Review: Star Wars The Complete Saga (Blu Ray)

Star Wars as you've never seen it before...

One of the most successful film series of all time finally makes its way to blu-ray in a rather unremarkable 9 disc set that doesn’t so much explode onto the HD format as fizzle and pop with a faint smell of fart.

There’s really not much point talking about the films, except to say that anyone hoping for the definitive HD Star Wars experience is going to be disappointed. There are no remastered original cuts of the classic trilogy and as far as extras go there isn’t much here that you won’t have already seen on DVD. If that weren’t enough, I can confirm that the online rumours are true - George Lucas has made even more digital “improvements” to the original trilogy, including one that almost (but doesn’t quite) ruin a pivotal scene in Return of the Jedi.

The good news is that Star Wars has never looked or sounded better. I say this is good news, because while the films make the jump to HD pretty well, the quality really isn’t what it should be for such a major release. It certainly doesn’t do much to raise (or even meet) the bar for a blu-ray set.

The Packaging

The set comes in a cardboard slip-case decorated with a surprisingly understated (read: bland) pastel drawing that draws no inspiration from concept art or the original film posters. The minimalist artwork is a strange choice, but it really does sum up the set as a whole – underwhelming and somewhat shoddy.

The outer slipcase is fairly durable, I’ll give it that, although it isn’t as rugged as some others – most notably the Alien Anthology set. Inside, rather than a gatefold you get a cardboard book with a fan of plastic disc holders held in place with… wait for it… Sellotape... That’s right, a commercial product that sells for between £60 and £70 is held together with Sellotape. I mean seriously… could they not have done something better than that? I’m well aware that I spend way too much money on this crap, I really don’t think I need to be physically reminded of the fact.

Sellotape. It holds things together.

Honestly, it’s surprising that the thing didn't fall apart in the post, let alone what the wear and tear of repeated viewings is likely to do to it. Presumably in a few years when the box finally falls to bits I’ll have a nice set of expensive drinks coasters to put my beer on. Awesome.

In short, it’s nowhere near the level of quality you should expect for the price and not a patch on the recent Lord of the Rings Extended Edition Blu Ray set, which actually costs between £20 and £30 less!

The Movies

As far as the movies themselves go, here too the quality isn’t really up to the standard it should be, with some pretty variable picture quality across the series. I won’t bore anyone with my complete lack of technical knowledge (you can see a more technical review of the films audio/video quality for a more technical review of the films’ audio/video quality here) and I expect most people buying these blu rays will be perfectly happy with them. Certainly they do look pretty good on my TV (32” 1080P Samsung), but there are some issues.

Firstly, while the prequel trilogy looks pretty good for the most part, The Phantom Menace suffers from some weird digital softening, which adds a soft focus effect to some scenes. That might work on a Hallmark Christmas movie, but it’s not really what you want in Star Wars.

The biggest disappointment though is with the original trilogy. Don’t get me wrong, this is the best the Holy Trilogy has ever looked and sounded. The inevitable ‘but’ here is that this isn’t a new digital transfer. Apparently rather than creating a brand new HD master using the 4K process, the producers have recycled the old 2K Lowry Digital master created for the 2004 DVDs and which brings with it a lot of the same contrast and oversaturation issues that plagued that release. As a result the original trilogy has much the same problem as a lot of other old movies converted to HD - close-up shots are pin sharp (enough to reveal some of the films’ budgetary limitations), but a lot of noise and artefacting creeps into the mid-ranges and the backgrounds.

Where things really go off the rails though is in the contrast between the original filmed footage from 30 years ago and the CGI scenes created for the 1997 Special Edition cinema release. That CGI wasn’t created for Hi Definition and it simply doesn’t hold up on blu ray. In some scenes the contrast is so jarring that it’s as if the actors had walked onto the set of Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

In itself that makes perhaps the most compelling argument for releasing a properly remastered edition of the original theatrical cuts (not that George Lucas is listening of course). When we’ve reached the point where technology is leaving older edits of the films behind, you really have to question George Lucas’ ethos in continuing to make further changes. I could care less if Lucas has added blinking eyes to the Ewoks or re-edited ‘Greedo shoots first’ to make it look slightly less naff (it still looks naff), I’m more bothered by Mos Eisley looking like a scene from Jumanji. That said, adding the “No” (two of them in fact) to Vader's redemption in Return of the Jedi really was surely the work of a sadist.

