Wrath of the Titans

Director: Jonathan Liebesman
Writers: Dan Mazeau, David Johnson, & Greg Berlanti
Actors: Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, Édgar Ramírez, Toby Kebbell, Rosamund Pike, & Bill Nighy
[The cast was a good combination of old faves and fresh news]

Rated PG-13 {probably not a great idea for small children, especially those afraid of monsters}

A sequel to the Clash of the Titans (2010) remake, Wrath of the Titans had a lot on its plate. The most consistent complaint that I have heard about its predecessor was that people wanted to see more titan fighting and less weird mythological story. Surprise! That is exactly what this movie wants to show you for an hour and a half.

WHAT I LIKED

Not only do you get to see Perseus go to town on several titans but you also get to see the gods fight it out like the immortals in Highlander (1986). The graphics used on the landscapes, these guys, and their weapons was awesome, 3D or not. If I had a spear that shot electricity and turned into a thunderbolt I would want for nothing the rest of my life. Also, the two recasts in the movie (Andromeda and Ares) really brought it like they should have been in the first movie.

WHAT I DID NOT LIKE

This movie really lacked story and depth. A plot, which it did have, involved killing off mythology deities and creatures like they needed to be gone... FOREVER! While I liked most of their interpretations of how mythological beings should look, I wasn't crazy about Cronos (or Kronos) being a lava monster. Though when you consider any other incarnations of him (like God of War III) which are painfully bad, he is more than bearable.

Also, *Minor SPOILER* (highlight below to view)

The character Io, played by Alexa Davalos, who was one of the best parts of the first movie, is not in this movie. They show you her grave in the first few minutes. This was frustrating because they had raised her from the dead at the end of the first movie, only for her to die again between movies.

FINAL THOUGHTS

While this movie lacks greatly in story, it is not lacking in content. I enjoyed the 99 minutes of run-stab-run action. I give this movie a C for being entertaining.

WHEN SHOULD YOU SEE IT?

If you are not a Clash of the Titans remake fan then you are probably wasting your money seeing this movie in theaters, unless you get super cheap matinee tickets like me or just love movies with ridiculous premises.


SCORE
Personal Rating: 7 of 10 (C)

Plot: 6 of 10 (who needs story when you have so much fighting... right?)

How does this TS review compare to major reviews?
IMDB 6.6/10
Rotten Tomatoes C-25%/A-70%

CONTENT

Violence: 7 of 10 (there were quite a few flying bodies, and of course punching, throwing and stabbing)

Language/Profanity: 2 of 10 ("Go to hell! That's exactly where I'm headed.", I don't remember much beyond that)

Sexuality/Sensuality: 2 of 10 (innocent romance, there is a single kiss, one character sarcastically claims another has feelings for him)

Spiritual Aspects: 3 of 10 (unless you have a problem with Greek gods and/or their deaths then there isn't much here)

Drugs/Alcohol: 1 of 10 (nothing of consequence)

The Hunger Games

Director: Gary Ross
Writers: Suzanne Collins, Gary Ross, & Billy Ray
Actors: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Stanley Tucci, Elizabeth Banks, & Wes Bentley
[A cast of knowns and well-knowns]

Rated PG-13 {for teens and up}

Based on the first book in Suzanne Collins' popular teen novel trilogy, The Hunger Games had fans worried that more changes than the THE added to its title would destroy their much loved story. This (for the most part) melted away as it broke opening weekend box office records with $152,535,747 in sales, placing it behind the $169,189,427 made by Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011) and the $158,411,483 made by The Dark Knight (2008).

WHAT I LIKED

Many movies could take a lesson from The Hunger Games' use of appropriate violence. Do not misunderstand me. This movie is quite violent, but it shows only what is needed to convey its message, nothing more and nothing less.

Call me a sucker for well designed costumes and sets, but I was quite impressed. Especially with how it played off some really outrageous characters, costumes, and customs as normal. You should see what these people were wearing!

I fell in love with the story in this film. It had so many great elements, so that were new and some that were inspired by other world events or works. I was a bit worried going into the theater that The Hunger Games movie adaption would lean more heavily on elements in other similar and popular stories, like Battle Royale (book-1999, film-2000), that also were adapted into films but luckily it did not.

Most movies involving insidious governments all about injustice and oppression are extremely preaching, like V for Vendetta (2005) and many others, but I was extremely relieved that The Hunger Games avoided this painful and overused rut.

WHAT I DID NOT LIKE

There were several moments in the film that I wished I could hear what the characters were thinking. I am not advocating radio-like voices like the one's in the Speed Racer (1967) tv series. It was obvious, though, that the book could and probably did use these opportunities (at least for the main character, Katniss).

