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 4 of 25: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]
Index 242 reviews in total 

13 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

Decent 3D and visuals, but lacking plot.

Author: Christian_Dimartino from United States
27 March 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I just saw an advanced screening of Wrath of the Titans in 3D, and I must give it kudos for it's visuals which are a sight for sore eyes, and it's 3D, which is decent compared to some of the other movies i've seen in 3D.

But what it has in visuals, it lacks in story. Wrath's first problem is that it isn't a Greek Mythology story. Another problem is the fact that it's a made up mythology story that isn't even necessarily a good one.

Perseus(played again by Sam Worthington) is called back to action to save his father Zeus(Liam Neeson) from Hades and Aroes, who are going to give Zeus to Kronos, the big fire guy. So it's basically up to Perseus, Poseidon's son(played by Toby Kebbel) and Andromeda(played by Rosmund Pike) to save him.

I liked the 2010 remake. It was almost the same as the 80's film, but with a vast improvement in visuals. But Wrath isn't anything special. It doesn't really follow mythology, and doesn't really serve a purpose. But it's not that bad. But could have been better.

C+

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Unnecessary Sequel to Unloved Remake

4/10
Author: My_Pet_Mongoose from United States
15 June 2013

Somehow I ended up rating this and the first one the same, though I suppose this one is slightly better. Maybe? I dunno. This series is such a mess it's hard work up much enthusiasm for analyzing it.

But, okay, here we go. I suppose most viewers will have seen the first one and will know what they're in for--so you pretty much have it coming. Your reduced expectations will yet go unmet--or perhaps brushed up against. Brits spout pseudo-Shakespearean dialogue on Mount Olympus/Tartarus as heroes fight their way through a series of bigger and bigger CG monsters. Throw in some heroic sacrifices and some sort of theme about fathers and sons and you've got your movie.

Unlike a lot of reviewers, I can't fault the filmmakers not faithfully following Greek myth. I'd rather judge the movie on its own terms and, unfortunately, it fails to do anything other than deliver spectacle without substance that can be easily packaged for a world audience.

The direction was better than expected, though uninspired. The script strains to get from one action sequence to the next. The technical side competently delivers the spectacle. The labyrinth was kind of neat, as was the walking volcano. But I keep thinking during the climax: "Hey, this looks pretty cool. It'd be really great if I felt something."

The cast is hit or miss. Neeson and Fiennes and Nighy do their things. Rosamund Pike is a nice addition but has nothing much to do. I'm still not sure what produces think Sam Worthington is bringing to these parts? Handsomeness maybe, but can't they find some handsome guy that can do more than vague emoting in a monotone? Someone with star quality or charisma, maybe. When I looked him up on IMDb to see what he's done recently (since I couldn't remember), I realized I saw him just last month in Man On a Ledge. He plays the title character but he'd have been more memorable as the ledge.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Wrath of the Titans

5/10
Author: Scarecrow-88 from United States
1 April 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Well, I have to say that at least Wrath of the Titans was quick and didn't overstate its welcome. Certainly the story left me dubious: the gods have lost their mojo because the mortals on Earth have quit praying to them. No longer acknowledging the gods, in particular Zeus, weakens them to the point that they're penetrable and killable. There's an underground "prison" that contains the evil, powerful god, Kronos, the father of Zeus and Hades, who will be freed if the powers of the gods diminish. The god of war, Ares, has forged a partnership with Hades to release Kronos and have the Earth to themselves. Hades, to tell you the truth, was just miffed Zeus confined him to the prison to keep watch over fiery pops. Ares is just upset with Zeus because he was partial to half-god/half-mortal Perseus.

