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 7 of 25: [Prev][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [Next]
Index 246 reviews in total 

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Oh, dear.

3/10
Author: Rachel Hyland from Geek Speak Magazine
27 April 2012

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 prestige—and 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, does—with 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

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

3D Special Effects Masterpiece.

10/10
Author: Jawad Chaudhry from karachi, pakistan
15 April 2012

i fail to understand why people are so critical about every single movie here..obviously this is an action movie, why look for a strong story line and Oscar winning performances. this movie had what i went looking for...superlative special effects and great 3D. it was action from start to finish, and many a times when i jumped out of my seat.

this movie has a heavy duty cast, and only helps to make the movie more poignant. Sam Worthington is a seasoned actor, and the role fit him well, Liam Neeson is and always have been a delight to watch in any role that he undertakes. i have recently seen John Carter and can say with conviction that in terms of enjoyment and visual treat, Wrath of the titans wins hands down

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

i liked it

10/10
Author: nair-niranjan7 from India
9 April 2012

i loved the movie i also liked clash of the titans because i love Greek mythology and don't know too much about it.This movie is pure entertainment and the 3d is awesome.There isn't any brain tweaking twists in the story . it's not like every single movie should be inception.this is very entertaining. you won't get bored at all .The story is good enough.the action scenes in 3d are oh so good.The humor is good too.the character agenor does a wonderful job. the director has done a good job . but i did not like his last film battle l.a .the creatures are nice and imaginative.overall a nice entertaining movie for me. if you hated clash of the titans and did not like it one bit ,you may think twice about going yo watch it just for it's action but otherwise this deserves a watch.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Nice movie with awesome action and graphics

10/10
Author: Leela Pratyush from India
7 April 2012

Nice movie with awesome action and graphics.But if some one is keen interested in story and good narration of story, then this is not the movie for those. There is no comedy, not a very good plot.But I went for this movie just for the good action and good graphics. I am more than satisfied with what is presented. Also 3D effects are very good in this movie. I like LOR and Matrix series very much and I like this series too unlike Harry Potter ,Twilight,Narnia and Transformers where only one or two parts are good and all remaining are very boring. I am waiting for Avengers eagerly.Also just to mention Hunger games movie was also good. :)

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

"Gods don't die." They do now."

4/10
Author: Cutter Sanchez from United States
1 April 2012

"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-

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Wrath of The Titans= new levels of ineptitude...

4/10
Author: MidnightMax from United States
1 April 2012

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

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Standard stuff. Not as good as Clash

6/10
Author: primevalsoup from United Kingdom
31 March 2012

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Lack of Plot and Imagination

3/10
Author: Luke Savage from United States
7 April 2012

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Why is there so much bashing?

8/10
Author: drunkndasoul from United States
31 March 2012

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 underrated.

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Neeson and Finnes must have really needed the money

2/10
Author: jpaulson-1 from United States
31 March 2012

Let me just say from the get go that I normally love cheesy movies like this! It's light entertainment and often that's all that I need. However, this snorrer is just plain dull. Even seeing it in IMAX 3-D didn't help.

The characters were dull; even the comic relief was dull! The only good notes in the thing was Liam Neeson and Ray Finnes (no surprise there) who have one or two good moments. Kudos also to Bill Nighy who has fun with his now patented goofy wacko character. Otherwise it's hard to have any fun with the rest of them. If Sam Worthington was any more wooden he'd win the Steven Boyd manikin award for acting.

Who wrote this thing and what group of knuckleheads thought it would be a good idea to finance it? Save your money; save yourself. Wait for May.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 7 of 25: [Prev][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [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