MovieChat Forums > Clash of the Titans (1981) Discussion > One of the best movies ever made

One of the best movies ever made


I watched this when I was a kid. It's just a beatiful way of story telling. As much as medusa scared me when I was a kid (I'm serious, I saw green eyes in every dark room I went to..actually gonna have her inked on my arm in september), it's also awesome in every possible way. This is not a review and it may not interest anyone here, it's just my way of showing some love for this masterpiece. The remake, was okay in my opinion. It could never reach the original for me, I knew that from the start. Nostalgia is hard to beat. This one is perfect the way it is, and it's (at least in my opinion) one of the best movies ever made.

reply

I agree. One of the best movies EVER

reply

I agree (for the most part). I wouldn't put in the category of "one of the best movies ever", but I loved this as a young kid, and I still really enjoy it as a young adult. Now I enjoy it for two reasons; I enjoy the movie all by itself, but I also have a personal nostalgic fondness for it. I'm not sure what it is but with cgi effects now constantly trying to seem more and more realistic, there seems to be something missing. Like the recent remake's effects doesn't have the same sort of charm that the Harryhousen effects from the original still has. Not completely dissimilar to the difference between the King Kong from 1933 and the one from 2005. Although, that's merely my opinion, I'm not trying to imply that it's a concrete fact.

reply


If compared to the new Clash this movie is Citizen Kane.

Happiness is a warm gun...Lennon/McCartney
We're all gonna be just dirt in the ground....Tom Waits

reply

[deleted]

You people are insane.

I saw this in the theater when it came out, and it's literally the only movie I ever walked out on.
It was absurdly childish.

I'll just don't understand the rating. Seriously.

reply

Well thats YOUR opinion this movie was bad.
I just watched it earlier today and thought it was quite a fun flick. I gave it an 8 since it did everything I wanted it too and I dont rate on age or film looks.

reply

I gave it an 8 as well. The pretensious remake? I gave that one a 4.

reply

I haven't even bothered watching it. I knew right from the first trailer I saw it'd be one giant cgi fest full of actors that dont fit the roles at all. I might check it out in like 10yrs when the cgi craze is hopefully dead and buried.

All my friends rated the new one 8 and the old a 3 or 4 and they get dickhard over cgi so that alone told me yeah i can pass on that

reply

I got kinda excited when I heard they were going to do a remake, silly me. I tried watching it, and got bored and turned off after the first few minutes.

REMEMBER when they used to have movies where there was actual dialog? lots of talking kind of thing? actual plots, actual interesting stories where people actually had real conversations? and a plot took a while to come to fruition?

ahh those days are pretty much long gone my friends. you can criticize this 1981 movie for having out of date special effects, but they bothered to film it at real locations of real ancient sites, instead of CGI effects, and they stayed pretty much faithful to the myth's, instead of throwing in giant scorpions and other CGI crap.

I wish they had done a hundred of these movies back in 1981! I'm not totally against modern day movies at all, I liked "Troy" (even with brad pitt), the CGI effects there were not bad, and the story was fairly good, but many times, I'll take the 70's movies with models instead of CGI and better stories and actual dialog over today's attention span disorder films.

just my 2 cents worth

reply

Same here... I find i watch more older movies then new ones because of plot and story and other things I like in my movies. modern movies are for all these twitch a.d.d. people that want things every 2 seconds to explode and happen flash quick quick.

reply

[deleted]

I'm getting very tired of people writing such things about ADHD people! I for one can testify that many of us DO NOT like the fast-and-furious stylings of today! It can be overwhelming and far too distracting, especially with a weak storyline. All of this actually can confuse and/or irritate someone with ADHD. I do not take medication, having not learned about my disorder till I was in my late 30s; I'd managed to deal thus far, so I supposed I could continue to do without any help. I can say that a movie such as "Transformers" is unbearable to me, but I can focus on slow-moving works such as those by Merchant-Ivory. This doesn't rule out action/adventure movies, but they can't be all flash and fast movement with no story to hold it together. We do not prefer "flash quick quick", as you put it! I hear people constantly claiming that about ADHD, and it is not true! "Busyness", disorder, loud noises and abruptness: That can spell confusion and disorientation for us. I know that not all ADHD people are at the same level. But, I think this attitude needs to stop. Unless you personally know someone like that, do not lump us together! Do not assume that we enjoy these messes of movies being thrown at today's audiences.

