Clash of the Titans (2010)

Enter into the world of the Greek legends and stories where gods rule over men, mythical monsters roam the land and hero and heroine have their stories to tell. This film focuses on the story of Perseus who was found mysteriously in the sea and was raised by a fisherman and his family. His life changed when he is caught in the middle of an event and a time when men decided to rebel against the gods, bringing upon them judgment and the wrath of Zeus. Hades agrees to help Zeus in carrying out the judgment on men and the city of Argos using his monstrous pet, the Kraken to bring devastation to the city of Argos. To bring men into the fear of the gods and their judgment, Hades agrees to spare the city if they were to sacrifice their princess, Andromeda. When the King refuses to sacrifice his daughter, it's up to Perseus to find a way to defeat Hades' pet monster, the Kraken and save the lives of the city and the princess. As he journeys into an adventure to find a way to defeat the Kraken, he learns more about his mysterious past and about his true origin and along the way, building allies and enemies, and facing mythological monsters. Directed by Louis Leterrier, this 2010 remake of the original 1981 film stars Sam Worthington as Perseus, Liam Nesson as Zeus, Ralph Fiennes as Hades, Gemma Arterton as Io and Alexa Davalos as Andromeda.

 Epic-ness...

The story of this movie reminded me of the very classical epic hero story, which is quite a rare treat in today's Hollywood movies. But sadly, it's merely a re-adaptation of the original movie which was out during the Hollywood's golden age of 1980s which gave us plenty of epic hero movies. So, in this new one, there's not much of originality in the story and I'm pretty sure there were nods and homages to the original one for those who have watched and love the original 1981 film. But as for me, having not watch the original 1981 version, I can't say much of the comparison between the old and new. But as your classical epic hero story, the story is well crafted in providing the story's background, the fantasy setting, the diversity of characters of both allies and enemies and even laying out the adventures of the hero, from his humble beginning to the mighty warrior, from his calling to saving the damsel in distress. So, I'm pretty much pleased to see the classical epic hero movie on the silver screen. As epic as it tried to be, the movie also failed to deliver in other areas.

Laurence Olivier's Zeus from the 1981's Clash and Liam Nesson's Zeus in the 2010's.

The characters may be diverse but I felt they were very under developed. The characters were very one note, bland, flat, the same from the beginning to the end. I didn't feel that there was any character development or even character depth. Perseus was the same "I'm the hero" feel from beginning to the end which he didn't quite grow into a hero and we're meant to think he was a fisherman and he couldn't fight at first. It already felt like he was expected to be the hero from the very first scene as a grown up man. Zeus was the same "I'm the god, how dare they defy me?!" from beginning to the end, arrogant and angry. It felt like his heart wasn't affected or soften when he learn about his son he never knew, being on Earth and even after the events that happen in the movie that nearly led to his downfall, he never did show that he learn anything out from it. He was the same from the beginning to the end. Hades, was just the same, and felt like he was only meant to fill in the ultimate villain role of the movie. Andromeda has very little screen time, scenes showing her inner strength and her kindness for her people which I think meant to give the viewers reasons to be saved but ultimately it also felt like she's meant to only fill in the role of the damsel in distress and the princess who needs saving. Io, being the ageless companion watching over Perseus, have been watching Perseus from the beginning to the end, and trying to be the wise counsel to him with no character development. That goes with the rest of the supporting characters as well, everyone was flat. The interaction between characters didn't fare well too. Perseus has been defying Zeus and being angry with him, with very little change of heart. Perseus too went on to his adventure to save the princess whom he hardly even know, for a city he just arrived in, and as for his winged horse he rode, he hardly had much time with it that he just rode it like a car than it being his "mighty steed." The only real relationship or friendship he had was with Io but that too, he never did question how she suddenly just appear into his life.

Your typical damsel in Distress being sacrificed to the Kraken...

Does this reminds you of a scene from King Kong?

