Official RAZZIE® Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > 31st Annual RAZZIE® Award Nominees & "WINNERS" > CLASH OF THE TITANS (in FAKE 3-D!)
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: CGI Krakens?? NO THANX!!!!
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

CGI Krakens?? NO THANX!!!!
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Vits View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4812 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Vits Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: CGI Krakens?? NO THANX!!!!
    Posted: July 29 2012 at 2:47pm
I know I'm gonna offend a lot of people here (specially HeadRAZZ and SchumacherH8Ter), but I thought this was better than the original. Skip to 04:57.

Any thoughts?
Originally posted by Vits

By the way GTA I've seen 7 of your Dirty Dozen.
Now I've seen them all but ALONE IN THE DARK.
http://vits-ingthemovies.blogspot.com
Back to Top
SchumacherH8ter View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: September 06 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2011 		Post Options Post Options   Quote SchumacherH8ter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 09 2011 at 8:25pm
Ah Clash Of The Titans. It's a seriously dumb movie with stiff acting, but compared to the other crap I've been watching lately (specifically Rob Zombie's joyless Halloween movies) I'll take it.
 
The good:
 
The action scenes: When the film features action scenes, it gets exciting. If this featured more action and less boring scenes this film's RT score would be... a little higher, not in the fresh zone.
 
The (non 3D) special effects: The special effects that were ment to be in the film are really good.
 
Gemma Arterton's hotness: It's been a while since I've put an actress's hotness in a review. She's really hot, but her acting is... meh. Not really bad, but not good. Her performance in Prince Of Persia was pretty bad although I actually liked that one.
 
The bad:
 
Character design changes from the original: While I did like the Cthulhu-like appearance of the Kraken, the new designs aren't very good. Specifically, Calibos. In the original, he was an awesomely hideous thing. Here, he's Two-Face in a toga.
 
The Bubo insult: There's a brief scene where Perseus picks up Bubo, but throws him back in a chest. Bubo was awesome in the original film. He headbutted Calibos in the groin!
 
The ugly:
 
Sam Worthington: Worthington's just bad here. He's since apologized for it, but there's another reason for him being here. Read this* and find out!
 
The fake 3D: The fake 3D in this is an albatross around the film's neck. If this movie is brought up in a conversation, it's bound to be about bad 3D.
 
As you could tell from the review, I'm a big fan of the original Clash Of The Titans. I gave it a B+. Grade: B-
 
Next-up: P2! (Again, no reason)
 
*http://www.chud.com/23299/by-zeus-the-version-of-clash-of-the-titans-you-didnt-see/
Joel Schumacher is history's greatest monster!-Robot Chicken
https://twitter.com/SchumacherH8r
Next-up: The Oogieloves
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557 		Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 25 2011 at 9:30pm
Originally posted by GTAHater767

Since New Year's Day 2000, have there been any successful, well-received prequels that were not considered reboots? 
Nope, the list of good prequels is even shorter than the list of good sequels, because none exist! No, "Paranormal Activity 2" doesn't count, it was a mid-quel that took place before, during, and after the events of the first movie. And "Death Proof" doesn't count either because we don't know when it took place, before or during the events of "Planet Terror", although the scenes in question had NOTHING to do with the events of "PT" besides a wink-wink to the audience that the two movies exist in the same universe. "Iron Man 2" doesn't count either, again mid-quel, events happening during the same time that just so happen to be interconnected. A true prequel takes place YEARS before the events of the original movie and usually sets up events and introduces characters that will later have a major impact in the original movie. The "Star Wars" prequels fit that description ... and they sucked to high heaven. And there was that "Underworld" prequel, which was okay at best if you want a guilty pleasure to watch.
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
Vits View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4812 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Vits Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 25 2011 at 8:52pm
DEATH PROOF and PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2.The rest are either direct-to-video(not enough reviews to judge)or were only technically prequels like IRON-MAN 2 being technically a prequel to THE INCREDIBLE "HULK".

By the way GTA I've seen 7 of your Dirty Dozen.
http://vits-ingthemovies.blogspot.com
Back to Top
GTAHater767 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: October 25 2009
Location: I shall not say
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1127 		Post Options Post Options   Quote GTAHater767 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 25 2011 at 8:33pm
Was Batman Begins the only film prequel anyone's liked since 2000?
Scratch that, Batman Begins was a reboot. Since New Year's Day 2000, have there been any successful, well-received prequels that were not considered reboots? Because while sequels sometimes stand some chance of success, prequels are harder to make, and harder to avoid continuity errors and other contradictions.
 
