|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Nov 11, 2020 8:02:44 GMT
Great movie! Such a blast from start to finish. One of my new favorite adventure-fantasies. The set design and art direction is immaculate, even if some of the other effects don’t hold up.
Thoughts on this movie?
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Nov 11, 2020 10:21:10 GMT
Yes, an excellent mythological adventure fantasy that was pure escapism and skilfully presented from beginning to end. The effects are quaint and magical and Medusa's Lair is creepily rendered. Plenty to admire in this polished production from 81' and a lot of artistry went into re-creating Perseus's world. Pity if flopped at the time, but like most things of quality, it has garnered a nice following and reputation. It may have been seen as too old school even for 1981. Being a kid, it didn't bother me.
|
|
|
|
Post by claudius on Nov 11, 2020 11:59:44 GMT
It may have been a critical flop (save for Ebert) but CotT made a respectable success in the box office.
This was one of those films I grew up watching, due to repeated broadcasts on TBS and the movie channels. Thetis’ appearance at the temple freaked me out as a kid. Good cast, good score by Laurence Rosenthal and fine Harryhausen effects like the Kraken (my brother had the toy) and Medusa.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Nov 11, 2020 12:21:41 GMT
Great movie! Such a blast from start to finish. One of my new favorite adventure-fantasies. The set design and art direction is immaculate, even if some of the other effects don’t hold up. Thoughts on this movie? My memory said it was hit, not a flop. Checking my memory with Wiki: "The film had a worldwide gross of over $70 million and was one of 1981's biggest hits."
A fine swansong for the great Ray Harryhausen. His retirement came as CGI advances would become the new standard in creating fantastical creatures. I don't think Laurence Rosenthal's score is anywhere near as good the scores Bernard Herrmann supplied to Harryhausen. The importance of Herrmann's contribution is made apparent by it's absence here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 11, 2020 13:31:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 11, 2020 14:31:19 GMT
It’s a fun whimsical and imaginative fantasy adventure film. It works as a good conclusion for Ray Harryhausen.
|
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Nov 11, 2020 14:59:25 GMT
A titan against a titan!
|
|
|
|
Post by TheOriginalPinky on Nov 11, 2020 15:51:47 GMT
Being a Harryhousen fan from WAAAAAAAAAY back, I strong-armed my husband into seeing this when it was first released. Enjoyed the hell out of it! Him, not so much.  I love it. |
|
|
|
Post by bd74 on Nov 11, 2020 17:06:24 GMT
Always loved this film. It's got a fantastic ensemble cast. One particular thing I like about the film are the costumes, especially the white ones worn by the gods, which suited each character perfectly. For example, in real life the goddess Hera was described as wearing a hooded robe and a diadem (a crown) which she does wear in this film. The story overall is really good. The effects are definitely cheesy and look very dated. But the medusa segment is awesome -- very suspenseful and intriguing, culminating with Perseus emerging with Medusa's head in his hand. I actually still (vaguely) remember one of the tv commercials for this film. It featured scenes from the film and I think it said "See it again". It was from around the time that the film's theatrical run was about to end.  |
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Nov 11, 2020 19:47:16 GMT
Great film. I watched it many times on cable during its numerous re-runs. Charon (he boat man) scared me like crazy though. I had nightmares for weeks after the first time I saw this film.  |
|
|
|
Post by Toxicalicity on Nov 11, 2020 19:54:13 GMT
I love how these "old" movies - even the cheaper ones - have such convincingly otherworldly atmospheres. Very few modern movies, even with all their fancy CGI-enhanced sets and creatures, manage to live up to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Nov 11, 2020 20:06:06 GMT
I remember it was one of those films compared to Star Wars--that it was too old-fashioned. But I think that now is its strongest appeal--it doesn't have a quirky attitude and takes the fantasy seriously (although Bubo gets annoying-I think they should have used a real owl and just added optical filtering to make it glow or something).
I like to say the rod puppet of Charon, basically a skull on a stick, gives a more lively performance than anyone in the remake.
"These accursed Hell-sent swarms of blood-gutted marsh flies!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Nov 11, 2020 23:03:48 GMT
To add from reading further comments, this film got its atmosphere and ambience almost perfect. The sense of wonder, excitement and even suspense all brewed together to make a Kraken of a cocktail.
|
|
|
|
Post by leesilm on Nov 13, 2020 17:10:30 GMT
Great movie! Such a blast from start to finish. One of my new favorite adventure-fantasies. The set design and art direction is immaculate, even if some of the other effects don’t hold up. Thoughts on this movie? My memory said it was hit, not a flop. Checking my memory with Wiki: "The film had a worldwide gross of over $70 million and was one of 1981's biggest hits."