I think the acting too wasn't as good as I expect. Despite the various characters introduced in the movie, they're very much like the character themselves very 2D. Sam Worthington just deliver his usual 'hero' look, which he used in his previous films, Terminator Salvation and Avatar. I love it when an actor takes on different and various roles like Johnny Depp and Christopher Lee, pushing their limits and skills in acting. But sadly in Sam's case, his portrayal as Jake Sully in Avatar, Marcus Wright in Terminator Salvation and Perseus in this one is one and the same. With very little hair too, it looks and feels like he is one and the same character in all three movies only with a different name and clothing. Liam Nesson's presence and voice always bring much waves to the audience. Much like what he has done in his portrayal as Ducard in Batman Begins, Aslan in The Chronicles of Narnia, Oskar Schindler in Schindler's List, Bryan Mills in Taken, Godfrey of Ibelin in Kingdom of Heaven and Qui Gon Jinn in Star Wars: Episode 1-The Phantom Menace. His portrayal as Zeus is most interesting and I believe if the character was written well, he could deliver it just as well. His name in the cast list may be one of the reason a movie is label 'epic'. However, as for Ralph Fiennes being one of the heavyweight actors of Hollywood, I am most surprise and disappointed that his portraying of Hades is very much a bearded and a 'nosed' Lord Voldemort from Harry Potter. This Hades didn't strike much fear at all. In fact, Lord Voldemort strike more fear in my heart than this Hades does. I don't know if this is the fault of the director or the actor. As for Gemma Arterton, this may be her first time playing an epic female lead, not counting her short screentime in Quantum of Solace. Her next one will be in the upcoming Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. When I saw her in this movie, she strike a familiarity of her character. It's only after I learn she's going to be in the Prince of Persia, I'm only afraid her portrayal of this female lead character in this movie might very well end up being the same as in Prince of Persia, sort of like Sam Worthington's case. We'll just have to wait and see how she fare in Prince of Persia.

"Jake Sully..."

"My name is Marcus Wright..."

The highlights of this movie were the monsters and creatures from the Greek mythology. That would fill the hearts of the fantasy monster loving people. The spotlight monsters in this movie are Medusa and the Kraken, which I think were creepy and menacing from their build up introduction and their scenes. I didn't particularly like the giant scorpions, maybe because that reminded me of the scorpion robot from the first Transformers movie, and they aren't as creatively design as Medusa or the Kraken. Perhaps scorpions both big and small have been used too many times as well in past movies that they loses their nature to be scary. Think Mummy Returns, The Scorpion King and Scorpion King II. The Kraken may be the largest movie monster I have ever seen. But despite the sheer size and terrifying roar it makes, I just didn't feel it hit WOW factor that it should. I'm not sure where they gone wrong but I'm pretty sure this kind of monsters should be left in Peter Jackson's hands. As for Medusa, the tease was the mystery of the appearance of her face. They have never revealed her face in the trailer or the movie posters, and we know that any man who looks into her eyes will turn into stone, so we can only guess if the film will maker either very pretty or very ugly, or both. But in the end, to me there was nothing surprising about her face or her hair of snakes. However, for both of these monsters, I love their build up introduction, where we only hear about them and how they strike fears into the hearts of men before we actually got to see them.

Face to face with Medusa... Is she pretty? Is she horrifying? Ponder, ponder...

I believe this movie fails because they try too hard to make it feel epic. They've got the formula of making a classical hero story, they got diversity of characters and creatures, they've got the all star cast and they've got all the amazing set and costume designs and epic scale production and they've got all the special effects. But when the audience are rushed through the story and character depth and interaction aren't very deep, the audiences loses connection with the characters and their stories and only finds some satisfactory in the visual effects. It does make me wonder if the director or the studio's vision was to create another 'Lord of The Rings' type of movie. I really felt there was potential for this movie to work, but the movie left me neither feeling like Perseus or feeling like I've turned to stone. As far as this movie goes, I would give this movie, a 4.5 out of 10 electronic owls.

Epic shot: Perseus riding on Pegasus along the beach with a sunset!

