|Page 7 of 26:||               |
|Index||253 reviews in total|
This was really bad. I didn't want it to be because I enjoyed Clash of
the Titans and thought the sequel, though unneeded, could be
This was a pretty weak movie. The editing is pretty horrible as it jumps from one scene with one group of characters with no segue and then jumps back in only to show us that they are somewhere else in their conversation (or in some cases, another place). The dialogue was horrendous and full of every cliché word in the book. The action scenes were short and oddly placed.
The worst part was Andromeda. In my opinion, Andromeda served her purpose in the first movie. To bring her back as a warrior princess who yells commands was embarrassing to watch. I couldn't take Rosamund Pike seriously in the role as she tried too hard to be both tough as a leader but soft enough to be Perseus's love interest - something Gemma Arteton did effortlessly as Io.
All in all, it was a typical sequel that tried to outdo the first (which was a remake to boot) and failed. It goes in the category of: forgotten sequels.
Not even Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes could save it. In fact, their story lines were the most confusing to me. The writers copped out of a real ending and a potentially great film by overdoing every single thing.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Perhaps one of the most better mythical movies of the century. A bit more ambitious than the first. But yes it has it's flaws. I am not so much into Greek mythology or even any religious thing. But I will accept this movie for what it's worth. Now to the baddies and goodies. There's only one titan here. I was expecting titans as in the title. Cronos looks so dumb to father the so called gods of Olympus. But maybe that's because he was imprisoned in Tartarus for eons. But enough of them slippery bits of the story. I am a special effects fan and I look for that in any movie. It doesn't have to be mega, it can be subtle. This one is mega and definitely over the top. I got what I wanted from this movie. It is awesome and perhaps the best mythical movies of the century. It makes that movie "Immortals" really puny. It may not follow much of the real mythical story but hey this is Hollywood and I ain't complaining. The creatures created here are excellent. If you're one of those who is willing to bypass some silly little things and are looking for action and SFX. This one makes it to my collection. Without a doubt on the top of my list for this decade.
The great Zeus is kidnapped, and Perseus has to go save his father and
the world from the most formidable force known to all. This may sound
like something to go queue up and see, but it wasn't anywhere near
Plans to make a sequel to Clash of the Titans has been around from the shooting of the first film. The producers were hoping to rake in enough cash from the movie and then use that as a good lead to shoot Wrath of the Titans. Although Clash of the Titans was a waste of film reel, it still made 3 times its production cost from the box office, and therefore Wrath was done.
The only good thing in the movie was that, I did not fall asleep I give them that. The movie isn't that bad, it just wasn't worth making.
Shooting was done mostly in Europe in areas of vast land so that the scenes of destruction would have room to be done. The movie had pointless chaos all due to the script and unwarranted emotions, displayed by the actors that will keep you wandering if the director was actually watching.
The plot is as simple as what I said above, Perseus goes on rampage into the underworld to save his father Zeus and save the world from the hands of a mighty .and Ares the god of war.
Planning to thrill the movie watches with stick like acting and scenes warranty you to wonder if the director was actually sleeping during shooting, is what Warner Bros tries to pass on as a movie, I shake my head in disapproval and disappointment.
Directed by Jonathan Liebesman, a South African director who was responsible for the movie Battle: Los Angeles
Am i the only one here that liked this movie?? We all know that the story of wrath and clash of the titans is twisted but don't mean that we have to tear the movie a part!! Clash of the titans is a remake of the 1981 movie, but like the name says is a remake, so it was made again! Nowadays there are loads of other ways to make movies, if you like the first one better, well go ahead and watch it again, just don't hate on this! In my opinion this movie is very good, nice story, awesome effects and loads of action! The characters are all well played and with a brilliant cast! Nice following of the story, loads of monsters awesomely made, great landscapes and incredible scenarios as the first one! I recommend it and also the first one!
There is much that could be said here about the egregious scholarly
inaccuracies with which this movie abounds. Admittedly, mythologies
are, almost by definition, very, very old, and the Ancient Greek myths
on which our story is somewhat based exist in many different forms,
coming to us through the millennia from only a few surviving sources,
all of which are inherently unreliable and invariably contradictory.
