IMDb > Wrath of the Titans (2012) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Wrath of the Titans
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
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
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

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

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 13 of 26: [Prev][8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [Next]
Index 252 reviews in total 

A flawed, but tolerable improvement over the original in my honest opinion!

Author: gavin-thelordofthefu-48-460297 from United States
5 August 2012

To those who hated the Clash of the Titans remake, I actually thought it was decent. Not great, but pretty good. Some of the visuals are nice, the action was perfect, and the acting is pretty good, but the story was lacking in it's emotion and character development, the dialog was terrible and the pacing was unbelievably rushed. So, when this came out in about almost five months ago, I regretted not seeing this in theaters, but at least I get to watch it on my TV and to my surprise, I actually enjoyed it and I think that it's an improvement over the original.

However, there are flaws that prevented this movie from reaching an eight. The story, like the original, is predictable with a few errors (the scene where Zeus dies is unnecessary. First of all, gods are immortal and they don't die. Guys, you can't do that to make an emotional scene because it didn't work) and is lacking in it's emotion and character development and is also more of the same from the original as well. The dialog is even worse than the dialog from the original by being so cliché-driven and the pacing is terribly rushed.

There are some positive things about this film. The visuals are nice and the cinematography is beautifully crafted. The costume designs are fantastic and the music is pretty good too. The acting is pretty much a mixed bag. Sam Worthington is decent, but he lacks his chemistry with some of the several characters while Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes are underused. Rosamund Pike did very good as Andromeda, Danny Huston did OK as Poseidon, but Bill Nighy steals the show by portraying the most interesting character Hephaetus. The strongest aspect goes to the action and while not in the same depth as the action in the original it's at least decent. The special effects and it's 3D sequences (I never saw the 3D version in theaters, but I heard that they've improved) are solid and well-choreographed.

I know all of you who gave this film negative reviews are going to hate me for this, but I actually liked this sequel. Honestly because I think it's underrated. Sure, it's flawed with the story's errors, but it doesn't matter. My advice, if you're bored on a rainy Saturday, go buy and watch this on a DVD copy. Otherwise, stick to other fantasy films.

Was the above review useful to you?

Nobody takes it too seriously, nor should you

Author: julian-mumford from New Zealand
27 July 2012

After a worldwide take of nearly $500 million, a sequel to the critically panned reboot of "Clash of the Titans" was perhaps inevitable, taking around $300 million the usual "law of diminishing returns" has applied here.

When we left Perseus, demi-god son of Zeus (Liam Neeson) he had defeated the Kraken, won the girl and all was well. He has now retired to the simple life of a fisherman, enjoying the company of his young son Helius, following the death of his wife.

Of course, the simple life cannot continue if we are to have an action movie and sure enough, he is soon called upon to rescue his father from the evil clutches of Hades (Ralph Fiennes) and Ares (Edgar Ramirez) who is using Zeus to retain his own immortality by appeasing his father "Kronos". Kronos for his part, has reduced power as the ordinary folk move away from worshipping the gods.

Kronos, a mass of fire and stone, is understandably a bit peeved at being cast into the dungeons of Tartarus, part of the Underworld, following his earlier overthrow by Zeus, Hades and Poseidon.

If you think this all sounds like one big "Greek Tragedy", then yes of course it is, the original in fact and yes there will be a test later.

Following an attack on his village and a quick bit of Chimera slaying, Perseus flys off astride his trusty Pegasus to see Queen Andromeda. Andromeda is now played by the shapely Rosamund Pike clearly having fun ordering Centurions around whilst speckled with fresh fake blood.

A quest is what is needed and Perseus is tasked with locating Hephaestus (Bill Nighy), the maker of the trident, lightning bolt and pitchfork with the help of Agenor (Toby Kebbell). Following an encounter with some rather large and angry cyclops, they locate the weapon maker who also incidentally designed and constructed Tarturus. This huge maze like structure, with of course a Minotaur thrown in for good measure, has a secret back door entrance left for Hephaestus to use during it's construction.

The party continue to be dogged by Ares who pops up at will to decimate the troops, seemingly whenever he is prayed for or too.

The dwindling group move ever onwards until the inevitable massive climax which aims to outdo the previous film's Kraken encounter. Whether that is achieved is debatable but the ending leaves everyone looking rather tired which does not bode well for the third and completing film, if there is to be one.

It is difficult to criticize a film that sets out to be daft, mocks itself at every opportunity, with actors and filmmakers having fun and puncturing any pomposity with a modern slang put down. Nobody actually says "whatever" but you get the idea.

Bill Nighy's character and scenes come across like "Monty Python and the Life of Brian" and there is no gravitas or sense of heft to any of the scenes or characterizations, despite the acting talent on display. Half an extra star added as no one actually asks, "what have the Romans ever done for us?".

You can imagine Greek scholars gnashing their teeth as this mash up of mythologies pays fast and loose with classic stories and "facts". Is this the worst type of Hollywood blockbuster, probably but you should be under no illusion when you buy the ticket.

The very definition of popcorn film-making, lots of it but lacking any substance whatsoever.


If you enjoyed the first film you will know what to expect and should not be too disappointed.

For those new to the series, this is a sword and sandals epic with lots of fighting, monsters and collossal amounts of CGI, with actors and film maker tongues placed firmly in their cheeks.

Nobody takes it too seriously, nor should you.

Was the above review useful to you?

It was simply okay; nothing more, nothing less

Author: Justin Matthews from Canada
21 July 2012

I went into watching this film with low expectations. The first one was pretty bad and I was hoping they stepped it up a notch. They did, in fact, they did a great deal. The story is pretty basic, a man living an average life with his family who just so happens to be a half- god is pulled into a war between good and evil. There is a main evil, and a henchman who does all his work. I know, the story does sound basic but they manage to pull it off smoothly. The visual effects are spectacular, but I think that was just the directors way of masking the mediocre acting and dry story. The movie did have its ups though, for example the fight scenes were impressive. My main problem was that the movie tried to use some comic relief, however it failed as the relief was NOT funny. Watch this movie if you're looking for a way to pass the time, but otherwise, just skip it.

Was the above review useful to you?

A huge disappointment for what was expected , but not bad a film

Author: Pdk3800 from United States
21 July 2012

"Go ahead, Kill Me.!!!!" Perseaus.

So I saw this June 27th, a day after its DVD release, on demand. Thank god. I did not spend the money on its theater because this film was not worth that much. It WAS better then clash, but for everything they put, it was a huge disappointment for what I expected but not bad a film. Espesially the final act. It wasn't bad and for what it was, you should watch it on DVD. What was interesting was that it was suppose to be May 18th and was suppose to feature more characters. Such as the Hydra, more of the Minotaur and a griffin. But they swithched a lot of it. Still, not a bad film

Was the above review useful to you?

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

Author: jack_face
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

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

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

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

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?

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?

Page 13 of 26: [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