Ares, a god, all jealous because his father showed Perseus a bit more attention: you kind of have to be prepared for a storyline and characters that seem designed with little importance other than to service a LOT of special effects. Kronos is this "lava god" and when it is finally released from a volcano, sweeps its arms to and fro decimating the land in front of it. There are even these fighting creatures that seem to create from the lava that falls from Kronos' arms to the ground. The film has plenty of monsters like one-eyed giants, a three-headed, fire-breathing dragon with venomous saliva, and a two-horned beast that greets Perseus when he and his mates descend into the labyrinthine prison designed to keep Kronos in and others out (besides the gods who enter in easily). Poseidon and Hades (along with Ares who is basically a very powerful infantile punk) are the other popular gods who accompany Zeus to give the sequel some clout. You even actually see Zeus and Hades joining forces "to have some fun" as they try to hold Kronos in check while Perseus attempts to fly in winged horse into the heart of the major god using a certain "triple sword" made by a certain craftsman (Bill Nighy, consummate scene-stealer he is…) (Poseidon's triton, Hades' spear, and Zeus' lightning bolt) who was also responsible for the underground prison. You have Poseidon's son, a thief and vagabond who has never lived up to expectations (he's considered a disappointment), found in the prison of Andromeda (played this time by Rosamund Pike, getting to participate in a lot of action), leader of a great army hoping to fend off Ares and Kronos the best they can. Andromeda and Poseidon's son, Agenor (Toby Kebbell) will accompany Perseus (Sam Worthington) on their destination to rescue the imprisoned Zeus (attacked by Ares viciously), too weak to escape on his own, his power being drained by Kronos without Hades (Ralph Fiennes, not mining the cold-blooded villainy he can typically muster even while sleepwalking through a role) helping his brother. Ares (Edgar Ramirez) and Perseus duke it out a few times (as Andromeda and Agenor come at him with intentions of besting him and not succeeding, along with other soldiers…), with the latter often on the bad end of a good throttling. This time Perseus has a son, Helius, he aims to protect and father, but not without (no surprise here) Ares using the kid at the end to get under the skin of his brotherly rival. There just wasn't much heavy lifting intellectually going into the script; it is designed to cater to an audience who doesn't want to dwell on dialogue, narrative of any heady consequence, or multi-faceted characters. Almost from the get-go, the film has Perseus having to scurry about his seaside village hoping to find a way to kill the dragon destroying whatever is in its path. Then Zeus is captured and raped of his god powers while Hades slowly becomes guilty and sorrowful of his participation in it. Soon Hades sees the errors of his ways and tries to combat Ares who seems just as strong as his elder gods. Gods reduced to humans seemed rather odd to me; I had a hard time imagining Zeus could be so reduced. It is ultimately about a son rescuing his father and embracing a side of him he hadn't quite appreciated or admired that much before, handy when in battle with a brother who is angry and bitter, with an ax to grind. Worthington ably and athletically does as his hero role demands, playing to the special effects screen when required, occasionally moving about exteriors as needed. I guess you could look at this similar to Jurassic Park III, in that Wrath is an overproduced 90 minute popcorn movie made to excite audiences not looking to be fed intellectually.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

bad script, great action

7/10
Author: trashgang from Midian
28 March 2013

They makers of Wrath have learned a lesson from my review of Clash Of The Titans (2010). Just kidding, but everybody agreed that Clash was all about the effects and a hollow script. Here we do have a bit of the same but we are two years further into flicks about the Gods and Greek mythology.

There's more action going on and there's even a spot of the red stuff to notice here and there. Due the success of Clash they add millions more here towards the CGI and story but it still doesn't work completely. I don't know what the real problem is, there's a lot of action, in that part I agree but maybe the script failed again. The acting was mediocre and again I wasn't into any of the characters. An epic movie with great action and bad script.

It's slightly better than it's predecessor. But still it's a mess with a lot of faults against the ancient Greek mythology. This is a perfect flick to watch with the family on a rainy Sunday afternoon.

Gore 0/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 4/5 Story 2,5/5 Comedy 0/5

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Tougher, Grittier, than CLASH

10/10
Author: XweAponX from United States
26 September 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The Gods are all missing, or dying. Years have passed since Perseus lopped off Medusa's head and used it to kill The Kraken. Io is gone, finally released from her tortuous never-ending existence, and now Zeus has a Grandson, Helius (John Bell), whom Zeus Visits while asleep.

This is a dirtier, grittier, Greece compared to what we saw in Clash of The Titans. The Gods are not sparkling like they did in that film. All of the Gods are gone except for Zeus, Neptune, Hades and Ares-And Hades wants to wake up Cronus, in order to get a few more years of "immortality."

And so Zeus once more asks Perseus to help him. But Perseus still won't have much to do with his forlorn Father. Sam Worthington reprises his role of Perseus and tackles it much the same as in "Clash."

This is a Zeus who has lost everything, all he has left is Perseus. In a last ditch attempt on patching things up, Zeus and Neptune (Danny Houston) along with Ares (Edgar Ramírez) visit Hades (Ralph Fiennes) in Tartarus- Where Hades promptly injures Neptune and Kidnaps and Enslaves Zeus.

