Wrath of the Titans (2012) User Reviews

Great Visuals, Bad Script

[FFman-847-460126 · 5/10 · 31 March 2012]

Epic movies have been around for several years now. Simply throwing action and graphics at a movie can no longer make it great. Epics have been pulled down to the level of an average movie. We must care about the characters. The dialogue must be worthwhile. The storyline cannot be linear and bland. Wrath of the Titans, although enjoyable, did not get the memo.

Wrath of the Titans follows a linear storyline. Any person who has any knowledge of Greek mythology with grow bored of the overused story of the labyrinth, Kronos, and how being part human makes you stronger than a God. The storyline has absolutely no originality. It's almost like the screenwriter read Percy Jackson and the Olympians and decided to turn the series into a more adult movie.

Luckily, there are several aspects that save Wrath of the Titans from being horrible. For one, the dialog worked. Mix that with the fantastic graphics and you have a movie that you can sit back and enjoy— so long as you don't think too much. At the heart, the original Greek mythology about Gods overthrowing Titians is quite intriguing. It's just been done far too often

I must note that this movie should have been longer. The opening was far too short. You barely see the town in which Perseus and his son live before it gets ripped apart. With no buildup, it is impossible to care for the characters. This makes the movie little more than Greek Myth brought to life with no depth. It is truly unfortunate. A movie like this has so much potential. It was all wasted with a horrible screenwriter.

If you like Greek Mythology or enjoyed Clash of the Titans, this is a movie you might want to see. If that is not the case, it's not something you will want to see in theatres (or at all). There have been much better action/adventure movies so far this year—The Grey and Chronicle are two. Wrath of the Titians is a movie with potential. Unfortunately, the makers of the movie forgot to turn that potential into gold.

reillyreviews.wordpress.com

Too many clichés taken from too many better sources

[TheXeroXone · 5/10 · 18 May 2012]

The powers of the gods are dwindling and the gods are slowly fading into oblivion. Monsters are being raised from wherever. Buildings are sliding all around the place. And there is no reason to care about ANY of it.

Ares and Hades are villains just as we've seen in nearly EVERY Greek mythology based storyline. I just want to pound my head against the wall every time I see this cinematic flatulence.

The love interest from the first movie is gone and instead of recasting the part, they just kill off the character. Bobo the Owl makes another cameo in this movie, playing the role of Wilson the Volleyball from Castaway. The blue ents are gone... I guess the action figures must not have sold that well.

When the Titan emerges (and it is the ONLY titan in the movie), he looks like the lava Titan from Disney's Hercules. The Titan shouts a lot, but hell if I could ever understand a word he said.

At least Perseus doesn't look like he came from the Jarhead Clan anymore. But he is still an idiot. Zeus comes to him in the beginning of the story to tell him that the world is coming to an end and he needs his help. Perseus refuses because... get this... he refuses to leave his son. Apparently despite having god blood in his veins he is still unable to think far enough in advance to realize that if the world comes to an end, he'll be leaving his son permanently.

The roles of Hades, Zeus and Hephaestus were really good, but three good performances just could not save this turkey from its bad writing and a dreadfully boring plot riddled with clichés.

Daddy Complex of the Stereotypes

[RichardSRussell-1 · 5/10 · 30 March 2012]

Wrath of the Titans (1:39, PG-13, 3-D) — 5 — fantasy: sword & sorcery, biggie, sequel

Here, in response to no obvious demand, we have Sequel of the Titans. What follows is less a coherent review than a collection of observations.

(1) The plural is misleading. There's only 1 titan, Cronos, and he's off-screen for 90% of the film. He's been imprisoned in Tartarus for eons, which explains why he's wrathful. What is never satisfactorily explained (or even addressed) was how this mountain-sized lava monster ever procreated, since he's supposed to be the father of much smaller and more human-like gods like feuding brothers Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades.

(2) Don't go in with any pre-conceived ideas based on actual Greek mythology. It's a 2011 story featuring characters left over from 2010's Clash of the Titans.

(3) Warner Bros. threw a lot of money at this, and most of it shows up on the screen.

(4) It's pretty much non-stop fighting (vs. chimeras, cyclopes, a minotaur, and assorted gods and demigods), not entirely at the frenetic pace of Transformers, where things are flying by too fast to figure out who's doing what to whom, but too much so for my taste.

(5) The story is not going to win any Pulitzers, Nobels, or Hugos, but it's not entirely predictable, and anything that contemplates the total extinction of the gods gets a big plus from me.

(6) Despite having some pretty good actors in here (Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, Bill Nighy, Danny Huston, and, yes, Sam Worthington), they don't really get much chance to practice their craft, but they're not just phoning it in, either.

(7) Based on the damage he absorbed, Perseus should have been dead or permanently crippled on over a dozen occasions. Absence of credible consequences makes it difficult to establish serious threats or build suspense.

