Wrath of the Titans Reviews

  • Wrath of the Titans
    • Genre : Action, Adventure
    • Release Date : March 30, 2012
    • MPAA Rating : PG-13
    • Duration : 99
    • Production Budget : -
    • Studio : Warner Bros. Pictures
    • Official Site : http://www.wrathofthetitans.com/
    • Reviews Rate
      Not quite bad, but it's not recommended either.

    • Readers Rate
Movie Info Trailers Reviews News and Articles Pictures and Stills Premiere Photos DVD Soundtrack Wallpapers

Movie Reviews

  • this wild stylistic heterogeneity extends to the tech credits as well
    by Andrew Barker [Variety ]
  • this perfunctory action-adventure isn't likely to make more than minor waves at the box office
    2 of 5 by Nick Schager [Boxoffice Magazine ]
  • the mercenary desire for money to change hands, at the expense of style, humor, and pleasure
    by Jaime N. Christley [Slant Magazine ]
  • the effects are impressive but wasted in the service of a silly, so-what? story
    2 of 5 by Henry Fitzherbert [Daily Express ]
  • the biggest fault is that comparatively little attention is given to the monsters
    2 of 5 by Joe Neumaier [New York Daily News ]
  • still it's worth a watch for some stunning scenes
    3 of 5 by Tim Evans [Sky Movies ]
  • sonically as well as visually
    by Glenn Kenny [MSN Movies ]
  • some special effects have improved, most notably a fiery climactic battle along with the 3-D
    1.5 of 4 by Randy Myers [San Jose Mercury News ]
  • slightly-better-than-OK mashing of one of history's great literary troves: the Greek myths
    by Richard Corliss [TIME Magazine ]
  • no great shakes but a lot more entertaining than its predecessor
    3.5 of 5 by Bill Goodykoontz [Arizona Republic ]
  • light on dramatic characterization, sticking to blunt moral lessons and fantastical battles to tell its epic tale
    2.5 of 5 by Matt Patches [Hollywood.com ]
  • frenetically shot u-r-there combat sequences that feel like the real thing
    2 of 4 by Tom Russo [Boston Globe ]
  • certainly more fun, in its solemnly junky way, than John Carter
    Review rate : B- by Owen Gleiberman [Entertainment Weekly ]
  • begin with a dusty, murky pictorial confusion, not helped by dim underworld scenes
    2 of 4 by Roger Ebert [Chicago Sun-Times ]
  • at the screening caught, image brightness was diminished only slightly through the 3D glasses
    by Todd McCarthy [Hollywood Reporter ]
  • a lot better than its predecessor because of a few key performances
    1.5 of 4 by Claudia Puig [USA Today ]

Reader's Reviews