‘Wrath of the Titans’ Movie Review
From the get-go, Wrath of the Titans, the unnecessary sequel to an unnecessary remake, had some making up to do. Taking place after Clash of the Titans, it needed to compensate for the flaws of the previous installment. By creating a low bar of success, Wrath of the Titans may not seem like such a failure. In fact, some of the action sequences alone may make it worth the trip. However, the action is one of the only things that makes it merely an “okay” movie. The movie doesn’t succeed in creating any lasting effects. Yes, at the time, the movie looks pretty good. The acting isn’t horrible. But, it still is not a movie people should rush to see again.
Wrath of the Titans fast forwards 10 years, where Perseus (Sam Worthington) is trying to raise his son. He would prefer living a life of an “ordinary fisherman.” This plan gets disrupted when his father Zeus (Liam Neeson) comes for help. Their immortality is being destroyed by the lack of prayer from the mortals. Without a strong belief system, the immortals become vulnerable.
Zeus’ brother Hades (Ralph Fiennes), the major villain of the first installment, returns. Jonathan Liebesman and the rest of the filmmaking crew don’t continue his reign as a villain. I couldn’t help but feel disappointed because Hades was one of the best parts before. Now, he’s used more as a secondary character. Taking the villain throne is Ares (Edgar Ramirez). Being the god of war, Ares becomes a powerfully greedy character that is equally as dangerous.
As for conflict, Wrath of the Titans trades the girlfriend-in-danger card for the family-in-danger card. Being held hostage by Ares, Perseus sets out to save both his father and son. His adventures to the depths of the underworld are full of action sequences. These scenes become wackier and wackier as the filmmakers tried to make each one more exciting.
Quickly, its proves that action is the only thing they’re really pushing. It sacrifices precious movie time that could be used to explain the characters, background, and predicaments. Each time the action lulls, we find that up around the next bend, they’ll be another poorly choreographed fight.
The love story also proves this once more. Since Perseus’ wife Io died between the two movies, the audience is supposed to think he truly wants to be an ordinary man. He visits his wife’s grave site early on, making us believe he still loves her. It doesn’t make much sense for another love story to emerge that involves Perseus himself. We could, perhaps, credit the writers for including another form of drama, but there are certainly alternative ways to create more story.
As for the Greek mythology, at least I found some of the character choices interesting. I’m not sure anyone outside of Neeson and Fiennes pulled off their characters, but it was fun to see one of the coolest Greek gods Poseidon (Danny Huston) and his son Agenor (Toby Kebbell). It’s too bad their stories were small (in the case of Poseidon) or inserted purely for comedic relief (Agenor).
If CGI and shaky-cam fighting are enough to warrant a trip to the theater, then go for Wrath of the Titans. If drama and story isn’t necessary, or if you were a fan of the first movie, this film may not be quite as disposable. I wouldn’t call it an utter disaster, but that’s the closest thing to a compliment it’ll get. It certainly doesn’t answer the question most of us should ask: why does this thing exist in the first place?