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 17 of 26: [Prev][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:

Really nothing too bad.

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.


Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Not bad, could we whether.

Author: MrKartoshka 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?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Good action flick with great CGI

Author: ylnot from Sacramento, CA
29 March 2012

It was better than the first movie (Clash of the Titans - 2010) but it wasn't epic like you hope befitting of the title about Greek mythological gods. Hollywood typically likes to keep their films moving along by cutting short on story depth and character development, both of which afflicted this movie. The plot is simple and follows 10 years after the conclusion of Clash of the Titans. They kept the same cast in this sequel; Of noteworthy is Perseus, the half-god, son of Zeus, and protagonist, played by Sam Worthington (Avatar and Man on a Ledge).

In sacrificing depth and char dev, the movie had a lot of action. At the heart of all the action were special effects. The CGIs were impressive and, essentially, what made the movie. A scene of fiery rocks hurling at the screen in 3D made me dodge before I caught myself. Lol The music complemented the action well and added to the visceral experience. The bass and horns were almost as loud and deep as in the movie Inception.

If you dig deeper though, you may find flaws, poor logic and mythology that isn't true to Greek mythology but rather loosely based. For example, the audience can see plenty of wrath from Kronos (Greek, Cronus), but its fury translates into little substance in the battle as he was seemingly too easily beatable. You learn that the gods' powers are dependent on human prayers. W/o prayers, their powers wane and their immortality fade into dust. So Zeus isn't the immortal and all-powerful Greek god you had envisioned reading about growing up.

In conclusion, if you can watch with an open mind and are OK with a shallow storyline, then the action and visual fx are worth the price of admission. It's a good action flick with great CGI. I give it a 6 to 6.5 out of 10.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

excellent movie

Author: cricket10 from United States
17 April 2012

Wrath of the Titans was probably the most anticipated movie of the year 2012. But is it any good? First of all, The movie is merely based on the book. It features most of the same characters and a couple of the same locations, but the story is completely different. The only actor to come out with any real credit was the irreplaceable Bill Nighy as Hephaestus, the creator of the labyrinth that holds the father of all Kronos and the Minotaur. It is one of the quirks of modern cinema that people do find it hard to name a part in which Bill Nighy hasn't excelled at.

The visuals and effects are the real saving grace of the film and whilst to older fans of the original films they lack the warmth and sincerity of the previous work, it has to be said they add a certain quality and depth, even if at one point some of it does look borrowed from an episode of Doctor Who.

It's a real shame that the actors were possibly given second thought in the film over the effects and especially in Rosamund Pike, let down in a script that could have offered much more.

If you enjoyed the Clash of the Titans the sequel demands to be seen, if you're a lover of Greek mythology then it will be an interesting distraction but otherwise it's a film to miss.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Wrath of the Moviegoer

Author: jadepietro from United States
6 April 2012

This film is not recommended.

The Kraken has been released and is now dead and gone! But there are still other monsters afoot in this flat-footed tale called Wrath of the Titans. Loosely based on Greek mythology, Wrath of the Titans again has those irate gods and evil demons creating havoc upon us mere mortals.

To call this film a Greek tragedy would a breach of honesty, giving over to the misconception that this odyssey is an important and stirring drama of epic proportions. But it truly is a tragedy, in the sense that it wastes the talents of all the actors and filmmakers involved in this project. One can however say, in all honesty, that this film does fill one with awe, in the sense that it is awful, and that is certainly a more accurate assessment of this movie fantasy.

In this worthless sequel to the unworthy Clash of the Titans, Perseus ( Sam Worthington ), son of Zeus ( Liam Neeson ) and a mortal mom, is now a peaceful fisherman and loving father. He is called to duty to protect his godly dad from his sinister Uncle Hades ( Ralph Fiennes ) and Zeus' other son, Ares ( Edgar Ramirez ) who want to take over his kingdom and throne. Revenge and jealousy runs rampant up this genealogical family tree.

That's the basic plot with plenty of action sequences, middling special effects, and other slight of hand tricks at work. The script by committee is mediocre and dull, lacking any excitement, energy or wit. The dialog is just plain dumb. Any moviegoers' wrath should be aimed directly at the film's writers: Dan Mazeau, David Johnson, and Greg Berlanti. ( One howling example of bad dialogue: Hades says to Zeus: "You look 10,000 years younger!" )

The direction by Jonathan Liebesman is nearly non-existent as his film plods from one set piece to the next with no real pacing or rhythm. The editing is clumsy and pieced together at such a frenzied rate that it is sometimes impossible to really see the action or special effects properly. Battle scenes are awkwardly photographed and staged. The photography is dimly lit by Ben Davis with some scenes just plain ugly and seemingly out of focus, shocking inept, especially coming from a major motion picture studio and their larger budget. ( Beware the Gods, Warner Brothers! ).