Green Zone (2010)

During the 2003 US led invasion in Iraq, Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller and his squad were given missions to investigate for Weapons of Mass Destruction in suspected places provided by US intelligence. When carrying out his missions, he realize that every missions he was given, the suspected storehouse for Weapons of Mass Destruction appeared to be empty. He began to questions the reliability of the sources, and soon learn of a conspiracy going on within the government. The movie was inspired from the non-fiction 2006 book Imperial Life in the Emerald City by journalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran which documented life in Green Zone, Baghdad. Directed by Paul Greengrass who also directed Bourne Supremacy and Bourne Ultimatum which also starred Matt Damon, this movie stars Matt Damon as Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller, Amy Ryan as the foreign correspondent for Wall Street Journal, Lawrie Dayne, Brendan Gleeson as the CIA Baghdad bureau chief, Martin Brown, Greg Kinnear as Pentagon Special Intelligence, Clark Poundstone, Yigal Naor as the Iraqi General Al-Rawi and Khalid Abdalla as an Iraqi civilian "Freddy".

This movie is less of an action flick or even a war movie, but it's primary focus is really about finding out what's going on behind this war, and particularly reminding us about the controversies behind the US led invasion in Iraq back in 2003. The goal of the invasion was to disarm Iraq under Saddam Hussien's rule and their Weapons of Mass Destruction. This movie pretty much retells the events that goes on Iraq during that time with fictitious names of Matt Damon's character arc representing the military failure to find any WMD in Iraq, Lawrie Dayne representing the press in search for the truth, the US informant "Magellan" based on real life informant "Curveball" and we have the divided government intelligence represented by Martin Brown and Clark Poundstone. So, once you fit the characters and their stories in place, you pretty much get the story behind the Iraq war in 2003. So, in the end, it felt like the movie is trying to preach than it does in trying to give us an action flick or a war movie.

The war scenes were not all that special, since it wasn't the primary focus of the film. They were not only short but you've got a feeling that the American soldiers already have the upper hand in most of the time. Even when you have Miller by himself, he pretty much become 'Jason Bourne'. The way the war and action scenes were handled was pretty much recycling what they've done in other movies, and just to keep the "action" and some adrenaline going. However, the dialogue and the lines took the stage in this film. The dialogue was what that really drive the story. They were all written very good, definitely better than the effort put into the action scenes.

The characters were secured in their roles in the story. Each definitely played a big part of the story. Apart from Miller and Freddy's character, the rest really doesn't have much character development. Miller loses his loyalty to his government and Freddy becomes more than just your Iraqi civilian. The rest was the same from their introduction to their end. Overall, the characters were written very nicely. But when it comes to the actors portraying their characters, many of them I feel were very two-dimensional. They were all shape into their roles for the story and the actors just execute them. Among all the actors, I feel that 'Freddy' is the most interesting one and Khalid Abdalla played out his character very well, from his confusions about the activity of the American soldier, his emotion and his heart for his people and his country as well as responding to situation that requires him making a big decision.

Matt Damon's character however fall short among the other actors, his character was pretty much two dimensional and pretty much "goal-orientated". His mind was from "I need to complete my mission" to "I want answers from what's going on" and finally "I need to get the truth out." If you ever played a single player first person shooter game, you would realize Miller acts precisely like that. He's just there to complete his objectives. Another disappointed with Miller's character was that he reminded me too much of Jason Bourne. I think this is really because of Matt Damon who played him and previously as Jason Bourne and Paul Greengrass directing this film who also directed the recent two Bourne films. Even their story arc is essentially the same; the government is hiding something from Matt Damon's character and he goes out finding the truth. I'm really disappointed they could not make his character different from one another apart from their name and what they wear.

The special and visual effects in the movie were pretty much used as a tool to make the environment as real as possible. From creating the feel of the bombing of Baghdad in the beginning of the film to the CG destroyed buildings and statues around to the exploded helicopter. The special effect was impressive, but not all that eye popping or overuse. The camera work of the film can be annoying at times, because it's just not steady. But it is pretty much use to capture the intensity of the scenes. So expect action scenes to be really really really shaky and dialogue scenes having less shake. Annoying and possible dizzy if you watch it in the cinema.

Overall, the film is entertaining but not all that special. Unless you're going to consider the message of the film, there's really not much to like...or even dislike. I would give 4.5 out of 10 Book with Al-Rawi's safehouse address.