Directed by:
Jonathan LiebesmanCinematography:
Ben DavisComposer:
Javier NavarreteCast:
Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson, Edgar Ramirez, Danny Huston, Toby Kebbell, Rosamund Pike, Ralph Fiennes, Bill Nighy, Matt Milne, Lily James, Sinéad Cusack (more)VOD (4)
Plots(1)
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), Poseidon’s demigod son, Argenor (Toby Kebbell), and fallen god Hephaestus (Bill Nighy), Perseus bravely embarks on a treacherous quest into the underworld to rescue Zeus, overthrow the Titans and save mankind. (Warner Bros. UK)
(more)Videos (18)
Reviews (15)
Robert Graves must still be turning in his grave, but perhaps not so frequently this time. Because you have to admit that Wrath of the Titans provokes no wrath at all in its viewers and so is certainly a lot more bearable and better than Clash of the Titans. However, more bearable and better doesn’t mean that it’s bearable and good.
()
Definitely better than the first one. The technical prowess of this sequel is undeniable, especially when it comes to the work with sound and the very clear action (although I expected more based on the trailer). At the same time, the action scenes are very inventive and, in some moments, quite unconventional. What kills it are the boring dialogues, the overused plot structure of dividing tasks, getting acquainted with the main mission, going somewhere to get something, and destroying the main villain. Along the way, someone occasionally helps, someone dies, and so on. Essentially, it's sterile boredom. But thanks to the visuals and Worthington’s solid performance, it's passable. Finally, the 3D actually works as 3D and it's not just for the sake of it, another improvement compared to the first installment.
()
Sure, if I wanted to spit on it, I could go into any minute of runtime and pull out at least five things to criticize. However, the entire time Liebesman follows the rule "I’m not very good at this, but at least it will be noisy and fast," not letting down for even a brief moment. This can't be said of his predecessor, so no more long yawns or bleeding eyes. Worthington is fine, but the divine lineup is simply divine. PS: I would very much like to see some more serious stuff from this director.
()
I'd love to be a screenwriter in Hollywood and write stuff like this (there were four of them in this film), it would be easier to make a living than collecting welfare. It's even dumber than the previous one, which is to be expected. The only thing I wonder about this crap is how many times Neeson and Fiennes said to each other on set, "God, what kind of crap did we get ourselves into again."
()
Wrath of the Titans is a dumb megalomaniacal flick that is packed with action from beginning to end. It also features the best monsters you’ve seen in a movie in the past few years. Due to its one-dimensional characters, however, the potential of its elite British actors is wasted. The film is flat, but visually effective and full of quicksilver energy. Such energy in fact that it might be too much for viewers who would appreciate a bit of downtime with some emotions or – God forbid – some kind of a message. For its target audience, however, it is much more satisfying than the first instalment. If the first movie had looked like that, the second one would have attracted more people to the cinemas.
()
Ads