None of the actors, who have all done better work elsewhere, are believable or credible in their roles, but they are all laughable in their grim serious tones and hammy theatrics. Worthington, usually a charismatic actor, is puffy and bland this time around, Neeson and Fiennes pontificate rather than speak and delivery their lines without any true sense of passion, and Ramirez looks pouty more than angry. He also talks sporadically with a thick Spanish accent that clashes with the mostly British cast, and he's not Titan either. Also on hand in this version are: Rosamund Pike as Andromeda who fills her battle armor well, Bill Nighy as a crazed Hephaestus who seems to have walked into the movie thinking he was part of a Monty Python remake, and Toby Kebbell as Agenor, son of Posideon and, perhaps, the illegitimate child of Russell Brand. So, I guess, on that issue of acting, it may have been a more difficult feat of acting given their one-dimensional characters and their hysterics. At least, they manage to keep a straight face in all this goofiness. But on second thought, the outtakes may have been more enjoyable.

A fantasy film that relies heavily on its CGI needs to make sure its creatures and make-up are top-notch if the audience is going to believe in its cinematic power. The effects here are of the hit-and-miss variety ( the good: the Chimera, the Cyclops, and the maze-like walls of Hades; the bad: Pegasus, the Minotaur, and practically everything else, especially Kronos the Lava Man ).

I know what you're thinking...It's only a kiddie fantasy adventure movie. Give it some slack! No, I can't! I will continue to fight the Battle of Banality that is being served as entertainment nowadays. My quest to rid the world of dreck like this is an on-going battle lately. ( Remember I was served heaping helpings of John Carter and Mirror, Mirror in these past weeks! What a dismal start to this movie season so far. ) Wrath of the Titans is an absolute waste of your time and hard-earned money. Avoid it like the Kraken!

As the movie tagline states or warns us: "Feel the Wrath!" Oh, on that you can be sure! How true, oh Great Zeus, how true! GRADE: C-

NOTE: Visit my movie blog for more reviews:

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

A sequel that doesn't quite add up

Author: olliesco from United Kingdom
5 April 2012

I thought Clash of the Titans was OK but the 3D was terrible so i had high hopes for the sequel. I am so disappointed. This film in all honesty was poor.There is not much left to be said. The story was poor i was confused at times, scenes moved very quickly, no character development just a lot of noise & FIRE! FIRE was everywhere.I guess that is not a surprise as the title poster shows this. I can see where they spent the budget. Shame because gods, Greek mythology and all that are good subjects to make a movie about. Sam Worthington slept walked through the 1 1/2 hours and Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes characters were useless.Rosemund Pike no better.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Hollywood must be running out of ideas

Author: mtzmcrchick111 from United States
1 April 2012

i came watching this movie with relatively low expectations but it was worse than i ever thought it would be. yes the titans look cool and there's action but it is completely lacking almost everything else. There is hardly any emotion, you don't really come to like the characters, it wasn't a good story, all i can really say is that it was just dry. It looks cool n everything but it didn't move me in any kind of way. This is probably why there coming out with old classics showing in the movie theaters cause Hollywood is running out of ideas and they have nothing better to show. They barely make movies like they used to....

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Zeus would throw the makers into Tartarus

Author: Peter Hollo from Hungary
1 April 2012

There was no problem with the remake. Hell, after seeing the CGI Medusa and the Kraken I wouldn't watch the original. Changes were made here and there but overall the film was OK.

There comes the sequel. More monsters, more CGI, more battles, and more Liam Neeson / Ralph Fiennes. More acting? No, scratch that out. New plot? Well, some places and names were borrowed from Greek mythology but this is the most the film can offer.

The bad guy this time is Cronus who appears to be a giant lava golem capable of unleashing a lot of creatures to punish mankind. I wonder why it is necessary, after all, it's all about the gods arguing with each other as to which part of the world to rule.

Perseus, now a father, is once again contacted by Zeus who warns him of the coming danger. We already know he'll reject but he'll be involved, eventually. It's a shame to see how these wonderful actors depend on money - why else would they have accepted their roles? Neeson, Fiennes and Worthington are joined by Danny Huston, Rosamund Pike and Bill Nighy. Shame, shame, shame. Avoid it if you can - stick to the original or to the remake (but consider the latter a casual one, too).

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Boring waste of money

Author: Abdel Gulabkhan from United Kingdom
1 April 2012

This film is so bad, it is at least 10 times worse than the first one

i hoped this film would be fantastic because the trailer was amazing, however the film is a mess, the actors are rubbish, the script is useless, the directing is a shambles.

A very boring film

To see that 1340 people have given this 10/10 , 42% of people.

This shows there is something very wrong, this film is at best 3/10, but realistically it is 1/10 you have to have no intelligence to watch this drizzle, maybe if you are 5 years old you might like it

Avoid at all costs, the movie is nothing like the great trailer!!!

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 17 of 26: [Prev][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