‘Wrath of the Titans’ is Enjoyable Junk at Its Most Forgettable
Greek mythology has never been more grandiose than in director Jonathan Liebesman’s Wrath of the Titans. A big-budget, silly, special effects overload that ends up being the kind of goofy B-movie fun that dazzles, and then quickly fades from memory.
In this follow up to 2010’s Clash of the Titans, Perseus (Sam Worthington) rounds up a few allies – including the son of Poseidon Agenor (Toby Kebbell) and the quiet, but strong willed Queen Andromeda (Rosamund Pike) – to head into the deathly underworld to rescue his quickly fading father Zeus (Liam Neeson).
Down below Zeus is held captive by his power hungry, sadistic son Ares (Edgar Ramirez) and his brother that he banished o-so long ago, Hades (Ralph Fiennes). By attempting to save his ill father, Perseus and company must fight off the dangerous Titans that are beginning to threaten to existence of humankind.
The whole plot is a bit convoluted and bizarre, but the film’s serious beats are often countered with some light comedy that makes for a middle of the road, non-offensive cinematic experience. Some well-constructed emotional notes are peppered throughout as well: Most specifically, the relationship between Perseus and his 10-year-old son Hellus (John Bell). Perseus (a demi-God) wishes to continue their normal, fishing village life, without warfare lingering over every horizon. That’s why it’s tough for Perseus to leave his son when he knows that he must save his father from eternal despair.
But Wrath of the Titans doesn’t rely on the tactfulness of character development, but rather the sheer spectacle that Liebesman presents. While the special effects often are mesmerizing (especially some of the underworld designs), I think we’ve come to a point in time where the onslaught of effects has run its course.
While most of us enjoy getting swept up by the visual craft of multi-million dollar productions, relying so much on the artificial aesthetics makes this film consistently lack humanity (despite the father-son relationship, which occupies a whole 5 minutes of screen time). Attempting to sympathize or care for Perseus and company, as they battle to the death to save Zeus and wipe out these terrifying Titans, is difficult.
The spirit is intact here. And by spirit, I mean Liebesman understands the inherent playfulness and silliness he’s creating, and subsequently plays along with it. Wrath is filled with cheesy one-liners that fans of the genre will fall head over heels for.
I’m not necessarily excusing the film from its shortcomings — there are much too many to ruminate over – i.e.: I’m still searching for that second act. But Wrath of the Titans is that type of chaotic spectacle that demands plenty from its characters, and little from its audience. If you can manage to get past the frenzy of special effects, you may just be surprised how much you enjoy yourself.
That said… What’s this film about again?
C+
2.5 out of 4 stars
You may follow me on twitter @SamFragoso
21 Comments
Enjoyable junk is exactly how I thought Wrath would turn out like. That being said, I do want to check it out.
Well, I hope it satisfies your needs Jaina .
What’s sad, is that it sounds much better than it’s predecessor. “Clash” was one of the biggest disappointments I’ve seen. I left the theater with my head hanging low.
I actually haven’t seen “Clash” … nor do I necessarily want to. Perhaps this film will redeem the predecessor.
It’s all relative, wouldn’t take much for Wrath to seem like a masterpiece if you’ve seen Clash first.
But it looks so awesome. Still, it will be worth it to see the special effects and my favorite mythical creatures come alive!
Hey, it sounds like you’re excited. In which case, go ahead and see it.
Liam Neeson claims this film is 10 times better than the first. Really?
What he meant to say was his paycheck was 10 times better
0.001 x 10 = 0.01
Ahah, that’s right Julian!! But seriously, even if he said it’s a 100 times better I still won’t be convinced. It’s enough that I saw the original on the big screen, blech!
I didn’t read that, but I don’t think that’s saying much Steven and Julian.
“While most of us enjoy getting swept up by the visual craft of multi-million dollar productions, relying so much on the artificial aesthetics makes this film consistently lack humanity” Hit the nail on the head there. Didn’t see Clash and didn’t hear much to tempt me. Took one look at the trailer for this and decided to steer clear of this franchise altogether.
Glad you appreciated that portion of the review Pete.
For some audiences members, these type of bombastic period piece epics don’t work and or interest them. If you’re not a fan of the genre, then WRATH will be a colossal waste of time.
The movie left a lot to be desired. Forgettable is the word here, Sam. I couldn’t even muster the energy to write anything about it.
I felt that way about the charming, but rather forgettable “Salmon Fishing In The Yemen”
The only name they could have picked that would have been worse is ‘Soggy Wonderbread in the Desert’.
after the boredom in Clash of the titans, even 100 times better couldn’t make watch it.
Has Sam learned to act yet? He was terrible in previous movie and maybe he had gone to acting class for this one…maybe
He’s affable. Much worse in the recent MAN ON A LEDGE. Yikes.
This film was 100% better than Clash. I gave it 1/5 instead of 0.5/5. Glad you liked it more than I, Sam. I found it to be incredibly boring, even amidst the spectacle. Atrocious story.
See what he did there folks. What a friend.
Trackbacks