User Score
5.1

Mixed or average reviews- based on 186 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 81 out of 186
  2. Negative: 60 out of 186
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Aug 17, 2013
    4
    The only good thing about this film for me as a reader is i can't predict what will happen next, but the worst part as a reader is I expected that this film will more like the novel, because honestly the novel is so much better. At least just give a little bit effort to make it more like novel.
  2. Sep 7, 2013
    5
    Percy Jackson and the Sea of Monsters is the sequel to the original movie "Lightning Thief," and just as lame. With a different director than the previous film, Sea of Monsters follows the series written by Rick Riordan. By comparison, I read the first book and the matching movie satisfied me, answering questions I had about the novel, on screen. As for this film, I felt that thePercy Jackson and the Sea of Monsters is the sequel to the original movie "Lightning Thief," and just as lame. With a different director than the previous film, Sea of Monsters follows the series written by Rick Riordan. By comparison, I read the first book and the matching movie satisfied me, answering questions I had about the novel, on screen. As for this film, I felt that the combination of bad acting, and false drama, really just ruined my experience watching Sea of Monsters.

    As Percy (Logan Lerman) learns he has a Cyclops brother (Douglas Smith), he is forced to put up with him as they travel to Florida to find his friend Grover (Brandon Jackson). Captured by the half-blood Luke (Jake Abel), who has plans to betray his father and bring back Kronos using the Golden Fleece. It is up to Percy and the gang to save their friend, and the whole Camp Half-Blood.

    I went in to Sea of Monsters not really sure what to expect. The trailers couldn't seem to interest me and I did not hear much in the media about it. I wasn't sure whether I was more interested in the movie, or the guy smoking an e-cigarette in the row in front of me. Between the phoned-in, bad acting, and false sense of urgency in the film, I was definitely not a fan. I could tell the story line was meant to be scary and keeping you on the edge of your seat, but it really did not have that effect on the crowd.

    The movie was overly predictable and overall I was just very unimpressed. Also, I could tell that Sea of Monsters was really trying to make an action fantasy (much like Harry Potter) for kids, and just flat out failed. I noticed that Percy never actually used his Riptide sword on humans in the movie. When he would fight, he would hit the person with the butt of the sword so they could keep the film “PG”. I never knew that slashing a human was way too inappropriate for a child! The false sense of danger never worked for me as no one was ever really in danger.

