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 »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 16 of 26: [Prev][11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [Next]
Index 253 reviews in total 

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Titanic Failure

3/10
Author: amahlanand from Australia
9 May 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Most mythology with a modern twist, particularly if it adheres to formula, just does not work in cinema and 'Wrath of the Titans' is proof as to why. Older films drawing influence from ancient times have at least seemed more in tune with the world 'ancient', devoid of flash CGI and special effects, rather choosing to drive the film through contextual acting and reasonable story telling. 'Wrath of the Titans' unfortunately does the exact opposite. It contained uninspired, somewhat overdone acting despite boasting some of the best actors in the business as well as drab, cringeworthy dialogue, both of which plagued the film being more overbearing than contextual and appropriate.

The visuals shone at times, the special effects had a 'wow' factor at other times, but the disjointed plot was the shortfall which truly ruined the production from being a mythological spectacle to a hastily constructed mish mash which borrowed bits and pieces from mythology without truly embodying it. At times, you are kept enthralled by the prospect of an exciting adventure only for each juncture to end anticlimactically eventually resulting in the film's rushed resolution.

Ultimately, you realise that you would rather watch the older movies with people dressed in Minotaur and Cyclops costumes than see laughable renditions of these mythological creatures through special effects, particularly if the plot is woven properly and the acting stands out.

Somehow, gods dying just does not seem to strike a chord. How and why remained one of many plausible questions left begging.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

A horrible sequel unworthy of release.

1/10
Author: geodrake-71-627198 from United Kingdom
5 May 2012

Unlike most reviewers, I found this movie inferior to its predecessor. The plot is atrocious, based around father-son relationships and tired conspiracies amongst the Gods. Sam Worthington mumbles his way through terrible dialogue that none of the cast can bring alive. Agenor, played by Toby Kebbell is intended to bring some comic relief but fails to do so. The only humour comes from John Bell's (Helius) unintentionally hilarious facial expressions, his 'scared look' had audience members laughing out loud. Veteran actor Bill Nighy plays Hephaestus with a Yorkshire accent for some reason, and is the best character only because he resembles something out of Monty Python. The Gods were the best things in the first film, their bickering was well performed and an interesting plot element. Here they loose all that appeal coming across as one dimensional caricatures. I saw 'Wrath…' in 2D as I try to avoid 3D movies. My advice is to avoid this film in all formats.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Ill conceived plot, uninspired acting and direction!

2/10
Author: Vikas SS from Mumbai, India
19 April 2012

The first movie actually had no titans and this one has only one Titan and he is barely there for a few minutes. Looks like they got the title itself wrong!! While stories of Greek gods, heroism and legends have long inspired movie makers, here, we have twisted tales that beat usual logic and that too for no good reason!

For starters, we're told that Gods aren't immortal and are dependent on human prayers to stay so and are constantly in a mess. And, their only saviors are half-human, half-god 'heroes' who are to save the Olympian Gods. And then we have gods fighting one another for supremacy. Family drama in the heavens, Ouch!

The story begins in the most clichéd manner with the hero Perseus (Sam Worthington) retiring to a quiet life of a fisherman. His immortal half- god consort, 'Io' in the first film is shown to have died. Turns out that Gemma Arterton who played the part then didn't have dates for the sequel. And he has a son Heleus. You see, in the movies, having a son or a lover means that the baddies can use them as pawn; how convenient!

Back in the heavens, Hades (Ralph Fiennes), the lord of the underworld and Zeus' adversary has now teamed up with Ares (Édgar Ramírez), the god of war. The Gods are in trouble with the treacherous duo maim Poseidon and trap Zeus (Liam Neeson) in Tarturus so that they can use his power to revive the Kraken, a titan.

The Gods pin their hopes on Perseus who is unwillingly uprooted from a peaceful life into the thick of the battle. Sam Worthington looks tired and seems disinterested. And then we have Queen Andromeda (bond girl Rosamund Pike) who looks her part as a queen but not too well suited for action sequences. Joining them is Agenor (Toby Kebbell) who like Perseus has one godly parent; in this case, Poseidon.

