied to an M, a Q, and a Moneypenny happen organically. In the long history of the Bond franchise, SKYFALL represents a high point in terms of seeing a long-term plan. That’s what I thought was going to happen with ROYALE, but then QUANTUM took a awkward step and financial troubles befell MGM, and so SKYFALL feels like another new beginning. Because of what ROYALE didn’t do (no Q, no Moneypenny, very little sense of humor), SKYFALL took the opportunity to re-establish some old friends and it does it beautifully.

There’s no doubting I left the theater with a smile on my face, but it’s not simply because SKYFALL takes what is old and makes it new, again. No, what makes all of this work is that the mission in SKYFALL brings Bond, old M, new M, Q, and Moneypenny together through the test of battle. Because of the personal attack on M and MI6 by Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem) and British politicians, we see our new unit coming together organically. Yes, we get the r-establishment of the lovably contentious Bond/Q relationship, but it’s in the process of Q having to prove himself to Bond when 007 steals M away in order to hide her that his inclusion wins me over.

People have been raving about Javier Bardem’s Silva, and it’s a good performance, but it’s yet another former ally turned enemy plot, and there’s really not a lot here that’s better than Sean Bean’s role as 006. The opening confrontation between Silva and Bond is very strong, but Silva quickly becomes just another thug with a gun and an axe to grind.

Daniel Craig is once again very good as James Bond and SKYFALL is a very good movie. Mendes manages to make an excellent spy film that brings back some of the old James Bond elements that had grown stale and rightly been abandoned. He infuses a grown-up espionage film with plenty of nods to Bond’s past and as the curtain falls on Bond’s 23rd movie and 50th year, Mendes puts all the toys back on the board, setting up the movie franchise for it’s next stage. When M is sitting in front of the government inquisition and a politician is telling her how MI6 is outdated and she’s outdated and blah blah blah, it’s not just a story point but a subtle shot at the changing trends. M’s response, Bond’s response, even Mallory, Q, and Moneypenny’s response is a come back to Jesus moment, welcoming old fans back to a more traditional Bond at the same time it lets us know what the new ground rules are going to be.

___________________________

Check out my latest work of fiction, with a time-traveling British secret agent: GUNFIGHTER GOTHIC VOLUME 0: BLOOD OF THE UNIVERSE. Here’s the blurb: It’s 1866 and Jill (a white, merchant’s daughter) and Hanna (a Korean-American servant in the merchant’s house) have fled to the American West to start a new life on their own terms.
They boarded a train in Kansas City, and before the morning was over, they had fought werewolves and vampires, partnered with Bellingham, a time-traveling British secret agent, and made an enemy of Mrs. Lincoln.

And then the train jumped its tracks, crashing violently, and killing Jill.

Hanna is despondent until Bellingham reveals his real reason for being in 1866: the Universe Cutter, a knife with the power to resurrect the dead. All they have to do is find it.

To bring Jill back, Hanna will partner with two time travelers and President Grant’s right-hand man, and battle Confederates, werewolves, lizard men, sun worshipping cultists, and a man from the end of time. All for a chance to bring back the woman she loves … a woman who will never love her back.

GUNFIGHTER GOTHIC VOL. 0: BLOOD OF THE UNIVERSE also features the back-up tale, “Appetite for Appeasement,” starring Bellingham.

WRATH OF THE TITANS: Being Half Human Makes You Stronger Than a God

Wrath of the Titans (2012) – Directed by Jonathan Liebesman – Starring Sam Worthington, Rosamund Pike, Édgar Ramírez, Toby Kebbell, Danny Huston, Ralph Fiennes, Liam Neeson, Bill Nighy, and Bubo (for about ten seconds).

