![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alobearI'm afraid the plan for a group outing to the cinema went awry this week, as last night was my only free evening for a while, and Dave and I grabbed the chance to see Percy Jackson. Ponyo may cause a similar problem, since it doesn't appear to be showing at the North Finchley Vue.
I was initially encouraged by the director of Percy Jackson being Chris Columbus, since he did a good job with Harry Potter and I thought this might afford similar subject material. It certainly wasn't bad - I was generally entertained for the whole of the two hour running time, and for the most part it presented a fun adventure story. I feel I shouldn't really complain about lack of depth, and Dave agrees that its lightness isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I will definitely complain about the idiocy of the main characters in two particular instances.
First - any of them should have been bright enough to realise that, if three of them go to the underworld to rescue a fourth, they will need *four* pearls to escape, and not three. D'oh!
However, the worst instance of idiocy came with their entrance to the Lotus casino. Up until that point, Annabeth and Grover had both exhibited extensive knowledge of Greek mythos - so how come they didn't realise eating Lotus flowers was a spectacularly bad idea? Annabeth even revealed knowledge of the Lotus Eaters when they escaped, so she really had no excuse!
My other main gripe was that the world setup made very little sense. Yes, the kids are descended from Greek gods - but why does that mean they should have to camp out in the forest, roasting pigs on spits and fighting with shields, swords and leather armour? Surely in order to prepare for battle in the modern world, they should be training with modern weapons and learning about corporate strategy?
On the plus side, I think the film's special effects were some of the best I've ever seen. And, as I said, it's not that the film was bad per se, it just felt as if more could have been done with it.
I was initially encouraged by the director of Percy Jackson being Chris Columbus, since he did a good job with Harry Potter and I thought this might afford similar subject material. It certainly wasn't bad - I was generally entertained for the whole of the two hour running time, and for the most part it presented a fun adventure story. I feel I shouldn't really complain about lack of depth, and Dave agrees that its lightness isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I will definitely complain about the idiocy of the main characters in two particular instances.
First - any of them should have been bright enough to realise that, if three of them go to the underworld to rescue a fourth, they will need *four* pearls to escape, and not three. D'oh!
However, the worst instance of idiocy came with their entrance to the Lotus casino. Up until that point, Annabeth and Grover had both exhibited extensive knowledge of Greek mythos - so how come they didn't realise eating Lotus flowers was a spectacularly bad idea? Annabeth even revealed knowledge of the Lotus Eaters when they escaped, so she really had no excuse!
My other main gripe was that the world setup made very little sense. Yes, the kids are descended from Greek gods - but why does that mean they should have to camp out in the forest, roasting pigs on spits and fighting with shields, swords and leather armour? Surely in order to prepare for battle in the modern world, they should be training with modern weapons and learning about corporate strategy?
On the plus side, I think the film's special effects were some of the best I've ever seen. And, as I said, it's not that the film was bad per se, it just felt as if more could have been done with it.
