La furia dei titani

Wrath of the Titans (1:39, PG-13, 3-D) — 5 — fantasy: sword & sorcery, biggie, sequel

Here, in response to no obvious demand, we have Sequel of the Titans. What follows is less a coherent review than a collection of observations.

(1) The plural is misleading. There's only 1 titan, Cronos, and he's off-screen for 90% of the film. He's been imprisoned in Tartarus for eons, which explains why he's wrathful. What is never satisfactorily explained (or even addressed) was how this mountain-sized lava monster ever procreated, since he's supposed to be the father of much smaller and more human-like gods like feuding brothers Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades.

(2) Don't go in with any pre-conceived ideas based on actual Greek mythology. It's a 2011 story featuring characters left over from 2010's Clash of the Titans.

(3) Warner Bros. threw a lot of money at this, and most of it shows up on the screen.

(4) It's pretty much non-stop fighting (vs. chimeras, cyclopes, a minotaur, and assorted gods and demigods), not entirely at the frenetic pace of Transformers, where things are flying by too fast to figure out who's doing what to whom, but too much so for my taste.

(5) The story is not going to win any Pulitzers, Nobels, or Hugos, but it's not entirely predictable, and anything that contemplates the total extinction of the gods gets a big plus from me.

(6) Despite having some pretty good actors in here (Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, Bill Nighy, Danny Huston, and, yes, Sam Worthington), they don't really get much chance to practice their craft, but they're not just phoning it in, either.

(7) Based on the damage he absorbed, Perseus should have been dead or permanently crippled on over a dozen occasions. Absence of credible consequences makes it difficult to establish serious threats or build suspense.

(8) Psychologists who are fixated on the idea of daddy complexes will love this. Normal people will spend a lot of time rolling their eyes.

(9) Rosamund Pike is along for the ride as Queen Andromeda, and she gets in a few licks, but mainly she cleans up real good.

(10) I'm fonder of 3-D than most, so FWIW I thot it was put to good use here in the swooping shots thru the burning villages, labyrinth, and pits of hell. Mercifully, no pokey-outy sharp things, but I had to duck the occasional flaming boulder.

(11) This will not tax your intellect, but it's a well-paced, semi-interesting, action-packed ludicrously unbelievable adventure. They could have done worse, and so could you.

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.

Wrath of the Titans follows a linear storyline. Any person who has any knowledge of Greek mythology with grow bored of the overused story of the labyrinth, Kronos, and how being part human makes you stronger than a God. The storyline has absolutely no originality. It's almost like the screenwriter read Percy Jackson and the Olympians and decided to turn the series into a more adult movie.

Luckily, there are several aspects that save Wrath of the Titans from being horrible. For one, the dialog worked. Mix that with the fantastic graphics and you have a movie that you can sit back and enjoy— so long as you don't think too much. At the heart, the original Greek mythology about Gods overthrowing Titians is quite intriguing. It's just been done far too often

I must note that this movie should have been longer. The opening was far too short. You barely see the town in which Perseus and his son live before it gets ripped apart. With no buildup, it is impossible to care for the characters. This makes the movie little more than Greek Myth brought to life with no depth. It is truly unfortunate. A movie like this has so much potential. It was all wasted with a horrible screenwriter.

If you like Greek Mythology or enjoyed Clash of the Titans, this is a movie you might want to see. If that is not the case, it's not something you will want to see in theatres (or at all). There have been much better action/adventure movies so far this year—The Grey and Chronicle are two. Wrath of the Titians is a movie with potential. Unfortunately, the makers of the movie forgot to turn that potential into gold.

reillyreviews.wordpress.com

The Gods indeed deserved better than the 2010 remake of 'Clash of the Titans', a wholly ill-conceived attempt at revisiting the campy Ray Harryhausen sword-and-sorcery epic that instead replaced the original's stop-motion visual effects with second-rate CG effects. And certainly, the producers seemed to have heeded the call with this sequel, retaining the fine cast from the original- Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes- while opting for fresh writers and a new director.

It's still as important however to keep your hopes down for 'Wrath of the Titans', especially for those expecting a sweeping mythological epic. Taking over the reins from French director Louis Leterrier is Johnathan Liebesman, and going by his previous works- 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning" and "Battle: Los Angeles"- the man is at best an efficient but uninspired director who pays more attention to visceral pleasures than to anything resembling depth.

