300: Rise of an Empire

Wrath of the Titans

Directed by Jonathan Liebesman.

2012. Rated PG-13, 99 minutes.

Cast:

Sam Worthington

Liam Neeson

Rosamund Pike

Ralph Fiennes

Bill Nighy

Toby Kebbell

Édgar Ramirez

Danny Huston

Lily James

John Bell

Kathryn Carpenter

Even though he’s half-god, Perseus (Worthington) has made it clear to his father Zeus (Neeson) he wants nothing to do with those snobs on Mount Olympus. Still, the old man comes sniveling back, begging Perseus to save their hides. Zeus’ dad Kronos is a little ornery over being defeated by his boys eons earlier and wants a return match. After Kronos starts killing off gods and threatens both the gods and man alike, you know who reluctantly joins the fray. He enlists the help of Queen Andromeda (Pike), her army and his cousin, fellow half-god Agenor (Kebbell). In case you’re somehow not sure, this is the sequel to the 2010 remake of Clash of the Titans.

That last sentence sums up a lot of what people think is wrong with Hollywood. It’s what they point to as evidence of the movie industry’s lack of original though. This is particularly true of the blockbusters flooding the multiplexes every summer; an endless procession of sequels, prequels, remakes, reboots and re-imaginings heavy on techno wizardry and light on substance. These generalizations might seem unfair in a review on any one film in particular. However, Wrath of the Titans must wear the shoe it fits.

Sam Worthington adds another to his repertoire of bland protagonists. Liam Neeson does what Liam Neeson does: use his booming voice to give his character an air of authority. However, he spends most of the movie on the sidelines. Pike just looks pretty as Queen Andromeda. Most bizarrely, Kebbell as Agenor seems to be impersonating Russell Brand. As simple as the plot seems, its execution is jumbled. It doesn't always make sense and a general mess is made of Greek mythology. In short, stuff just keeps happening whether it’s logical or not.

On the plus side, that stuff keeps the movie somewhat interesting. There is tons of action as our heroes try to save both the Earth and the heavens. Creature designs are generally fantastic and they tear up things pretty well. The one exception being our main baddy. He’s a little too out of whack with everything else and getting anywhere near him should cause death. Sadly, it doesn't because then our hero wouldn't be able to be heroic. There is some heavy-handedness about father-son and sibling relationships. Honestly, this doesn't bother me since it at least makes sense. More troublesome is the weirdly atheist undertones. As I've said in reviews of other films there are good, even excellent movies from that point of view. The problem here is it feels needlessly subversive to its own subject matter. Combined with all the poetic license taken with the characters we get the feeling the people who made Wrath of the Titans don’t exactly appreciate Greek mythology.

Much like its predecessor, Wrath isn't the worst movie in the world. It’s just not a good one, either. The visuals work very well. Full disclosure: I did not watch either of the franchise’s movies in 3D which I’ve heard complaints about, especially in regards to the first film. The action keeps things moving along nicely and it’s thankfully short at ninety-nine minutes. Unfortunately, the characters are dull and/or given nothing to do and what’s happening around them doesn't always add up.

MY SCORE: 5/10 

Immortals

Directed by Tarsem Singh.

2011. Rated R, 110 minutes.

Cast:

Henry Cavill

Freida Pinto

Mickey Rourke

Stephen Dorff

Luke Evans

Isabel Lucas

John Hurt

Kellan Lutz

Joseph Morgan

Ann Day-Jones

Peter Stebbings

Where there are swords, there must also be sandals. Not really, but they do enjoy each other’s company quite often. In Immortals they not only hang out together once again, they have many more of the usual suspects with them: chain mail, oracles, prophecies, and of course, immortals. Oh, I almost forgot there has to be a magical weapon. In this case it is The Epirus Bow.

Let’s back up a bit. Many moons ago, the gods defeated the titans at war. Instead of killing their enemies, the gods banished the titans to a special cage deep within the bowels of a Greek village where they are to spend eternity in a state of suspended animation. Sigh. This is where The Epirus Bow comes in. Whoever possesses it can use it to free the titans and wreak havoc on the world. Inexplicably, the gods don’t keep nor attempt to destroy this bow. The gods must be crazy.