(8) Psychologists who are fixated on the idea of daddy complexes will love this. Normal people will spend a lot of time rolling their eyes.

(9) Rosamund Pike is along for the ride as Queen Andromeda, and she gets in a few licks, but mainly she cleans up real good.

(10) I'm fonder of 3-D than most, so FWIW I thot it was put to good use here in the swooping shots thru the burning villages, labyrinth, and pits of hell. Mercifully, no pokey-outy sharp things, but I had to duck the occasional flaming boulder.

(11) This will not tax your intellect, but it's a well-paced, semi-interesting, action-packed ludicrously unbelievable adventure. They could have done worse, and so could you.

You Love it or you Hate it. Simple as that.

[kirk-246 · 7/10 · 30 March 2012]

All right, I agree with most people when they say 2010's Clash of the Titans was not a great movie, but I didn't hate it. I didn't walk out of the theater with a feeling like "OMG, that movie kicked ass!". It was OK, I thought the film had pacing issues and the 3D was, well... about as bad and pointless as people made it out to be. So is the sequel, Wrath of the Titans, an improvement?

I'm happy to report that yes, Wrath of the Titans is better. It's not a great film by any means, it is flawed, but if you're looking for 99 simple minutes to kill by looking at some pretty darn impressive action sequences, then you are in luck. Also, if you thought the 3D in Clash was bad, that's not the case with Wrath. Don't expect anything along the lines of Avatar, but I gotta say, the 3D was used pretty nicely and didn't come off as a total gimmick.

My biggest issue with the film, however, is one that I had with the previous film. The film sometimes feels a bit slow and that it takes a while to get started, and there's not really much investment in the story or the characters. Some of the characters are mostly there to provide comic relief, but even that is very hit-or-miss. For the most part, Sam Worthington played his role pretty good, a fine example of under-rated acting. It's nothing great, but it's far from abysmal. Liam Neeson was also rather enjoyable to watch, but hey, it's Liam Neeson. Everybody else isn't particularly interesting, but they're not unforgivably boring or useless. There's also a small romance in the film between Worthington and a female side character, but it comes off as pointless and un-needed. I just don't see why the majority of popcorn action flicks require a relationship when we go to see explosions and amazing special effects, it's just not necessary.

Flaws aside, I enjoyed Wrath of the Titans. I am aware of the hate that this movie is receiving and I can understand some of the quibbles that one may have against it, but hey, at least it's better than it's predecessor.

A marked improvement from its predecessor, this sequel offers thrilling action sequences but is still let down by a thin plot and weak characters

[moviexclusive · 6/10 · 28 March 2012]

The Gods indeed deserved better than the 2010 remake of 'Clash of the Titans', a wholly ill-conceived attempt at revisiting the campy Ray Harryhausen sword-and-sorcery epic that instead replaced the original's stop-motion visual effects with second-rate CG effects. And certainly, the producers seemed to have heeded the call with this sequel, retaining the fine cast from the original- Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes- while opting for fresh writers and a new director.

It's still as important however to keep your hopes down for 'Wrath of the Titans', especially for those expecting a sweeping mythological epic. Taking over the reins from French director Louis Leterrier is Johnathan Liebesman, and going by his previous works- 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning" and "Battle: Los Angeles"- the man is at best an efficient but uninspired director who pays more attention to visceral pleasures than to anything resembling depth.

That is certainly true of his work here, which vastly improves the action sequences of the original but little else. As if singularly devoting his time to create mind-numbing big-budget sequences, Liebesman invests little in the story and in his characters- God, demi-god and human alike. Both are mechanical at best and engineered with a specific purpose of taking his viewer from one jaw-dropping sequence to another, never mind the inconsistencies or the leaps of logic along the way.

So despite the exposition, the plot of the entire movie can be summed up in a one line- to save Zeus (Neeson) from his conniving brother Hades (Fiennes) and jealous son Aroes (Edgar Ramirez), the demi-god Perseus (Worthington) leaps back into full battle mode since retiring ten years ago to a quiet life in a small fishing village. Before facing the worst of them all, Perseus will have to go up against a host of hideous- looking monsters- a fiery-mouthed Chimera with two heads at the front and a snake's head at its tail; a trio of towering Cyclops giants; a Minotaur; and a band of half-man, half-rock soldiers with four arms and two bodies that twist around on a pair of legs.

There's no denying that the creatures this time are much more inventive, and the action sequences choreographed much more skilfully, adding up to a much more thrilling time than what its predecessor offered. Saving the best for last, Liebesman also crafts an epic finale with a gigantic lava-spewing monster known as the Kronos that also involves a whole legion led by warrior-queen Princess Andromeda (Rosamund Pike). The victory call at the end may be a tad overdone, but the climax alone is worth the price of admission and surprisingly impressive even in post- converted 3D.

