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 13 of 25: [Prev][8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [Next]
Index 249 reviews in total 

Great special effects. Everything else is "eh..."

6/10
Author: kow626
20 July 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Unlike Clash of the Titans, Wrath has a more capable director but it uses a cookie-cutter script like the first part. The special effects used to create The Kraken creature were top notch and that scene is the only reason I'd recommend to watch the first part. With that being said, the special effects used to create Cronus (and the Makhai) in the second part are the only reason I'd recommend watching it. Cronus was only featured in action briefly in a dream sequence at the beginning of the movie and full-on in the final act. Everything else about the movie was what you'd expect if you saw the first. Nothing special to write home about. It's completely predictable. One complaint was the dialogue of Cronus and the Makhai if you wanna call it dialogue. Were they speaking some ancient Titan language? Because their speech wasn't understandable. It just sounded like some garbled mumbling and grunting. Nope, it was never explained in the movie. No exposition, no subtitles. Don't you hate when they do that? They were better off not "speaking" at all.

Was the above review useful to you?

One of the worst movies i have ever seen

1/10
Author: Dimitris Zagor from Greece
15 July 2012

Please don't use Greek Mythology to create these bull.... Don't use names from the Greek Mythology to create a story that was never existed. If you want to use the name Perseas make a movie of the real story and not bull shits like this. The best thing i can say about this movie is that is awful.

Nothing to see except effects.

I really like Liam Neeson i thing is one of the good actors. I cannot see him acting to this bull...

If anyone knows the least about Greek Mythology he will laugh with the most horrible movie ever

Was the above review useful to you?

A big disappointment

5/10
Author: siderite from Romania
15 July 2012

I never thought of Clash of the Titans much, but I liked it. It had a story based on Greek Mythology, many interesting characters, great visuals. I thought Wrath of the Titans should be as fun, but I was wrong. There is Greek myth, but almost all of it has already been used in the first film. There are some interesting, but only a few; most of them are part of the godly dysfunctional family and are pretty cardboard. There are great visuals, but grand in scale, rather than subtlety; you could have actually see where they skimped on the budget.

So all in all, instead of another movie based on Greek mythology, you get a film based on the previous film. Add more American bravado, a lot of useless violence and then cut a bit of the costs and make it a franchise and you have a win. A shame.

Was the above review useful to you?

Great ancient legends made into sausages

1/10
Author: andreas-biehl
15 July 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

After having watched a rather entertaining popcorn remake of the 1981 "Clash of the titans" with Sam Worthington a couple of years ago, I was looking forward to getting a similar fun experience with the sequel "Wrath of the titans". What Hollywood "delivered" instead was most likely the biggest "spoiler" of great ancient legends ever produced. Or as we say here: Greek Myth made into sausages, i.e. an awful blend of different stories into one.

On his "odyssee" to rescuing his godfather Zeus, Perseus teams up with a group of 3 Cyclopes to guide him to Hephaestos - with a bit of good will a reference to Hesiod's Theogony (where Zeus releases three Cyclopes, the sons of Uranus and Gaia, from the dark pit of Tartarus. They provide Zeus' thunderbolt, Hades' helmet of invisibility, and Poseidon's trident, and the gods use these weapons to defeat the Titans). However, here more a way of indulging in CGI rather than telling a story...

Next spoof: Hephaestos, according to the original myth the god of fire, a master smith and due to a lame leg "of grotesque appearance", but a mediator during quarrels of his parents Zeus & Hera; in this movie appears rather schizophrenic while talking to one of his creations - once again the owl of the original 1981 movie.

During Perseus' brawls "filling" the way to Zeus' prison, Perseus also kills the Minotaur in a maze, "complicating" the entrance to Zeus' prison a bit... (Originally the Minotaur dwelt at the center of the Cretan Labyrinth, a maze-like construction designed by the architect Daedalus and his son Icarus, on the command of King Minos of Crete. The Minotaur was eventually killed by the Athenian hero Theseus)....

The peace seeking and emphatic Andromeda Kathrine Heigl was replaced by the "warrior queen" Andromeda Rosamund Pike. IMHO not a good choice, as she appears more to be flirting with Perseus (or Sam? ;)) than actually making us understand and believe the severity of the danger at hand. The goof to give Roman war insignia to supposedly Greek warriors has already been mentioned above...

Edgar Ramirez as Ares - the god of war - known to a wider public so far only by "the Bourne Ultimatum" here fills in an application form as the "new Chuck Norris" for complete lack of expression. A good example as to what the difference between "acting" and "portraying someone" is.

To summarize: definitely a CGI festival but story-wise PAINFUL to watch!

Was the above review useful to you?

I was shocked, it was actually OK

6/10
Author: chancey-23 from United States
14 July 2012

Believe me, I am not a fan of the 2010 Clash of the Titans. I remember being so disappointed in the film that I didn't want to see a sequel, ever. But at a last minute decision I saw it anyway. For the record: my expectations were low, I only wanted entertainment, and I wasn't really expecting anything near good. And the film pulled a miracle, for me at least: it held my attention, made me chuckle a couple of times, and I liked it. The only excuse I have: the film didn't let me down like the first. The one thing I kept telling myself: please don't let me down, and what do you know? It didn't. It fulfilled everything I wanted it to, and while it didn't do anything else, a sequel to an awful film should at least try to be better, and that's what this film, surprisingly, was.