Fast forward a few years. Unsurprisingly, the tyrannical King Hyperion (Rourke) is busy turning over every stone he comes across looking for said bow as part of his master plan…wait for it…wait for it…to rule the world! Muahahaha…ahem, sorry. In the process, he kills lots of people just to make sure we know how evil he is. Many of these are his own soldiers and mostly for no more reason than I’ve already given. That’s got to be bad for the troops’ morale, no?

Since every villain must contend with a hero, we have Theseus (Cavill). He’s a peasant who takes care of his mom and pals around with an old man (Hurt) whom he doesn’t realize is Zeus (Evans) in disguise. Pretty early on, Zeus comes right out and tells us Theseus is the only person who can stop King Hyperion. Of course, the gods could but Zeus forbids them from getting involved in human affairs. That whole thing gets darn messy, but I digress. The virgin oracle we can’t believe is a virgin is played by the almost impossibly beautiful (in my opinion) Freida Pinto.  Also early on, she “sees” that Theseus will indeed get his hands on The Epirus Bow. So there, now you don’t have to watch this crap. Hmmm. Since we are in Ancient Greece I’ll say it Olde English (wait…what?). This crap, thou mustn’t watcheth.

If you couldn’t tell already, I hateth this movie. Immortals is aggressively dumb without the good sense to not take itself so seriously. Nearly every action any character makes can be summed up by one word: stupid. It also breaks its own rules several times. This is noticeable mostly because the film itself makes a big deal out of these rules. Save for a couple of brief instances, it lacks the visual splendor of 300 or even the Clash of the Titans remake so we can’t even distract ourselves with shiny objects other than Mickey Rourke’s ridiculous looking headgear. The final, meant to be spectacular, battle involving the cgi titans is underwhelming. The Epirus Bow isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, either. It’s a bow that supplies its own arrows which is nice, but after taking the one shot to free the titans, it’s still just a bow and arrow.

Immortals wants to an epic but just comes across as hokey. Despite his helmets, Mickey Rourke is awesome as always and does all he can with a role requiring little more of him than being sweaty and stomping around the set. John Hurt also fares well. As our hero, Henry Cavill is just ho-hum, though he certainly looks the part (or for Superman, the part which he’ll use to soar into theaters next summer). Freida Pinto is absolutely drop dead gorgeous, just in case I didn’t make that clear. Unfortunately, the amount of drool that escapes my hanging bottom lip whenever she is on screen isn’t nearly enough for me to recommend this.

The Eagle

Directed by Kevin Macdonald

2011. Rated PG-13, 114 minutes.

Cast:

Channing Tatum

Jamie Bell

Donald Sutherland

Mark Strong

Tahar Rahim

Denis O’Hare

Dakin Matthews

Ned Dennehy

Julian Lewis Jones

Some years earlier, his father led a group of Roman soldiers into the wilds of 2nd century Great Britain. They were never heard from again. Also lost was the gold eagle each unit takes with them into battle. Now, Marcus Flavius Aquila (Tatum) is himself a garrison commander in the Roman army. He volunteers for a tour of duty in Great Britain in hopes of recovering the eagle and/or his father. As luck would have it, he is severely injured in battle and involuntarily discharged before he even embarks on that mission. After recuperating, he and a British slave who’s life he saved venture out on their own to complete the job he came to do.

The Eagle wants to position our two buddies as having an uneasy relationship. It wants us to think that the lowly slave Esca (Bell) may not be trustworthy. However, the way things play out, we never get that feeling. That’s a major issue for a movie banking on that aspect. It saps the entire production of any tension it might have had if this angle had been better executed. We never feel that our hero is in any serious danger. Even when things seem most bleak we know that his sidekick is merely biding his time.

