IMDb > Wrath of the Titans (2012) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Wrath of the Titans
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Wrath of the Titans More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 25:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 245 reviews in total 

152 out of 205 people found the following review useful:

Daddy Complex of the Stereotypes

5/10
Author: RichardSRussell-1 from United States
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

75 out of 96 people found the following review useful:

Great Visuals, Bad Script

5/10
Author: Richard Reilly (FFman@comcast.net) from Colorado
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

Was the above review useful to you?

82 out of 116 people found the following review useful:

Wrath of the Filmmakers

3/10
Author: khfan250 from United States
3 April 2012

I'm one of the 3% of the population of Americans that actually enjoyed the 2010 remake of "Clash of the Titans". It wasn't a masterpiece, in fact, I wouldn't even call it good. But there was a charming simplicity to it all. It involved generic characters getting from Point A to Point B in an hour and a half. Sure, it was plagued with problems, but for me, it's a serious guilty pleasure. But that's another review for another time.

The most glaring problem with "Wrath" is that it's essentially the same thing as the first one, with a few tweaks here and there. Sam Worthington plays Perseus. He's strong, powerful, and dull as a rock. It's just Worthington's generic, bland good guy. He's not a terrible role model, he's just not that particularly engaging. The only character that's more boring is Queen Andromeda, played by Rosamund Pike. These two characters share such an awful, contrived romance that it makes Anakin and Padme from the Star Wars prequels look like Romeo and Juliet.

But, as I said before, this sequel is merely a re-tread of the first movie. Sure, the first one was predictable, but at least it gave us a bit of time to know each of the characters. Here, there's no development because they just assumed you know these characters because you watch the first movie. That's a problem I find many sequels running into, and here, it really weakens it.

The special effects here are used in a way that makes me want to sterilize the people who came up with them. The filmmakers operate under the impression that if you throw a ton of special effects onto the screen, it will give your audience something to look at. The problem with that logic is that the factors of character development and motivation are canceled out by the pointless action sequences to such a degree that the audience becomes bored by these fight scenes. The special effects don't dazzle audience members like they did in the past when they're used in such a repetitive fashion.

With really bad movies like this, when all hope is lost, I try to focus on the positive aspects of the film. And there are a few good things found here. Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, and Bill Nighy are pretty entertaining as the gods of Mt. Olympus, and I do like that there is some, though not a lot, of development with these guys. The movie sort of touches on the messed up issues of family in Greek mythology, and it was interesting. Whenever I found myself watching Sam Worthington and his band of bland beatniks (try saying that five times fast), I was wishing that I could be watching Liam Neeson and the others, because they were interesting! Unfortunately, not even the awesome acting of Liam Neeson can save this stinker, kind of how Optimus Prime couldn't save the "Transformers" sequels.

Final verdict: If you're a fan of rich cinematic genius like Citizen Kane or 12 Angry Men, this is not your kind of movie. It's too long, too forced, and too choppily edited. I'll admit, there were people in the theater that watched it and seemed to get really invested, and if you think you can, go ahead and watch it. For me, there were just too many things that didn't add up for me to enjoy this one. I don't regret seeing it, but repeat viewings are not in my future.

Was the above review useful to you?

92 out of 138 people found the following review useful:

Terrible story - the Gods must be spinning on Mount Olympus

1/10
Author: phd_travel from United States
30 March 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The story is absolute rubbish. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of mythology would cringe at the terrible things they made the Gods do. There are so many bad things about the plot.

1. How could they make Ares and Hades fight against Zeus and then make Hades change sides for hardly any reason?

2. How could they make Zeus die?

3. Why is Perseus speaking with an Australian accent? Come on Sam at least fake something neutral!

4. Since when did Andromeda become some tomboy warrior amazon?

5. Why would Ares be jealous of that silly little fisherman Perseus when all he was doing was fishing? What pointless animosity. Since when were the Gods thugs?

6. Why is Pegasus so dark?

I thought the 2010 Clash was a terrible remake of the 80s version. The 2010 Clash had no charm romance or dignity of the Gods. But Wrath is worse. The story is so rubbishy and the dialog so terrible that it's gone light years away from the right direction.

The acting and casting aren't good. Rosamund Pike isn't appealing enough for a princess. Her cold blank expression is annoying. Sam Worthington looks even more nondescript let alone heroic than before. He isn't even 1 percent God. And why did he start speaking in his native accent? Are the Gods from Down Under? And the sudden kiss at the end is so out of place even Andromeda looked shocked. Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes are too good to be in this bad movie.

Don't watch this one - it's an example of silly people just throwing money away on effects when the plot stinks.

Was the above review useful to you?

75 out of 116 people found the following review useful:

Fails to deliver.

4/10
Author: Troy_Campbell from Sydney, Australia
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

37 out of 42 people found the following review useful:

Too many clichés taken from too many better sources

5/10
Author: TheXeroXone from elsewhere
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

120 out of 210 people found the following review useful:

So bad it will make your eyes bleed.

1/10
Author: mj_milne-632-458810 from United States
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

69 out of 110 people found the following review useful:

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

6/10
Author: moviexclusive from Singapore
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

Was the above review useful to you?

45 out of 70 people found the following review useful:

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

7/10
Author: kirk-246 from United States
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

81 out of 142 people found the following review useful:

Mindless, Action Packed, and Better than the First

Author: FireRises from United States
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

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 25:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history