Pity then that the rest of the movie often pales in comparison- and perhaps the most jarring of all is the poorly defined interfamilial conflict between Zeus, Hades and Aroes. Screenwriters Dan Mazeau and David Leslie Johnson (working off a story that's also credited to Greg Berlanti) give Aroes little motivation behind his father's betrayal other than his envy of Perseus, nor do they manage the sibling tension between Zeus and Hades convincingly. Worse still, they try to turn Hades into a less straightforward character by casting him as a reluctant pawn in Aroes' scheme midway into the movie, and the subsequent reconciliation between Zeus and Hades is laughable even with the considerable acting talents of Neeson and Fiennes.

Certainly, both thespians are well aware of the thin material here, but kudos to the pair for trying to imbue their Godly characters with the gravitas they usually bring to their roles. Among the more interesting additions to the cast are Bill Nighy as the loony weapons-maker Hephaestus whom Perseus approaches for help to gain entry to the underworld labyrinth Zeus is held captive, as well as Toby Kebbell as Poseidon's son Agenor and the only other character besides Hephaestus to have a sense of humour in the entire movie.

Indeed, the movie takes itself too seriously for its own good, ignoring its own campy origins in favour of a self-serious sensibility to its storytelling that only further exposes its plot and character flaws. This is, and perhaps has always been, about watching Gods, demi-gods and monsters go at each other with sound and fury- and thankfully, this sequel easily betters its predecessor on this regard alone. That's not likely to be enough to make the Gods happy though, but for those of us mortals looking for big-budget mind-numbing spectacle, this will do just fine.

• www.moviexclusive.com

a pleasant surprise

[destroyah25 · 7/10 · 30 March 2012]

Just finished watching wrath of the titans, and have to say it was better than expected. I was expecting a somewhat average film after the disappointing remake of the original. All the characters played their roles very well especially Zeus and Hades. The version I saw was 3d, and the use of it was much better this time around scenes with falling rocks, Pegasus flying, and other scenes had a strong presence with the 3d. A couple weaknesses I saw in my opinion were the character representations of Hephestus and Hades toward the end. Hephestus was seemed to be way scrawnier, too good looking, not serious enough, and too weak for a god. He was a solid character just wish they made him more represented to how he was in myth. Also without spoiling the character change of Hades toward the end was a little interesting, but felt it shouldn't have been done. The effects were in this movie were awesome especially for Cronus. It also has some great fight scenes that really get you blood pumping. All in all though it was a great action film, with some solid comedy relief, and just a great overall film especially for those looking for flashy effects 8/10

Fails to deliver.

[Troy_Campbell · 4/10 · 30 March 2012]

Although Clash of the Titans was universally dismissed as an overwhelming disappointment – and featured the worst post-converted 3D ever – it raked in the big bucks and a sequel was naturally green-lit by Warner Bros. With a new director (Battle LA's Jonathan Liebesman replacing Louis Leterrier) and an extra $25m to toy with, Wrath was given the opportunity to learn from its predecessor's mistakes. Alas, this loud and sporadically entertaining mess largely fails to deliver; Sam Worthington's acting again doesn't cut the mustard, the action is well-choreographed but repetitive, and the CGI remains below par considering the dosh thrown at it. However, it's the lack of imagination and unpredictability in the plot department that truly stifles the proceedings. If you get to the end of the first act and don't already know how the rest of the movie is going to play out, you're probably sleeping. Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes spice things up as Zeus and Hades respectively, and Toby Kebbell's comic sidekick is a successful ploy to inject the humour sorely missing from Clash, but it's not enough to make this misfire recommendable.

So bad it will make your eyes bleed.

[mj_milne-632-458810 · 1/10 · 31 March 2012]

Thinking of going to see Wrath of the Titans? In 3d? Save yourself some pocket money and do the following instead: lie on the ground and pour a mixture of soil and skittles slowly into your eyes whilst mumbling the names of Greek Gods. This will have the same entertainment value as the film, and a considerably better plot.

Having seen the remake of the original, I went into Wrath of the Titans with my expectation level pretty low. Five minutes in, I quickly lowered it further. Ten minutes in... I buried my expectation level under my seat and stomped it into the ground - hard. But however low I set the bar, the film went lower. It's unimaginably dire.

There's simply nothing redeemable about the film at all. Even the impressive effects are ruined by awful direction that renders them no more engaging than watching a ten year old playing video games through a kaleidoscope.

Everyone involved in making Wrath of the Titans should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves; and to be fair Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes clearly are as they show it on screen. They both look embarrassed to be a part of it. I'm embarrassed that I bore witness to it. Please don't be a statistic and join us. There's nothing to see here - move along, move along.

Why all the hate?