That is certainly true of his work here, which vastly improves the action sequences of the original but little else. As if singularly devoting his time to create mind-numbing big-budget sequences, Liebesman invests little in the story and in his characters- God, demi-god and human alike. Both are mechanical at best and engineered with a specific purpose of taking his viewer from one jaw-dropping sequence to another, never mind the inconsistencies or the leaps of logic along the way.

So despite the exposition, the plot of the entire movie can be summed up in a one line- to save Zeus (Neeson) from his conniving brother Hades (Fiennes) and jealous son Aroes (Edgar Ramirez), the demi-god Perseus (Worthington) leaps back into full battle mode since retiring ten years ago to a quiet life in a small fishing village. Before facing the worst of them all, Perseus will have to go up against a host of hideous- looking monsters- a fiery-mouthed Chimera with two heads at the front and a snake's head at its tail; a trio of towering Cyclops giants; a Minotaur; and a band of half-man, half-rock soldiers with four arms and two bodies that twist around on a pair of legs.

There's no denying that the creatures this time are much more inventive, and the action sequences choreographed much more skilfully, adding up to a much more thrilling time than what its predecessor offered. Saving the best for last, Liebesman also crafts an epic finale with a gigantic lava-spewing monster known as the Kronos that also involves a whole legion led by warrior-queen Princess Andromeda (Rosamund Pike). The victory call at the end may be a tad overdone, but the climax alone is worth the price of admission and surprisingly impressive even in post- converted 3D.

Pity then that the rest of the movie often pales in comparison- and perhaps the most jarring of all is the poorly defined interfamilial conflict between Zeus, Hades and Aroes. Screenwriters Dan Mazeau and David Leslie Johnson (working off a story that's also credited to Greg Berlanti) give Aroes little motivation behind his father's betrayal other than his envy of Perseus, nor do they manage the sibling tension between Zeus and Hades convincingly. Worse still, they try to turn Hades into a less straightforward character by casting him as a reluctant pawn in Aroes' scheme midway into the movie, and the subsequent reconciliation between Zeus and Hades is laughable even with the considerable acting talents of Neeson and Fiennes.

Certainly, both thespians are well aware of the thin material here, but kudos to the pair for trying to imbue their Godly characters with the gravitas they usually bring to their roles. Among the more interesting additions to the cast are Bill Nighy as the loony weapons-maker Hephaestus whom Perseus approaches for help to gain entry to the underworld labyrinth Zeus is held captive, as well as Toby Kebbell as Poseidon's son Agenor and the only other character besides Hephaestus to have a sense of humour in the entire movie.

Indeed, the movie takes itself too seriously for its own good, ignoring its own campy origins in favour of a self-serious sensibility to its storytelling that only further exposes its plot and character flaws. This is, and perhaps has always been, about watching Gods, demi-gods and monsters go at each other with sound and fury- and thankfully, this sequel easily betters its predecessor on this regard alone. That's not likely to be enough to make the Gods happy though, but for those of us mortals looking for big-budget mind-numbing spectacle, this will do just fine.

• www.moviexclusive.com

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.

That was really fun!

COTT was really bad and disappointing. In WOTT, Worthington is much better (I love the guy, but he was bland in COTT, and he says so himself, very professional guy), pretty intense, loved the scenes with his son Helius, nice moments with Zeus as well, he gets his ass kicked and kicks some major ass.

Neeson is great, Fiennes is really at ease, Kebbell is good, Nighy great as usual, Ramirez great (even though critics don't seem to think the same thing).

Incredible CGI, really, Kronos, Chimera, Tartarus, great set pieces, great monsters, beautifully shot, Liebesman really has an eye for the visuals, sometimes hand-held and shaky cam is used, and it works well. The action was for me most of the time mind-blowing, especially the last third of the movie.

Story is much better, even though dialogues are weak, it's more light- hearted. The 3D (and I'm pretty much a 3D lover) is great, lots of pop out, great depth, works really well with the scenery, creatures, action scenes. There are some really bad-ass scenes throughout the movie.

All in all, a truly bad-ass, kick-ass, fun movie that will get destroyed by the critics who seem like they can't just enjoy a blockbuster for what it is.