SummaryA 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 ...
SummaryA 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 ...
Leaner, meaner, and far superior to 2010's Clash cock-up. From top-grade 3D to a multitude of monsters and a welcome influx of acting talent, this is pure popcorn pleasure.
I started actually watching because it was a sequel to the 2010 hit and for the incredible CGI and Greek mythology, but I was taken by surprise! There's a deeper meaning behind the plot and a father and son relationship which deeply connects you to the film. Eventually I also fell in love with the comic relief. It was an all-around enjoyable and entertaining action film. It doesn't attempt to be something it isn't. That's nice and straightforward, and I like it. If you're a Greek mythology or a fantasy genre fan, then this is definitely the movie for you!
I must say this film was beyond my expectations. I thought this movie was horrible given the score critics gave it. I watched it in Blu-ray and the effects/CA were outstanding. The plot isn't that bad too, although it would be better if they prolonged the movie to 2h 20min whilst giving more info and going more deeply into the story. As a fan of any mythological based thing I give it 10/10.
P.S. Now I realize that "professional" critics are not to be trusted
This is a movie in which whole sequences consist of nothing but guys fighting stiff computer images. Such scenes would be boring even were they done well, but these scenes aren't done well.
Some of the action sequences, and a few of the performances, are enjoyable enough to make up for the dialogue, which has been upgraded to cheerfully absurd, and the plot, which has been simplified to the point of actual coherence.
The film lacks inspiration or zest in storytelling, performance or action. This is pure product, a movie desperately without energy or enthusiasm of any kind.
Made possible by the half a billion dollars Clash of the Titans garnered worldwide, Wrath of the Titans sputters and coughs on the fumes of its own inevitability.
Glad I didn't listen to the reviews on this one. I wanted to relax and watch some good action and great 3D with no lame drama and that's what I got. Not every movie needs to be a Blade Runner or The English Patient.
This is one of those rare cases where I saw the sequel without seeing the previous film (at least, in its entirety). The one time I got a chance to see "Clash of the Titans" was when I was 12 and I went to Universal Studios in Orlando and was so tired from spending the day out and walking around and whatnot that I ended up falling asleep while the movie was on. That said, I still wanted to see what "Wrath of the Titans" was capable of. I figured that, even if I didn't understand the story too much, I probably wouldn't care because neither film was made to tell a beautiful story. And all in all, I was right: "Wrath of the Titans" is pure, brainless fun. The story is forgettable, the characters are uninteresting and the acting is nothing special, but the visuals are gorgeous, the action is pretty exciting and, should you choose to watch it in 3D, you'll find it to be a lot more fun (if a bit too exhilarating because they throw everything and the kitchen sink at you during the film). Don't walk into "Wrath of the Titans" expecting a brilliant cinematic masterpiece, but expect it to be a nice, brainless diversion.
Epic movies have been around for several years now. Simply throwing action and graphics at a movie can no longer make it great. Epics have been pulled down to the level of an average movie. We must care about the characters. The dialogue must be worthwhile. The storyline cannot be linear and bland. Wrath of the Titans, although enjoyable, did not get the memo.
I'm always afraid of sequels. I'm not the only one, there are even several actors who don't like it. This film explains the reason: the're almost always worse than the previous film which, in this case, wasn't particularly good. And although I realize that the title is a reference to an older film (that is, this is a sequel to a remake), it remains a poor choice for a title, but that's the least relevant criticism here. If the first film seemed insipid and filled script failures with a CGI avalanche, it had at least the virtue of having a history closely related to Greek mythology. This movie lost that, preferring to create something new that gave continuity to the previous story. It's a legitimate choice... but it failed squarely.
The plot takes place ten years after the events of "Clash of the Titans". Perseus lives a mortal life with his son when he's called by his father, Zeus, the king of the gods, to aid in a problem with the instability of the walls of Tartarus. Soon after, this problem disappears, no one ever talks about it, and the gods turn against each other in an internal war, when Perseus will participate to avoid the return of Cronus, a primordial god, father of Zeus, and basically prevent the end of the world. I found this highly predictable plot plodded like a bad patchwork. A disaster completed with insipid and uninspired dialogues, several cliches reused from other action epics (the use of slow motion in battle scenes, for example), and such an amateur editing and post-production work which seem to have been done by trainees, in their first fifteen days of office! It's perfectly clear, throughout the film, a brutal pace difference, with moments where everything happens very quickly and others where the action creeps like honey in the Summer. If we cannot blame editors for these pace differences, we can only point the finger at the awkward director Jonathan Liebesman, who perhaps did better by dedicating his time to filming home movies with puppies. It should be noted that neither he, nor the scriptwriting team, had any part, as far as I could tell, of the previous film.
About the cast I can say that there are great actors who manage, with great talent and dedication, to make the film not a total waste of time. Liam Neeson is flawless and delivers clean service to the audience; Ralph Fiennes did a good job, perhaps even better than in the previous film; Sam Worthington seems to have learned from the mistakes he made in the previous film but remains stupid and presumptuous; Bill Nighy was very good and gives some light moments and situational comedy; Alexa Davalos gave way to Rosamund Pike, who made a nimble and brave queen, something that I really enjoyed because she's a talented actress who only used to do unemotional and cold characters.
The film reproduced the formula "if the script does not work, drown it with CGI and action to make it work". When will filmmakers realize that CGI has become ordinary? It's no longer possible to build a good movie only with lots of visuals and brutal action scenes. There needs to be a good story behind all that, and this movie just doesn't have it. I could tell about the unrealistic way I watch the fight scenes, as this seemed to me totally choreographed... but even that loses relevance if script's not there. It's a movie that isn't worth watching more than once, just to see how bad it is.