[brazil-60 · 10/10 · 31 March 2012]

I thought this movie did it's job! It was a great sequel, that delivered what was expected. The sole point of a movie is to entertain, and Wrath of the Titans did just that. The final scene was just epic, although I wish it were a little longer. I honestly don't see why so many people are hating on it. It had everything an action film lover would want. The action scenes were ridiculously well made, and the computer graphics were one of the best I've scene in a while. The acting was great and so were the characters. For those who liked the first movie, you'll like the second one too. Very entertaining and I tip my hat of to the producers and directors. Good Job!

Not bad

[0U · 15 February 2020]

I personally felt that the sequel to the remake of Clash of the Titans was much better movie than the remake itself. What made this film work more than the 2010 film was that it a better story, better performances and overall a bit more engaging action. The remake was a mess because the action was all over the place, and you simply lost interest after a while. With Wrath of Titans, they seemed to take a step back, and focus more on a writing a better story, with effective action that would please fantasy fans. The film is far from perfect, but overall it's a satisfying movie that might surprise viewers that hated the Clash of the Titans remake. The run time is shorter, thus it gets to the point fairly quickly and in the case of this film, it's a big plus because, the original just tried too hard at being grand, ambitious and epic, and in turn it turned out to be a tiresome mess of a film, one that wasn't worth investing your time in, and it showed plenty of weak points instead of strengths because it copied the 80's original, instead of trying to come up with a new angle to tell the story. The filmmakers have succeeded at crafting an entertaining movie with lots of action that is not boring or dull, and it's got a good story as well, maybe not the best, but far better than its predecessor. This is not great cinema, but it's a fun, entertaining popcorn action fantasy film if you're in the right frame of mind to watch. The film won't get any awards, but it's not bad either. I was very much entertained by this follow-up, and considering it follows-up a remake, they managed to make it better than its predecessor.

Fantastic monsters, entertaining

[CrazyArty · 7/10 · 31 December 2021]

Perseus returns, this time to rescue Zeus who has been betrayed and locked up in Tartarus.

As for Clash this has great visuals and special effects. The monsters look fantastic (Chimera, Kronos).

The plot is not too deep, it's okay.

Some big name cast members but not great acting. Nighy was good. As for Clash I'm not convinced Worthington is big enough for this role.

Arguably the film is a bit better than Clash as the plot moved along quicker.

Overall, very entertaining movie with fantastic monsters let down by mediocre plot, weak dialogue and unexceptional acting.

Light years ahead of Clash Of The Titans

[Sheldon_Cooper_PHD · 6/10 · 29 March 2012]

That was really fun!

COTT was really bad and disappointing. In WOTT, Worthington is much better (I love the guy, but he was bland in COTT, and he says so himself, very professional guy), pretty intense, loved the scenes with his son Helius, nice moments with Zeus as well, he gets his ass kicked and kicks some major ass.

Neeson is great, Fiennes is really at ease, Kebbell is good, Nighy great as usual, Ramirez great (even though critics don't seem to think the same thing).

Incredible CGI, really, Kronos, Chimera, Tartarus, great set pieces, great monsters, beautifully shot, Liebesman really has an eye for the visuals, sometimes hand-held and shaky cam is used, and it works well. The action was for me most of the time mind-blowing, especially the last third of the movie.

Story is much better, even though dialogues are weak, it's more light- hearted. The 3D (and I'm pretty much a 3D lover) is great, lots of pop out, great depth, works really well with the scenery, creatures, action scenes. There are some really bad-ass scenes throughout the movie.

All in all, a truly bad-ass, kick-ass, fun movie that will get destroyed by the critics who seem like they can't just enjoy a blockbuster for what it is.

A Nutshell Review: Wrath of the Titans

[DICK STEEL · 7/10 · 29 March 2012]

Once bitten, twice shy. I suppose the really bad 3D effects in the Clash of the Titans remake two years ago made me steer really clear of yet another post-production 3D conversion effort in this follow up sequel, and going by the looks of it, there isn't really much to provide that depth of field, nor effort in the way it's shot to exploit the 3D format, other than to rake in extra dollars since the 2010 version did so to have green lit this total imaginary Greek mythology scribed by Greg Berlanti, David Johnson and Dan Mazeau, who between them have written stuff like Green Lantern, Orphan, and Red Riding Hood. But one thing's for sure, gone is the direction and focus on pure action, and in comes a semblance of a stronger storyline.

The theme about fathers and sons cannot be more pronounced in Wrath of the Titans, set 10 years after the first film, that harks back to the Greek mythology origins of the splitting of powers between Zeus (Liam Neeson), Hades (Ralph Fiennes) and Poseidon (Danny Huston) when they condemn their father Cronos into the depths of Hell, and Zeus having to play Hades out by making the latter lord of the underworld. So the balance of power has remained as such, until Zeus walks into a trap as planned by Hades and Zeus' son Ares (Edgar Ramirez) the god of War because of his jealousy of Perseus (Sam Worthington), the new favoured son of Zeus. With Zeus entrapped to sap his life force and powers for Cronos, the plan is to release Cronos back into the world to destroy everything in the known universe.

