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 16 of 25: [Prev][11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [Next]
Index 249 reviews in total 

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: Grann-Bach (Grann-Bach@jubii.dk) 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?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Really nothing too bad.

6/10
Author: Boba_Fett1138 from Groningen, The Netherlands
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/

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Not bad, could we whether.

6/10
Author: user-819-188940 from Ukraine
2 April 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Unexpected 3D. After awful 3D in Clash of the titans, 3D step to the next level. Story still save it position, that mean this was not ordinary story. if u look Wrath until u see Clash, u'll winks that this film's mark is D, but it is not bad cause previous chapter was on E. Actor game was bed, sometimes awful. Picture quality was better, directors make it for C. But it still some interesting moments in movie: -A. Nelson he make Zeus very deep character. (S.Wartington did not make it). -Zeus and Ahed duet looks very coll, it mean that was nice director's move. -Trailer in wrath did not show all movie's interesting moments. (in Wrath they take bigger place, that in Clash. -If u look this movie in pieces u'll saw that was awful, but if u look at it like complete part u'll see that it was such bad as u think.

P.S. U'll not win or lose if u watch this movie on big screen.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

A light, fun fantasy adventure with awesome 3d

Author: Harkanwar Singh from India
30 March 2012

the second installment the wrath of the titans was considerably more thoughtful then clash of the titans but that doesn't mean its brainy... some 3d sequences in the movie are actually so good that i actually jumped from my seat 2-3 times so yes the 3d was the best I have ever seen and performance by liam neeson ralph fienes were good, sam worthington as usual had a emotionless, bland look on his face the whole time and rosamund poke was not impressive either.. the overall movie could been much better.. it was a bit boring in do places and climax was kind of abrupt so the question arises that is it worth going to theatre and shedding extra bucks for seeing it 3d... I'd say yes..if you wanna see alight action packed fantasy adventure then this is definitely worth the money

Was the above review useful to you?


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