Our hero is also problematic. Part of this is due to star Channing Tatum and part to the way his part is written. It seems the writers couldn’t make up their mind how great a soldier he is, or isn’t. The same goes for his fluctuating intelligence. He’s smart or dumb depending on what the plot requires at any given moment. It’s much the same for his soldiering skills. For instance, there’s a moment early on where the very faint sound of his enemies wakes him from a dead sleep. Presumably, his quarters are a ways from the fort wall from beyond which the noise is coming. In fact, no one standing guard on the wall itself hears anything. Initially, I’ve no problem with this. It helps establish him as a superior combatant. However, later on he can’t hear or see more enemies only a few feet away when he is on his own with Esca in the middle of the woods and should be at his most alert. It’s a frustrating about face in character. As for Tatum, I just couldn’t buy him as an Ancient Roman commander with a burning passion for recovering a symbolic bird in an effort to clear his family name. I harbor no hatred for Tatum. If you’re movie is set during contemporary times with a suburban/pseudo urban setting and your lead has to be a white guy with a solid street vibe about him, he’s your guy. As a leader of men during the sword and sandal days, not so much.

There are solid and bloody fight scenes so The Eagle isn’t a total loss. However, the dreadfully serious tone combined with a lack of tension means the movie fails to engage us. We’re not particularly enthralled with this man’s quest. Therefore, the movie trudges past on its way to the inevitable ending with precious little in the way of humor or fun.

MY SCORE: 5/10

13 Assassins

Directed by Takashi Miike.

2010. Not Rated 141 minutes.
Cast:
Kôji Yashuko
Gorô Inagaki
Takayuki Yamada
Mikijiro Hira
Masachika Ichimura
Hiroki Matsukata
Ikki Sawamura
Arata Furuta
Tsuyoshi Ihara
Masataka Kubota

There’s been peace for quite some time in 19th century Japan. However, the looming promotion of Lord Naritsugu (Inagaki) threatens to bring back “the age of war”. He’s a member of nobility about to ascend into greater power by virtue of the family he belongs to. Unfortunately, he’s also a homicidal psychopath making victims of peasants all across the land. To stop his reign of terror, Sir Doi (Hira) hires Shinzaemon Shimada (Yakusho), a samurai, to assassinate Lord Naritsugu. Since the lord is well guarded at all times, Shimada recruits a number of other samurai to help until their numbers reach 13. Even so, they face long odds as the lord routinely travels with about 70 men defending his person. Our heroes have their work cut out for them and they’re more than willing to die for the cause.

Director Takashi Miike is known for going over the top, often at a relentless pace. He usually offers us a string of delightfully disgusting visuals. 13 Assassins does this, but in much different manner than he normally goes about things. The storytelling is wonderfully patient for first two acts then completely goes for broke during a third act solely consisting of an extended battle scene.

Early on, we meet and learn a bit about our principles. We watch Shimada go through the recruitment process. We also meet Hanbei (Ichimura), a samurai who is head of security for Lord Naritsugu and no less willing to die to do his job. He gets wind of the assassination attempt and fills us in on how great a warrior Shimada is. One of the great samurai codes is firmly established: whether one lives or dies, he must do so honorably and in complete loyalty to those he serves. During this portion of the movie we’re intrigued but little happens in the way of action. Most of what does cements in our minds that Lord Naritsugu is thoroughly and irredeemably evil. The things he does to those powerless to stop him are beyond appalling. To tell you that you will hate him is understating things by quite a bit.

The second act consists of strategizing. The good guys devise a plan to track and trap the lord. The bad guys try to anticipate what’s coming and make countermoves. Back and forth the advantage swings. It’s an interesting chess match that comes oh so close to wearing out its welcome. We can feel the outburst of action coming but Miike holds off as long as can. Just Every time it seems confrontation can no longer be avoided something causes a delay. The assassins themselves can barely take it. Like us, they’re itching for battle. They have a job to do, if only Shimada will let them do it.