The saviour is of course demi god Perseus, who now is a father to Helius (John Bell), his son with now deceased wife Io, conveniently written out because of Gemma Arterton's non participation, and to steer the romance in this fable back to between Perseus and Queen Andromeda, who's now Warrior Queen and played by Rosamund PIke. And Perseus can't save the world alone because he's only a half-god up against the might of Ares, Hades and Cronos, so he has to team up with another demi god, the son of Poseidon, Agenor (Toby Kebbell), who will lead them to Hephaestus (Bill Nighy), who holds the key to safe passage to the Underworld where Zeus is imprisoned. The quest this time, as you can see, is kept quite linear and straightforward, which makes it extremely easy to follow as the dots get connected in the most simplest of fashion, keeping in constant reminder of the theme that deals with the squabbles between family members, and fights between envious siblings.

And not only is the story kept simple, the battle scenes here were also cleanly designed without complication, unleashing new beasts yet to be seen in the Clash of the Titans film, involving ugly two-headed hounds from hell, battles with one eyed cyclops, and of course, big daddy himself who seemed more smoke and mirrors, especially since the strategy involves something that's very close to Star Wars' destruction of the Death Star. I can't fathom why there are so many complaints about the big minotaur fight unless you're watching the film really close to the screen. Some easter eggs continue from the first film, such as the presence of mechanical owl Bubo, and Pegasus having a little bit more personality though still sidelined as being nothing more than air transportation.

Sam Worthington looked like he's enjoying much of the adventures of Perseus this time round, playing the man who walked away from his new found fame as the Kraken slayer, to return once again from his life of being a simple fisherman, and taking up arms and fight to save the world against the titans in the film (collectively inclusive of the other monsters in the film). With the gods severely weakened because nobody prays to them, the role of Perseus and Agenor, for slight comic relief, may pave the door to follow up films that deal more with demi gods than those residing in Mount Olympus. Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes had a lot more to do here also in expanded roles, with the final act providing the opportunity for one last hurrah that is surprisingly moving.

Perhaps the miscast here would be Rosamund Pike's Andromeda, with the idea of a Warrior Queen being a departure from Andromeda's usual role of the damsel in distress, but this film still being more testosterone suited instead. She doesn't get to do much given her very human abilities, and is there as token romantic interest with a romance that isn't strong to begin with, coupled with a sagging mid-section that involves hallucination en route to the Underworld that got abandoned before it even begun for her character. Her troopers too in the final battle scene didn't get to do much despite much posturing for nothing, and were relegated to mere cheer leaders for the most part, grateful that someone else had stepped up to the plate and did their fighting for them instead.

Still, if compared to the rather disastrous Clash of the Titans 2 years ago, Wrath of the Titans is a leg up in terms of storytelling, and didn't have an albatross of the superbly nostalgic 1981 version hanging around its neck to be compared to. The fights also didn't get obsessed with wanting to be bigger, faster and more CG-laden, and the combination of a more focused plot and theme, with better designed battles that adhered to the mantra of keeping it simple, proved to be a winner for this follow up. Recommended for being that far out, imaginary modern take on Greek mythology that played on the what-if scenario.

Awful : 150M gone to ashes

[paul-tabet · 1/10 · 10 June 2012]

No spoilers ahead : this movie has everything I hate about Hollywood blockbusters, that is characters as thin as the paper I use make my cigarettes, dumb plot, horrendous CGI in almost every sequence, good actors turned bad ( Neeson going from Shindler's List to this garbage is quite a deception ), other actors that cashed 10+M whilst having no previous acting experience, terribly stupid dialog at times ( you look 10 thousand years younger )... Avoid at all costs and go for Jason and the Argonauts to see what making movies is about.

At least the first one had the Kraken that was nice... This one has nothing ! Shame on anyone involved in this.

Thinking that 150M were put in this dumb sh... whilst people are starving makes me ashamed to live in the same world as the guys who committed themselves in this project.

Only thing that makes me even more horrified is the people giving it a note between 8 and 10 and pledging for Oscars for such a piece of crap.

Wake up guys !!! Cant you see you're made to swallow crap ? Boycott any further Hollywood blockbuster crap for Christ's sake !

Standard stuff. Not as good as Clash

[primevalsoup · 6/10 · 31 March 2012]

I think I represent a minority of people who thought Clash of the Titans was amazing, profound, incredibly exciting and had great graphics. Hopefully less people dispute the soundtrack to Clash, which was absolutely fantastic thanks to Ramin Djawadi.