Extras

The extras in the blu ray set are a pretty mixed bag. You get 3 discs – one for each trilogy and a final disc of documentaries. For the most part, there’s little here that you won’t have seen before and unfortunately much of the material hasn’t made the transition to Hi Definition very well. There are three new documentaries:

• Star Warriors (2007, Color, 84 Minutes) – Some Star Wars fans want to collect action figures...these fans want to be action figures! A tribute to the 501st Legion, a global organization of Star Wars costume enthusiasts, this insightful documentary shows how the super-fan club promotes interest in the films through charity and volunteer work at fundraisers and high-profile special events around the world.

• A Conversation with the Masters: The Empire Strikes Back 30 Years Later (2010, Color, 25 Minutes) – George Lucas, Irvin Kershner, Lawrence Kasdan and John Williams look back on the making of The Empire Strikes Back in this in-depth retrospective from Lucasfilm created to help commemorate the 30th anniversary of the movie. The masters discuss and reminisce about one of the most beloved films of all time.

• Star Wars Spoofs (2011, Color, 91 Minutes) – The farce is strong with this one! Enjoy a hilarious collection of Star Wars spoofs and parodies that have been created over the years, including outrageous clips from Family Guy, The Simpsons, How I Met Your Mother and more - and don't miss "Weird Al" Yankovic's one-of-a-kind music video tribute to The Phantom Menace! 

It’s interesting stuff, but aside from the Irvin Kershner interview (his last before his death last year) there’s little that makes for compelling viewing, certainly nothing that helps understand the cultural phenomenon that is Star Wars.

What’s notable about the extras is what you don’t get. The featurettes from the prequel DVDs are notably absent as are some of the documentaries from previous DVD releases – including Kevin Burns excellent Empire of Dreams and Star Wars: The Legacy Revealed. And if you were one of those hoping to see the Star Wars Holiday Special, well… it’s not there either.

Final Thoughts

If you're a Star Wars fan, you probably should (and will) buy this – regardless of what me or anyone says. But if you’re looking for a definitive collection of these films, this is not it. It’s a missed opportunity and one that is bound to disappoint fans hoping for a state of the art digital remaster which could show off their TV home theatre systems to their best potential. Just don't be surprised to see a new blu ray set appearing in the not too distant future after the films are re-released in 3D.

Die Hard 5 coming in 2013

How can the same shit happen to the same guy....

Another bit of film news - Fox has just announced that it will be producing a 5th Die Hard film titled A Good Day to Die Hard, slated for release on Feb 14th 2013.

John Moore, who directed 2008's (frankly godawful) Max Payne is directing, so it's hard to get too excited but hey - it's Bruce Willis playing John McClane again, what could go wrong?

Details on the plot are pretty sparse but what is known is that it will be set in Russia and will involve McClane's son, John McClane Jr. No details yet on who will be playing McClane Jr.

Javier Bardem confirmed for Bond 23

Javier Bardem

Rumours about this have been floating around since the start of the year – but it’s just been confirmed that Spanish actor Javier Bardem is to play the villain in the next James Bond film.

Speaking in an interview on ABC TV (skip to 04:40), the 42 year-old actor who won the 2007 Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for his role as psychopathic assassin Chigurh in No Country For Old Men confirmed his involvement in the film saying "I'm very excited because my parents took me to watch the movies and I saw all of them, so to play that is going to be fun."

Unsurprisingly, Bardem gave little away about his character, saying only "They chose me to play this man, but I cannot give you many details."

Bond 23 (which is rumoured to be titled Skyfall) will be the third Bond outing for Daniel Craig who’s involvement in the 49 year old film franchise has drawn critical acclaim and seen the highest box office takings in the series’ history.

American Beauty director Sam Mendes has signed on to direct the film which is due for release on October 26th 2012.

Personally I think this is great news - not only is Bardem a great actor (perhaps one of the best working today) but he’s also an actor with real physical presence, something the Bond franchise has really been missing in recent years.

Let’s be honest – it’s been a long time since Bond had an adversary that was his physical match. In nearly 50 years we’ve gone from Sean Connery battling Robert Shaw’s Red Grant on a train (in surely one of the most iconic fight scenes in cinema history) to Daniel Craig slapping around a Frenchman in a luxury hotel. With Daniel Craig, the producers took Bond back to basics, it’s time they did the same with the bad guys. 

Let’s just hope the screenwriters can deliver the goods and develop a character that doesn’t waste Bardem’s talents!

