OldBoy

Please continue pre-release discussion here.

Movie:
"Wrath of the Titans" (Starring: Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, Édgar Ramírez, Rosamund Pike, Bill Nighy, Danny Huston)

Release Date:
3/30/2012

Rating:
PG-13 (for intense sequences of fantasy violence, action, some disturbing images, and screams of “no Gemma Arterton or Alexa Davalos!” throughout)

Running Time:
99min. (1h. 39m.)

Budget:
$125 million (estimated)

IMDb Synopsis:


IMDb Info and Rating:
0.0 (0 votes as of 3/27/12)

Rotten Tomatoes:
Fresh:00 Rotten:00 (00% as of 3/27/12)

Metacritic:
00 metascore ('Generally favorable reviews' as of 3/27/12)

Trailer:
<object width="720" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.traileraddict.com/emd/50229"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.traileraddict.com/emd/50229" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" wmode="transparent" allowfullscreen="true" width="720" height="349"></embed></object>

Poster Art:

TomOpus

I'd give it 3 stars right now based solely on the trailer being so much better than the entire first movie

OldBoy

i thought the first was hokey, but fun.

Why So Blu?

Only 99 minutes?

Matthew Chmiel

I bought the BD+DVD+DC combo pack of the first film when it came out as Best Buy's pre-order had an incorrect price.

I still haven't even watched it.

I guess I'll put that as a to do this week.

Dr. DVD

I think this will be a case of a sequel being made to a movie that despite doing good box-office, was more or less disliked. I also think it's obvious that WB didn't think Hunger Games would prove as popular with the masses as it did, and that they would be releasing this movie with no credible competition. In short, I think this one will flop, even though it looks better than the first.

mdc3000

I posted this in the other thread before I saw the reviews thread:

While not a homerun, Wrath of the Titans was a LOT OF FUN. It does still suffer a few of the problems of Clash (flimsy plot, eye rolling dialogue and hulking cg characters dispatched way too easily) but they nailed the tone, moreso than the last outting. I hated Perseus' kid though and really wish they could find a few better actors in a few instances.

That said, the action delivers (although the 3D was disappointing - lots of smoke, fog and haze, which doesn't help the 3D much), Bill Nighy was great (love his 'advisor') and giving Neeson and Fiennes more to do was a big plus, even if I wish they had been utilized even more. If you're looking for a fun movie, this is it - especially if you sort of dug the first one - this is more of the same but done a little bit better. I would be interested in a third go round if they keep the fun level amped up like they did in this one. 3.5/5 and the first movie Liebsman has made that I can tolerate.

fumanstan

Clash made $163 million domestic, and while I don't think Wrath will top that I think it will still make over $100 million here and won't necessarily be a flop.

Mr. Cinema

Boxoffice.com is predicting $37.5 million for the weekend. The 2010 film opened to $61 million.

Wrath is getting rave reviews however. The Rotten Tomatoes score is up to 28%.

covenant

And no R rating...so much fail.

Supermallet

As anyone who can read the previous thread can attest to, I hated the first movie. But you know what? This one was fun. It moved at a brisk pace and had a lot more stuff with the Olympians that worked. The Labyrinth section is very weak, mainly because you never get the sense the group is lost, and they find their way far too quickly. Not only that, but the minotaur is even dumber in context than he looks in the trailer.

That aside, the movie manages to be enjoyable almost in spite of itself.

Why So Blu?

Just came back from the screening and thought it was okay. I hated the first film, but liked this one. The Blu-ray should look and sound phenomenal!


Ah, and I wouldn't say that the Minotaur looks "dumb" but he was totally underused which knocks my personal rating way down. Still, it's silly-cheesy fun.

Supermallet

Well, I think that not only did the Minotaur look dumb, but it was used poorly and presented no threat.

Giles

interesting...

I really liked the first film, but this one was disappointing. Most of the plot was predictable and some of the dialogue was really bad. They made a huge point of some of the soldiers adding mud and crap onto their bodies and face for the final battle and nothing came out of that fact.

I don't know if Warner's altered the aspect ratio for the IMAX 15/70 version but for IMAX-Digital the 2.35 was changed to 1.78 to be full screen (no black borders above and below the image) - although in the scene with the two headed beast, the attack of the tail did a quick reveal of the 2.35 AR - very odd.

I thought the 3D was very hit and miss, for the most part the fast paced action couldn't deliver any depth.

Why So Blu?

I saw this in 2-D. I never see flicks in 3-D or IMAX unless they're 3-D or contain actual scenes filmed in IMAX. It's a waste of money, IMO.

mdc3000

I saw it in normal Real D 3D and the aspect was 1.78:1, with that one shot of the Chimera tail going down to 2.35 - Is this playing in 2.35:1 in 2D theatres?!

Why So Blu?

Ha, I don't remember. I think it was in 1.85:1, but can't be sure. It didn't look weird or anything, though.

Giles

the trailer in post #1 is in 2.35 - that's why the sudden shift to 2.35 during the Chimera attack was a jarring "oh... what the hell was that??" moment.

Matthew Chmiel

All of Warner's IMAX releases have always retained their OARs.

According to Film Tech, both 2D and 3D versions have a 1.85:1 aspect ratio.

Was the entire scene 2.35:1 or just a shot?

Giles

^ just a shot of the Chimera's tail jutted towards the viewer.

Supermallet

That was done for the "jump out of the screen" 3D effect.

Matthew Chmiel

Well at least they have the balls to do a "coming at ya" gag for a film shot in 2D.

Burnt Thru

This 3D malarkey really is a waste of time isn't it. There were a whole bunch of "point a sharp stick out of the screen" shots in this movie just to make use of the 3D effect, which was pointless and stupid. The only 3D moment which really worked was Zeus' decent to the underworld through a fissure in the ground.

TheMovieman

Well, Clash pulled in $330 million overseas which is no doubt why a sequel was greenlit in the first place.

Mike86

Went to it last night and I enjoyed it. I also didn't think the first one was that bad either though for what it was. People just like to over-analyze everything to death when a movie like this isn't trying to be much more than just a decent fun popcorn movie nothing more, nothing less. I do think I liked Wrath slightly more than I liked Clash though.