Also, we're dealing with matters of lowercase-g gods here, actual
personifications of nature use their great powers not for any grand
purpose but merely to enhance their own prestigeand though Science
Fiction has long speculated that the old pantheons may actually be
based on some form of advanced life, be it alien or otherwise, there is
not even a scrap of evidence to suggest that this might be the case in
the realm of science fact. Therefore, to be caviling at this film for
its flagrant abuses of known, though ever-speculative, legend is
probably taking even my mythology-geek nitpickery a little too far.
Instead, let me tell you why it's a terrible film, all of that aside.
Just before viewing this in IMAX 3D I sat down to watch the 2010 CLASH OF THE TITANS, thereby making for myself one of the most dissatisfying movie double-bills of all time. So, having concluded the largely forgettable earlier effort mere minutes before commencing the latest installment, I was in a good position to compare and contrast the two movies, and before long I had to wonder: had anyone who worked on WRATH done the same thing? Because in the continuity stakes, nothing here makes any sense. None.
You may recall from the first movie though I hope, for your sake, that you don't our hero, Perseus (Sam Worthington), son of Zeus (Liam Neeson) and unwitting champion of Princess Andromeda of Argos (Alexa Davros), is forced to go head-to-head with a fearsome beast called the Kraken in order to save the city, and the woman, from the consequences of human hubris. You see, the Argosians had decided that the gods did not exist, nor deserve their worship, which has to strike one as pretty stupid in a world in which capricious beings who can control the weather and such will often show up in person to prove their cruel divinity. Zeus, outraged, allowed his resentful brother Hades (Ralph Fiennes) to go and put the fear of the gods into the people and bring them back to the fold. Perseus, meanwhile, goes on a quest, defeats assorted monsters, and along the way falls in love with the slightly-creepy Io (Gemma Aterton), who is surpassingly beautiful, brave and wise, but who is semi-immortal and has basically been stalking him since he was an infant and who, we learn in WRATH, died after having his baby, presumably to a) make way for a new love interest and b) showcase the good sense of Gemma Aterton in not signing on for this film.
So now Perseus and kid are merrily living the life of humble fishermen when Zeus arrives and asks for his help. At some point between the last movie and this one, Perseus has become Zeus's favorite son (as opposed to someone he was prepared to kill with a Kraken; yeah, thanks, Dad), and now people everywhere have stopped believing in the gods, which means that the world is beginning to unravel. In particular, Tartarus, the prison to which Cronus and the other Titans were exiled after being overthrown by the Olympians, is growing weak, soon to allow monsters to roam the world. Turns out, of course, that Hades is helping this along, as is Ares (Édgar Ramírez), God of War, who has major Daddy Issues and a big problem with Sibling Rivalry. So, to recap: new gods losing power, old gods getting more power, humanity in crisis, and only one man can save us. He, unsurprisingly, doeswith a little help from his godly family. Also, he learns to love again. The End.
Now, it could well be that there is a deeper truth to be found in here, among the over-the-top CGI, bombastic score, direful dialogue and incessant over-acting. Something about self-determination, and how the only gods that exist are those we create, or how our Creator is prepared to die for us there really is a little something in here for everyone, whether atheist or devout, if you're prepared to search hard enough. The question is: are you? And if so, why? I mean, I am as inclined toward over-analysis of film as the next person, but any search for true meaning in either of these wretched TITANS movies is fruitless, and I intend to stop it right now.
Essentially? This movie, as little as I expected of it, delivered even less. If it weren't for the 3D, which really is very well done (unlike its predecessor's, which has become a byword for bad post-conversion), I would count this the biggest waste of my time since well, since I saw CLASH OF THE TITANS. I will say, however, that at the very least I got a few moments of amusement out of Bill Nighy as Hephaestus, broad Yorkshire accent and all. In fact, it is in the variety of accents evident in this film that I find perhaps my only overall positive comment. Australian, Irish, several varieties from across England, plus Spanish, Italian (Poseidon, it seems) and sundry forms of American. The reason I like this is because the characters would doubtless be speaking Ancient Greek here, and so why should it matter what form their audience-friendly English takes?