As if sensing how close the audience is to restlessness, Miike finally brings us to the tipping point: that moment when a violent showdown is not only inevitable but imminent. Even though the bad guys numbers have almost tripled, our heroes have no choice but to spring into action. Simply put, all hell breaks loose. By hell I mean roughly 45 uninterrupted minutes of what we came for: samurai action. It’s an ambitious decision to put almost all of your action at the end of the film. Here, it pays major dividends. That’s because even though we came for the swordplay, we stay because of the characters, their strict code of ethics, the game of hide and seek the sides play with each other and of course, we really hate Lord Naritsugu. We’re earnestly rooting for our heroes.

13 Assassins has been compared to Seven Samurai. Indeed, it was inspired by the classic and some have even called it a remake. Some of the personalities of the good guys feel as if they were taken directly from Kurosawa’s film and the style is reminiscent of it, as well. Like SS, most of the action is backloaded to the latter portions of the film. Though it’s not quite as patient as SS which stretches to well over three hours, 13 Assassins is a very restrained effort more fit for today’s audiences shaving more than 60 minutes off of the former’s runtime. It’s remarkable that it comes from Miike, a director not known for self-control. Holding back the action and giving us plenty more intriguing things in its place draws us in is an ambitious decision that pays off. When we finally get to the battle, it’s made so much better by the fact that we actually care who wins.

MY SCORE: 9/10

War Goddess

Directed by Terence Young.

1973. Rated R, 105 minutes.
Cast:
Alena Johnston
Sabine Sun
Angelo Infante
Rosanna Yanni
Fausto Tozzi
Ángel del Pozo
Lucianna Paluzzi
Rebecca Potok

Every now and then, the search for the terrifically terrible bears fruit. Mind you, it’s rotten fruit but that’s the point. Terence Young’s War Goddess is one such piece of deliciously digusting cinema. Who the hell is Terence Young? I dunno, but he directed and splattered his name across the title. Okay, any of you geniuses that actually know who he is, just play along. Anyhoo, War Goddess is a sword and sandal less-than-epic of the female persuasion. It is about the mythical Amazons, a race of almost entirely self-sufficient warrior women. The way the story shapes up, they’re barely more than a stone’s throw from Ancient Greece. During battle, they dress up like Romans, for some odd reason, and kill a lot of men. In fact, we open on one such battle.

First we see some not-so-gritty battle featuring the ladies slaying random enemy dudes. This culminates in Antiope (Johnston) killing some poor schlub with a sword through the gut. Not content with merely ending the man’s life, she then beheads him. By the way, this is not 300 styled one swipe decapitation. She must hack at this guy’s throat a couple dozen times while conversating with a fellow Amazon. Nice.

Next, we’re treated to a lengthy athletic competition the warrior babes are holding. There’s a little archery, some obstacle course and soon we realize that the winner of this whole thing will get to be queen for the next four years. After eliminating competitors all along the way, the final and deciding event is held. What is it? Wrestling, of course. Our final two ladies, Antiope and her arch-rival Oreitheia (Sun), strip down to just their shoddily made bikini bottoms, oil themselves up and get to grappling. I’m not making this up. Anyhoo, Antiope wins, gets the crown from her predecessor like she just won the Miss America pageant and immediately starts changing rules. She wants to go back to the days of strict discipline and conditioning. She says they’ve gotten soft and fat. Soft? Doesn’t look that way, but okay. Fat? Definitely not. Every one of them that I could see probably went back to their modeling careers after shooting this movie. Just saying.

Earlier, I stated the Amazons are “almost” entirely self-sufficient. Turns out they do need men for one reason, and one reason only: procreation. To that end, they pay the Greek army to come over for a few nights of baby-making. Any male infants are immediately discarded into the wild. Lovely. As part of the new Queen’s strict anti-male policy, the girls recite a chant about how disgusting men are while performing the act. Lo and behold, Queen Antiope goes against her own rules and falls in love with her sperm donor, Theseus (Infante). He’s being all incognito, posing as a captain in the army but he’s really the King of Greece. He wants to integrate men into their society and also falls for her in the process. Almost forgot: he’s married, but his wife is oddly cool with the idea of her hubby going off to use his sword on the Amazons.