In the jungle no-one can hear you scream

One of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s action classics gets the reboot treatment in Predators, which goes on UK general release on July 8^th.

In some ways it’s surprising that the Predator franchise has gone on for as long as it has. Predator was a cult 80’s classic that picked up an Oscar nomination and several major awards. Unfortunately, the series ran out of ideas almost as soon as it had begun and Hollywood was never able to develop the concept beyond its schlock pulp roots; relying instead on comic book fanboy appeal to sell movie tickets.

Based on a script written by Robert Rodriguez in the mid 1990s and produced by Rodriguez’ production company, Predators returns the series to the jungle environment of the original and a semblance of its visceral horror roots. Perhaps in an attempt to wash away bad memories of Predator 2 and the two Aliens Versus Predator films, Predators is a direct sequel to the Schwarzenegger film, right down to the music that resurrects Alan Silvestri’s original score.

The basic premise too remains unchanged, and similarly evokes the spirit of The Most Dangerous Game, the short story where hunters become the hunted. In Predators, a disparate group of seemingly unconnected people find themselves inexplicably transported to a mysterious jungle and must band together as they are stalked and hunted down by the titular alien hunters. Before long they find themselves looking up at an alien sky and realize that their problems are only just beginning.

If this sounds a little more outlandish than the original, it’s not the only thing. The characters in Predators are “colourful” to say the least. Unlike Schwarzenegger’s black ops team, which lent a shred of real-world authenticity to a story that required some suspension of disbelief, the characters in Predators are an eclectic bunch; ranging from an American mercenary (Adrien Brody), to a Mexican drug cartel enforcer (Danny Trejo), a Spetsnaz soldier (Oleg Taktarov), an Israeli  sniper (Alice Braga), an African death squad soldier (Mahershalalhashbaz Ali), a death row inmate (Walton Goggins), a Yakuza hitman (Louis Ozawa Changchien) and a disgraced doctor (Topher Grace).

Unfortunately while the cast works well together for the most part (Brody, not usually known for physical roles, carries off the lead a lot better  than I thought he could), none of the characters they play are developed beyond the level of caricature. It’s a clear weakness of a screenplay that is more concerned with action and with making the characters look cool rather than fleshing them out in any detail. It’s perhaps an unfair criticism of this type of film, especially as the Schwarzenegger  film wasn’t exactly Shakespearean drama; but even though the audience knows that most of the characters are going to end up as dog food for the aliens, I think it is still possible to create compelling characters. After all, Jim Cameron did it in Aliens. Of course, director Nimrod Antal isn’t Cameron (neither is Robert Rodriguez for that matter) and Predators is a much less ambitious film than Aliens ever was.

 The first third of the film does a fair job of building up tension, as the characters begin to explore and try to understand what is happening to them. In contrast, the second half is a bit of a letdown – most notably with the appearance of Lawrence Fishburne’s character and a cartoonishly overacted performance that robs the film of any dramatic credibility it might have had. Later, when the Predators begin their attack, the film lapses into a fairly predictable chase riddled with action clichés.

For me, the biggest disappointment is that Predators offers little that is actually new.  Rodriguez throws a new type of Predator and some alien hunting dogs into the mix, but nothing that really provides a more in-depth understanding of the Predator aliens themselves, their society or their technology. Unlike Aliens which introduced the Alien Queen, there’s no additional material here that builds on what came before, in that sense it’s a wasted opportunity. Something quite special could have been done here if only the film-makers weren’t content merely to play with the formula. Even the action offers nothing in the way of innovation. After last summer’s excellent District 9, I had hoped for something a little more imaginative in terms of alien weaponry; yet here too Predators does little more than recycle content from the original film.

I wouldn’t say Predators is a bad film, its merely competent; and like so many other recent movies, it isn’t something that’s likely to have a great deal of replay value. It is however, far superior to the godawful AVP films and even Predator 2. If action and gore are all you're looking for, this will certainly hit all the right buttons. Anyone expecting something more out the franchise will probably be disappointed.

Not Your Father's Robin Hood

Ridley Scott's attempt to do justice to the Robin Hood legend drops the fantasy and comedy of Prince of Thieves to give us a film steeped in 12th century medieval history. At least, that's the theory.


As with 2003's King Arthur (and Troy, to a lesser extent), you have to be a little suspicious of a film that purports to be the true story of an ancient myth, the actual truth of which continues to elude historians.


