Welcome to Gaia! ::

Honestly? I think it had cool special effects and I like how everyone looks good; not like Troy--the one with Brad Pitt--where everyone looks so hot showing off their chiseled muscles, this move is not like that, so I give them kudos for that.
But I didn't like how Perseus' mother dies, when she didn't :/ And Perseus' myth is different than the movie; he used Medusa to free his mom from marrying that king, so...
I did like how Io told Medusas' story; that's pretty cool. But Medusas' portrayal really let me down. Because when Medusa was human, she was very beautiful, yes, but when she became Medusa, she became a hideous gorgon. And in the movie, she was a sexy-looking monster >:/
I was insulted talk2hand

Will I ever see it again? Maybe...

I never did anything to Perseus. I never even knew him. What did I do to deserve this..... *mutters to self*

*feels stupid* I never met him in person. I did all of this through Hermes since....
1) I don't really like to leave the Underworld.
2) Chances are, I'd attempt offering him the Girl Scout cookies (They were around back then.) I'm trying to get rid of, and then he'd be stuck in the Underworld forever.

Well, I just went to see it.

I feel like crying.

As both a lover of mythology and a lover of good cinema, I was horribly, horribly disappointed.

This movie blew chunks. It was loathsome. At least the original movie was charming and didn't take itself too seriously. This remake just felt like a souless, hackneyed 3d-centric experience with nothing to keep us interested in the paceless unfolding of the plot, and no real reason for the characters to be invested in their quest at any rate. All the monsters and mythical references felt like they were just arbitrarily dropped into the story (some of them from entirely different mythologies). Why did they feel the need to insert the Djinn into this? What, they needed someone to be the Chewbacca? Calibos was also a hit and miss, since he was barely necessary in the original movie and seems to have no reason for being in this one, now that Thetis is absent from the plot. I don't buy the Acrisius story, not only because it's a contradiction of myth, but because it's a contradiction within the movie itself. If Zeus needs Hades and eventually Perseus to do his dirty work, then why would he intervene personally to monsterify Acrisius with a thunderbolt? The main character's new motivation for his quest (vengeance on Hades for killing his family) was completely the wrong way to go, and Perseus himself was a wooden and one-dimensional character who could only express himself as 'whiny' or 'angry'. There was no consistency in his attitudes either. One minute he's refusing the gifts of the gods, claiming he wants to do this as a man, and the next he's wielding Zeus' lightsaber and riding (the) Pegasus, oddly enough as though riding a winged horse was an ordinary daily affair. They eliminated the romance with Andromeda and reduced her role to 'obligatory damsel in distress', meaning the audience shouldn't even care about her fate. Instead, they threw in Io for no reason. The gods looked about as ridiculous as anyone could possibly make them, especially Zeus, whose performance was such that you could actually SEE Liam Neeson spending his paycheck in his head. The set pieces and character designs were uninspired for the most part, seemingly lifted from the first movie without actually breathing any new life into them. Pegasus was made black, among other deviations, only to emphasize how supposedly more 'badass' and 'edgy' this film is compared to its predecessor. Somehow, it only manages to seem more juvenile and inelegant, with not a lick of wit, charm or even grandeur. These are the gods we're talking about, why does this feel like an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond (or Zeus, rather) where the one brother antagonizes the other? Where's the pathos, where's the gravitas? The scenes all seemed unconnected to each other, and you could've rearranged the journey of Perseus and co. without affecting the lackluster proceedings of the story at all. The stereoscopic 3D apparently was rushed and tacked on (I went to see it in 2D specifically because people warned me of the bad post-production job they did on the 3D at the last minute to cash in on Avatar buzz). The climax made no sense, and essentially comprised of one anticlimax heaped upon another. And on top of all of it they drenched this witless, heavy-handed, unnecessary theme of man against gods. Tell me again what the point of that was? It seemed to leap back and forth between the subject matter to the point where I wanted to throw popcorn at Sam Worthington's vacuous, sullen, indecisive mug. This is not a Greek Myth. This isn't even a movie. This is a bad video game simulation made of pieces stitched together from Avatar, 300, Transformers and the Idiot's Guide to Mythology.

Good grief, I felt like leaving the cinema only half an hour into it, and I've NEVER felt like that before.

Boo, hiss.

looking at it that way... yeah i can see how it was a major dissapointment... thinking back im not sure if i was actually paying attention... sweatdrop If im really excited about a movie that tends to happen... but ill be going to see it with a family again probably so now that youve raised those issues ill really have to see. anyway, in media studies to watch a movie once and you enjoy it, watch it twice and you destory it. I did the same for avatar... and i did notice that Perseus' hair cut was very similar (the same) as the one in avatar. funny that.

That would have been seriously cool! especial after i learn anicent greek, cause then i wouldnt need the subtitles! 4laugh
hmmm... but that being said we're talking about the bronze age and while we know that is was close to the ancient greek we know, we still dont know excatly it sounded like or the whole vocaburaly... so it would still be wrong in the classical ancient greek... sweatdrop