Giving credit where credit is due, WRATH OF THE TITANS addresses one of my biggest problems with its predecessor, Louis Leterrier’s CLASH OF THE TITANS remake: the disconnect in the acting performances of the gods (Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes) and the mortals (Sam Worthington and nearly everyone else). I felt that Neeson and Fiennes were approaching their roles like CLASH was a popcorn flick and Worthington was approaching his like he was making Gladiator and the result sent a sour note wringing in my ears.

WRATH puts everyone on the same level (Worthington’s) and the result is a better, more serious film, but also one that’s lacking in the fun department.

WRATH OF THE TITANS is very close to being a very good popcorn movie. What holds it back, in my estimation, is that it’s just not quite fun enough to make me look forward to watching it again. There are moments here that are actually quite fun but the movie seems completely determined to treat this story of the potential end of the world like it’s, well, actually the end of the world instead of a story in which talented actors with bad hair battle CGI giants with murky features to keep us common folk entertained for 2 hours.

Perseus (Sam Worthington) doesn’t do so well flying the winged horse Perseus, for instance, and after a shaky flight and rough landing, he remarks to the horse, “You used to be better at this.” In response, Pegasus slaps Perseus in the back with one of his massive wings. It’s a small moment, to be sure, but it got real laughs from the audience and I have to wonder if the folks they test screened this film for didn’t want to see more humor or if the filmmakers were so sure of what they were doing that they ignored/missed the positive reaction to the small amount of humor that’s here.

Because what I took from watching WRATH, and what a good number of the folks seated around me in the theater seemed to be taking from the film, is that while we liked it, we really wanted to like it a lot more. Instead of being a sequel that feels repetitive and tired, WRATH OF THE TITANS is a film that’s found it’s groove. The story is simple: Hades has imprisoned his brother Zeus in order to allow their captured father Kronos free to destroy the Earth and Perseus quests to Hell to save his dad. Jonathan Liebesman is not nearly as stylish a director as Louis Leterrier, but the story has been tightened and the acting has improved, and even with all the CGI monsters causing havoc, there’s also a wonderful old school vibe to WRATH that kept pulling me in.

Nowhere in the film is this felt more than when Perseus, Andromeda (Rosamund Pike), and Agenor (Toby Kebbell) battle through some Cyclops to make it to the hut of Hephaestus (Bill Nighy), the fallen god and weapon maker. Nighy is brilliantly crazed here as the hermitic god, channeling his inner Patrick Troughton circa Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger. When they visit him, Hephaestus keeps yapping to an unseen figure behind him. The clear implication is that he’s nuts and simply talking to himself. But he’s not.

He’s talking to Bubo.

Yeah, Bubo.

Good on the filmmakers for making that nod back to the original CLASH OF THE TITANS film, but shame on them for not recognizing that their film needs more scenes like this – and not because it pays respect to the original, but because it gives the audience a chance to exhale and have a laugh amidst all of Perseus’ grim looks and Andromeda’s concerned, open mouthed stares.

The laughter should come from Agenor. Half-human son of Poseidon (Danny Huston), Agenor is imprisoned when Perseus visits Andromeda’s war camp to see him. He’s a bit of a drifter character who doesn’t take responsibility for anything and he’s good for a few laughs, but not enough. I like what the story does with Agenor, depicting his rise from ne’er-do-well to responsible citizen, but I wish he could have taken that journey while cracking wise a bit more often.

While the story here is rather grim, at least it’s a story and at least there’s some thematic consistency to WRATH. This film is all about what fathers and sons are willing to do for one another. Zeus asks his son Perseus for help because his own father, Kronos, is about to break free and destroy the world, while Perseus asks his son Helius (John Bell) to sit it out. After the events of the previous film, Perseus is living as a fisherman, raising his son to live a normal life. His wife, Io, is dead, and Perseus is content to live simply and away from the gods and monsters that have made him famous.

I usually dislike stories involving the reluctant hero, but WRATH does it well. I believe that Perseus likes his life and I can see that he loves his son and doesn’t want either to endanger him or break his promise to his deceased wife.

