I remember my fifth grade English teacher making us read Padriac Colum's "The Golden Fleece", a long children's novel about Perseus, the sorceress Medea (the love of his life) and their adventures around the world, hunting for titans, monsters and defying the Gods. I remember this clearly, for she warned us that when we got to Mythology in our advanced English classes in college we were sure to flunk lest we learned our mythology right then and there, "and what better way to do so than through this extraordinary introduction to the subject?" I've always been a literature fan, and I love doing my research correctly. Back then, my research amounted to having my mom taking me to the Cineplex to watch Disney's "Hercules". She took me on a weekend, and I remember returning to school on Monday anxious to inform the teacher and my classmates that Colum was wrong, because Disney didn't depict the mythological gods and heroes like he said. My teacher, bless her, set me straight and explained to me how films will never resemble the book, and how the book, in turn, will differ in many points from what Mythology scholars would say.
That was 1997. I've never taken a single course of Mythological Literature since, but it was a surprise to go to the Cineplex again to watch Louis Leterrier's "Clash of the Titans" and find that it didn't differ much from the portrait of Mythology our English teacher had painted for us back in 1997. The story is very much the same as I remembered it: Perseus, son of Zeus and a human woman, is seeking revenge from Hades for killing his Earthly parents, and is traveling with a bunch of soldiers from Argon to the ends of the world, seeking a way to stop Hades' Kraken from destroying Argon and trying to come to terms with his being a demi-god and his falling in love with the demi-goddess Io (not Medea, as my book would have it).
There are three quite notable differences from film to Mythology, though: a) the characters' beards are wildly long and unkempt (I wanna say 'Neanderthal') unlike the clean-shaven heroes I saw in my book, b) their costumes don't fit into the preconception I had of Greek apparel; rather, the people are dressed in battle-wear and silk robes that scream "The Passion of the Christ meets Frank Miller's 300", and c) there was no Kraken in any part of the Mythology that was taught me; I remember a Leviathan in The Bible and a Kraken in "Pirates of the Caribbean", but no more.
Then again, I had to constantly remind myself that this is Hollywood we're talking about, and no amount of unshaven Neanderthals in Greek armor can deter the main hero from being an Adonis, clean-shaven, perfectly-built and bearer of a modern port, handsomeness and demeanor which teenage girls would melt over. So, according to the Hollywood standards, casting Sam Worthington as Perseus is nothing short of infallible. Then there's the casting of Ralph Fiennes as Hades, God of the Underworld...and no, he's not dressed in a smoky dark tunic or has no blue flames as hair (like Disney would have you believe), but looks rather like Genghis Khan with ethereal fiery wings. Talk about imagination. Then there's Liam Neeson as Zeus, God of Lightning; his shining armor almost blinds the viewer and I was sure he'd join King Arthur any moment, brandishing his shiny sword around and having his braided and flea-infested beard flying behind him...but I digress.
I guess I made my point about the costume design. Yes, they went too far and yes, it doesn't even look remotely Greek, but that can all be forgiven because of the imagination that went behind the design of the titans and demons Perseus and the Argonauts fight against. You'll find yourself in awe at the serpentine Gorgon, the stone scorpions, the Eyeless Fates, Pegasus, and even the non-mythological Kraken, who looks simply awesome.
The plot is predictable, whether you know your mythology or not, but one doesn't see "Clash of the Titans" because of its plot, but because of the action scenes, and it DOES deliver at that. Action scene after action scene leave you awestruck, even if the so-called drama and seedily clichéd dialogue attempt to destroy them whenever the battles stop for a breather and we're left with the characters simply staring and talking at each other à la Transformers Two. But to be sure, "Titans" is your usual Hollywood action flick that bases its success on the special effects and a pair of steaming hot leading actors; the difference between "Titans" and any other commercial money-milker, though, is that this one actually entertains the audience and pumps you up.
Yes, it's a heavily flawed film. Yes, it's not the best film of the year. But it IS a great time at the movies and it IS guaranteed to entertain. Rating: 2 stars and a half out of 4!
That was 1997. I've never taken a single course of Mythological Literature since, but it was a surprise to go to the Cineplex again to watch Louis Leterrier's "Clash of the Titans" and find that it didn't differ much from the portrait of Mythology our English teacher had painted for us back in 1997. The story is very much the same as I remembered it: Perseus, son of Zeus and a human woman, is seeking revenge from Hades for killing his Earthly parents, and is traveling with a bunch of soldiers from Argon to the ends of the world, seeking a way to stop Hades' Kraken from destroying Argon and trying to come to terms with his being a demi-god and his falling in love with the demi-goddess Io (not Medea, as my book would have it).
There are three quite notable differences from film to Mythology, though: a) the characters' beards are wildly long and unkempt (I wanna say 'Neanderthal') unlike the clean-shaven heroes I saw in my book, b) their costumes don't fit into the preconception I had of Greek apparel; rather, the people are dressed in battle-wear and silk robes that scream "The Passion of the Christ meets Frank Miller's 300", and c) there was no Kraken in any part of the Mythology that was taught me; I remember a Leviathan in The Bible and a Kraken in "Pirates of the Caribbean", but no more.
Then again, I had to constantly remind myself that this is Hollywood we're talking about, and no amount of unshaven Neanderthals in Greek armor can deter the main hero from being an Adonis, clean-shaven, perfectly-built and bearer of a modern port, handsomeness and demeanor which teenage girls would melt over. So, according to the Hollywood standards, casting Sam Worthington as Perseus is nothing short of infallible. Then there's the casting of Ralph Fiennes as Hades, God of the Underworld...and no, he's not dressed in a smoky dark tunic or has no blue flames as hair (like Disney would have you believe), but looks rather like Genghis Khan with ethereal fiery wings. Talk about imagination. Then there's Liam Neeson as Zeus, God of Lightning; his shining armor almost blinds the viewer and I was sure he'd join King Arthur any moment, brandishing his shiny sword around and having his braided and flea-infested beard flying behind him...but I digress.
I guess I made my point about the costume design. Yes, they went too far and yes, it doesn't even look remotely Greek, but that can all be forgiven because of the imagination that went behind the design of the titans and demons Perseus and the Argonauts fight against. You'll find yourself in awe at the serpentine Gorgon, the stone scorpions, the Eyeless Fates, Pegasus, and even the non-mythological Kraken, who looks simply awesome.
The plot is predictable, whether you know your mythology or not, but one doesn't see "Clash of the Titans" because of its plot, but because of the action scenes, and it DOES deliver at that. Action scene after action scene leave you awestruck, even if the so-called drama and seedily clichéd dialogue attempt to destroy them whenever the battles stop for a breather and we're left with the characters simply staring and talking at each other à la Transformers Two. But to be sure, "Titans" is your usual Hollywood action flick that bases its success on the special effects and a pair of steaming hot leading actors; the difference between "Titans" and any other commercial money-milker, though, is that this one actually entertains the audience and pumps you up.
Yes, it's a heavily flawed film. Yes, it's not the best film of the year. But it IS a great time at the movies and it IS guaranteed to entertain. Rating: 2 stars and a half out of 4!