Naturally, there’s some betrayal, war games between the Amazons and Greeks and some actual war, too. And just in case the semi-nude wrestling scene at the beginning wasn’t enough, we get a fully buck-nekkid wrasslin’ scene near the end between the same two women. Even better, or worse, depending on your point of view, this fight ends as one has the other pinned and they stare into each other’s eyes, then…BAM, we cut to a scene of the higher up ‘Zons holding a meeting. Our two combatants are holding each other and acting like they’re a little more than friendly all of a sudden. Hmm, something tells me we’re missing some footage here. That’s entirely possible. I neglected to mention that before the movie even starts, an apology flashes across the screen for the poor quality of the print because it was cobbled together from several sources.

If you can’t already tell, WG is bonkers from start to finish. Made during the grindhouse glory days of the 1970s, it has all the tenets of the exploitation genre: unintentional humor, bad dialogue, worse acting, laughable action and never more than a few minutes pass without the appearance of a naked body. Oh, it also has a decidedly anti-feminist ending which is actually a direct contrast with many of the most popular explotation flicks. I don’t know who this Terence Young guy is, but he’s served up a doozy with this one. The name sounds familiar, though. Let’s see what the trusty imdb.com has to say about him. The first thing I notice is that our flick actually has an Italian name: Le guerriere dal seno nudo which literally translates to “The Bare Breasted Warriors”. Makes sense. Woah, woah, woah! Really? In the decade or so prior to this movie, our boy Terence directed three of the most beloved Bond flicks of all time: Dr. No (1962), From Russia with Love (1963) and Thunderball (1965). Wha-wha-what happened? How did he end up doing this schlock? Wow, that’s just icing on a cake that’s so bad it’s awesome!

MY SCORE: -10/10

Conan the Barbarian

Directed by Marcus Nispel.

2011. Rated R, 113 minutes.
Cast:
Jason Momoa
Rachel Nichols
Stephen Lang
Rose McGowan
Saïd Taghmaoui
Leo Howard
Ron Perlman
Bob Sapp

The people involved in making the 2011 version of Conan the Barbarian would like you to know that it has absolutely nothing to do with the 1982 movie which helped Arnold Schwarzenegger become a star. With that in mind, I’ll not mention “The Governator” or that film again. This movie is based more directly on the works of Robert E. Howard who created the character about 80 years ago. If ever there were a movie strictly about swords and sorcery, this is it. Both are responsible for all manner of death and/or dismemberment.

Well, there is a plot cobbled together. It actually starts with the bad guy, Khalar Zym (Lang). His wife had been killed some time ago, I think I heard a thousand years. Hmph. Now, with the help of his sorceress daughter Marique, played by a barely recognizable Rose McGowan, he’s trying to find the one woman of pure Archerion blood so he can use her body to resurrect his bride. Together, they will rule the world! Muwahahahahaahaha! Ahem, sorry. Anyhoo, this twisted father and daughter team don’t just look for the pure blooded girl, they go from village to village killing or enslaving everyon that isn’t who they’re looking for. As fate would have it, they come upon little Conan’s village (the character is played by Howard as a child). They make the tiny warrior watch his father die (Perlman handles the dying, here), then they burn the place to the ground killing the rest of our hero’s people. Fast forward about a decade. The evil dad and his evil-er female spawn are still searching for that special someone and Conan is out for revenge.

Like any other flick, Conan has its strengths and weaknesses. It’s strength is obviously the non-stop bloody violence. Body parts are hacked off or literally beaten to a pulp with great regularity. They fly all over the place, too. After it was over, I had to sweep up some severed heads, arms and legs, several each. I’m having new carpet put in this week, the blood soaked right through.

On the weak side is everything else. For starters, there is no character development. Even as simplistic as the plot is, the story-telling is muddled. The dialogue is a cheesy form of Olde English and almost all of the acting is over the top. Despite a love scene that says otherwise, there is little chemistry between Conan and “it girl” Tamara (Nichols). Finally, for some reason they wasted money and runtime by having none other than Morgan Freeman narrate. Don’t get me wrong, if you need a narrator for your movie, Freeman is an outstanding choice. Just having him read the labels on cereal boxes will probably sound good. The problem is after he gives a long spiel explaining something, we’re given a scene that shows us the exact same thing. Pick one.

