Metascore
37

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 32 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 32
  2. Negative: 10 out of 32
  1. Reviewed by: James Mottram
    Mar 29, 2012
    80
    Leaner, meaner, and far superior to 2010's Clash cock-up. From top-grade 3D to a multitude of monsters and a welcome influx of acting talent, this is pure popcorn pleasure.
  2. Reviewed by: Bill Goodykoontz
    Mar 28, 2012
    70
    An improvement. Not a gigantic leap forward for cinema but, armed with a new director, a new story and the return of a trying-harder Worthington and good ol' Liam Neeson as a put-upon Zeus, a marked upgrade in quality.
  3. Reviewed by: Steve Persall
    Mar 31, 2012
    67
    An imagined conversation between Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes, after the premiere of Wrath of the Titans...
  4. Reviewed by: Owen Gleiberman
    Mar 29, 2012
    67
    For a movie like Wrath of the Titans, which is basically "Gladiator" crossed with "Lord of the Rings" crossed with a special-effects demo reel (call it Lord of the Rinky-Dink), he's (Worthington) the perfect actor.
  5. Reviewed by: Richard Corliss
    Mar 29, 2012
    60
    Wrath of the Titans, like its predecessor, is a slightly-better-than-OK mashing of one of history's great literary troves: the Greek myths.
  6. Reviewed by: Andrew Barker
    Mar 28, 2012
    60
    It's a mess too, but it's far more defensible as a lazy Sunday lark for those who have just recently outgrown action figures.
  7. Reviewed by: Michelle Orange
    Mar 29, 2012
    55
    It would be a real shame, with this much money and this many effects artists, if there were not a few purely visual wows. Wrath manages exactly two, and not where you might expect.
  8. Reviewed by: James Berardinelli
    Mar 31, 2012
    50
    For those with a burning curiosity to know how "The Lord of the Rings" as directed by Michael Bay might look, Wrath of the Titans provides an idea. This is epic fantasy for teenage boys as only Hollywood can do it: with plenty of grotesque monsters and big explosions replacing characters and narrative.
  9. Reviewed by: Kyle Smith
    Mar 30, 2012
    50
    Wrath of the Titans suggests a franchise that isn't trying very hard, and I don't really expect a sequel. But if it does happen, I fear it'll be even less of an event: "Tiff of the Titans."
  10. Reviewed by: Andy Webster
    Mar 29, 2012
    50
    At least it doesn't take itself too seriously. There are also soldiers, fireballs, smoke and sand. But not much to think about when the dust clears.
  11. Reviewed by: Mick LaSalle
    Mar 29, 2012
    50
    This is a movie in which whole sequences consist of nothing but guys fighting stiff computer images. Such scenes would be boring even were they done well, but these scenes aren't done well.
  12. Reviewed by: Tom Russo
    Mar 29, 2012
    50
    The moments that elevate Wrath above the routine are right in line with Liebesman's "Battle: Los Angeles'' high points: frenetically shot u-r-there combat sequences that feel like the real thing.
  13. Reviewed by: Joe Williams
    Mar 29, 2012
    50
    Considerably better looking than its predecessor, but it's spewing the same old gibberish.
  14. Reviewed by: Roger Ebert
    Mar 28, 2012
    50
    Wrath of the Titans relentlessly wore me down with special effects so overscale compared to the characters in the film that at times the only thing to do was grin.
  15. Reviewed by: Bilge Ebiri
    Mar 31, 2012
    40
    Wrath at least has the good sense to try to have a little fun with its mince-myth premise. It's better than Clash, but it's still not particularly good.
  16. Reviewed by: Peter Bradshaw
    Mar 29, 2012
    40
    Bill Nighy and Toby Kebbell liven things up in the supporting cast.
  17. Reviewed by: Joe Morgenstern
    Mar 29, 2012
    40
    Some of the action sequences, and a few of the performances, are enjoyable enough to make up for the dialogue, which has been upgraded to cheerfully absurd, and the plot, which has been simplified to the point of actual coherence.
  18. Reviewed by: Joshua Rothkopf
    Mar 29, 2012
    40
    All of them slog through countless boring sword-and-sandal skirmishes, none of which feel remotely suspenseful, until the hugeness of it all becomes a mildly passable joke.
  19. Reviewed by: Joe Neumaier
    Mar 29, 2012
    40
    The biggest fault is that comparatively little attention is given to the monsters.
  20. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    Mar 28, 2012
    40
    This is a relentlessly mechanical piece of work that will not or cannot take the imaginative leaps to yield even fleeting moments of awe, wonder or charm.
  21. Reviewed by: Helen O'Hara
    Mar 28, 2012
    40
    If even a tenth of the care and attention lavished on the production design and action sequences had been afforded the script, this could have been an adventure of legendary proportions. As it is, this fizzles whenever anyone opens their mouths.