It is only after two-headed devil dogs from Hell attack Perseus' Village and endanger his son that he decides to take Ol' Pegasus up to the mountain where Gods are Worshipped, but he's too late. Neptune shows up, gives him his Trident and a name: Agenor (Toby Kebbel) who is his son and has to be found in order to find Hephaestus (Bill Nighy).

But Agenor is in Andromedas' jail. Andromeda has magically changed from Alexa Davalos to Rosamund Pike, but I could give two poops about that, both were good in the role. In fact, Andromeda has her whole army out in front of the mountain where Tartarus is. She elects to go with Perseus and Agenor to find the Missing God.

What ensues is almost the Spaghetti-Western version of a Greek God story, and there are some very cool things, Cyclopses, Minotaurs, even the great Labyrinth into Tartarus Itself. The Titan Cronus is lodged into the side of a mountain, draining Zeus' power in order to get loose so he can destroy the world.

This film, not being "pretty" like Clash was, depends more on the 'Fathers and Sons' meat of the tale, Perseus is a son of Zeus, who has a son Helius, Agenor is son of Neptune, and Ares is Perseus' Brother. The Journey to Tartarus and the Battle with Cronus is a family affair for Perseus, and he must needs ride Pegasus once more into the gaping maw of potential death.

And as this movie showed a world that was mostly collapsing dirt, volcanoes, and gods turning into Dust, the CGI aspects were rendered that way. What surprised me is how much I liked this compared to the first one, which I did like a lot. But as that movie was akin to a far away fantasy, this movie shows how it would look if Titans and Gods indeed battled on the face of the Earth.

Most satisfying was the interactions between Liam Neeson (Zeus) and Ray Fiennes (Hades) - A relationship so much like our relationships with our own brothers.

As this film had basically a "crash and burn" ending, I suppose there will be no more movies in this Milieu. So I say Farewell to this short Franchise, it lived well, and it died well.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Like a purposeless, poorly written video game

3/10
Author: Movie_Muse_Reviews from IL, USA
21 August 2012

"Wrath of the Titans" really captures the spirit of its 2010 predecessor — that spirit being uninspired and underdeveloped. If the goal was not to work on improving the quality of the sequel, Warner Bros. succeeded.

While the action improves in the hands of director Jonathan Liebesman ("Battle: Los Angeles"), the sequences are still equally as contrived and shallow. New writers Dan Mazeau and David Johnson also appear to use the script of "Clash of the Titans" as a bible of some sort for constructing their film, using overly grandiose dialogue much like the first did to convey horribly obvious foreshadowing and to bash us over the head with themes relating to our hero's journey.

Even those who did enjoy the first film will find "Wrath's" story to blatantly disregard the events that preceded it. The film takes place several years after "Clash" and we find Perseus (Sam Worthington) has been raising a son he had with Io, who definitely died before giving birth to anything in the first movie. Anyway, Perseus, who the series continues to play as this annoyingly reluctant hero, has determined to live life as a fisherman and ignore his demi-god power. When Zeus (Liam Neeson) comes to Perseus and warns him the gods are losing their immortal power due to humans not praying to them anymore, Perseus tries to push it out of his mind. Then all hell breaks loose, rather literally.

Zeus is crossed and captured by his brother Hades (Ralph Fiennes) and son Ares (Edgar Ramirez). The plan is to offer him to their father, the imprisoned titan, Cronos, in exchange for assured immortality. This starts a chain reaction of monsters being unleashed from the Underworld and upon the Earth. The god Poseidon (Danny Huston) charges Perseus with traveling to the Underworld and saving Zeus, though he must arbitrarily seek out some people and things to get there.

"Wrath" essentially makes up the rules of its Greek mythological world, creating a situation in which gods are mortal yet can't seem to just obliterate each other. It's a grittier portrayal than "Clash," in which the gods wore shiny armor and came off as theatrical, but with the PG-13 rating, they comically slug each other (and humans) with their transforming weapons.

Most video games are more exciting and entertaining than "Wrath of the Titans" — and their story lines make more sense too. Although even the dialogue clearly states Perseus must go from Point A to Point B, the story creates all these intentional roadblocks that feel like obligatory stops on the way to the grand finale vs. Cronos rather than points along the journey that develop the story and especially the characters.

We meet up with Andromeda (Rosamund Pike) and Agenor (Toby Kebbell) to make things more colorful, not out of necessity. Pike is clearly above this material yet is polite enough to do everything she can to make the dialogue convincing. At one point she passionately pleas that Hephaestus (Bill Nighy) help them enter the prison Tartarus to find Zeus. It would be a nice speech in a film in which anyone cared about what was going on, or was actually convinced Hephaestus might not eventually have a change of heart.