With regards to picking, that’s what you will have to do before seeing this. You have to decide, if you don’t know already, what floats your boat. Long review short: Conan is one long gory action scene with a pause for topless wenches (that’s in the credits), another pause for sex and a few brief pauses for talking…er…yelling and grunting. The story is told in a way that makes me believe my 12 year old nephew worked closely with the director. Is it fun to sit through? If you’re looking for wall-to-wall action, then the answer is yes. Is there anything at all here that will leave a lasting impression? No.

Robin Hood (2010)

Directed by Ridley Scott.
2010. Rated PG-13, 140 minutes.
Cast:
Russell Crowe
Cate Blanchett
Oscar Isaac
Max von Sydow
Mark Strong
William Hurt
Danny Huston
Mark Addy
Kevin Durand
Léa Seydoux

The legend of Robin Hood, here played by Russell Crowe, has survive for ages by keeping him fairly simple. He and his band of merrymen, plus Lady Marion (Blanchett), roam Sherwood Forest and steal from the rich only so that they can give to the poor. Have you ever wondered how he wound up there? Me neither. However, in Ridley Scott’s sparkingly grimy update on the character that’s precisely what we find out. Oh, if you’re vexing over the oxy-moronic “sparkingly grimy” you have to see it to understand. Dirty people have seldom looked better.

Not content to merely be about our favorite archer, we’re treated to several other storylines to fret over. Most notable is one that emphasizes the difference between King Richard the Lionheart (Huston) and his brother and eventual successor John (Isaac). This supplies us with our hero’s reason to be heroic. Of course, there is also the love story and a couple other things going on. It’s not as convoluted as it sounds. Most of them breathe well enough on their own and come together nicely.

In the lead role, Russell Crowe does what Russell Crowe does. It’s not up there with his best, but it’s solid work, nonetheless. He’s actually outdone by Cate Blanchett as his love interest. Overall, the acting is very good. You should expect no less from the excellently assembled cast. The action scenes are solid, but not spectacular and evoke memories of Braveheart. However, they don’t quite measure up.

Evoking memories is a bit of a problem for this movie. It seems to blend the aforementioned Braveheart with another Scott/Crowe collaboration: Gladiator. The main problem is there seems to be little difference between our newly crowned King John and Gladiator’s Commodus, save for that whole incest thing. Instead of becoming something grand, it turns into a rather bland epic. It’s not bad, but it isn’t likely to stick in your psyche for very long.

Despite the best efforts of Kevin Cosner and Mel Brooks, the image most of us have of Robin Hood is one of Errol Flynn practically dancing up the stairs while sword fighting with multiple henchmen. Maybe we think of Flynn swing from the chandelier or from some other moment culled from all the fantastic cheese that movie provides. All the while, he’s wearing the unmistakable bright green tight and funny mustache. Hmmm…I’d dismissed all charges of homoeroticism against the classic until I wrote this paragraph. There’s nothing wrong with that. I just had a revelatory moment, that’s all. Anyhoo, the 21st century version is a solid, but flawed effort not likely to change the reality of our perception of what Robin Hood should be.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

Directed by Mike Newell.
2010. Rated PG-13, 116 minutes.
Cast:
Jake Gyllenhall
Gemma Arterton
Ben Kingsley
Alfred Molina
Steve Toussaint
Ronald Pickup
Richard Coyle
Toby Kebbell

In ancient Persia, class is everything and usually an unchanging fact of one’s life. Dastan (Gyllenhall) is lucky to be an exception. A parentless ruffian at about 10 years of age, his fortunes change for the better when the king of Persia happens to witness some of his mischief, takes a liking to the boy and adopts him.

