Skip to main content

By Zeus! You were right!

Of course, lamenting that the old "Clash" is so much better than the new one will take us only so far. Any remake has to stand on its own merits. That said, "Clash of the Titans" still sucks.

[. . .]

The Kraken is big all right, and his design -- a small, turtlish head perched on a gargantuan body -- owes a debt, as so many modern movie creatures do, to H.R. Giger's design for "Alien." But this Kraken is disappointing; there's no glamour or mystery to him. He's overscaled and underwhelming, and even in 3-D, he lacks dimension.

[. . .]

But what about everything Hollywood, with movies like this "Clash of the Titans," is failing to give us? The movie is big all right. But where's the magic? (Stephanie Zacharek, "Clash of the Titans" could make the gods weep,” Salon, 2 April 2010)

I promise you, boredom, demi-gods!

Minor spoilers (leakages):

Kalibos bleeds scorpions that are 500 times more powerful than he is (and Kalibos rips people apart, making him 500 times more powerful than regular-strength Perseus is). Medusa is 500 times more powerful than heroes are. Kraken is about same as original, but here you're left feeling he should have been the size of Jupiter -- the planet, that is -- for right-balance sake.

Good movie to go to credit that your absolute unexceptional normality keeps you well within demi-god range. Have to be able to imagine yourself standing up to parents who promise a lifetime of standing-around and being bored, though.

- - - - - - - - - -

You were right, Zeus! Spare us!

As a further note, I have heard that what in particular marks Art in depression eras is showmanship and spectacle. As someone who was into the 1920s but skipped the rest bit until "It's a Wonderful Life" or so, I'm actually wondering if what Art most tries to prove during these times is that man is about as ordinary, as humble-worthy, as disapproving fore-fathers decreed. If depressions are Adam after Eden, willed proof of our own sinful nature, that is -- which is what I think they are -- then maybe what people most want now are a steady flow of films like this that have you thinking that maybe the last 5 000 years of artistic accomplishment were just a fluke after all -- that this steady flow of junk is true proof of all we're made of and all we should subsequently expect. It's our way, perhaps, of suffering the depression, without incurring the release of the Kraken.

Link: “Clash of the Titans” could make the gods weep (Salon)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...
3 comments
Read more

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...
2 comments
Read more