Wrath of The Titans (2012)

For anyone who saw the remake of "Clash of The Titans," they will remember it as a lackluster, boring mess with not nearly enough clashing or Titans. It was more like "Mild Scuffle of The Big Things." There didn't seem to be much room for improvement, either, especially after "Immortals" showed us that for some reason Greek mythology about monsters and Gods in titanic struggles for the Universe is generally really, really dull. I don't know what it is about these movies, but they can't seem to get a decent one going. The best case scenario we could hope for with the "Titans" sequel was a certain level of "not sucking."

And I got just that. It didn't suck. It wasn't that great, but it didn't suck.

MEDIOCRE.

 BECAUSE IF YOU'RE TOO GOOD, THEY'LL EXPECT SOMETHING FROM YOU NEXT TIME.

"Wrath of The Titans" starts off about 16 or so years after "Clash of The Titans," and Perseus has gone back to his life as a fisherman and is raising his son since his wife died off camera in between films. In keeping with the story, the Gods are growing weaker since nobody prays to them anymore, and it's getting to the point where they are half a step away from being mortal and dying.

In their desperation, Hades and Ares come up with a plan to get their immortality back by doing something exceedingly silly like releasing Chronos, the ancient creator of the Gods, so that Chronos might grant them their powers again. And of course, Zeus is the only one who remembers that Chronos had tried to kill them all and destroy the Universe before they imprisoned him. One might cut Hades slack by imaging that it had probably seemed like a good idea at the time, but honestly, when the plan goes belly-up like it obviously would, Hades has nobody to blame but himself.

But he seemed like such a trustworthy fellow...

With Zeus imprisoned, Perseus has to save the day like always, and you can pretty much write the story from there. There are no big plot twists or anything not happening like you'd imagine they would. It's pretty par for the course.

So what is it that makes "Wrath of The Titans" better than "Clash of The Titans?" Well, that's an easy answer: Action. The biggest difference between the two movies is that the sequel actually has a decent amount of it. And while some of the same problems plagued "Wrath" as plagued "Clash," they tended to be less and not as frustrating in nature.

I've said that the first film's biggest problem was that it put Perseus up against creatures that were far too powerful. For that reason, Perseus can't really fight them properly, and has to instead go around looking for a one-hit-kill-loophole to exploit, which makes sense, but it tends to undermine the badassery of the hero. I mean, I'll bet Schwarzenegger would have at least found a way to punch the Kraken in the face.

Ngyaaaaah!!! You kill my fatha!! Eeyaaagh!!! Git to da Pegasus!!!

I seriously need to be in charge of all the movies, but my vision may be too much awesome for the public to handle. Anyways.

The good thing about "Wrath" is that Perseus actually does some fighting against things that aren't that ridiculous for him to take on. I mean, true he does fight Ares, the God of War and win at one point, which while a bit out there at least involved swinging swords, punches and headbutts. That's preferable to holding up a Medusa head and saying "Here, look at this." At least he's doing something.

The casting of "Wrath" is held over from the first movie, with Sam "Oh please James Cameron make Avatar 2 and 3 so people will care about me again" Worthington as Perseus, Ralph Fiennes as Hades, and my personal unapologetic man-crush Liam Neeson as Zeus. They're all pretty much the same as last time, only this time Zeus doesn't whine as much, and Hades doesn't wheeze anymore, so improvement all around on that front. Worthington is still way too English to be Greek.

One notable addition to the cast, however, and by far my favorite part of the movie was Bill Nighy popping in to play a crazy old outcast God, Hephaestus. I swear, I could watch that man act all day long. When he's given an odd, quirky character, he turns in some of the most unique performances of anyone I've ever seen every time he shows up. It's quirky yet never annoying.

And no, he's not "The Science Guy." I'm so tired of having to explain that. Watch "Shaun of The Dead" for crying out loud.

 He's quite alright. He ran it under a cold tap.

There were some problems, naturally. The biggest plot hole of the movie involves the final, ultimate destruction of Chronos, which was well within the God's grasp from the beginning...which begs the question why they never used it to finish him off. The other question that sprang to my mind is why nobody is praying to the Gods anymore after the events of "Clash of The Titans." I mean, that was some heavy stuff. Zeus basically came down and said "LISTEN TO ME OR I'LL KILL YOU." That didn't change any minds?

Oh well. I'm just happy something got punched in the face in this movie.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Wrath of The Titans," for all the good things I've said about it, wasn't a great movie. It was just OK. If you liked "Clash of The Titans" for some weird reason, you'll love this because it improves on it in every way. If you hated "Clash of The Titans," well, this one is better. It's not great, but it's better. Recommended for a rental and lowered expectations.

Immortals (2011)

Did you see "300" and think to yourself, "This is cool and all, but couldn't it have less action and more English accents?" Well, here you go.

"Immortals" is admittedly not trying to be "300" exactly, since there is more of an emphasis on plot than flat-out action. It still attempts to capture some the same slow-motion bad-assery that was the trademark of "300," but also tries raise the IQ by having a hero's journey of self-discovery at the same time. And ironically, taking "300" and making it less meat-headed is exactly what makes "Immortals" not as good. The reason for this is because while "300" knew exactly what it wanted to be, "Immortals" kind of wanders about in an unfocused fashion. For this reason, it ends up being far less memorable than "300."