King Sharaman (Pickup) already has two biological sons so Dastan can never be king, himself. Still, he fights proudly for his father and his brothers. Under his brother’s orders, while the king is away, Dastan helps invade the holy city of Alumet looking for weapons they are allegedly supplying to enemies of Persia. Naw, that doesn’t reference the War in Iraq, at all. The king is none too pleased, at first, but eventually convinced it was for a just cause. Why are you thinking about Cheney and Bush? Stop it.

A short while later, Dastan discovers he is possession of a very special knife. When the button on its handle is pushed, the person holding it travels back in time about 30 seconds. Of course, whoever framed our hero wants to get their ancient little paws on it.

PoP is simply swash-buckling, good fun. There are lots of chase scenes which include fighting and all sorts of acrobatics. There’s also lots of contentious dialogue, enough of which earns a giggle. Finally, there are some serious plotholes concerning the knife and its use, which I won’t get into, here. However, the positives outweigh the negatives enough for this to just be a fun, popcorn flick. Don’t go looking for great depth, you won’t find it. Though the parallels between the story and our reality are interesting but the opportunity to explore them is wasted. What you will find is a great deal of very nearly brainless entertainment that you can munch snacks to. It’s definitely a “movie night” type of flick to watch with a group.

The Opposite View: Richard Knight, Windy City Times

What the Internet Says: 6.8/10 on imdb.com (9/24/10), 37% on rottentomatoes.com, 50/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 6/10

Clash of the Titans (2010)

Directed by Louis Leterrier.
2010. Rated PG-13, 106 minutes.
Cast:
Sam Worthington
Liam Neeson
Ralph Fiennes
Gemma Arterton
Jason Flemyng
Alexa Davalos
Mads Mikkelson
Izabella Miko
Luke Evans

In Ancient Greece, mankind and the gods are pissed off at each other. The Gods think we’re a bunch of ingrates that need to be taught a lesson. We’re behaving…well…like a bunch ingrates that need to be taught a lesson. Of course, there is that thing about Zeuz (Neeson) coming down from Olympus and sleeping with some dude’s wife. Why would a god, the most powerful of the gods, stoop so low? Because he can, silly. Anyhoo, Zeus’ little rendezvous begets our hero, Percy Jackson…er…Perseus (Worthington).

Perseus has got his own issues. He’s all moody because Zeus is a deadbeat dad and the first time he meets his old man, pops asks him to move in like nothing ever happened. The nerve. So, feeling more than a little rebellious, Perseus joins us mere mortals and discovers he might be the only one who can stay out past curfew, I mean kill the Kraken. For ancient Greeks, the Kraken is kind of like the boogie man, only it’s about the size of Delaware with countless arms and teeth plus a very nasty disposition.

The special fx make it gorgeous to look at. I’ve heard all sorts of bad things about how the tacked on 3D effects ruined it in the theater. I saw it in plain old 2D on the very nearly obsolete DVD format and it looked great. The one letdown being the cartoon character they tried to pass off as Medusa (Natalia Vodianova).

Story-wise, it’s dull. Even if you’re not familiar with Greek mythology there’s still no mystery. We find out very early all we need to know. And I hate to come back to this, but if you’ve seen Percy Jackson or the 1981 original CotT or bothered looking at the movie poster or DVD cover then you either already know or figure out very quickly how our hero is going to be heroic.

Sadly, that hero doesn’t have the charisma to negate such a problem with the story. Maybe it’s just me, but Sam Worthington seems to have become the go-to-guy for action movies requiring bland leading men (he starred in Avatar and Terminator Salvation). His look is reminiscent of a young Russell Crowe. Unlike Crowe, Worthington never compels you to watch him. He’s simply there, dutifully blending in with all the techno-wizardry on display.

When it’s all said and done, the remake lacks the campiness and silly fun of the original. However, it amps up the special fx and is still an entertaining watch. There’s just a lot lacking between the action. It’s better than the present day set, unofficial remake Percy J, but that’s not saying much.

The Opposite View: Richard Corliss, Time

What the Internet Says: 6.0/10 on imdb.com (8/26/10), 29% on rottentomatoes.com, 39/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 5.5/10