    Overall I was just as bored with Sea of Monsters as the actors, and felt like it wasn't worth my 110 minutes. Wait for it to air on ABC or HBO and watch it then. As the first movie aired like every other week when it was released, you will have no problem catching it. Following the series, when the next movie is made, I really hope they again change directors, and produce a film worth seeing. Read the books and see the movie in your head as imagined by the writer, and you will have a much better experience.
    Expand
  3. Nov 11, 2013
    4
    Huge step down from the first movie in the franchise. Some parts were funny but the movie doesn't make sense. Why would Poseidon ignore Percy but not Tyson, Percys brother who also happens to be a cyclops. Bringing in Tyson was a bad move as his role was just pointless really. This sequel is not good but also not bad. The fact that it's called "Sea of Monsters" and there's just oneHuge step down from the first movie in the franchise. Some parts were funny but the movie doesn't make sense. Why would Poseidon ignore Percy but not Tyson, Percys brother who also happens to be a cyclops. Bringing in Tyson was a bad move as his role was just pointless really. This sequel is not good but also not bad. The fact that it's called "Sea of Monsters" and there's just one "monster" in the sea just shows how much this movie lacks. Expand
  4. Aug 8, 2013
    4
    The thing with this one is that it missed a lot key points. Tyson doesn't appear like that. Why isn't Clarrise fat. Where the golden fleece is at, there in not part of the book was there an amusement park on the island. Where are the man eating goats. Where is the hamster woman. Chiron looks old while it only takes place one year later. Percy in the book is 13 while in the movie he is 16.The thing with this one is that it missed a lot key points. Tyson doesn't appear like that. Why isn't Clarrise fat. Where the golden fleece is at, there in not part of the book was there an amusement park on the island. Where are the man eating goats. Where is the hamster woman. Chiron looks old while it only takes place one year later. Percy in the book is 13 while in the movie he is 16. I am very disappointed in the movie. I somewhat enjoyed it though. Expand
  5. Oct 3, 2013
    6
    It's a ok movie, but it feels like it is missing some things. The plot was predictable, and the villain was boring and gets on your nerves. Percy also looks like he's 12. But at least it was interesting?!
  6. Dec 24, 2014
    5
    Sea of Monsters is both a step forward and a step backward for the franchise. For the film is well acted, well cast, and well directed. The first half of the film tries to be faithful to the book making the story flow, getting in necessary information, and making up for a lot of the errors made in the last film. All of these smart moves make it frustrating when we get to the second half.Sea of Monsters is both a step forward and a step backward for the franchise. For the film is well acted, well cast, and well directed. The first half of the film tries to be faithful to the book making the story flow, getting in necessary information, and making up for a lot of the errors made in the last film. All of these smart moves make it frustrating when we get to the second half. Luke is reduced to a pathetic and easily beaten villain, the prophecy is poorly explained and handled, the Sea of Monsters is overwhelming despite the build up and title, and the way the climax would be handled it makes you wonder if the filmmakers remember they still have three more books. Nonetheless, this is an improvement over The Lightning Theif giving us something that is more true to the spirit of the book than the predecessor. Don’t know if they’ll get a third film given the poor performance of this film critically and financially but if the franchise keeps improving we may soon get the Percy Jackson film fans want. Expand
  7. Jan 19, 2014
    5
    If you're a fan of the book series (like me) I would easily recommend it. If you haven't read the book, you might want to think twice before renting this. Otherwise it would just confuse you.
  8. Jan 3, 2014
    6
    I never liked either movie from 'Percy Jackson' duology. If it was released 20 years ago it would be considered a good movie but now it is children movie like 'Narnia' series. I am not denying anything about graphics, it was good though but the movie has not pleased me hence I decided to put into an average or below list.

    There's noting much special about the movie to praise. As usual
    I never liked either movie from 'Percy Jackson' duology. If it was released 20 years ago it would be considered a good movie but now it is children movie like 'Narnia' series. I am not denying anything about graphics, it was good though but the movie has not pleased me hence I decided to put into an average or below list.

    There's noting much special about the movie to praise. As usual the young team of demigods who are select begin quest to save their kind from rise of an evil force. So the path they choose to accomplish the mission will get affected by the obstacles which they must face. With all these troubles, takes them to the grand ending where the final exciting visual fx feast comes in a quite nice show.