While the trio head into Tartarus, mythology too is sent for a toss! One wonders what the part-man part bull Minotaur was doing in Tartarus and getting killed by Peresus instead of Thesus. While the digression is not a problem in itself, the battle lacks the punch and is over within seconds, that too under poor lighting!

The key selling point of the film was supposed to be its special effects. While its 2010 predecessor had the alibi that it was converted to 3D later, this entrée was supposed to have been better. But then, the special effects are nothing awesome.

At best, 'Wrath of the Titans' can be described as a half-baked but expensive outing for the young director, Jonathan Liebesman. The film is totally pointless. Possibly, the only good that this film could have done was to actually shoot it in Greece and help perk up its economy. But, that doesn't happen either! Stay away from this one!

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

The Gods are unhappy with this film. One of the Worst Films of 2012

1/10
Author: antoniomagallon90 from United States
17 April 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Wrath of the Titan takes place ten years after the first film. Perseus (Sam Worthington), who is a demigod, now lives as a fisherman… again. He now has a son name Heleus (John Bell). One night Perseus father Zeus (Liam Neeson) visits and informs him that the gods are losing power because people are no longer praying. He asks for help, but Perseus refuses. Afterwards, Zeus travels to Tartarus to meet with his brothers Hades (Ralph Fiennes), Poseidon (Danny Huston), and his son Ares (Edgar Ramirez). Zeus tells Hades that he must forgive the past and must rebuild Tartarus, but he instead attacks his own brothers and Ares betrays Zeus. Perseus hears his voice and must save his father… again and save the world… again.

Where do I begin this review? When I originally reviewed the remake version in 2010, I gave it a C-. Two years later, Warner Bros. release the sequel and I have to say that this version is a lot worse than the remake.

There were couple of things that were going through my head. One is that why would these good actors: Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson, and Ralph Fiennes, signed on to make the sequel. When first hearing that the sequels was on development, my immediate thoughts that it was a bad idea and I was right. Since there's lack of character development, why should I care about them? Some even had lack of screen time, which we hardly got to know them.

The plot was poorly executed. None of it makes any sense whatsoever. For example, if they were gods, then why didn't Zeus regenerate himself (keep in mind they're immortal) or save himself? For crying out loud he is a god and he must have the ability to do that. Although I am glad that the "mechanical owl" from the original 1981 classic makes a cameo, but it was still not enough to save the movie.

At times the dialog was laughable because of how poorly written it was. If I was one of those actors and read the scrip, I probably would have thrown it away. My favorite line was when Hades gives half of his powers to Zeus and said, "Brother, you look 10,000 years younger." When hearing this I wanted to laugh really hard.

None of the action scenes didn't matter because it doesn't deliver intensity and moments as they're suppose to.

Like its predecessor, the film was converted in 3D. Although it isn't as blurry and poorly developed as the previous, it still lacks of depth and feed to it. The problem with 3D conversion is that it doesn't feel the same way as shooting in 3D. The only successful way to achieve 3D experience is to shoot it right. Wrath of the Titans neither has that. The only good thing about the film is that special effects weren't amazing as oppose to other films, but there still good.

I kept telling myself "When is it going to end? When is it going to end? When is it going to end?" and my wish came true. Wrath of the Titans is one of the worst films of 2012. The only way I would enjoy the movie is if Kratos (from God of War video game series that deals with Greek mythology) was to kill everybody and the movie ends. Looks like the gods are going to hate this movie as much as I did.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

i'm worried about Hollywood in general... or is it me?

6/10
Author: Dominik Schlatter from Switzerland
9 April 2012

I have seen it all. No special effect impresses me anymore, let alone 3D effects. In fact, I tend to get bored, when everything is falling apart in movies (like the finale of 'Prince of Persia'). It's like: OK, here we go again...

I get so bored that I ask myself these questions during fight scenes (Perseus vs. Ares): If they can be stabbed, how come they can throw each other through stone columns and they stand right up again? Right.

What I do like are the little things like humorous scenes or well-drawn characters. 'Wrath' has a few of those moments. Like when Pegasus punches Peseus for criticizing it's landing.

