Review of Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters (2013) by Patricier21 — 10 Aug 2013

Sea of Monsters shows what potential the franchise should have should it continue. It clearly demonstrates how a book adaptation should be: making it its own thing, while staying loyal to the overall plot of the original story, and maintaining continuity with the original film. Although some direction was better in the first film, overall this film feels more satisfying as an adaptation and feels better as a solid movie overall.

You do not have to see the first film in order to understand this one. Right from the opening scene, through a very clever back story prologue, and voice over from Percy, we get a sense of what is going on in this world and are fully immersed. Percy, played by Logan Lerman, delivers the narration as if he’s telling us a legend, and one cannot help but feel immersed in the goings on. The opening story is intense, but is not too dark compared to how other films such as The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian would have handled it. On that note, the whole film is very family friendly and plays as a light fantasy adventure, that nevertheless has its deep morals integrated in. Using the Prince Caspian example, this film does not go as dark or as intense as that film went, yet it also does not go the opposite way in making it campy. With that being said, there are some weaknesses in the direction of the film. While it does not go down the Batman & Robin campy road, the action of the film feels a little too tame at some parts. It’s still enjoyable, but unfortunately, it just doesn’t feel completely executed to the point that it should be. Its nowhere near bad, but it still could have been better. The action is still fun to watch, but it never gets bloody or as intense as it even was in the first film. It plays out as a fun, clean fantasy, that despite the lack of brutalness, it still feels like one could immerse into doing those things should they be real.

With regards to continuity from the first film, you will see a much more expanded Camp Half Blood in the film, the home of the main characters, however unlike the Harry Potter films, it doesn’t feel or look as noticeably different. The film feels like a sequel and does make the references to the first film, but still feels like it can stand on its own. While fixing up some cut characters and elements from the first film, the film also introduces the goings on at a natural pace without trying to lamely cover things up and consider earlier introduced things as retcon, which is more than can be said about Harry Potter, which merely puts things in its films without (for the most part) making any sort of real continuity or grounded connection with the other films, choosing instead to make each film stand on its own. Sea of Monsters has both a sequel and stand alone feel to it, which is how films should be. Why should sequels ignore what was previously established in the earlier films? The Harry Potters changed pretty much everything to fit the needs of the story without for the most part thinking of new ways to handle the story elements, in trying to maintain the books justice. While on the note of Harry Potter, one simply cannot compare it to any of the Harry Potters. Yes, there are similarities, but, being the huge Potter fan that I am, I barely thought of Harry while watching this movie. There will always be similarities and comparisons, but is not every movie comparable to another? Even some that people would not even think were similar such as the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy being comparable to the original Star Wars trilogy. And let us not forget the Avatar/Pocahontas/Dances with Wolves or the Iron Man/Dark Knight trilogies similarities. They will always exist, but there will always be one person who has NEVER seen the first film to have the idea, and even some who have seen both ideas and may like the newer one that has the old ideas better because of how it is executed. Its NOT what it is, but HOW it is.

HOW the movie “fixes” the first film is in the following ways:

- A much more grounded and more better polished script. The first film felt that the script was rushed in and was hopeful to be more than its script. The structure and plot was thin and weak, and didn’t feel as immersed as this film does. This film feels like they really revised and mapped out what they wanted from the script instead of just seemingly writing the script over night without revisions. You get the sense that the film makers are passionate to get the writing right and make it make sense and enjoyable for those that haven’t even seen the first film.

- Percy’s friend Grover (played by Brandon T. Jackson), is not annoying in this film like he was in the first film. This time he is more mature, yet still retains his comic characteristics.

- The world is populated with many characters. Unlike the first, where there were merely just cameoized characters, and small things hidden in the real this one feels more like there actually is a hidden universe.