    Like the first one, I already forgot once I finished watching it. So won't remember much to tell about it, decided to conclude my review of it here itself, right now...! That's it then!!!
    Expand
  9. Dec 3, 2013
    6
    This sequel felt like it was missing some of the magic (and star power) of the first film. The adventure in the film’s story felt pretty sloppy and a lot of the special effects were either decent or just terrible. Logan Lerman gave an extremely flat and lifeless performance and, while the film has some great and fun action sequences, “Sea of Monsters” ultimately felt like a Direct-to-DVDThis sequel felt like it was missing some of the magic (and star power) of the first film. The adventure in the film’s story felt pretty sloppy and a lot of the special effects were either decent or just terrible. Logan Lerman gave an extremely flat and lifeless performance and, while the film has some great and fun action sequences, “Sea of Monsters” ultimately felt like a Direct-to-DVD sequel rather than a film that made it to the theaters. However, Nathan Fillion’s very short role really stole the film. Expand
  10. Nov 28, 2013
    5
    It lacks the commitment from its predecessor and has a smaller scope. Even the CGI is embarrassing and distracts from the otherwise good acting and action.
  11. Jan 27, 2014
    5
    I love the Percy Jackson books. This movie is really nice for the first 30 minutes but after it's long. They should fallow the books, it will be a better movie if they did for the 3rd one. I recommend it if you like the first one, if not don't watch it.
  12. Dec 21, 2013
    5
    The truth is better than the first, but not by much, even so let it wait. There is almost no action and the end is shorter than the first battle between Percy and bull. There are bad special effects and little participation for Stanley Tucci (as in Jack the Giant Slayer), Natthan Fillion (though that appears a little fun) and even Brandon Jackson (one of the principals in the saga of theThe truth is better than the first, but not by much, even so let it wait. There is almost no action and the end is shorter than the first battle between Percy and bull. There are bad special effects and little participation for Stanley Tucci (as in Jack the Giant Slayer), Natthan Fillion (though that appears a little fun) and even Brandon Jackson (one of the principals in the saga of the novel). The good the plot is well suited to the book, that leaves you doubt the end and that makes you crave and see the 3 (or for those who are lazy to read the third book), the direction of Thor Freudenthal is better than Chris Columbus (although the latter is still the producer of the film). The truth that most longed to go see the movie first Kane Chronicles (book by Rick Riordan having Disney cinematographic rights) to go see the third movie in this series. Expand
  13. Feb 4, 2014
    5
    i really enjoyed the first movie but what the hell happened? Annabeth was not herself(she was kick-ass in the first movie) and the whole air of the set has changed the first made it seen like you had gone back in time and i think this one mixed the two and i did not work they should have kept it like the first, my only enjoyment in this film was the new characters mainly Tyson and how hei really enjoyed the first movie but what the hell happened? Annabeth was not herself(she was kick-ass in the first movie) and the whole air of the set has changed the first made it seen like you had gone back in time and i think this one mixed the two and i did not work they should have kept it like the first, my only enjoyment in this film was the new characters mainly Tyson and how he acts like a child and throws Percy and Annabeth and that gave both more depth as characters, if they had not changed Annabeth and the air of the movie then it would have turned out to be as good as the first. Expand
  14. Mar 13, 2014
    5
    so far the sea of monsters was better then the lighting theif but theres no good graphics . of all it is magical and i like it but i did love this film
  15. Apr 18, 2014
    5
    Wasn't as good of the first one. I myself was a fan of the first one but this one just didn't do it for me. There's no point in giving Percy a sword if he's not even going to be able to use it properly so that the movie can stay kid friendly. Action scenes were weak and dragged on too long.
  16. Nov 7, 2014
    5
    It lacks the energy from its predecessor and has a smaller scope. Even the CGI is embarrassing and distracts from the otherwise good acting and action.
  17. Sep 5, 2014
    5
    It doesn't really matter if you red the book series or not. As a huge fan of the books, I red all of them at least twice, and I have to admit: this movie was a fiasco. It feels like either they didn't have enough time to plan the movie or simply weren't prepared for it. The movie just throws characters at you and tries to establish a relation between them and the story. It's ridiculous.It doesn't really matter if you red the book series or not. As a huge fan of the books, I red all of them at least twice, and I have to admit: this movie was a fiasco. It feels like either they didn't have enough time to plan the movie or simply weren't prepared for it. The movie just throws characters at you and tries to establish a relation between them and the story. It's ridiculous. Also, they changed the story in a way that you are not able to actually enjoy it if you read the book. The only thing that saves the movie from having a 4 or 0 score is the way that scenes are made. It feels like they] did their best to make the movie look very cinematic and epic; however, even though it is indeed epic, you can't pay attention to the epicness due to the badly written story. If you didn't read the book - I highly recommend you to read it - , you may find the movie enjoyable, but not as the first movie was. PJ fans, if you didn't watch this movie before, don't watch it now. The first one is better. Expand
Metascore
39

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 33 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 33
  2. Negative: 8 out of 33
  1. Reviewed by: Adam Markovitz
    Aug 9, 2013
    67
    Sarcastic quips and cynical attitudes abound, maybe as a way for the movie's makers to telegraph that they know this is all just so much kid stuff. But if the characters can't muster genuine awe for their adventure, it's a tall order to ask us to do it for them.
  2. Reviewed by: Neil Smith
    Aug 9, 2013
    40
    The final showdown whisks up the requisite excitement, but the open-ended coda feels like an optimistic throw of the dice from the franchise showing meagre signs of Harry Potter longevity.
  3. Reviewed by: Xan Brooks
    Aug 9, 2013
    40
    The kids are charmless, the adults bemused.