I think that movies would profit from focusing on these little things instead of trying to be the biggest, most sensational movie ever made.

Should I be worried about The Avengers?...

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Uggh!

3/10
Author: TheLittleSongbird from United Kingdom
9 April 2012

I didn't think much of the 2010 Clash of the Titans, finding it visually spectacular but hollow. After hearing from people that Wrath of the Titans was better, I was intrigued in seeing. After seeing it for myself, I'm afraid I have to respectfully disagree, I actually thought it was worse. By all means it wasn't entirely disposable, but it suffered from a lot of things that hindered the 2010 Clash of the Titans.

The sets and costumes do look spectacular, and some of the action sequences do look equally great especially the scene between the two-headed, fire-breathing demon(s), but while impressive in visual spectacle there wasn't anything completely thrilling coming across as emotionally empty instead. The quality of the special effects are inconsistent, the Cyclops was good but the Minotaur not so much.

Fans of the 1981 original Clash of the Titans(I'm not a fan as such but I am somewhat fond of it) will enjoy the appearance of the mechanical owl Bubu. The camera work often felt awkward, part of the reason why the action sequences didn't thrill me was because of the choppy way the camera work and editing was constructed perhaps. Jonathan Liebsmann's direction is marginally better than that of Battle: Los Angeles, but still felt bland and characterless.

Other components don't work either. The dialogue is stilted, the story is tediously paced, one-note and uninteresting overall, the music feels generic and the characters seem as though any personality they had potential to have was swamped the visual spectacle. Of the acting, Sam Worthington looks uncomfortable and is an uncharismatic lead. Any film with Liam Nesson and Ralph Fiennes promises much, but here they don't have much to do and seem as though they are phoning in. Only Bill Nighy seems to be having fun, and compared to everything else actually he was pretty good.

All in all, a soulless and hollow film that sacrifices any credibility to writing, story and characters for visual spectacle. As impressive as it looked, I rarely found that it thrilled or even engaged me. 3/10 Bethany Cox

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Technolo

8/10
Author: WydeOpen from United States
3 April 2012

Wrath of the Titans (review by Jonathan McMillan) Studio: Warner Bros. Run time: 99 minutes.

Plot: Perseus braves the treacherous underworld to rescue his father, Zeus, captured by his son, Ares, and brother Hades who unleash the ancient Titans upon the world..

Cast: Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson and Rosamund Pike

Rating: Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of fantasy violence and action

Bottom Line: ***

Review : I have to admit I was very apprehensive when I got the call to review the screening of this sequel to the 2010 lackluster remake. Although the first movie was somewhat entertaining, it didn't live up to the expectations of my 10 year inner-child who fell in love with the 1981 original. As a matter of fact in my review of that film I stated that remaking the cult classic was a classic example of not knowing when to quit while you're ahead.

And to top it off, in an attempt to capitalize on the success that Avatar, the producers of 2010s remake added 3D effects in post-production which made the movie a visual train wreck that was absolutely torturous to watch. However after seeing the trailer to Wrath of the Titans, my interest was piqued by the scope of the special effects and the hopes that Warner Bros. studio learned from their mistakes.

I'm very glad to say; my hopes were not dashed.

Finally, movie making technology has advanced to do justice to the stories that the Greek storytellers captured our imaginations with for thousands of years. Wrath of the Titans is 99 minutes of 3D computer generated imagery that accurately projects on screen what the world of "gods and titans" must have looked like. Rather than the original intent of the Greek myths to serve as moral parables, the plot of Wrath of the Titans serves only to show the truly awesome capabilities of what Hollywood technology can do now-a-days. The cinematography renders astonishing beautiful landscapes upon which two- headed fire spewing monsters and the sort, wreck havoc and attempt to kill our Perseus (Sam Worthington of Avatar) and his crew.

Technically the film is about Perseus' heroes journeys to save the Olympian gods Zeus, Possiden and Hades (respectively played by super actors: Liam Neeson, Danny Huston and Ralph Fiennes) from the wrath of their mythological father the titan Cronos.