Humanity’s lack of faith in the gods, however, is causing them to lose their power. In a really nice bit of setting the story up, Zeus (Liam Neeson) tells Perseus that it’s not just the power of the gods that is lessening as a result of humanity’s lack of faith, but all of the things the gods have created. For WRATH, that means the walls to the prison of Tartarus are crumbling, which means Zeus’ father, Kronos, is in danger of escaping the prison where he’s been imprisoned.

Now, because you’re smart, I know what you’re asking: If the lack of faith in the gods is causing the gods to lose their power, why isn’t it also causing the Titans to lose their power?

The answer is, Don’t Think About It.

Hades and Ares (an excellent Édgar Ramírez) are sacrificing Zeus to Kronos, and Zeus’ daddy is siphoning off his son’s power to give him a boost, but the Titans seem less indebted to humanity’s prayers then their children. It really doesn’t matter, of course, because WRATH isn’t the kind of movie you go see because you’re expecting narrative complexity. You’re going for a bit of escapism and WRATH delivers on that; it has a skeletal enough script to carry the day, and that’s enough for me.

When Perseus convinces Agenor to come along and show him the way to Hephaestus, Andromeda decides to come along. “A Queen shouldn’t leave Greece,” Perseus tells her, but Andromeda shoots back, “Are you giving me orders now?” Does it make sense for the Queen to go on this rescue quest while her soldiers gather at another place? Probably not, but good for Andromeda for stepping up because that means we get to see more of Rosamund Pike, and the more Rosamund Pike I can see, the better. The fact that Andromeda can take care of herself makes it even better.

There’s a whole bunch of CGI action sequences and they’re all rather good without being spectacular. Battles against the Cyclops, Kronos, and Kronos’ minions all look pretty darn good.

While fathers and sons are the obvious theme, there’s also some nice touches on the subject of brotherhood. Ares betrays his father Zeus to team up with Uncle Hades (Ralph Fiennes) in part because he’s jealous of Zeus’ affection for Perseus. On the flip, Hades ends up betraying Ares and Kronos to help Zeus because of their brotherhood. Hades’ turn leads to one of the better moments in the film; after Zeus has been nearly slain by Ares, Hades gives his brother some of his own power to heal him. Zeus arises from his death bed and the two god brothers head on out to the field of battle for some rousing ass kicking.

Perseus saves the day by combining Zeus’ thunderbolt, Poseidon’s trident, and Hades pitchfork to form the Spear of How The Movie Ends, and he flies Pegasus down Kronos’ throat to slay the Titan. It’s good stuff, and hats off to the CGI folk for their efforts here. (I love how Kronos’ lava cools and hardens before it hits the ground.)

On the whole, then, WRATH OF THE TITANS is well worth some of your Saturday afternoon time. It’s a more solid movie than it’s predecessor and even though Sam Worthington has the charisma of fossilized wood, there’s enough personality with Neeson, Fiennes, and Kubbell to keep things moving. WRATH is a perfectly good sword and monsters movie, and it could have been truly Popcorn Elite had it been a bit less grim.

____________

CLASH OF THE TITANS Review Index

CLASH OF THE TITANS (1981): End of the Line for Ray Harryhausen
CLASH OF THE TITANS (2010): No titans Were Harmed in the Making of This Film
WRATH OF THE TITANS (2012): Being Half Human Makes You Stronger Than a God

CLASH OF THE TITANS: No Titans Were Harmed in the Making of This Film

Clash of the Titans (2010) – Directed by Louis Leterrier – Starring Sam Worthington, Gemma Arterton, Mads Mikkelsen, Alexa Davalos, Pete Postlethwaite, Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, and Bubo (for about 5 seconds).

CLASH OF THE TITANS is not a good movie. That’s okay. It is also not a fun movie, and that is not okay.

