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 guide
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 18 of 26: [Prev][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:

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:

What can i say? I'm a sucker for Greek Mythology...

Author: drew_atreides from Ontario, Canada
31 March 2012

I enjoyed this one in a Saturday Matinée-sorta way..

The set-pieces are epic, the creatures imaginative, and the FX pretty spectacular.

The acting is a bit wooden, especially from Sam Worthington whose entire performance seems to be rasping breathlessly and bleeding a lot, but the supporting cast pick up the slack (especially the always reliable Bill Nighy.)

I wouldn't recommend seeing it in 3D, although i do have to admit there were 2 or 3 shots that were actually pretty effective.

Still, not gonna miss much if you go for the 2D.

I enjoyed the original Clash, as well as the remake. This one will find it's way onto my DVD/BLU-RAY shelf as well.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

A 3D Spectacle filled with amazing action sequences thats the only reason u should go for this movie.

Author: bennsid from India
31 March 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Wrath of the Titans takes place 10 years from where clash of the titans left off .Like with its predecessor, the real reason to check out "Wrath of the Titans" is to see big battle scenes between humans and monsters from Greek mythology.

Perseus is now a simple fisherman living with his 10 year old son Helius , though his heroics are still not forgotten by the masses they still respect as the Kracken slayer.disaster strikes in the form of Hades and Ares (Zeus's son and god of Wars).who want to free the most powerful titan Kronos who is ironically the father of Zeus, Hades and Poseidon. Perseus is called to help in his dying father Zeus under captive in the underworld.

Perseus must find a way to reach the underworld on the course he finds help in the form of Andromeda possibly an ex love interest and Perseus's cousin Aggenor(son of Poseidon) on their way they face a wide variety of monsters big and small. Does Perseus rescue his father from underworld how does his defeat Kronos thats the USP left for u to see.

What worked for me is the 3D used it is far better than what u have seen in clash of the titans but if you are expecting something the likes of avatar the this is not the movie for you the are amazing thrilling scenes.One particular scene made my actually cover my face as a reaction to an actually boulder falling on my face which wasn't in the reality.

What didn't work for me is the story telling and acting Liam Nesson is the only person worth of being called an actor in this movie the others are sloppy and not able to express themselves most of the side characters are there just to add a comic sense Sam Worthington need to prove himself as an actor so does Rosamond Pike who is somewhat useless in this film Ralph Fieness as well seems to be missing his usual niece in this film.Toby Kebbel and Edgar Ramirez are OK with their performance.the film somewhat seems to start late with the actual story and end it soon as well i feel the film could have been better had it been 2hours long 99minutes was not enough to explain the film properly.

Final Verdict :If u are looking for some serious story adventure the likes of LOTR the this film is not for you and if u just want be amused by some 3D awesomeness this is surely for you.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Wrath of the Titans - 1.5 Stars

Author: Austin Takahashi from Philippines
11 April 2012

You don't have to observe real hard to notice that there's actually just one titan in "Wrath of the Titans". That would be the fearsome Kronos, a monstrous being who can be best summarized as a walking volcano with arms, legs, and a face. In the film's latest moments, smoke, ash and lava violently erupt from his crevices, which is exactly the sight you'd expect from someone who had just risen out from the hellish underworld.

Before we get into anything else, let's do a quick background check. Kronos is the father of Zeus, Hades and Poseidon. Zeus (Liam Neeson) has a son named Ares, who like his father is also a god. Everything seems rather normal until Zeus decides to get in bed with a human. The woman then gives birth to Perseus, a half-god half-human fisherman. So this would make Kronos the grandfather of Perseus? But what about Helius, the son of Perseus? Can he be considered as one-forth god? You know what would have been a lot more interesting than this movie? A documentary about these characters having a family reunion.

Read more here:

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Better than the first but barely worth watching

Author: mungflesh from London, England
1 April 2012

I enjoyed this marginally more than Clash remake but that really doesn't say much.

It's plenty more of the same here: disingenuous re-branding of Greek mythology in a mainstream-friendly format.

Sam Worthington outdoes himself in this one, as the most bland lead actor of all time - including even Bill Paxton. The FX are BIG but what exactly does that do for a film? Hot air balloons are big too. I saw this in 2D (thank goodness), which might have been the saving factor. 3D is such a headache and blurry irritation, that the already blurred and hyperactive monster animations would have been a mess.

The only thing that saves this movie from being utter **** is the promise of some big fiery guy (Chronos) being unleashed to wreak havoc. When he does, it is a bit of a disappointment but not too bad.

I saw this with my 6 year old son. Not recommended for adults.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 18 of 26: [Prev][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