Having endured his legendary twelve labors, Hercules, the Greek demigod, has his life as a sword-for-hire tested when the King of Thrace and his daughter seek his aid in defeating a tyrannical warlord.
As his kingdom is being threatened by the Turks, young prince Vlad Tepes must become a monster feared by his own people in order to obtain the power needed to protect his own family, and the families of his kingdom.
Transported to Barsoom, a Civil War vet discovers a barren planet seemingly inhabited by 12-foot tall barbarians. Finding himself prisoner of these creatures, he escapes, only to encounter Woola and a princess in desperate need of a savior.
A decade after his heroic defeat of the monstrous Kraken, Perseus-the demigod son of Zeus-is attempting to live a quieter life as a village fisherman and the sole parent to his 10-year old son, Helius. Meanwhile, a struggle for supremacy rages between the gods and the Titans. Dangerously weakened by humanity's lack of devotion, the gods are losing control of the imprisoned Titans and their ferocious leader, Kronos, father of the long-ruling brothers Zeus, Hades and Poseidon. The triumvirate had overthrown their powerful father long ago, leaving him to rot in the gloomy abyss of Tartarus, a dungeon that lies deep within the cavernous underworld. Perseus cannot ignore his true calling when Hades, along with Zeus' godly son, Ares (Edgar Ramírez), switch loyalty and make a deal with Kronos to capture Zeus. The Titans' strength grows stronger as Zeus' remaining godly powers are siphoned, and hell is unleashed on earth. Enlisting the help of the warrior Queen Andromeda (Rosamund Pike), ...Written by
Warner Bros. Pictures
At 40:15 the group is shown as compromising 8 members, but the number remains constant as so later on (e.g. 47:43 or 48:22) , despite having added Hephaestus. Since there was no justifiable event during this time-frame, they should number 9. See more »
All right, I agree with most people when they say 2010's Clash of the Titans was not a great movie, but I didn't hate it. I didn't walk out of the theater with a feeling like "OMG, that movie kicked ass!". It was OK, I thought the film had pacing issues and the 3D was, well... about as bad and pointless as people made it out to be. So is the sequel, Wrath of the Titans, an improvement?
I'm happy to report that yes, Wrath of the Titans is better. It's not a great film by any means, it is flawed, but if you're looking for 99 simple minutes to kill by looking at some pretty darn impressive action sequences, then you are in luck. Also, if you thought the 3D in Clash was bad, that's not the case with Wrath. Don't expect anything along the lines of Avatar, but I gotta say, the 3D was used pretty nicely and didn't come off as a total gimmick.
My biggest issue with the film, however, is one that I had with the previous film. The film sometimes feels a bit slow and that it takes a while to get started, and there's not really much investment in the story or the characters. Some of the characters are mostly there to provide comic relief, but even that is very hit-or-miss. For the most part, Sam Worthington played his role pretty good, a fine example of under-rated acting. It's nothing great, but it's far from abysmal. Liam Neeson was also rather enjoyable to watch, but hey, it's Liam Neeson. Everybody else isn't particularly interesting, but they're not unforgivably boring or useless. There's also a small romance in the film between Worthington and a female side character, but it comes off as pointless and un-needed. I just don't see why the majority of popcorn action flicks require a relationship when we go to see explosions and amazing special effects, it's just not necessary.
Flaws aside, I enjoyed Wrath of the Titans. I am aware of the hate that this movie is receiving and I can understand some of the quibbles that one may have against it, but hey, at least it's better than it's predecessor.
61 of 90 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this