There is a massive disconnect in this movie between the acting of the people playing the Gods (who all play their roles as if this is a massive lark) and the acting of the humans (who all play their roles as if this is ultra-serious). Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes treat their performances as if they’re making this for the Saturday morning crowd, while Sam Worthington and the rest treat their duties like they think they’re doing a remake of Gladiator. It’s in that disconnect that the movie falls apart for me; I don’t hate TITANS, but I was sort of bored by it all despite its visual prettiness.

As a kid, I dug the original Clash of the Titans with all of its Ray Harryhausen’s awesome stop-motion monsters but I haven’t seen the movie in over twenty years. I don’t own it, and can’t convince myself it’s worth the $7.50 it would take to buy the DVD. I feel like I want you to know that so you can decide how colored my review of the recent Louis Leterrier film is or is not. FWIW, I really liked Leterrier’s Incredible Hulk.

In truth, it’s not the original version that TITANS is going to be compared against, but the more contemporary big budget actioners that TITANS is clearly aping: most notably Peter Jackson’s Fellowship of the Ring and Michael Bay’s Transformers, and it comes up short in both regards.

Like FotR, there’s lots of sweeping shots of gorgeous scenery between close-ups of our dirty heroes as they walk to their goal. Like Transformers, there’s really big monsters who will fight you in the desert. Unlike either of those films, TITANS never really finds its own voice. When Perseus (Sam Worthington) fights Calibos in the forest, it’s clearly derivative of the big fight with the Uruk-Hai at the end of FotR. When Perseus fights the big mean scorpions in the desert, it’s clearly derivative of the big battle against Scorponok in Transformers.

There’s a bit of humor in the film, coming from the soldiers of Argos that accompany Perseus on his quest to kill Medusa so they can use her head to kill the Kraken, but Perseus and Io (Gemma Arterton) are so damned serious about everything that it sucks the fun out of the film every single time he grunts with dissatisfaction and she stares woefully.

Aside: One of the soldiers in this film is played by Nicholas Hoult. Who? The kid in About a Boy. Seriously. I’m old.

Perseus’ whole deal is that his Zeus’ half-human kid-

Stop. Let’s go through this bit of movie logic. Perseus is the son that Zeus refused to save. Zeus was mad because Acrisius was leading a human revolt on Olympus, so Zeus shapeshifted to look like Acrisius and nailed his wife, getting her preggers. Acrisius, despite seeing Zeus and his wife post-mating, waits until she pops out Perseus, then puts them both in a casket, walks them to the edge of a cliff, and tosses it into the ocean. Hermes is all, “Hey Zeus, wanna save your kid?” and Zeus is all, “Nope.”

And yet and the end of the film, Perseus is all tolerant of Zeus because he helped him get rid of Hades. There’s no, “Look, Zeus, I’m not coming to live with you on Olympus because you raped my mom and didn’t lift a finger to save her or me. Thanks for helping with Hades, but you’re still a huge f*cking dick, and I hope you catch chlamydia, you philandering old perv-

“Oh, hey, did you just bring Io back from the dead for me? That’s awesome because her boobs are fantastic, and I’d much rather have someone to drop seed in for the next eternity, rather than, you know, getting my adopted family back that was unfairly killed by that twisted brother of yours, or my actual mom back who only died because you used and abandoned her. But yeah, thanks for helping me get laid. Jesus, do you ever not think with your dick?

“And don’t give me that, ‘Who’s Jesus’ nonsense. You know damn well he’s the carpenter coming to build our new house up here on the cliff overlooking the ocean that isn’t susceptible at all to the angry whims of you or Poseidon.”

These are the things you’re not supposed to think about when watching popcorn entertainment, and I’d be happy to not think of them if the movie was fun, but it isn’t.

You can have a bit of humor from the grizzled old war vets who see the whole world through the prism of battles fought, but you’ve got a nutjob sidewalk prophet back in Argos wanting to string up the King’s daughter Andromeda to appease the gods, because …

It’s kinda painful.