A fine swansong for the great Ray Harryhausen. His retirement came as CGI advances would become the new standard in creating fantastical creatures. I don't think Laurence Rosenthal's score is anywhere near as good the scores Bernard Herrmann supplied to Harryhausen. The importance of Herrmann's contribution is made apparent by it's absence here. I was reading some interviews for the new MANDALORIAN show, and they discussed how it films in front of a (very, very fancy) screen to give a backdrop and they have a (highly advanced) puppet playing 'the child', so they talked about how technology has gotten so great it basically allows them to use old school methods of filmmaking. You have a guy in front of a flat screen, standing on a stage, with a puppet, doing a scene. It isn't CGI, no one painted the baby yoda into a scene so Pedro Pascal was talking to a tennis ball on a stick. When I watch stuff like the 80s CotT, or the older Sinbad movies that Harryhausen did the creature effects for, I absolutely love them. It doesn't occur to me, looking at them, that they are 'fake' or that they didn't really share a scene with the actors on screen. When I watch something like the new GODZILLA or the CotT remake, it occurs to me as I'm watching the movie, "That's some nice CGI, it blends well" or, "That must have been fun to film talking to a tennis ball on top of a 50ft pole". There was a certain magic about doing things the way Harryhausen and Jim Henson did things.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Nov 13, 2020 17:13:03 GMT
My memory said it was hit, not a flop. Checking my memory with Wiki: "The film had a worldwide gross of over $70 million and was one of 1981's biggest hits."
A fine swansong for the great Ray Harryhausen. His retirement came as CGI advances would become the new standard in creating fantastical creatures. I don't think Laurence Rosenthal's score is anywhere near as good the scores Bernard Herrmann supplied to Harryhausen. The importance of Herrmann's contribution is made apparent by it's absence here. I was reading some interviews for the new MANDALORIAN show, and they discussed how it films in front of a (very, very fancy) screen to give a backdrop and they have a (highly advanced) puppet playing 'the child', so they talked about how technology has gotten so great it basically allows them to use old school methods of filmmaking. You have a guy in front of a flat screen, standing on a stage, with a puppet, doing a scene. It isn't CGI, no one painted the baby yoda into a scene so Pedro Pascal was talking to a tennis ball on a stick. When I watch stuff like the 80s CotT, or the older Sinbad movies that Harryhausen did the creature effects for, I absolutely love them. It doesn't occur to me, looking at them, that they are 'fake' or that they didn't really share a scene with the actors on screen. When I watch something like the new GODZILLA or the CotT remake, it occurs to me as I'm watching the movie, "That's some nice CGI, it blends well" or, "That must have been fun to film talking to a tennis ball on top of a 50ft pole". There was a certain magic about doing things the way Harryhausen and Jim Henson did things. That Mandalorian technology confuses me. It’s oddly genius but (as you said) classical at the same time...which I guess tells you all you need to know about how much better the old way of doing things really was. |
|
|
|
Post by leesilm on Nov 13, 2020 17:25:59 GMT
I was reading some interviews for the new MANDALORIAN show, and they discussed how it films in front of a (very, very fancy) screen to give a backdrop and they have a (highly advanced) puppet playing 'the child', so they talked about how technology has gotten so great it basically allows them to use old school methods of filmmaking. You have a guy in front of a flat screen, standing on a stage, with a puppet, doing a scene. It isn't CGI, no one painted the baby yoda into a scene so Pedro Pascal was talking to a tennis ball on a stick. When I watch stuff like the 80s CotT, or the older Sinbad movies that Harryhausen did the creature effects for, I absolutely love them. It doesn't occur to me, looking at them, that they are 'fake' or that they didn't really share a scene with the actors on screen. When I watch something like the new GODZILLA or the CotT remake, it occurs to me as I'm watching the movie, "That's some nice CGI, it blends well" or, "That must have been fun to film talking to a tennis ball on top of a 50ft pole". There was a certain magic about doing things the way Harryhausen and Jim Henson did things. That Mandalorian technology confuses me. It’s oddly genius but (as you said) classical at the same time...which I guess tells you all you need to know about how much better the old way of doing things really was. As someone who loves how 'old movies' did stuff, from lighting to making monsters, I have to agree. Heck, one of the reasons LOTR is so great was how much Peter Jackson used in-camera effects and blended with CGI, in order to create what he wanted. From filming with size doubles to slipping the city of Gondor into the New Zealand landscape.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxwellperfect on Nov 15, 2020 20:01:34 GMT
One of those rare movies where any criticism seems like nitpicking in light of all the things that are wonderfully perfect about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ransom on Nov 15, 2020 21:18:13 GMT
I love how these "old" movies - even the cheaper ones - have such convincingly otherworldly atmospheres. Very few modern movies, even with all their fancy CGI-enhanced sets and creatures, manage to live up to it. I have to disagree while I have respect and fondness for the original clash of the titans the monsters in the remake especially the new Kraken in the remake is slightly better than the original version. |
|
|
|
Post by Xcalatë on Nov 15, 2020 22:36:49 GMT
Childhood fav of mine, loved the stop motion effects and Medusa scared the crap out of me.
Have not seen it in a very long time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Nov 16, 2020 2:09:13 GMT
The original Kraken is rather dull. Looks like a reworked Ymir.
Harryhausen had to bring in 2 other animators due to the work load--Jim Danforth did the flying Pegasus and Dioskolis scenes. When the head of the dog gets stabbed and it swings like a pendulum--genius.
|
|