Fortunately, the Robin Hood legend has proven to be not only durable but also somewhat malleable; parts of the story can be changed so long as key elements are retained. The problem with attempting to tell the story in a realist way (besides the dodgy and completely unverifiable claim to historical accuracy) is that its the embellishment of the myth that have given it its power and enduring appeal. Removing the fantasy from Robin Hood, King Arthur or The Iliad is, on some level, to fundamentally misunderstand the essence of those stories. Sure people are interested in the history that underlies these legends, but once you strip away the magic you lose a lot of what makes the story unique.


The fact that Scott's film is a prequel story works somewhat in its favour, but strangely it seems to be more enjoyable the less you think of it as a Robin Hood film. The action kicks off almost exactly where Scott's 2005 medieval epic Kingdom of Heaven finished; so close in fact you could be forgiven for thinking it a sequel. And like the earlier movie it is as much as a commentary on modern day politics as it is an attempt to do justice to the underlying history. In the case of Robin Hood case we have the coronation of King John and the events leading up to the signing of the Magna Carta, with the Robin Hood figure presented as the catalyst for those events.


It's a bold idea, but it doesn't quite pay off because the film spends so much time on build-up and exposition that Robin's character is never fully integrated into the narrative. Unlike Gladiator, which overcame a relatively thin plot by never taking the focus away from Maximus and the arena, Robin Hood is so densely plotted (which is surprising as the story it tells is relatively simple) that just as some character development gets going the film jumps abruptly to a build-up scene halfway across the country. 


If only more of a focus had been placed on Robin Hood and less on the extraneous events going on around him it could have been a lot more satisfying. As it is, what we have essentially is a poor man's Braveheart, a period action film with a liberty from tyranny subtext, that while competently directed and acted has no emotional core.


As you'd expect Scott's trademark visual style is very much in evidence and there is some amazing cinematography of rural England. The action too is competently handled, and the major set piece battles are thrilling - though nothing really on the scale of Kingdom of Heaven (or Gladiator) or which goes beyond a 12 rating.


Russell Crowe is perfectly adequate in the central role as Robin Longstride, but it's not exactly a memorable performance, though this is more to do with the limitations of the screenplay than with any faults in his acting. Similarly, Cate Blanchett is always worth watching, but I couldn't help but think that she was a little too old to play Marian; and by and large she isn't given a whole lot to do. 


The supporting cast are solid, but play rather close to type. Mark Strong is fast becoming the eponymous Hollywood bad guy and he certainly doesn't disappoint as Sir Godfrey, a French spy in King John's court. I wouldn't mind seeing Strong in some more varied roles, but when you're good you're good - and Strong has obviously cornered his particular market. Similarly, Max Von Sydow only seems to play father figures these days (see Solomon Kane Review). It's not really a fair complaint perhaps as many actors find themselves pigeon-holed in their later years; but it would be nice to see Sydow doing something a bit more challenging - as Henry Fonda did in Once Upon a Time in the West.

In many ways Scott's film is reminiscent of Richard Lester's Robin and Marian, in that the Merry Men play are sidelined and play little role in the story. Clearly this is so that more screen time is given to the interplay between Robin and Marian, but it does have the effect of removing another layer from story and further distancing it from its mythic roots.

Robin Hood is a perfectly enjoyable film in its own right, but it does nothing that Mel Gibson's Braveheart didn't do several times better and is a more satisfying film into the bargain. As a retelling of the Robin Hood legend, it's doesn't really work and Kevin Costner's Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (despite the mullets, American accents and the vomit inducing Bryan Adams theme) was a lot more fun.

Iron Man 2: Twice The Sound, Twice The Fury

I'm probably going to get a bit of flak for this but I didn't really like the original Iron Man. Personally I found it rather dull and anti-climactic. It got huge praise from critics of course and the audiences voted with their bums (which is the only vote that counts in the final analysis). So two years on we have the inevitable sequel: Iron Man 2.

Iron Man 2 is about what you'd expect from a sequel. A whole bunch of money has been thrown at the screen, it's bigger, louder and more explodey; but once the cinema buzz has worn off you may well find yourself pining for the original. It is also nowhere near as good as either The Dark Knight or Spiderman 2.

