Metascore
39

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 33 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 33
  2. Negative: 11 out of 33
Watch On
  1. Reviewed by: Bilge Ebiri
    Feb 23, 2014
    70
    More fun than any civilization’s fiery extinction should ever be, Paul W.S. Anderson’s Pompeii 3-D is gloriously exciting kitsch – a poor man’s "Titanic" crossed with an even poorer man’s "Gladiator."
  2. Reviewed by: Gary Goldstein
    Feb 20, 2014
    70
    Part sword-and-sandal spectacle, part disaster epic, Pompeii accomplishes its ambitious agenda to largely engrossing effect.
  3. Reviewed by: Ignatiy Vishnevetsky
    Feb 20, 2014
    67
    Fortunately, Pompeii’s second half is tailor-made for Anderson’s established skill set, unfolding over a matter of hours, with many scenes set in and under a gladiatorial amphitheatre that recalls the arenas, subterranean tunnels, and cavernous vessels of Anderson’s best movies.
  4. Reviewed by: Glenn Kenny
    Feb 21, 2014
    63
    This is a surprisingly old-fashioned disaster movie. In point of fact its old-fashioned-ness is really the only surprising thing about this eye-popping 3D spectacle.
  5. Reviewed by: Tom Russo
    Feb 20, 2014
    63
    Anderson’s stab at rendering the Mount Vesuvius catastrophe with a 3-D “Titanic” gloss.
  6. 63
    What Anderson delivers this one time is a genuine spectacle, a gladiator movie with a volcano in the middle of it.
User Score
5.4

Mixed or average reviews- based on 170 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 19 out of 50
  2. Negative: 19 out of 50
  1. Mar 1, 2014
    3
    It wants to be Gladiator + Titanic, but ends up being an empty ripoff of both. The protagonist is a horseman who gets enslaved after his tribeIt wants to be Gladiator + Titanic, but ends up being an empty ripoff of both. The protagonist is a horseman who gets enslaved after his tribe is massacred...and that's it. This being a disaster, people die one by one in exactly the order you expect, with trite, meaningless last lines. The effects look computer generated even in 3D. Historical accuracy is optional.

    The film's high points are eye candy (Kit Harrington or Emily Browning, whichever floats your boat) and the occasional moment where you do get a glimpse of the city itself.

    The low points are a meaningless romance, ludicrously contrived plotting, and dreadful casting. There are a lot of well-known character actors who have no business playing ancient Romans. The film's ending brought unintended laughter to my screening. Just stick to watching Game of Thrones.
    Full Review »
  2. Mar 20, 2014
    10
    i am giving this movie a 10 because i feel it deserves a higher score. after reading a few reviews i felt like i shouldn't bother watchingi am giving this movie a 10 because i feel it deserves a higher score. after reading a few reviews i felt like i shouldn't bother watching this but it was fairly good with amazing cgi and good acting. I may have been forced to like it because of kit harrington but even non game of thrones fans should admit he didnt do a bad job. i would recommend this to people who are interested by history and to people who enjoy watching mass destruction. id defnitley say the story wasnt the best but not terrible. Full Review »
  3. Feb 22, 2014
    0
    Wow, this is just as bad as Legend of Hercules, I mean wow is this bad, the dialogue is laughably bad, the CGI is horrible, the acting isWow, this is just as bad as Legend of Hercules, I mean wow is this bad, the dialogue is laughably bad, the CGI is horrible, the acting is terrible, just don't watch it, it is not worth it. Full Review »