Kebbell is meant to provide comic relief as Agenor, son of Poseidon, who is painted as a lazy liar — a Jack Sparrow-type character — yet despite plenty of warnings in the script, never turns on our hero and never appears to pursue his own interests. In terms of the humor, it works in touches here and there, but almost all the jokes in the film completely backfire, especially an awkwardly self-aware reference to Neeson's famed "Clash" line "release the kraken!"

Liebesman's on-the-ground, guerilla style works in the first major action scene in which Perseus fights a three-headed, winged take on a chimera, but it doesn't work as well in the more fantastical set pieces that follow. The CGI works well and there's interesting stuff to look at, but it's all meat and no bones. The cyclops fight scene has some great in-your-face qualities, but for some reason Liebesman is fond of really hammering that quality home by having all the monsters drooling on each other or the human characters.

Most of the battles are random, especially a scene in the labyrinth of Tartarus in which its unclear whether or not Perseus fights the Minotaur, a beast that resembles Lou Ferrigno with horns. He's dispatched quickly and the quest to find Zeus continues as if nothing happened. Again, like a video game, the fights come off like mini boss battles at best.

"Wrath of the Titans" mostly comes off as apathetic. Scenes, characters and sequences are rolled in and out without any concern for being convincing, yet the dialogue is written as if all of it has in fact been convincing. In its defense, "Wrath" is a quick and painless exercise, but even its most basic entertainment value can't overcome its absolute purposelessness.

~Steven C

Thanks for reading! Check out moviemusereviews.com

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Wrath of One Titan

4/10
Author: Matra Mellark from Australia
18 August 2012

I really wanted to like - and even loved this movie, because I love Greek Mythology and the whole cast. But unfortunately I didn't and came away unsatisfied.

My first problem I had with the movie were the fight scenes. They were awfully written. So poor. Please watch it and evaluate it yourselves. If you find no error, skip to the end fight. You expect it to be a phenomenal bomb-boozzul, but Percy just goes into Kronos' spine and evaporates things. Okay? Umm.

Secondly, like I said, I am a Greek Mythology geek! I really loved the casting and the portrayal of Zeus, Hades & Ares to be honest. That was good! But - I was appalled by the way they portrayed Hephaestus. I just couldn't imagine him being like that! And his lines were so clumsy and awful, which made it even worst for me to watch.

The Mythology involved was lacking a lot. They left out 85% of the Olympians and made them go cleaning Mt. Olympus or on a holiday in Hawaii or something. I couldn't, wouldn't, won't imagine Athena, Artemis, Apollo, or Hera (mainly) to go slip away and hide while the Titans return. I mean, Athena is the Goddess of War. She's Ares' counterpart and equal and obviously, he didn't shy away. The monsters that 'returned' was a Chimera who looked like a rag-doll and those weird fighting creatures that looked like they were from God of War. (Not a bad thing, but they were the only two.) The Minotaur doesn't count. It/He just came out of nowhere and died a minute later. Most randomest thing ever.

So, the movie lacked quite a lot. The only good things were the special effects! They were good. But it didn't add up at all. It was like the directors/writers and everyone else involved, wanted to create the movie for the sake of having special effects.

4/10. Someone needs to change the director/writer/screen-players/producers but keep the cast and the special-effect crew.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Actually a better film than the original...

4/10
Author: JoeB131 from United States
25 July 2012

but that's a "leper with the most fingers" kind of praise.

So we pick up with Perseus left off, where his apparently immortal girlfriend died of "not wanting to be in the stupid sequel" disease. Meanwhile, he does hook up with the princess he had absolutely no interest in during the first movie, so there's that. (I really thought this was the biggest problem with the first film, if the hero doesn't care if the princess gets eaten by the monster, why should we?)

So the Gods have been betrayed and Kronos is about about escape from Taterus, and that would generally be a bad thing. And we get long sequences of CGI goodness with Liam what's his name calling it in. And it's usually a bad sign for your movie when you are checking your watch wondering how long the CGI sequence you don't care about is going to continue.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

A titan of a headache

5/10
Author: Samiam3 from Canada
15 June 2012

Sure it's rather more visually spectacular than Clash of the Titans, and Sam Worthington's performance feels less monotonous, but Wrath of the Titans is a step down in all other categories, and it has the potential to provoke headache.