  22. Reviewed by: Nick Schager
    Mar 28, 2012
    40
    Wrath of the Titans delivers blockbuster bluster with single-minded blandness.
  23. Reviewed by: Staff (Not credited)
    Mar 29, 2012
    38
    Ye gods, there's a lot of hacking and many seismic eruptions in The Wrath of the Titans, the latest 3-D action film that treats the Greek gods as action figures.
  24. Reviewed by: Claudia Puig
    Mar 29, 2012
    38
    Somewhere amid the mind-numbing barrage of action sequences there's a story based on Greek mythology. But its essence is buried amid the clatter.
  25. Reviewed by: David Hiltbrand
    Mar 29, 2012
    38
    Rarely has a film so equally balanced macho and nacho, but Wrath does leave us with a few valuable lessons: a.) fratricide is a nasty business, best left to the Greeks and b) fighting fire with fire may sound good, but it turns out to be a really stupid idea.
  26. Reviewed by: Mark Holcomb
    Mar 31, 2012
    30
    What it lacks are the very elements that made the first movie such a surprise: wit and nerve.
  27. Reviewed by: Mark Olsen
    Mar 29, 2012
    30
    The film lacks inspiration or zest in storytelling, performance or action. This is pure product, a movie desperately without energy or enthusiasm of any kind.
  28. Reviewed by: Marc Savlov
    Mar 28, 2012
    30
    I've always said, "If you've seen one god, you've seen them all," and Wrath of the Titans only serves to underscore my point.
  29. Reviewed by: Peter Travers
    Mar 30, 2012
    25
    This feeble followup to 2010's godawful "Clash of the Titans" sucketh the mighty big one.
  30. Reviewed by: Nathan Rabin
    Mar 29, 2012
    25
    Wrath Of The Titans is shopworn and derivative even by the degraded standards of contemporary blockbuster filmmaking.
  31. Reviewed by: Michael O'Sullivan
    Mar 29, 2012
    12
    The only reason you'll feel any wrath is because you shelled out 12 bucks for this steaming bucket of half-baked plot, cliched dialogue and disappointing 3-D special effects.
  32. Reviewed by: Jaime N. Christley
    Mar 28, 2012
    0
    Made possible by the half a billion dollars Clash of the Titans garnered worldwide, Wrath of the Titans sputters and coughs on the fumes of its own inevitability.
User Score
5.2

Mixed or average reviews- based on 262 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 41 out of 96
  2. Negative: 28 out of 96
  1. Mar 30, 2012
    5
    Although it is a bit of an improvement on the first one, it is still the same damn thing.
  2. Mar 30, 2012
    2
    Notwithstanding its much improved 3-D effects over its predecessor, "Wrath of the Titans" does what people do everyday: looking at a computer screen. What audiences see, even in 3-D, are multi-limbed and headed CGI creatures, "unanimated" and lifeless, being rigidly juxtaposed to real-life people who take swing after swing to their unhuman counterparts, and miss time after time; apparently, as long as a computer image has the appearance of falling and dying onto the ground, the need for the same animated creature looking as if he had "been hit" is not important. Much like a Rocky-Creed bout (only without the use of computers), the punches here don't connect. Essentially, what the audience sees in 'Wrath' is an exhausted use of expensive, yet poor quality, effects that fills the entire length of the film; in the past such effects were used on occassions to "add to" scenes, not to "fill" runtimes. But, don't feel bad because your inexorable sense of exhaustion was surely shared by the actors of the film; you think watching this is bad, what about the actors who had to wave swords against air? With that in mind, it almost makes you feel better doesn't it? Oh, you're right, there's no recovering that wretched theater ticket, popcorn, and drink. Honestly, though, you had to have seen this coming... Full Review »
  3. Mar 30, 2012
    7
    Just got finished watching the midnight showing. I had already read the reviews and saw that it was getting some flack but decided to check it out anyway. I was pleasantly surprised that I walked away doubting the reviewers I had previously read. The movie is a solid action flick, good special effects, and much improved 3D over the original. Overall I feel the pacing was much better than Clash and more intense. The mythology aspect was improved upon as well (although not following much to real mythos), but the involvement of the super natural was a lot heavier. The only real complaints are there wasn't much explanation for the basis of the story or reviving Cronos... It kind of just is happening. The characters weren't too deep, but honestly I wasn't expecting that anyway. Sam Worthington is improved but still so-so. Either way, I was entertained and so was the group I went with. From the discussions overheard after exiting the movie, it seems that the audience as a whole liked it too. Worth checking out if you want to see a fun action flick or enjoy mythology. Full Review »