Nevermind the plot and it's stars though. The movie really is just a vehicle showcasing a world of amazingly "realistic" rendered one-eyed creatures 20 stories tall called cyclops' who attempt to smash our protagonists with towering tree trunks. A world where a half man/ half bull creature called a minotaur stalks our hero's in a bafflingly M.C,Escher-esque ever shifting labyrinth. I whole-heartedly believe scenes like these are what todays 3D technology is made for.

Unlike the 2010 movie, the audience which will enjoy this movie will be broader than (as I said in my last review) "a very specific target audience – those made of snips of snails and puppy dog tails" because the CGI and 3D special effects are so awesome that this movie is overall, very entertaining. Don't look for it on the the list of Best Picture nominees during Academy Award season, however I wouldn't be surprised if it did win some Oscars in some of the technical categories.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

An unexciting sequel

4/10
Author: Pablo Lauria from Argentina
2 April 2012

When you go to see a big budget movie plenty of good actors, the less you expect is to see this awful idiotic movie. First of all, someone should tell Sam Worthington he needs to speak with neutral accent. It is not a Mad Max Sequel. Agenor character looks like a Rastafarian that escaped from a Pirate movie. Looks like this movie was made for a different kind of public than the first one. The characters are not well developed and it is impossible to feel empathy for any of them. Rosamund Pike deserves better. The rest of the cast don't deliver anything to remember. If we add that the movie doesn't worth 3D effects there is nothing left.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

no. definitely not a good one.

4/10
Author: josarra_95 from Spain
2 April 2012

I can not think about any good reason to go to see this movie in a theater. The story is really poor and the characters are ridiculous and too simple, and the acting is very weak, specially Tobby Kebbell. The film doesn't put you into the action and you are one hundred minutes wondering what you will do the next weekend. The mythology is terribly documented and there are a lot of incredible mistakes. Okay, there are some cool action scenes and incredible monsters and creatures, that's why I put a 4 instead of a 1.

I saw Clash of the titans and I've seen Wrath of the titans. If there is a third one, I'm sure I will not repeat my mistake. Really, it's not worth watching.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Nope, this one actually has Titans in it! I think?

7/10
Author: abgkasjlkasjla from Denmark
2 April 2012

Io has died off-screen, having fulfilled her role as the love interest for the first(and departing right after, as per the rules for the genre), leaving room for a romance(? right? I mean, it isn't actually present for most of this, if it is obvious that it will be there) between Andromeda(yup, that was why she wasn't the one in the first, so she'd be free to be it in this one) and Perseus, who is also left with a wimpy-looking(when doesn't he look scared?) son, Helius(there for emotional stakes and nothing else... early on, Mr. P dreams that they will both die, thus making this sequel that people are already wondering if they want to be watching a partial rip-off of Matrix Reloaded, one of the biggest follow-up letdowns in history... bad call). Humans are still not believing in the gods, and with them losing their power, Zeus is captured(his powers being drained, in order to help free Cronos), so our hero has to travel to and through the maze of Tartarus with female lead and Agenor(fellow halfdeity, son of Poseidon, starts out with personality(an obnoxious one, you think he might be the comic relief), soon after loses it, presumably to fit in with everyone else, since no one but Hades, his royal brother and the offspring of last-mentioned, Ares, have anything interesting in the way of character... actually, those three have good drama between them)), on a rescue mission. This is a thoroughly enjoyable mindless popcorn flick, well aware of what it is. There is some humor from a little of the dialog(when it isn't average and forgettable) and the role Hephaestus, played by a crazy Bill Nighy(so, nothing new there), who, as a hermit, has lost it completely. But what really works is the action, with several badass supernatural creatures, including cyclops', this two-headed firebreathing wolfthing, twin-torso swordwielding humanoid ones and this massive one made from lava. Heck, even the Olympus-dwellers get into it, and they are clearly far more powerful than the men. With only one exception, they are all established, built up and get as much screen-time and awesome combat as they should. This is paced remarkably well, it's never boring nor does it overwhelm you. The 3D is excellent, used in the right moments, when it wants to be epic. There is violent and disturbing content in this. I recommend this to anyone looking for brainless fun. 7/10

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 16 of 26: [Prev][11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [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