The Consensus: Wrath of the Titans Review Round-Up

evolveteam March 30, 2012 0
Wrath of the Titans

On the real, Warner Bros. dropped the ball on the Clash of the Titans remake. An undeveloped script, weak character development, and an exaggerated use of CGI served as the film’s biggest weaknesses. But in the end, box office numbers would determine the fate of the Gods, which meant a follow-up was a guarantee. And it’s finally here. So with bigger mythological creatures and action scenes on the bill, is Perseus (Sam Worthington) and Zeus (Liam Neeson) ready to unleash the Wrath of the Titans? Today’s top critics sound off on the anticipated action sequel.

Richard Corliss (TIME)
Wrath of the Titans, like its predecessor, is a slightly-better-than-OK mashing of one of history’s great literary troves: the Greek myths…Unencumbered by artistic ambition, and clocking in at a brisk 90 minutes (before the endless end credits begin), Wrath radiates the straight-forward, straight-faced pleasures of the mytho-muscular epics, like Hercules and Jason and the Argonauts, produced in Europe a half-century ago. It’s kid stuff for bookworms, a Classic comic book brought to fitfully vigorous life.”

Claudia Pulg (USA Today)
“No more than five minutes go by without a fiery explosion. The audience never gets a chance to recover from the last mighty blast, or an attack by an overbearing fiend, to care about the characters…This all-action-all-the-time sequel to 2010’s Clash of the Titans is a jot better than its predecessor due to a few key performances…While the special effects are shaper than in Clash of the Titans, the dialogue is equally uninspired.”

Joshua Starnes (ComingSoon.Net)
Wrath of the Titans doesn’t exactly dispel the myth that sequels must be derivative and unimaginative, but it at least tries to do so. In between some expertly crafted and completely meaningless action sequences is some actually intriguing storytelling. Leibesman and his small army of screenwriters can’t quite hold onto the reins—there is too much of a desire to deliver the action beats to allow anything else to shine through—but they’ve tried where many wouldn’t have bothered.”

Scott Collura (IGN)
“Like its predecessor, Wrath of the Titans offers plenty of CG-tastic creatures and exploits: giant Cyclopes; a two-head, fire-breathing chimera; magical, swooshing walls that open and close around you at a frightening space; and so on. Much of this stuff has been seen in the film’s trailers already, though, and unfortunately there’s not a ton of new treats that are left for the actual movie…It’s disappointing, because director Jonathan Liebesman (Battle: Lost Angeles) has a keen eye and he gives the film some nice visual touches. But that’s not the only altar that movie fans pray at.”

Andrew Barker (Variety)
“As he did in Clash, Worthington manages to anchor the film while still being something of a non-presence, and Fiennes and Neeson continue to display the rare ability to throw to the wind in the service of schlock without sullying their serious-thesp credentials. Ramirez has comparable bonafides but seem far less comfortable chewing the scenary, as well as uncertain whether to play the role straight or embrace its inherent silliness…While posing no threat to The Hunger Games, Wrath should carve a healthy swath through its lesser B.O. competitors.”

Mark Olsen (Chicago Tribune)
“With Jonathan Liesbesman as the director this time, the film lacks inspiration or zest in storytelling, performance or action. This is pure product, a movie desperately without energy or enthusiasm of any kind…As the story jumps from set-piece to set-piece, one monster to the next, there is no sense of ongoing adventure, just a checklist being ticked off. The mythology of the ancient Greeks is ultimately no match for the industrial imperatives of modern Hollywood.”