This film feels put together just to rake in sales from people like me who loved the first one, or people who probably didn't get out of the first one what I got out of it. Perhaps the studio, which perhaps (I like to think) saw some of what I saw in Clash realised that the market share I belong to was tiny (just me?) and that the market wanting to see big monsters fight Sam Worthington was worth investing in.

Story: It's alright. Not as upbeat as Clash. A bit depressing. I'm sure there were more gods in Clash than Wrath, so not sure where the others went. The romance was... who's idea was that??? Done rather awfully. And I'm not spoiling anything to declare that Io (Gemma Aterton) wasn't in it, but why? She was good. Because she didn't sign a contract? Maybe she didn't like the script. And for anyone out there who got something special from Clash (this whole rejection of patrons/gods/gifts for some dubious moral principle, despite going up against ridiculous odds) - you probably won't find it here.

Action: I recall Clash being well choreographed. Many action films rely on blurred/fast/over close up shots to give the impression of action and violence. At the other end is very slowed down fighting. My preferred (which I recall there being a lot of in clash) is fast paced, real time and followable action. I suspect this is a nightmare to direct, which is why it happens so infrequently in films. Matrix did it - and was amazing. Anyway, this film goes for close up and can't see what's going on action quite a lot, which is a waste of talent/resources (cool monsters) and money and doesn't look good. Maybe I should change careers and become a choreographer. They ought to be raking it in.

Graphics: Fine. I preferred the monsters from Clash though. And what there was was often too close to see/appreciate properly.

Music: Fine - but not special. Not like Clash. Clash music was AMAZING. I bought it and listened to it a million times and infiltrated it into most of my itunes playlists. This was what you'd expect for a high budget film of this sort when they had nothing left for anyone great, but not memorable or inspiring (I've forgotten it already).

Acting: I'm not an acting critic. No one annoyed me. Sam Worthington was unashamedly Australian and I was fine with that.

So perhaps they got another $25 million to spend, but maybe with inflation this was an equivalent budget? I guess someone decided to change the director and the music composer - why? Sounds like Leterrier was keen, at least from wikipedia. Changing directors might explain aspects of the plot - new male lion arrives and starts killing off what was done by the one before him.

Chix Chat on Film review: A Titanic smack down.

[EmmaDinkins · 8/10 · 30 March 2012]

The Wrath of the Titans came with action right out the gates of Tartarus. I was a little surprised that the fun began so quickly, but it didn't last. We get this great battle as Perseus (Sam Worthington) faces the Chimera, and then we are taken to school for a Greek mythology lesson. This film does look deeper at the Gods, specifically the relationship of the top brothers. The three major Gods seen in the Clash of the Titans have returned, including Liam Neeson as Zeus. Fortunately, his role is so much more expanded this time around and not completely defined by one catch phrase. Releasing the Titans was exactly what takes place in this story and it is pretty spectacular to witness. Practically every mythical creature ever conceived in Greek mythology was on display and in some battle with Perseus. Since he pretty much lost everyone who fought beside him the last time he now teams up with some new comrades, Andromeda (Rosamund Pike) who is leading the Greek army into battle and Agenor (Toby Kebbell) who is a bit of a scoundrel. The entire film took a very somber serious tone, I kept thinking man this is dramatic. It wasn't until well into the 99 minutes running time that we get some comic relief from Hephaestus (Bill Nighy). The tone lightened up for a minute, then Ares (Edgar Ramirez) makes a really cool entrance and then into the labyrinth we go, which was absolutely stunning. I was very impressed by the special effects in this film. Aside from how realistic all the titans appeared, a few other things crossed my mind, one that I really liked and the other I considered must have been for realism. This series is the first time that I have seen Pegasus as a black beauty, which coordinated very well with how dirty everyone stayed throughout the entire film. In battle who has time for a shower before, 'action'! Good thing Perseus is a demi-god otherwise he would have never survived all the times that he was hurled into a rock or a stone pillar. This story is not plot driven, it's not character driven and with all the different accents in Greece, which were a bit distracting, but if a film could stand solely on the special effects and the realism that you would expect in the chance that you meet a Cyclops then this it that film. It was entertaining, I'm a Greek mythology fan and I give it a green light.

Underrated

[andres_ge88 · 7/10 · 1 June 2020]

This movie has very good digital effects and a very good story line. 5.7/10 seems kind of unfair. It think Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes did a really good job in the movie. I think this movie is better than Clash of the Titans.

Why God? Why?

[Pycs · 1/10 · 30 March 2012]

'Clash of the Titans,' which graced silver screen in April of 2010, was reviled by critics and fans of the 1981 original a-like. The script was a mess and the converted 3-D looked, well, converted. It'd only make sense that such a travesty was met with poor results at the box office?Nope. 'Clash' was one of the highest grossing movies of 2010 and, inevitably, launched a sequel in the hopes of duping a few more simple minded people into making a buck.

