Clash of the Titans

I ignored this film when it first came out in 1981. There were just too many cool films to see that year. Friends who saw it told me it was a laughable hoot. Despite it's august cast and attempt to cash in on the mythic quest themes of Star Wars, it rapidly sunk from sight. In 1995, looking for a film appropriate for my 7 year old daughter, I pulled this film out of the 'family' section of my local library. The critics are right. The F/X are clunky, even by 1981 standards.Harry Hamlin is wooden. Judy Bowker is forgettable, and Laurence Olivier hams it up shamelessly...and yet...IT ALL WORKS! The sets and lighting perfectly capture our deepest feellings of mythic Greece. There isn't a drop of contemporary forays into irony & cynicism. It is unalloyed GOOD vs EVIL lovingly given to us by the effects wizard Harryhausen. His monsters have a childlike beauty that makes them 'scary' without trying to gross you out. It's the myth, the quest, and finally the theme that love does conquer all. No need for smart-alecky, eye-winking protaganists. Just a good old fashioned story told straight and true. My now 14yr. old daughter, wife and I just saw it again last night. See it with the child in your life, or the child in you.

Thank you Mr. Harryhausen, for this and all your wonderful films.

This movie has been a favorite of mine since i was a kid--i was very into Greek mythology during grade school, so i loved this film, even though i've seen it about two dozen times (it continues to be a Sunday-afternoon staple on TV). There are a number of mythological inaccuracies in this film (the Kraken wasn't a mythological monster; Perseus didn't have Pegasus, but actually borrowed Hermes' winged sandals, etc.), but it's still a good kids' introduction to ancient mythology. While the actors playing the "mortals" are definitely inferior to those playing the Gods, i suppose it works in the sense of their being the Olympians' puppets and, well, a little limpness in the thespian department is somewhat de rigeur (as is the wise/comic sidekick of Burgess Meredith and the 'little and cute' factor of the mechanical owl) for the kind of classic matinee swashbuckler that "Clash of the Titans" is.

But all these complaints that the Harryhausen effects are crap and it would be so much better done with CGI... well, that's pure craziness. Sure, the monsters don't look convincing, but they look a hell of a lot more convincing then they would as cheap computer animation--can you honestly imagine the Medusa sequence being done any better with some cartoon computer program? (Why? So it could look like the crap in "Phantom Menace"?) I've always felt that Harryhausen's stop-motion technique and the resultant odd way in which the monsters moved added to the sense of their mythic status, their unreality, the sense that these are creatures from another world, another plane. (The recent Asian fantasy/action film "Onmyoji" paid tribute to the master by having a CGI demon army move in Harryhausen stop-motion style and damn me if they didn't look scarier, more unearthly for it.) In my opinion, CGI looks even less "real," more like a painted-on cartoon. There's a depth and detail to creatures that have actually been created in the three-dimensional real world that those who have only existed on a computer screen don't have. Also, no matter how good an actor is, there's a difference between someone who's in the same room with the monster he's fighting, or who at least knows what it looks like, and someone who's just trying to "act scared" in the general direction where something will be inserted later. (Imagine the "Alien" movies made with a hyped-up animated creature: you know that even motionless and plastic squeezed between light stands, that giant H.R. Geiger monster gave everyone on set the creeps.) Maybe people like CGI because they feel safer with obviously fake monsters, things that never even existed as a three-foot high model next to the ham sandwich in someone's shop.

This movie is a wonderful showcase for stop-motion modeling mixed with live-action. By 2005 CGI standards things look a little jerky and unfinished, but this does not distract from drawing the viewer into the world of Greek mythology (commercialized).

The Greek gods are butting their jealous heads together and it is up to the pawn in their game, Perseus, to save the day. This is not a movie that will evoke any sort of overwhelming emotional reactions, but it is a competent damsel-in-distress action flick with handsome heroes and ugly bad guys. The lines between good and evil are distinct and predictable.

When most modern people hear the word "myth", they often "translate" it into the word "lies". To my way of thinking, that accounts for the radical differences in how this film has been evaluated by various viewers. Here is my view and I speak as a casual student of psychologist Carl Jung.

The story line is--not surprisingly--mythic. It is a grand story told on a grand scale with the best tools which were available in 1981. Note the differing ways in which Caliban and Perseus handle misfortune--how many ordinary mortals become so sorry for themselves that they much worsen their own condition? To be sure, it is an invented tale, but it is a myth, not a pack of lies.

It is hard not to like Ray Harryhausen's superior special effects. The technology is better today, but Harryhausen was and is unsurpassed at getting his "mythologicals" to act and interact with the cast.

Oddly enough, Laurence Rosenthal's score--which recently became available on CD--isn't given the attention which it deserves. The music which he composed is spirited, unique and utterly supports whatever is happening on the screen--from the seemingly careless destruction of an entire city to Perseus' "love at first sight" when he sees the sleeping Princess Andromeda.

If you have the gift of mythological consciousness, this is a "10" film for sure. If not, I feel sorry for you. Read some Jung.

I am not here to comment on the admittedly laughable acting. I am not here to ridicule the uninteresting and thoroughly unoriginal storyline. But if anyone, anywhere in the world, endeavours to say a bad word about Ray Harryhausen's special effects, that's where my moral sense of outrage kicks in and I jump into action. Harryhausen's efforts may not closely resemble the flashy, ultrareal CGI-effects we're used to seeing right now. Heck, they may even be primitive for the time they were made in. But darnit, they're vintage! What Harryhausen and his two (that's right, just two!) assistants bring us is unfiltered movie magic, and one of the last true testaments to a dying artform. I know at least a few people who agree with me, which is always a comfort.