It seems like the producers have misinterpreted what it was that made the critically panned Clash of the Titans so 'troubled' (to put it mildly). Subsequently, the bulk of its mistakes have not been corrected here, in fact some of them have gotten worse. If Clash of the Titans seemed dumb, you might find the sheer absurdity of this sequel, with its hokey applications of Greek mythology, to be almost unholy.

Worthington was one of the worst things about Clash of the Titans. Arguably one of the most lifeless performances of that year, he has since grown a bit as an actor (a bit). For his second time as Perseus, there seems to be a little bit more merit in him, although the character remains pretty paper thin. Once again, Perseus has little to do but run, ride Pegasus and fight. I have a feeling that we see more of Worthington's stunt man in the movie than we do of Worthington himself.

Director Jonahan Liebesman keeps the audience in their seat by ramping up the spectacle, and to some degree, his efforts are impressive. There are times when Wrath of the Titans looks as daunting and mesmerizing as anything in the fantasy genre, but unfortunately it's also very noisy.

After an expository first fifteen minutes, Wrath of the Titans turns into an over rushed parade of loud action sequences, accompanied by titanic clouds of dust, painfully cheesy dialogue (with lines like "let's have some fun") and confused character motivation.

Yes, there will be people out there who will be entertained by the relentlessness of Wrath of the Titans, but it was too much noise for me.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Wrath of Mythology

Author: drnrg35 from Mexico
21 May 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have always been a big fan of the mythology movies. I grew up with Jason & The Argonauts and all the Sinbad entries with. Here is where I compare this latest Clash Entries with those movies. One one the particularly comes to mind is Sinbad & The Eye Of The Tiger. I get a strange sensation that Wrath.. got half of it's idea from the movie. Especially with it's monsters. Granted they were presented ion different fashion ,but basically the same ones. "Wrath" features the Cyclops on Chaos Island. "Eye Of The Tiger" features on Troglodytes; who resemble Cyclops in every way, except the one- eye feature, but one also decides to journey with Sinad and his crew to the Magic temple of sorts. here Our hero, Sinbad, encounters a towering golden mechanical Minataur called;aptly, Minoton. This is much like the Minotaur monster Persius encounters in the labyrinth. That in fact is actually part of the Thesus mythology tale; not Persius. Anway I see a lot of resemblances to that particular Sinbad entry throughout the Wrath sequel. Another movie , which I think inspires some ideas for Wrath is the 2011 firm "Inmortals". Not a particularly great film, but the comic resemblances are very obvious. Take for instance Micky Rourk's; King Hyperion character. Now try to follow me here. Micky Rourk starred in the Keira Knightly film; "Domino" and now he has a pert in a mythology film and he plays the villain. Another actor from "Domino" is Edgar Ramirez, who now plays Ares in the new Wrath film. Coincedene? Furthermore the plot of "Inmortals" actually revolves around the real story of Thesus and the Minotaur. I don't ,but when I pinpoint little things like these ; it just makes "Wrath" all the more silly. BTW, you also have fallen GODs in WRath, just like Inmortals. Asiad from one episode of Xena Warriour princess; I have never seen GODS die; now it seems they are falling like flies in every movie.

My final comparison of "Wrath" to "Inmortals" would be the scene in "Inmortals" where Zeus slays Ares for defying his command. It's almost as if Ares comes back to life in "Wrath" and takes his revenge in Zeus for killing him off in "Inmortals". Add to the fact that It's also an all out war between GODS and Titans in "Inmortals" and you basically have the same premise for "Wrath" except with a much juicer budget.

I like "Wrath", but feel a bit ripped of story wise after having watched "Inmortals"

Just a few things I did enjoy were the monsters. CGI or not , they were pretty fierce looking. I only wish they had milked the Minotaur-Persues fight a bit longer. I've yet to see a really spectacular fight scene with a demi-GOD and Minotaur.

As far as acting goes; the actors did a great job. The GODs; Neeson,Fiennes, and Nighy all had the right feel for their parts, but the mortals left much to be desired. . I still think Worthington isn't worthy of the Persius role and Rosamund Pike was really out of place. The rest were just extras: Even Kebell; who plays Posidon's long lost son, is misplayed, because his importance just fizzles out halfway through the film.

Anyway, I would recommend the movie to die hard mythology buffs to come up with their own conclusions. A one time watch wouldn't hurt, but somehow, all these CGI effects don't come up against the older stop motion techniques. Not without a good strong storyline and these new entries fail miserably in the story lines.

7 stars for action and cgi monsters, but only 3 stars for the way the story is executed.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 4 of 25: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [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