Yes, that is the only thing I unreservedly liked about this film. A pretty sad indictment, isn't it?
This review first appeared in Geek Speak Magazine
"Gods don't die." They do now." Wrath of Titans, the latest entry in
the jumble of CG dominated sword and sandal films that have spilled
from Hollywood over the past few years, is unsurprisingly littered with
prosaic colloquy throughout its 99-minute runtime. Sadly, these
uninspired exchanges represent some of the film's stronger writing as
Wrath is dominated by dialogue consisting of characters simply yelling
each other's names in various states of distress. "Perseus!"
"Andromeda!" "Helius!" "The Navigator!" I could have sworn I even heard
someone yell out my name. "Cutter! Go home and watch The Immortals on
Amazon Video. You'll enjoy it more!" It's a shame I did not listen.
Wrath picks up where its predecessor Clash of Titans left off, with Perseus (Sam Worthington), son of Zeus (Liam Neeson) and slayer of the Kraken, now living a quiet life as a village fisherman, father and widower. He is reluctant to join the latest fight to save the world, but is soon forced back into action when poppa Zeus is captured by his sinister brother Hades (Ralph Fiennes) and hell beasts, presumably Titans, are set free upon the Earth to reek havoc. So what is Hades' end game? That is where the story takes a plunge toward the absurd, even for this film. Hades, realizing the Gods are now facing extinction due to man's eroding worship, plots to kidnap Zeus and transfer his power to their evil father Kronos, imprisoned in hell stone by Zeus and Hades years earlier, in the hope that Kronos will, after freeing himself and destroying the very beings that give the Gods their power, be merciful and somehow help him secure his immortality. Uh okay.
Adventure films need not be entirely plausible or coherent to be successful, but they must, in the immortal words of Maximus Decimus Meridius, answer the question, "Are you entertained?" There were two headed dog beasts, giant Cyclopes, spinning minotaur infantry and enough thunder and fire to squat brimstone and yet my answer is emphatically no. In fact, I prefer the messy, murky Clash of the Titans to its latest offspring, which speaks volumes since I slept through most of it.
Cutter's Advice: See it, but don't expect much = C-
At the Theater - "Wrath of The Titans' - Every lame idea that didn't
make it into 2010's "Clash of The Titans" was apparently spliced
hastily together in this poorly conceived, annoyingly bombastic mess of
a follow up. I didn't care for "Clash" much at all, but anyone who
tells you that "Wrath" is an improvement is smoking some serious dust.
I have it in a three way tie with 2012's cinematic dregs "Ghost Rider:
Spirit of Vengeance" and "The Grey" as worst films of the year.
Forget coherency, structure and reasoning; there's very little of that to be found here at all. Trying to make sense of the on screen happenings is futile. It's a movie that was assembled without a discernible plot, seemingly making itself up as it goes along only to be later edited by a drunk monkey. Characterization is at a minimum, some characters coming into frame with little or no introduction whatsoever- you'll find yourself wondering "Who the hell is that and where did they come from?" quite often. Certain stretches of dialogue were apparently so bad that the filmmakers just drowned it out with thunderous original music or sound effects. The effects work is serviceable, though nothing really groundbreaking- an early showdown with a Chimera and the climactic arrival of "Kronos" would be amongst the few FX highlights. There's a scene involving a Minotaur which seems tacked on as an afterthought and reeks of ineptitude.
Sam Worthington is more self aware here than in the first installment- he's at least trying. Rosamund Pike is cast as the obligatory eye candy, though I must say that I found myself missing Gemma Arterton quite a bit. Ralph Feinnes, Liam Neeson and Danny Huston return from the first film and put in small amounts of solid acting work, it's a shame to see them wasted in this way, though. Bill Nighy (in a brief appearance) and Toby Kebbell ("War Horse", "Rock N Rolla") steal their limited amount of screen-time. Edgar Ramirez (IFC's Miniseries "Carlos") plays the central villain here and only conveys a minimal amount of presence.
The film is 99 minutes long and I can only remember about 5 minutes of that being worthwhile. Needless to say, skip this mutha! 4.0 out of 10
I think I represent a minority of people who thought Clash of the
Titans was amazing, profound, incredibly exciting and had great
graphics. Hopefully less people dispute the soundtrack to Clash, which
was absolutely fantastic thanks to Ramin Djawadi.
