60 of 68 people found the following review helpful
Though considerably flawed Wrath of the Titans is surprisingly entertaining.,
This review is from: Wrath of the Titans [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray)
It'd be difficult to approach Wrath of the Titans with a completely open mind. The film it follows, Clash of the Titans, was dull and almost single-handedly began the downfall of 3D in the US. Those low expectations though may actually be an advantage for Wrath. Though flawed it's an entertaining film with some spectacular special effects. Even more surprising - the 3D is worthwhile and enhances the experience.
The story follows Perseus (Sam Worthington) who must travel into the underworld to rescue his father Zeus (Liam Neeson). Zeus' other son Ares (Edgar Ramirez) has turned on him and handed him over to Hades (Ralph Fiennes). The plan is to sap Zeus' powers and transfer them to the leader of the imprisoned Titans - Kronos - (father to Zeus, Hades, and Poseiden) who would then unleash hell on the world.
Where the negativity towards Clash really makes an impact is in the early minutes of Wrath. There is no real emotional attachment to the characters - no real care for their fates or the conflicts that are at hand. I wasn't sure the film would be able to break out of that but it somehow did despite inherent confusion around their relationships and motivations without having Clash's plot fresh on the mind. It just took a little time for it to come together.
Wrath of the Titans isn't going to win any awards for dialogue which is sketchy to say the least and almost laughable at times. In fact the movie tends to just move from one set piece to the next with the story taking a back seat. The action is what ties it all together and ultimately leads into a massive final battle. It was actually somewhat startling just was how brisk the pace was and how quickly events advanced - by the time that battle came around it didn't feel as though it was already time for the film to be concluded.
That is a compliment as the first film was plodding and anything but an enjoyable experience. The effects in Wrath are extraordinary and the uniqueness of the various monsters, and the sheer size of Kronos, adds to the fun. While I rarely would recommend paying extra for 3D - and I still wouldn't necessarily with Wrath - there were some really cool moments that were taken advantage of with the technology and it added some valuable depth to scenes. All things being equal going with the 3D wouldn't be a bad decision here.
Wrath of the Titans achieved something unanticipated - it entertained and even made the prospect of a third film in the series somewhat appealing. Expectations, albeit very low, were easily exceeded. There are better overall options in theaters right now (21 Jump Street, The Hunger Games) but for the crowd seeking action Wrath of the Titans is worth considering.
Tracked by 2 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-6 of 6 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 30, 2012 5:37:33 AM PDT
John Green says:
Even though I'll regret it, I'm probably gonna cave and go see it anyway. Thanks for taking a bullet for the rest of us. lol
Posted on Mar 30, 2012 1:06:09 PM PDT
Ditto for me, Pastpadre... I generally like the genre, but Clash of the Titans was just SO bad... I'll give it another go though, based on your recommendation...
What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results... Oh, well, here is to insanity!
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 1, 2012 11:01:48 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 1, 2012 11:02:33 AM PDT
I really, to this day, do NOT understand the negativity "Clash of the Titans" is getting. It was a fun 90 minute diversion from the unpleasantness of reality and was really no worse than the 1981 original; that one got torn apart by local critics way back in the day, as well. It was "all special effects" with "hammy acting" and "very little actual story." All the very same requisite complaints this remake received.
Truth is, just because a critic calls a movie "bad" doesn't necessarily make it so. That's just somebody voicing their own personal opinion, in much the same way as everybody already does here on these boards. Those opinions still don't sway my own decision towards seeing a movie for MYSELF and making up my OWN mind about it.
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 1, 2012 8:54:21 AM PDT
B. Daniel says:
@Brian Exactly! The original didn't get the love it has now until it became a cult classic on Cable and VHS. I persoanlly liked the remake. it wasn't a great film, but it was a fun action film. Were there flaws? To be sure, but still it was fun for what it was. I look forward to seeing Wrath and adding it to my collection of mythology films with "Clash" and "Immortals"
Posted on Jul 13, 2012 5:27:33 PM PDT
brandon bishop says:
i thought the new version of the clash of the titans was a great movie
who really cares about the glitches when they watch this type of movie anyways?
the movie kept my attention and i found it to be very entertaining .
i have yet to see the latest one , but it sounds as if it will be entertaining as well
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 12, 2014 4:02:05 PM PST
I think tho that with the original, even tho the "blue blood" critics trashed it, the film was something of a unique spectacle and original story - at the time. The remake was an already done story with some variations, and CGI that most people have seen numerous times in numerous other films.
I grew up in the era of the original and to most people, even my parents, aunts, uncles, it was not "campy" at all, that's just someone looking at the film through today's eyes. The new "Clash" simply was, no pun intended, nothing new, people have seen the story before, and most moviegoers are pretty numb to CGI monsters at this point.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›