Most of these CGI-infested movies are NOT to our taste. I personally love and prefer the look of stop-motion and older special effects. I look at so many movie trailers and immediately dismiss such movies as "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" because, if the CGI cartoonishness stands out on our old TV from the Nineties, how dreadful must it look on the big screen? Eventually, I'll watch "Rise" and even the "Clash" remake (which looks positively rancid from all of the clips I've seen) when they reach cable movie channels; if they don't get to one a subscribe to, I doubt that I'll be missing anything. After all, the "Planet of the Apes" remake is horrid. I have a very strong feeling that the new "Clash" is not going to surplant the old.

By the way, I don't consider "Clash of the Titans" (1981) as one of Ray Harryhausen's better movies. My personal favorite is "Jason and the Argonauts" (1963), followed in no particular order by "The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms" and the second and third Sinbad movies. But, I'm watching it right now for the "nth" time; I've very likely seen it no less than 100 times since its release. The Medusa segment is brilliant! The music is evocative. Harry Hamlin makes a great hero. (Those who degrade Perseus forget that he's a naive youth who has never been off that little island before and suddenly must be a warrior. Poor boy!)(As a lover of mythology, I seem to recall that Perseus is probably the only Greek hero who had a completely happy ending.) Yes, some scenes are a bit dark. However, there is a trend in today's filmmaking, especially since "Gladiator" for them to look shadowy and/or greenish/yellowish/greyish and to have many scenes so dark that it's impossible to make out what's happening. Some of the "Harry Potter" movies are especially guilty of this.

In conclusion: I'll vote for this version, and I doubt that I would change it. A scalped Sam Worthington as Perseus?! Ick! The thing looks like a disaster to me. EDIT: I have to add that I wasn't a child when I saw "COTT". I was 30 years old, so this isn't a childhood nostalgia thing. (I was about 12 when I saw "Jason" on the drive-in screen {{WOW!!}}, but it completely holds up to my adolescent memories.)

I agree with others that this isn't one of the best ever made, but it's a wonderful fantasy film that likely will remain popular when that remake is forgotten.

~~MystMoonstruck~~

reply

I agree; I don't understand this trend of remaking movies based on ancient history or mythology with these shaven-headed thuggish looking actors in the role of heroes.
Give me the originals every time.
I, too, loved Harryhausen's "Jason and the Argonauts" My favorite stop-motion monster in that movie was the bronze giant Talos. When he turned his empty eye sockets with their soulless gaze toward Hercules and his sidekick, it was a chilling moment.

reply

[deleted]

I agree with cable addict and gave this pile of horse manure a 1 only because I wasn't allowed to give it a 0. I am a loss to explain how actors such as Lawrence Olivier, Maggie Smith, and Claire Bloom would choose to appear in such drivel.


Only two things are actually knowable:
It is now and you are here. All else is merely a belief.

reply


@OP:

Deep nostalgia can often make it impossible to look at a film with any kind of objectivity later in life. The "Star Wars" OT, "Raiders of the Lost Ark", "Titans", etc. are among those that I grew up with watching over and over again in the early VCR days

Now I have my blu-ray copy, but it's for the same reasons - one has sort of a subconscious attraction to the memory of watching "Clash of the Titans", not "Clash of the TItans". On its own it's a decent film, fun, but in the 'best ever' category? Not a chance.

I know how that kind of nostalgia can make it impossible to separate the film from its relationship to you, and that's all right - I love this film despite the fact that I think it's rather silly. In fact, I probably very well thought that when I was younger, too, but loved it for the same reasons I do today.