This film feels put together just to rake in sales from people like me who loved the first one, or people who probably didn't get out of the first one what I got out of it. Perhaps the studio, which perhaps (I like to think) saw some of what I saw in Clash realised that the market share I belong to was tiny (just me?) and that the market wanting to see big monsters fight Sam Worthington was worth investing in.
Story: It's alright. Not as upbeat as Clash. A bit depressing. I'm sure there were more gods in Clash than Wrath, so not sure where the others went. The romance was... who's idea was that??? Done rather awfully. And I'm not spoiling anything to declare that Io (Gemma Aterton) wasn't in it, but why? She was good. Because she didn't sign a contract? Maybe she didn't like the script. And for anyone out there who got something special from Clash (this whole rejection of patrons/gods/gifts for some dubious moral principle, despite going up against ridiculous odds) - you probably won't find it here.
Action: I recall Clash being well choreographed. Many action films rely on blurred/fast/over close up shots to give the impression of action and violence. At the other end is very slowed down fighting. My preferred (which I recall there being a lot of in clash) is fast paced, real time and followable action. I suspect this is a nightmare to direct, which is why it happens so infrequently in films. Matrix did it - and was amazing. Anyway, this film goes for close up and can't see what's going on action quite a lot, which is a waste of talent/resources (cool monsters) and money and doesn't look good. Maybe I should change careers and become a choreographer. They ought to be raking it in.
Graphics: Fine. I preferred the monsters from Clash though. And what there was was often too close to see/appreciate properly.
Music: Fine - but not special. Not like Clash. Clash music was AMAZING. I bought it and listened to it a million times and infiltrated it into most of my itunes playlists. This was what you'd expect for a high budget film of this sort when they had nothing left for anyone great, but not memorable or inspiring (I've forgotten it already).
Acting: I'm not an acting critic. No one annoyed me. Sam Worthington was unashamedly Australian and I was fine with that.
So perhaps they got another $25 million to spend, but maybe with inflation this was an equivalent budget? I guess someone decided to change the director and the music composer - why? Sounds like Leterrier was keen, at least from wikipedia. Changing directors might explain aspects of the plot - new male lion arrives and starts killing off what was done by the one before him.
The beginning of the story started out with a very good interesting
setup. The boys, the father, and a father's yearning for acceptance
from his son. However, as the movie continued, it lacked imagination
and was predictable. By the end, I met the 'cheesy' side of the movie
and was uncomfortable to even bare. This movie started out well but
lacked the complexity of keeping imagination alive. Plot weakened
throughout and all that was left was fighting and a rated B movie.
Acting was fine as these actors are experienced and believable. However, even great actors have their limits and felt that the whole story became unbelievable. Save your money, wait until it hits Redbox.
K i'd like to start off by questioning, why is there so much bashing
going on to Clash of the Titans remake?? yes , there was disappointing
in which they should not have changed from the original. BUT it does
not make it a bad movie or the fact that the first one had plenty of
action and if you ask me a bit of the same dialog as the sequel.Also ,
i thought the Medusa scene and Kraken scene was amazing in that
film.(thats my opinion though) With that said i thought the remake if
you look at it as its own movie , was not that bad and completely
Alright, with that said, the sequel is a def. B+ movie. It has a ton of action in it and yes the plot was not really that focused on as much as it should have been. Do i think the action was senseless? No, majority of the films action was necessary and went with it. (its Greek mythology people-there is tons of key and action points in it) A lot of the CGI was awesome, Chronos looked awesome as well and so did everything else. The story did go off a bit, but it did stay on course of what they were trying to do. I think the only problem i had was Aries and another part but i don't want to spoil. I think Aries was to light and not enough bad ass for me.
All in all i'm not gonna sit here and use a lot of words that people will no understand anyways and try to look like a critic but for those that want a straight answer and rely on reviews as whether to see a movie. I'd say go see this movie, it is very action packed and good Greek mythology mixture.
|Page 7 of 26:||               |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|