Now, to clear things up, I had not seen the 2010 version, and don't plan on it based on what I've heard. So I went into this sequel without much of a back story. This shouldn't ruin my movie-going experience, as I had seen movies like 'Terminator 2' and 'Aliens' without viewing the originals beforehand.

The story was a mess. Plot elements didn't add up or happened too conveniently. Characters traveled places that weren't well explained (sometimes barely at all) and I was often left scratching my head, wondering where they were or how they got there. Most of the plot points that I felt perplexed on, I figured it was because I hadn't seen the first film. But these moments kept repeating while I was watching it, until I finally gave up all thought of making sense of the story.

Nothing irritates me more than clichés piling up and, oh boy, did this movie have it's share. Perseus (a dull Sam Worthington, which is a nearly a cliché in its own right) has left his heroic days behind and become a fishermen in a local village. Of course, just like every other story ever written, the would-be pacifist is called back into arms for the greater good. And, what's that? There's a child as well! His son! How convenient! But I doubt they'll us him in the climatic fight, as a emotional weakness for the bad guy to exploit. That would never happen! Oh, and the over-the-top hostile, misunderstood criminal at the beginning story is magical transformed into a hero by the end. How creative!

The more I think about this movie, the more my anger swells inside me, like a hurricane of hatred being forged in the deep depths of the ocean, ready to explode into a fury of rage and destruction over all in it's path. So, I'll leave it as this, if you somehow (and I use that term very lightl) enjoyed the 2010 'Clash of the Titans,' you might want to check this turd out. Other than that, don't waste your time or money on this pile of junk.

Mindless, Action Packed, and Better than the First

[FireRises · 26 March 2012]

SPOILER FREE REVIEW

Let me start this right off the bat and tell you it's better than Clash of the Titans(Even though that's not saying much)However, Wrath of the Titans supplies enough action set pieces, that you have a good enough flick that you should check out this weekend. The plot is very simple, it's set 10 years after the events of the first film where Perseus and his son fish for a living. Hades and Zeus' son Ares trick Zeus and capture him. Now, the titans are getting stronger while Zeus is getting weaker. Perseus has to go to hell to save his father. There are some pretty cool monsters in this film, like the demons Makhai and the scene with Kronos is AMAZING. If you're looking for a good time this weekend and go into this movie with an open mind. Then you will definitely have a good time watching Wrath of the Titans. 8/10

Just ninety minutes of massive CGI monsters and "epic" battles.

[CinemaCocoa · 6/10 · 4 May 2012]

The old gods, Zeus and Hades find their powers and influence waning as mortals cease their prayers, and in a desperate act Hades opens the Underworld prison of Tartarus, freeing the titans and their ancient father Kronos. Now every immortal and demigod must choose a side, and Perseus must fight for the mortal life he chose. All this talk of titans being released might remind you of last years Immortals, and there are plenty of similarities (except for Mikey Rourke in a silly hat) only Wrath feels slightly more in keeping with the mythology. Slightly. I was a little saddened how the titans themselves were still underdeveloped or non-existent, the promotional images for Wrath suggested more diversity between them, yet most focus was given to the colossal Kronos battle. Cinematography used that irritating shaky camera once more, making the Minotaur fight a particularly lukewarm experience! The story's surprise focus on Perseus' brother Ares, yes, the God of War, was gratifying and hammered home (no pun intended) the concept of mortal prayers empowering and weakening certain gods. It almost felt like there was underlying subtext at this point!

I could have used twenty minutes more though, to solidify some of the characters further and make it less like one long action sequence. Watching it beside Clash of the Titans might improve this however.

Awesome & Popping 3D go see it

[elliott78212 · 7/10 · 30 March 2012]

OK as many have said the movie is vastly improved from the first one most notably the 3D here is excellent I was ducking, dodging it was great. The CGI was in a word Dynamic, the Cyclops, Chronos oh how I loved it and I'm a child of Ray HarryHausen Era this movie is a must see. There are so many improvements its hard to tell you all of them without spoiling it so I'm not gonna go there. The acting is much better everyone delivers most of all Sam Worthington's performance has more depth I did miss Gemma Atherton or the appearance of Apollo thats so minor in the greater scheme of things the pacing is perfect I was thrilled from start to finish.

Boring waste of money

[abdelgulabkhan · 1/10 · 1 April 2012]

This film is so bad, it is at least 10 times worse than the first one

i hoped this film would be fantastic because the trailer was amazing, however the film is a mess, the actors are rubbish, the script is useless, the directing is a shambles.

A very boring film

To see that 1340 people have given this 10/10 , 42% of people.

This shows there is something very wrong, this film is at best 3/10, but realistically it is 1/10 you have to have no intelligence to watch this drizzle, maybe if you are 5 years old you might like it

Avoid at all costs, the movie is nothing like the great trailer!!!