Perhaps a better comparison (and a more forgiving one) would be the remake of "Clash of The Titans." The two films do have a lot in common, and I don't think it's a coincidence that "Immortals" came out before the sequel, "Wrath of The Titans," since the two movies look so similar that I'll bet a lot of people went into "Immortals" thinking they were actually seeing an R-rated "Clash of The Titans" sequel. And honestly, I kind of like that idea.

I'm imagining a series of movies about Greek mythology that weren't interconnected at all, and just doing their own unique thing as opposed to following the same characters again. I think that would make for a sweet series. Heck, you could have a whole series like "Halloween 3: Season of the Witch!" OK, bad example, But it would probably be best to stay as far away from "Clash of The Titans" as possible since that movie was crap.

Maybe if "Wrath of The Titans" sucks too we can just call "Immortals" the unofficial sequel and say "Well, at least the second one was a bit better."

The story of "Immortals" is the story of Theseus, played by Henry Cavill of "The Tudors" fame. He's a peasant secretly chosen by Zeus to be the savior of the world. Or something like that. You see, the world needs saving because Mickey Rourke is out on a rampage looking for a magic bow that would let him rule the world. Or something like that.

OK, so it's not actually Mickey Rourke on a rampage, it's King Hyperion as played by Mickey Rourke, although Mickey Rourke playing himself as a tyrant trying to rule the universe would be pretty awesome. He'd get my vote. Anyways, the Gods can't interfere with mortal affairs, so Theseus is trained to do their dirty work. Or something like that.

The Gods are also training Theseus to make more silly hats for them.

The problem I had with the plot was the fact that I really wasn't clear on what, if anything, Hyperion's plan was. It is foretold that this magic bow would allow him to rule the world, so he basically wages war on the earth in order to find it. Theseus ends up getting it, but our hero, after using the magic bow ONE TIME loses it. It falls into the hands of Hyperion. After that point, Theseus never lays his hands on the bow again.

That's right. This mystical weapon which the movie makes a huge deal out of is used a grand total of a single time by our hero. That's it. He immediately loses it, and the bad guy has it. Thrilling. Glad it was in the movie. But what does the bad guy do after acquiring this weapon which makes him unstoppable, even to the Gods?

I'll give you a guess. Does he: 

A) Lay waste to every capitol and demand the populous bow to him
B) Climb Mount Olympus and kill the Gods
C) Simply flash the bow at people and watch them kneel
D) Release ancient monsters that will destroy the world

If you picked D, the dumbest answer, you'd be correct. Hyperion uses the bow to unleash the Titans, ancient immortals long imprisoned in a mountain. Why he does this is an utter mystery to me, since it seems that ruling over a planet with nothing on it would really suck.

"I wish I knew what the hell I wanted..."

This event also leads to a rather troubling conundrum. Remember when I said Gods couldn't interfere with mortal affairs? There's an ancient law against it or something. That's the reason none of them just go down there and kill Hyperion. In fact, Zeus actually kills Ares because him and Athena went down to earth to get Theseus out of a jam. Of course, he doesn't kill Athena (hypocrite) and in fact, didn't do anything earlier when Poseidon sent a tidal wave to help Theseus (hypocrite). And when the Titans are released, Zeus and all the other Gods suit up and go down to earth and fight them.

Sooooo what was that about not interfering? Why did he kill Ares? Zeus has been giving Theseus kickboxing lessons for his entire life. I'd call that interference. It seems Gods are perfectly capable of doing this all the time with impunity. If I were Ares, I'd be pissed off for being the only person punished for the B.S. that everyone was doing to begin with.

The cast is pretty lukewarm at best. Cavill is annoyingly British for a Greek person, and the token no-personality love interest is little more than a cardboard cutout to be hauled around. Most troubling was Stephen Dorff, whom I had thought was relegated to only being cast in Uwe Boll films. I felt a little bit of vomit work its way up the back of my throat when he showed up as a roguish thief, doing his best Christian Slater impression. I was having wild "Alone In The Dark" flashbacks.

If you stuck a ferret in a bag of garbage and swung it over your head for 20 minutes, then opened up the bag, this is what you would see looking out at you.

Mickey Rourke is menacing enough I suppose, but he can't save the movie by himself. He's trying though, I'll give him that. His problem is that he's a boring villain because I had no idea what his motivations were. He wants to rule the world but he's trying to destroy it too? Is there a plan anywhere in that huge head of his?

But if there is one thing that will make me more upset than anything else, it's when a great actor is cast in a completely useless cameo. Stephen McHattie is in this movie for a grand total of 3 minutes and it was just frustrating, especially when chumps like Stephen Dorff are running around being smug. I've never understood wasting a great actor like that.

Watch "Pontypool." Just do it.

I think the best part of the movie, for me at least, was the ending. If they do decide to make another film, it's got a good lead in. But as is the case with most movies like this, it probably won't get a sequel. Honestly, I can't say I'm too upset about that.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Immortals" wasn't bad, but it wasn't very good either. It's a bloody, R-rated version of "Clash of The Titans," which manages to be a little bit better. If that sounds like a good time, go for it. I can't see watching it again.