Wrath of the Titans

Here we have “Wrath of the Titans,” a sequel to the special effects extravaganza “Clash of the Titans,” itself a remake of the 1981 film. While most people were turned off by the remake of “Clash,” I had found it to be a fun and silly spectacle of action and effects. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for its sequel. Where there was fun there is now tediousness. Where there were exciting special effects there is now boredom, and even worse, there is even less story than there was before.

After the events of the first film, Perseus (Sam Worthington), a demigod and the son of Zeus (Liam Neeson), has decided to live the life of a normal man with his son, Helius (John Bell). One night, Zeus comes to visit him to warn him of a calamity that is about to occur. The people have stopped praying to the gods, which is what gives them their power. Because of this, the gods are growing weaker, which in turn means that the walls of the underworld prison containing Zeus’s evil father are deteriorating.

When Zeus visits the underworld to plead for Hades’s (Ralph Fiennes) help, Hades captures him instead. It turns out that he, along with Ares (Edgar Ramirez), plans to release Zeus’s and his father from the underworld prison. Meanwhile, Perseus, accompanied by Andromeda (Rosamund Pike) and the demigod Agenor (Toby Kebbell), sets off to seek the help of Hephaestus (Bill Nighy), the one who fashioned the weapons of the gods. With his help, they hope to break into the underworld prison, free Zeus, and stop the coming calamity.

Like the first film, three are many, many special effects, even more so than before, but instead of being exciting and entertaining, this time around they end up being dull because they make up about 90% of the film. Because of this, what little story there is feels like it was merely a minimal foundation for the effects crew to go overboard with explosions, creatures, and fights.

In a sense, I was reminded of the two most recent “Transformers” films, which did something very similar, and yet, the little bit of story here still managed to be a little more interesting, plus the film only runs around 90 minutes, though even that began to feel a little long at a certain point. The fact that it took three people to write the story and then two of them to write the screenplay is quite peculiar given that it’s a barebones plot.

“Clash” had had some interesting scenes in the way of special effects such as the battle with a giant scorpion or the battle with Medusa in her lair. The best scenes that “Wrath” has to offer are those of Perseus and his crew breaking into the underworld prison, which is a labyrinth of shifting tunnels. The climactic battle never becomes exciting because the main villain they are fighting is a giant lava creature that does nothing but wave its arms around. At the very least there are some interesting multi-armed, sword-wielding creatures that attack as well.

The film comes from director Jonathan Liebesman, whose name you may recall from the film that topped my worst of the year list for last year, “Battle: Los Angeles.” That was another film where he tried to use effects to compensate for story, but it obviously didn’t work. However, that was a film that had much more wrong with it than simply its story. “Wrath” is actually a step up in comparison.

I should point out that the film is being offered in 3-D and 2-D. As usual, I went with a 2-D showing, which presented a picture that was quite acceptable. This is another film that seems like it would be a terrible idea to present it in 3-D as much of it is incredibly dark. Even the scenes that take place outside seemed to occur in very drab settings, so if you are planning on seeing it, do yourself a favor and stick with good old fashioned 2-D. However, if you want to do yourself a bigger favor, you should just skip it altogether. 2/4 stars.