Set six months after the end of the first film, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is trying to come to terms with the aftermath of his public admission that he is Iron Man. The US government is demanding that he turn over the Iron Man suit to the military, as business rivals and foreign governments race to copy its  technology. But Stark has bigger problems, the experimental reactor in his chest that keeps his heart beating is malfunctioning and is slowly killing him with heavy metal poisoning unless he can develop a cure.

I have to admit that I'm not terribly familiar with the comic incarnation of Iron Man, so I can't say how it faithful the movie version is; but to me Tony Stark/Iron Man is one of the more complex characters in Marvel's lineup. In many ways Tony Stark is the polar opposite of Bruce Wayne/Batman - both are eccentric billionaires, but where Wayne is motivated by an ideological desire to be a symbol against crime, Stark is driven by no particular goal other than his own capricious nature.

This makes for easily one of the most character-driven superheroes we've seen to date and so it is in the Iron Man movies. Where the film-makers have succeeded is they clearly understood how important it was to get the casting right as a larger than life character requires a larger than life actor to pull it off. Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark is about as good as it gets, without his charisma and energy, neither of these movies would have gotten off the ground.

Unfortunately that is both the big flaw and the saving grace of Iron Man 2. As with the first film, it relies heavily on Robert Downey Jr's performance and the eccentricities of Tony Stark's character to distract the audience from the paper-thin story underneath. In Iron Man 2, Stark's manner and behaviour are so erratic that it is impossible to identify with him in a context that the audience can relate to.

What the film really lacks is a strong character arc. Stark's brush with his own mortality should really be the central theme, just as Peter Parker's struggle with living a double life formed the heart and soul of Spiderman 2. As it is, Stark flits from eccentric genius to complete nutter in the blink of an eye. One moment he's drunkenly wrecking his own birthday party, the next he's building a particle accelerator in his basement. Downey Jr. is so good that it's never less than fun to watch, but I was left wondering what the point of it all was or what Stark learned from his experiences.

Quite simply, the film-makers have sacrificed character development in order to deliver a film that is as much a direct sequel to Iron Man as it is a curtain raiser for The Avengers movie. The result of this is a script that introduces a number of characters and sub-plots for the spin-off which tie into, but ultimately distract from the main storyline. The main casualty of this is that short shrift is given to the villains and the themes that those characters are intended to embody are never really explored.

Sam Rockwell as Stark's business rival Justin Hammer does a great job of channeling Bill Gates, but apart from a lot of monologuing and corporate speak - his character is given very little to do. The same is true of Ivan Vanko, a Russian underworld figure with a grudge against the Stark family (played in a rather understated performance by Mickey Rourke). If anything, Vanko is the more interesting of the two; but his backstory, which should provide the central conflict in the movie, never really goes anywhere. Ultimately, it all comes down to a big action shoot-out and at this Iron Man 2 excels as well as any big summer movie.

All grumbling aside, it is a fun movie and it's good to see the cast of the first film reunited again. Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow still have great on-screen chemistry and the sexual tension between their characters adds a lot of humour to the movie. Don Cheadle is a worthy replacement for Terence Howard as Rhodes and his character enjoys a much bigger role this time around. I was less keen on Scarlett Johansen and Samuel L. Jackson, mainly because their characters are only in it to promote The Avengers.

If you're looking for a big summer movie that you can sit back with a big bag of popcorn and switch off your brain to, you could do a lot worse than Iron Man 2.

Titans Clash, But Who Cares?

I have good memories of the original Clash of the Titans. Sure Ray Harryhausen's stop-motion effects were a few years past their sell-by date. Sure Harry Hamlin made Mark Hamill look like Lawrence Olivier, but the film had a certain goofy saturday morning charm that fired the imagination of an 7 year old kid who grew up on 30's pulp stories and old Tarzan flicks.

It had a solid enough story, more or less boiled down to its mythic archetype: a hero falls in love with a princess, goes on a dangerous quest to save her life and take his place as king. What could go wrong?

So I found myself asking that question and somewhat looking forward to the big-budget remake, in all its 3D, CGI assisted glory. Naturally there's the law of averages says that it will be (at best) sub-par, but when it's a movie you loved as a kid you tend to be a bit more forgiving.

Unfortunately, hype and anticipation do not a good movie make and so it is with this new, supposedly "improved" Clash of the Titans.

Quite why screenwriters Travis Beacham, Phil Hay and Matt Manfredi took a perfectly good story and turned it into a turgid, overcomplicated mess is frankly unclear; but it seems to be a yet another case of too many cooks spoiling the broth. The result is an overproduced and overlong movie that for all it's frenetic action and spectacular (more or less) CGI monster effects is boring and completely uninvolving.