Was the above review useful to you?

The spear of what?

6/10
Author: eagledriver88 from United States
8 July 2012

If you watch the movie, you'll understand the title better.

I was hoping for a solid action movie all around but Wrath of the Titans misses the mark. The reason why I gave the movie a 6 in the first place was because of the special effects which are pretty good. Aside from the visuals there isn't much to this movie at all which lends it to a 5 or less. The main problems boil down to bad writing/pacing, no character development, and predictability. The story could have used a lot more twists, or at least one we didn't see from a mile away. There are things that happen in the movie too that make you think "okay that was random." The WORST part of all is watching all of these amazing actors wasting their talent on a quick "put-together" sort of movie that could have been something great. It's pretty bad when some of the best actors around can't save a film from becoming completely meh. The action ain't bad but I can guarantee we've all seen better.

Was the above review useful to you?

Wrath of the Titans (2012) - 99 Minutes of Boredom!

5/10
Author: nickmesafilms (nickmesafilms@yahoo.com) from United States
5 July 2012

Set as a sequel to the remake of "Clash of the Titans", which was really quite unnecessary, "Wrath of the Titans" continues the story of Perseus and his everlasting battle with the Titans. I honestly feel like there's no use into talking about the plot, because honestly, there is no plot to talk about it. But I will say that Liam Neeson's Zeus has been kidnapped by Ralph Fiennes' Hades, and now Sam Worthington's Perseus has to team up with an army to go rescue him. Oh God, I just said the plot! Now, during the first 20 minutes, I started to become impressed with this movie. The effects were cool to look at, and the story started at an interesting point. But afterward, the story just plummeted after those enjoyable first 20 minutes. The rest of the movie is just uninteresting, slowly paced, and incredibly boring. Not even the giant "special effect" action scenes could save the film. Sam Worthington is still pretty likable, but still needs a little more help in the "line delivery" department. Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes are pretty well-suited for their performances, but they look embarrassed to be here. As for Rosamund Pike, no way! I don't really think she can actually act, then she can kick butt! So, the acting is average, the writing is ridiculous, the pacing is slow, and the overall action is not that memorable. Now, I only saw pieces of the first movie, so I can't really try to compare one movie between the other. But here's what I can say, "Wrath of the Titans" is not an awful movie to be exact, because I enjoyed some scenes, and the first half was pretty entertaining. But everything else was too boring, too slow, too uninteresting, and not that much my speed. In the end, "Wrath of the Titans" is quite a forgettable movie. "Wrath of the Titans", in my review, "boring development, and forgettable action".

Was the above review useful to you?

A lot better than Clash!

6/10
Author: nobre2 from Portugal
5 July 2012

I was not a fan of Clash of the Titans, the remake. I found it to be extremely boring and poorly paced.

That being said, i was extremely surprised by Wrath of the Titans. This movie has bigger and better action scenes, better characters and a slightly better script. More importantly i was never bored during this one.

The actors also do a better job on this one: Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes and Sam Worthington portray characters who feel more real and are instantly more likable this time around.

As a summer blockbuster, this movie can be really entertaining and more enjoyable than the first one. It also has amazing visuals and better 3D. I give it 6/10 stars. Above Average.

Was the above review useful to you?

Again the same disappointment as the previous one.

5/10
Author: manendra-lodhi (manendra.lodhi@gmail.com) from India
21 June 2012

Again the same factor that made me to watch the film. I had seen the first part. And I have this thing to watch the second part if they come. I even dared to watch the second part of ghost rider. So this film like its predecessor falls in the concept of character development. They were just rushing towards the final scene. Things like these make me sick. I already knew that the film is bad and I will regret my time after watching. But on the positive side the action sequences like the previous one are again good to watch at least once. It's like you should just scroll the film just to see the action sequences and you will never feel like you are missing anything special from the film i.e you will get the story even if you see the action scenes only. Well there are a lot of things that we can identify are bad in the film. The first ones are the dialogs which were, believe me irritating. Now I think the story development was far better in the first part.

"Watch only if you are a huge action fan and have watched the first part. Otherwise waste of time."

Was the above review useful to you?

God of war where are you

2/10
Author: yannickmessaoud from Canada
15 June 2012

I have watch half of this movie before leaving the theater, all the time i was there i kept thinking about God Of War 3, Kratos and how amazing a movie based on the video game would have been, instead of that awful movie, where sam worthington bad haircut, and all the worthless stuff happening on screen.

Plain bad and boring movie, that should be avoided. I enjoyed the first movie, it was not better then the first original movie which had a much better story, but not worst either. But the first movie was very well made and they should have kept it at this. This second movie was useless and made for the money.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 13 of 25: [Prev][8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [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