By the way, I declare Clash of the Titans [remake] to be the #18 Worst Film of 2010. Horrible CGI images that are arguably lower-quality than the stop motion technology used in the 1981 original, poor plot, below-average acting, but this movie and its reviews are not as bad as those that follow.
RAZZIE Dirty Dozen: Battlefield Earth, F G Fingered, Pluto Nash, A Sound of Thunder, Alone in the Dark, Dirty Love, Rise Silver Srfr, Daddy Day Camp, IKWKM, The Love Guru, All About Steve, Airbender
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557 		Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 25 2011 at 4:41pm
Originally posted by Vits

I didn't say Lucas intended for that theory on purpose.
And I say he didn't intend ANYTHING at all. He didn't plan it all the way through, he just wanted to further cash in on his creation, plot holes be damned.
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
Vits View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4812 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Vits Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 25 2011 at 3:18pm
I didn't say Lucas intended for that theory on purpose.
http://vits-ingthemovies.blogspot.com
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557 		Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 25 2011 at 3:11pm
Originally posted by Vits

But that's exactly what I said.He lost those things.The same happened to everything related to technology.
But HOW did he lose those things? PLOT HOLE! It's just an epic goof on Lucas' part. You don't make prequels that take place in the past but they look a thousand times better than the furture, because it's a plot hole. Even characters like Obi-Wan, Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru are plot holes. In Episode 3, they are in their 20s or 30s, but then in Episode 4, only 20 years later, they look like they are in their 70s!
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
Vits View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4812 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Vits Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 25 2011 at 1:17pm
But that's exactly what I said.He lost those things.The same happened to everything related to technology.
http://vits-ingthemovies.blogspot.com
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557 		Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 25 2011 at 12:55pm
Originally posted by Vits

I have a new crazy theory.Please hear me out.Everything in the STAR WARS universe seems futuristic.However it happened "a long time ago in a galaxy far,far away".Maybe their evolution goes backwards.Or maybe because of the Republic turning into Empire it all went to sh*t.Look at how countries look during war,and how they look before and after.
There's one big flaw to your theory: R2D2. He had a bunch of gadets and abilities in the prequels that he didn't have in the original movies. Sorry, but that's just massive plot holes by George Lucas.
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
Vits View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4812 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Vits Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 25 2011 at 12:35pm
I have a new crazy theory.Please hear me out.Everything in the STAR WARS universe seems futuristic.However it happened "a long time ago in a galaxy far,far away".Maybe their evolution goes backwards.Or maybe because of the Republic turning into Empire it all went to sh*t.Look at how countries look during war,and how they look before and after.
http://vits-ingthemovies.blogspot.com
Back to Top
Vermn View Drop Down
Berry New Comer
Berry New Comer


Joined: January 25 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Vermn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 25 2011 at 10:00am
I remember seeing the original movie way back when. Although the effects weren't all that great, I appreciated the work of Ray Harryhausen and his history.
I just recently saw the remake, and I can say, it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be.
Whenever I see a remake, I try and forget the original, especially if it's a movie I like.
Although it was a bit jumpy and quick moving, it wasn't so overdone that it was unwatchable like the Transformers movies.
I think the problem with CGI is that it's way overused. They use it even when it's not needed. Perhaps they have to justify the budget, so they throw in some animation at every twist and turn. I don't know.
Look at what George Lucas did with the last three Star Wars movies. Going by the time line, the last three were supposed to take place BEFORE the first three, yet the technology in the last three makes the first three look like a silent movie. I doubt that a second goes by without some sort of CGI. Those movies were way overdone.
Then he goes back and ads to the original trilogy? What's the point? Now I'm not talking about adding in Jabba the Hut in the first movie. Lucas had said on numerous occasions that he wanted Jabba in the first film, he just didn't have the money or the technology to do it, so he goes back years later and adds in a character he wanted. All fine and good. But to add all these little things in that have nothing to do with the story?
There are some pretty amazing scenes in movies that were done before the advent of CGI, so it can be done. Sadly, Hollywood has chosen, in many cases, to take what could be a great meal, and turn it into the film equivalent of McDonalds. Quick, dirty,cheap and not very satisfying.
Maybe that's why people don't go to the movies that much anymore, besides the cost of course.
People realize what Hollywood is doing. They aren't trying to make a decent movie, just a quick buck, and alot of people don't want to fall for it.
Back to Top
Vits View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4812 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Vits Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 09 2010 at 1:03pm
That you won't like the effects?Sure.That it's a terrible movie?No.
http://vits-ingthemovies.blogspot.com
Back to Top
TheMovieCritic View Drop Down
Berry New Comer
Berry New Comer


Joined: December 06 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 12 		Post Options Post Options   Quote TheMovieCritic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 08 2010 at 3:48pm
This film's trailer says it all.
Back to Top
Vits View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 01 2010
Location: Chile
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4812 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Vits Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 08 2010 at 12:05pm
How do you know that if you didn't watch it?
http://vits-ingthemovies.blogspot.com
Back to Top
TheMovieCritic View Drop Down
Berry New Comer
Berry New Comer


Joined: December 06 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 12 		Post Options Post Options   Quote TheMovieCritic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 08 2010 at 11:26am
Didn't bother with this terrible movie. I would rather watch the 1981 version than this sorry excuse for a "remake." At least the 1981 version's special effects were decent, especially compared to the terrible CGI used in this film.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down