The story centers around a rivalry between two Olympian Gods: Zeus and his brother Hades for control of the heavens; and a second separate conflict between man and the entire pantheon of Greek Gods. In the middle of these machinations Perseus, who unbeknownst to him is the son of Zeus, seeks revenge against Hades for the death of his adoptive family during an attack on the city of Argos. With Argos threatened with destruction by the Kraken (a monster under the control of Hades), Perseus agrees to lead a quest to bring back the head of the Medusa, the only monster that can defeat the Kraken and give him a chance to revenge himself on Hades.

It's a confusing setup and one which does little but dilute the original premise; and as a result the entire story loses cohesion. For a start, it is never explained exactly why Man is at war with the Gods, what the Gods have done to cause this resentment, or indeed what threat Man could actually pose to omnipotent beings. It's an idea that should have been ditched early on as it really serves little purpose and almost seems shoehorned in from a different movie entirely. Similarly, we're expected to believe that a God (the King of Gods in fact) is gullible and would fall for a plan that the audience can see coming a mile off.

You can kind of see where they were trying to go with this, its the kind of high-concept idea that attempts to transcend the bounds of the source material, unfortunately the screenwriters involved just aren't talented enough to pull it off and the whole thing becomes contrived.

The worst part is that by making Perseus' quest all about revenge and by sidelining by any romantic interested with the princess it becomes very difficult to care about any of the characters. Even so, the action frequently cuts back to the doomed city as it gets closer and closer to zero-hour to remind the audience what the heroes are fighting for. Unfortunately, the people of Argos are shown to be the most intolerant bunch of degenerates and religious extremists this side of Sodom and Gomorroah; you almost wish that the Kraken would kill them to put everyone out of their misery!

For an action film, Clash of the Titans is surprisingly dull, moving from obligatory action scene to obligatory action scene. As with a lot of recent movies, like 300 or The Matrix sequels, action fatigue sets in. In trying to give the audience more bang for their buck the film loses pace. The fight scenes go on for too long and what little tension they create is squandered by an overabundance of slow-motion. Criminally, very little of this stuff serves to advance the plot and ultimately the script relies less on character action as it does on deux ex machina.

If there's one thing the film has in its favor it is the effects work, which works for the most part, though it isn't anything you haven't already many times before; but let's face it, it's pretty much expected these days. The visualization of the Greek Gods is one particular highlight, you do get a sense from both Zeus and Hades that these are beings of unlimited power. In contrast the monsters are a bit hit and miss. The Medusa sequence, that was quite terrifying in the original film is hampered by a creature design that is inferior to Harryhausen's original. The Kraken is perhaps the best of the bunch, if only because it provides the sense of scale and destructive power that was impossible to convey with stop-motion.

It isn't a well-acted movie either, Sam Worthington's Perseus is almost identical to the character he has played in both Avatar and Terminator Salvation. Imagine a smaller and less angry version of Gerard Butler's character from 300 and you're about there. He's better than Harry Hamlin, but to be honest that's no achievement. Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes are in big-budget scenery chewing mode as Zeus and Hades, though thankfully nowhere near the level of hamminess you usually see from Anthony Hopkins in these sorts of roles. Mads Mikkelson is perhaps the only one who gets out of the movie with any dignity, playing his veteran soldier with the same quiet gravitas you usually expect from Neeson.

Gemma Arterton has to be the worst of the bunch and must surely rank as the blandest, most uninteresting actress since Saffron Burrows got eaten by that shark in Deep Blue Sea. Sure, she's easy on the eyes but she delivers every line with all the charisma and personality of a dead fish. Not only is she a horrible actress, but her role in this film is solely to provide exposition and the love interest that is no longer fulfilled by the Princess Andromeda. I can only hope after seeing this, and her brief, cringeworthy appearance in Quantum of Solace that her fame is a flash in the pan.

Above: Gemma Arterton "acts"

I've had enough of Hollywood trampling on my childhood memories and Titans is a textbook example of how not to remake a classic movie (if you can call the original a classic, of course). It's worth a rent, I suppose, but it really isn't worth paying the best part of 10 quid to see it in the cinema. If you're a fan of the original, skip this entirely and break out the Blu Ray or the old DVD. You'll thank yourself for not having seen this.