And don't get me started on that CGI/3D remake....suffice it to say that Hollywood's going down a dead-end road with CGI. It's not realism we want per se. Harryhausen's effects in this are obviously fake.....but isn't that what makes it fun? CGI effects, when badly done, aren't fun at all. They seem desperate.

"There is no inner peace. There is only nervousness and death." - Fran Lebowitz

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

The stop motion effects were wooden. and just about any other kind of effect was cheesy (compared to other effect movies released in 1981: Raiders, Dragonslayer, Timebandits, ect)

Shadow it should be mentioned that this movie was from an independent filmmaker, Ray Harryhausen. And what was his specialty? Stop-motion animation! Many assume that MGM (who released the film) hired Ray to do the effects when in fact it was virtually the other way around. MGM helped to finance his movie.

You are not the first and certainly won't be the last to make the comparisons to the other BIG studio films at that time. I remember 1981, and yes, innovative movies like RAIDERS, DRAGONSLAYER & AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON made their impact. But we also didn't consider stop-motion dated either. Heck, CLASH ended up becoming one of Ray's most financially successful features of all time, even beating out the likes of DRAGONSLAYER, WEREWOLF IN LONDON, and THE HOWLING.


http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=1981&p=.htm

reply

[deleted]

Did you know this films had almost the same size budget as all those films? Having a big budget, this movie has no excuse
he didnt make it, he just did the stop-motion. It was directed by Desmond Davis, he was only one of the two producers. he didnt even write it.
film, like paintings, music, literature… is an art.


A good book to read is RAY HARRYHAUSEN: AN ANIMIATED LIFE. Harryhausen goes into great detail about all of his works and one will realize that “he just did the stop-motion” is the furthest thing from the truth. Ray Harryhausen was indeed the producer. The other you mentioned was actually his partner Charles Schneer. It was their film from start to finish (with funding from MGM).

The writer, Beverly Cross, had actually written several Ray Harryhausen movies in the past like JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS. But in each time (and this includes CLASH OF THE TITANS), Cross wrote what Harrhausen had in mind according to Ray’s storyboards. Everything started and ended with those. Desmond Davis directed the same way. As a matter of fact, in the book, there is a picture of Harryhausnen and director Davis taken outside of Medusa’s temple, with Ray instructing Davis on how the two-headed Dioskilos will react with the live action. Every director who worked on a Harryhausen production all did the same thing. In essence, Harryhausen was an uncredited director.

And it was Ray and Charles Schneer, as producers, who did not want an all British cast, so they hired both Harry Hamlin and Burgess Meredith.

You go to see a Ray Harryhausen movie and would do you expect to see? Stop-motion animation! The ILM thing from the other movies you mentioned does not factor at all into a Harryhausen film. The big budget you mentioned went to hire the cast like Laurence Olivier and Maggie Smith. Harryhausen had always wanted big name stars to be in his movies (he really wanted Bette Davis for SINBAD AND THE EYE OF THE TIGER), but he simply could never afford them until CLASH.

reply

[deleted]

Harryhausen did say he probably could have directed some of his movies better than what they had.
On the other hand he was pretty busy.

Davis as the witch in Eye of the Tiger would have been a bad casting choice.

Jason and the Argonauts and Clash of the Titans were helped immensely by the use of so many British-trained actors. If they had used Americans (or didnt dub the Americans in the cast) it would grate on the nerves the way a Cecil B DeMille movie does when watched today.

I like Clash. I think it holds up much better than Raiders of the Lost Ark which has no characterization. Take away the stunts and fx and you have nothing.

Its funny but when movies like Clash and Dragonslayer came out they were dismissed as either Star Wars clones or not as fun as Raiders--but they have more longevity story-wise than Raiders.


The remake of Clash is terrible beyond words.

reply

Yep I love it, I watch it all the time still, I was 8 when it came out. I was the perfect age for it. Also loved all the Sinbad movies, Jason and the Argonauts and Krull.

reply