There's actually Titans in this film and they kick ass . (awsome!!!)

[micahbosarge · 7/10 · 29 March 2012]

First let me say that this is no 300 or Lord of the Rings epic as the multiple trailers would have you believe but it definitely surpasses the first one in every way. Plot,acting,action,F/X,and 3D are all what you should expect from a popcorn movie like this the only thing that would have made it more entertaining would be blood and gore added to all the hacking and slashing that goes on or at least more decapitations and dismemberment's but then the movie would have lost millions due to limited viewing .

My review on the plot. (NO SPOILERS PRESENT) Many people including my-self complained about the paper thin plot clash of titans had so when I heard that Wrath of Titans was being directed by Jonathan Liebesman the directer of (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre The Beginning,and Battle:Los Angeles) I was skeptical that the plot was going to be any better because as good as Battle L.A was in the action,and F/X, the plot was almost as thin as Clash of Titans was but i,am happy to report the plot is a lot better in depth and they actually included Titans in the plot.

My review of the acting. The acting is a lot better than the first manly because of the writing and the script and I think Sam Worthington in maturing as an actor and as a result he gives a fine performance rivaling avatar,the only one i had any problem with was Rosamund Pike her performance as Andromeda the worrier princes was a bit wooden and not very believable but the rest of the cast was at their very best.

My review of the action and F/X. The action was top notch and non-stop and far better in every way than the first one the only thing missing was blood after the blows.The F/X was amazing nothing looked fake the creatures,the set pieces, every stick and stone, looked amazing perfect eye-candy can't wait to see it on bluray.

My review of the 3D. The 3D was applied in post production just like the first one so I was scared the the 3D was going to be a bust but to my surprise the 3D was good but no comparison to avatar or transformers 3 but all in all the 3D was good.It gave depth to the movie most of all in the action scenes when the cyclops popped on screen he literally popped out of the screen and that was amazing.

All in all this is a perfect movie to kick back relax with a large popcorn in one hand and a large coke in the other with your feet prop up on the seat ahead of you unless occupied and forget your problems for 99 minutes and after the movie you will fill as you can conquer the gods so i give it a 7 out of 10

Really nothing too bad.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 6/10 · 2 April 2012]

It's normal for sequels to be inferior to its predecessors but I must say that the last couple of years sequels are only getting better and better and every so often also pass the original.

That's also the case with "Wrath of the Titans", that is a sequel to the 2010 movie "Clash of the Titans". "Clash of the Titans" had all sorts of problems in it and while "Wrath of the Titans" is far from a flawless movie, it still is an improvement over the first movie.

This movie was at least more focused with its story, which made it a more pleasant movie to follow. It's still not like I has a solid story in it and I didn't even really always knew what was going on exactly in it but it at least flows well and helps to make this movie a fun and mindless, action packed, blockbuster.

It has a bigger budget than its predecessor but yet it doesn't look bigger or more expensive, which is only a positive thing to say really. It means that this movie has less tendencies to show off with some big action set pieces or CGI created creatures. Everything that happens in this movie fits better into its story and more often than not, serves a purpose within it as well. Besides, it looks as if this movie spend more of its budget on its set designs and other visual aspects, beside its special effects.

Nevertheless, it remains still obvious that the foremost reason as to why this movie was such an expensive one to make was due to its special effects. But it all paid off! The special effects for the movie are simply great and help to make this movie often a spectacular and entertaining one.

It also still would had been so much better if it actually was a more involving movie to watch. It never gets you a true sense of excitement or tension because you don't ever feel involved enough with any of its events or characters.

I like that Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes get to do a bit more in this movie at times and don't just show up randomly every now and then, like still was the case with the first movie. They serve a more important purpose but still their roles aren't much bigger really. It's still somewhat disappointing seeing Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes in this and the movie doing far too little with those two. Especially when you have an actor such as Ralph Fiennes playing a villainous role, you should definitely exploit this as a movie and do something more and better with it.

The movie besides Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes and Sam Worthington, features mostly new characters and actors in it. And some of the actors and characters are a true welcome addition. Rosamund Pike and Bill Nighy are being the most notable ones.

Really, it's not a bad movie or one that I hated watching. I still can't rate it very highly, simply because it's just nothing too great or involving to watch either. Anyway, chances are you will probably still end up liking it more than not.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Hollywood must be running out of ideas

[mtzmcrchick111 · 2/10 · 1 April 2012]

i came watching this movie with relatively low expectations but it was worse than i ever thought it would be. yes the titans look cool and there's action but it is completely lacking almost everything else. There is hardly any emotion, you don't really come to like the characters, it wasn't a good story, all i can really say is that it was just dry. It looks cool n everything but it didn't move me in any kind of way. This is probably why there coming out with old classics showing in the movie theaters cause Hollywood is running out of ideas and they have nothing better to show. They barely make movies like they used to....