Reel Reviews: Wrath of the titles

Brian Taylor and Peter Howe review the sequel to Greek mythology opus, Wrath of the Titans.

  • Apr. 6, 2012 9:00 a.m.
Sam Worthington returns as hero Perseus in the action adventure Wrath of the Titans.

Sam Worthington returns as hero Perseus in the action adventure Wrath of the Titans.

Poor Perseus (Sam Worthington), he just wants to live a simple fisherman’s life and raise his son in peace.

His father Zeus (Liam Neeson) delivers bad news that draws him back into the fray, again defending humans from the wrath of the Titans, which promises to unleash Kronos from Hell.

With his cousin Agenor (Poseidon’s son, played comically by Toby Kebbell) leading the way, Perseus and Queen Andromeda (Rosamund Pike), break into Hell to release Zeus from Hades (Ralph Fiennes) and hopefully save the day.

Do they succeed? Is it fun to watch? Does anybody care?

We say, “See it if it’s up your alley. It’s exactly what you’d expect.”

HOWE: Last Sunday when we gave our up and coming movies for this year, I wrote Wrath of the Titans would bore us. I was pleasantly surprised and have to say I enjoyed it. It’s not going to win any prizes for its storyline, dodgy acting or cheap looking CGI (I’ve seen a lot worse this year). But what it did give you was 99 minutes of fun entertainment.

TAYLOR: It was fine. The audience seemed to be enjoying it. I found myself bored at about the 60 per cent mark, so I just went into “objective film critic mode.” Then, once Perseus found the key to defeating the released Kronos, I thought, “Oh good, here comes the end.” In fairness, although this film is not my cup of tea, I couldn’t fault it for being predictable, most movies are predictable.

HOWE: I liked the cameo role of the owl from the 1981 version of Clash of the Titans. The owl’s acting was amazing as Hephaestus’ (Bill Nighy) side kick.

TAYLOR: There were light moments that worked well. I too noticed that the CGI had moments of ugliness. I think the producers noticed too and attempted to cover, for instance, cheap looking flying beasties with smoke, hiding their flaws.

HOWE: That may be true, but when they did get the CGI right, it looked great. Take the cyclops for instance, that eye looked real.

TAYLOR: However, aren’t you tired of films that just go through the motions? I don’t understand why anyone would spend $100 million on something that merely gives you the same, very old, non-thrills. I’m not necessarily knocking Wrath of the Titans, just movies in general. For instance: an action driven movie had better keep your attention, a character driven movie better have people in it you relate to, a mystery or thriller better have you seeking answers, a horror movie better scare, a comedy better make you laugh, etc. Wrath of the Titans, like so many films, gives you glimpses of any one of these things, here and there, without really succeeding in any direction. What this film does is allow 99 minutes of your life to pass by painlessly. Is that enough? Perhaps for some, not for me.

Taylor gives Wrath of the Titans 2 arms out of an available 5.

Howe gives it 2.5 of Zeus’ lightning bolts out of 5.

–– The film is currently playing at Vernon’s Galaxy Cinemas.

Vernon residents Brian Taylor and Peter Howe write film reviews for The Morning Star every Friday and Sunday.