Hades (played by Ralph Fiennes in such a way that it looks like he’s parodying himself playing Voldemort) shows up in Argos, right? And he’s all bad ass slapping down the King and Queen for snubbing their noses at the gods, and then he’s surprised at the demi-god Perseus hanging out without any shoes, and he tells the crowd that he’s going to unleash the Kraken and destroy all of them unless they sacrifice Andromeda (the Progressively Liberal Princess) to the Kraken, the city will be destroyed.

In ten days.

Ten. The hell? How does this even make sense? Because in ten days Hades will be extra powerful? You’re a god. Take ‘em right now. It’s literally like he figured out that it will take ten days for someone to go chop off Medusa’s head and bring it back just in time to stop the Kraken.

The best thing about this movie is the CGI monsters, which are rather fantastic. The Stygian witches, Pegasus (the Peguses? Pegasi? Pegasusses?), the big scorpions, Medusa, and the Kraken all look flipping fantastic, even if Leterrier makes the Michael Bay mistake and keeps us too close and moves the camera and editing too fast to ever get a really good, extended look at them.

Memo to filmmakers: WE WANT TO SEE THE MONSTERS. An extended close-up of Megan Fox’s ass or Sam Worthington’s face is all well and good, but we’re HERE TO SEE THE MONSTERS. How do they keep screwing this up? Have you not seen Peter Jackson’s King Kong? Do you think Ray Harryhausen didn’t know his Kraken looked a sliver shy of being photo-realistic? Show us this crap or go make Daisy Miller.

Here’s a pretty air-tight rule: If you’ve got something that is 1. not human, and 2. that is going to be turned into a toy (or was based on a toy), we want to see it. We want to see it a lot. We want to see all of it on screen at the same time and for more than two seconds. Stop being donkeysacs about this.

There’s nothing in this movie that will surprise you and there’s nothing in this movie that will move you. Perseus is a fisherman who’s never used a sword, so of course we have to get the training scene where the lifelong soldier embarrasses him only to have Perseus show amazing ability to pick up what he’s supposed to do and turn the tables on the guy who makes his living doing this. Gah. Every single time Perseus gives a speech you feel worse about dying for him. When the two comic relief soldiers-for-hire and weapon-makers check out, you can’t really blame them. “My dad said someday someone will have to say enough,” Perseus grumbles. “That day is today.” Good speech.

Delivered right before every single member of the traveling party dies.

Thanks, coach!

But hey, you know, it’s not the worst watch in movie history. If you compare it to LotR, Gladiator, 300, and Transformers, it’s going to come up short, but if you compare it to the other films (Pathfinder, 10,000 BC, Gobots) that are clearly trying to pull an ape-and-cash on those films, it’s pretty awesome. It’s on the same level as something like Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven (2005), uneven but worth a watch.

Just do it on as big a TV as possible.

Now, four things to end with:

1. There is no Gobots live-action movie. I lied because I couldn’t think of a big robot movie other than Transformers.

2. There are no actual Titans in this movie. From the Encyclopedia Mythica:

In Greek mythology, the Titans are a race of godlike giants who were considered to be the personifications of the forces of nature. They are the twelve children (six sons and six daughters) of Gaia and Uranus. Each son married, or had children of, one of his sisters. They are: Cronus and Rhea, Iapetus and Themis, Oceanus and Tethys, Hyperion and Theia, Crius and Mnemosyne, and Coeus and Phoebe.

Maybe it’s silly to ask why such an awesome title has nothing to do with the actual movie behind it.

3. The movie made almost half a billion dollars world wide. Half a billion. They’re already planning two sequels.

4. The trailer, which is much better than the film:

____________

CLASH OF THE TITANS Review Index

CLASH OF THE TITANS (1981): End of the Line for Ray Harryhausen
CLASH OF THE TITANS (2010): No titans Were Harmed in the Making of This Film
WRATH OF THE TITANS (2012): Being Half Human Makes You Stronger Than a God