Yet again, I find myself disappointed and distractied by fans of a movie. For your convenience and understanding, I have two divided them into two classes, the purists and the racist purists. While I admit that the purists are not as bad as a group like the Twilight (2008) moms, who were practically killing themselves over a fictional character from a poorly written book quadrilogy, no one wants to hear excessive whining during a movie about something small they would have been oblivious to. Regardless, complaints are made less valid by the fact that the author, Suzanne Collins, was working directly with the makers of the film. The racist purists, however, are a totally different kind of crazy. I admit that when a movie changes something pivotal to a character's development I get a bit nervous, but this mostly out of concern for the original message of the original media. Imagine if Black Dynamite (2009) was a white guy. If the changes are non-impacting or add to the story then I have no problem. It was obvious that they do not share my optimism with their nasty and racist (not to mention highly publicized) comments about some characters being black. Shame on you racist purists! 

FINAL THOUGHTS

This movie was great, but it was not perfect. I give it a B+ for showing all other books-to-film how it should be done.


WHEN SHOULD YOU SEE IT?

It is worth the theater ticket. I would definitely recommend The Hunger Games in whatever form of media is available to you (excluding smoke signal and/or reenactment).


SCORE

Personal Rating: 8 of 10 (B)

Plot: 9 of 10 (definitely possessed those rich book roots that other book adaptions dream of)

How does this TS review compare to major reviews?
IMDB 7.7/10
Rotten Tomatoes C-85%/A-86%

CONTENT

Violence: 7 of 10 (children are forceful taken from their parents to fight in a survival game, a child kills another with a rock, a child is burned, a child is stung to death, a child's neck is broken, a child is poisoned, there is constant weapon combat leading to several sword/knife/spear/bow/etc. deaths, dead bodies are shown but not lingered on, there is a violent riot, and there is an implied forced suicide)

Language/Profanity: 5 of 10 (infrequent use of: "damn", "hell" and "oh my God")

Sexuality/Sensuality: 2 of 10 (a few jealous looks and kisses are exchanged)

Spiritual Aspects: 1 of 10 (nothing worth noting)

Drugs/Alcohol: 4 of 10 (One of the supporting characters is a drunkard, and unidentifiable colored drinks are consumed throughout the movie)

John Carter

Director: Andrew Stanton
Writers: Andrew Stanton, Mark Andrews, & Michael Chabon
Actors: Taylor Kitsch, Lynn Collins, Samantha Morton, Thomas Haden Church, Willem Dafoe, & Mark Strong
[This movie had lots of familiar faces even if you are terrible for names]

Rated PG-13 {definitely a movie for teens and up}

Based on Edgar Rice Burroughs' classic novel "A Princess of Mars", John Carter of Mars showed that deviation from an original source can work if the source is used as an inspiration rather than a fanboy-pleasing crutch. I am, of course, comparing this to a similar Disney experiment, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time (2010), which struggled greatly with complications from its video game series to film conversion. 

WHAT I LIKED

It was very obvious that this movie's budget exceeded 200 million. Contrasting movies like Green Lantern (2011) and Prince of Persia: Sands of Time (2010), which squandered their high budgets with cheesy and even painful CGI, John Carter put those funds to good use with beautiful landscapes and non-distracting CGI.

I was also impressed with the acting in this movie, as others like it have suffered from the unnatural and awkward flirting bug, which I hear some of the fans of the novel wanted.

I absolutely loved this movie's throwback to the classic space opera feel, placing it in with some giants of film like Flash Gordon (1936) and Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977). Besides their vast scope, there is something about these films that is just charming. Needless to say, I left the theater wanting a follow up story.


WHAT I DID NOT LIKE

My only real complaint about this movie is how poorly it was marketed. It was not until the day of its release that I saw a good trailer (embed below) and became interested in seeing it. All other marketing and trailers were painful at best.

FINAL THOUGHTS

This movie definitely surprised me with both its creativity and quality. This movie is easily deserving of a B rating.

WHEN SHOULD YOU SEE IT?

I would definitely recommend as a rental. If you enjoy movies like this then you should consider seeing it in theaters.


SCORE

Personal Rating: 8 of 10 (B)

Plot: 8 of 10 (obviously had book roots)

How does this TS review compare to major reviews?
IMDB 7.0/10
Rotten Tomatoes C-51%/A-69%

CONTENT

Violence: 7 of 10 (it is fairly violent: with constant gun and sword battles, executions, a torture scene, a beheading, a saddening flashback, and skeletons to match)

Language/Profanity: 5 of 10 (there was some: with "hell", "damn", and "goddamn" sprinkled covertly into it)

Sexuality/Sensuality: 5 of 10 (healthy sexuality is show: characters exchange longing looks but do not have sex until they are married, his wife is shown covered in sheets afterward)

Spiritual Aspects: 5 of 10 (this a big issue in the film: as the angel-like bad guys claim they run the show under the guise of a deity, that their powers are technology that isn't for sharing, and that they will do whatever it takes to stay on top)

Drugs/Alcohol: 4 of 10 (John walks into a bar for a drink early in the film, and is shown drinking a few times)