Wrath of the Titans 2012

Richard Corliss, TIME Magazine: Wrath radiates the straight-forward, straight-faced pleasures of the mytho-muscular epics, like Hercules and Jason and the Argonauts, produced in Europe a half-century ago. Read more

Tom Russo, Boston Globe: [Perseus] just doesn't feel as motivated here. He's Complacent Rocky, when "Wrath'' needs Eye-of-the-Tiger Rocky. At least the 3-D passes muster. Read more

Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle: 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. Read more

Glenn Kenny, MSN Movies: There's little about this picture to really endear the viewer after the whole thing wraps. That said, while it's happening, the sensationalism is, well, pretty sensational Read more

Andy Webster, New York Times: At least it doesn't take itself too seriously. Read more

Joe Morgenstern, Wall Street Journal: When the Titans last clashed two years ago, their dialogue was idiotic, their plot machinations impenetrable and their 3-D process an add-on disaster. The best I can say for this sequel-not such a bad best-is that you'll want to keep your 3-D glasses on. Read more

Claudia Puig, USA Today: While the special effects are sharper than in Clash of the Titans, the dialogue is equally uninspired. Read more

Nathan Rabin, AV Club: As a ragingly inessential sequel to a remake of a film based on Greek mythology, Wrath Of The Titans is shopworn and derivative even by the degraded standards of contemporary blockbuster filmmaking. Read more

Bill Goodykoontz, Arizona Republic: 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. Read more

Mark Olsen, Los Angeles Times: This is pure product, a movie desperately without energy or enthusiasm of any kind. Read more

Tom Long, Detroit News: The good news is: "Wrath" is a much better film than "Clash" - lighter, more agile, with much better special effects and pretty decent 3-D. Read more

Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly: Maybe it's just my imagination, but Sam Worthington seems to be getting slightly less stiff as an actor. He now smiles occasionally, and he's at least risen to the soulful inexpressiveness of the young Ryan O'Neal. Read more

William Goss, Film.com: Doesn't drag in doling out familiar sensations. Read more

Todd McCarthy, Hollywood Reporter: 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. Read more

Randy Myers, San Jose Mercury News: It takes a CliffsNotes approach to mythology, fleecing it of both the drama and the fun. The gods certainly won't be smiling on this one. Read more

Reuben Pereira, Miami Herald: [A] loud and agonizingly dull sequel that inherits all the problems that plagued its predecessor - and then some. Read more

Rafer Guzman, Newsday: This big-budget production will probably look terrific in IMAX, but what you'll mostly see in "Wrath" is the spectacle of Hollywood spending money in all the wrong places. Read more

Joe Neumaier, New York Daily News: The biggest fault is that comparatively little attention is given to the monsters. We see a swish of tail here, a giant foot there, but too often we're denied a lingering look at the destroyers. Read more

Kyle Smith, New York Post: A journey back to an ancient time when gods walked the earth, monsters breathed fire and stout-hearted warriors wore adorable leather cheerleader skirts with strappy gladiator sandals. Read more

David Hiltbrand, Philadelphia Inquirer: Rarely has a film so equally balanced macho and nacho... Read more

James Berardinelli, ReelViews: 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. Read more

Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times: You get an idea of who the major players are, and then they spend a modest amount of time shouting laughable dialogue at one another while being all but forced off the screen by special effects. Read more

Peter Travers, Rolling Stone: This feeble followup to 2010's godawful Clash of the Titans sucketh the mighty big one. Read more

Colin Covert, Minneapolis Star Tribune: Though the film shortchanges us on the promise of its title, providing only one titan, it is overkill in most other regards. Read more

Joe Williams, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: The actual story is incoherent, and the choppily paced movie is too short to develop the characters. Read more

Globe and Mail: The father of the gods turned out to be a CGI-created, lava-spewing, mountain-sized creature with smudgy features and all the eloquence of a belch. Read more

Alonso Duralde, TheWrap: To prefer Wrath of the Titans to its predecessor, the 2010 remake Clash of the Titans, is like saying that a punch in the stomach is better than a knee to the groin. Read more

Guy Lodge, Time Out: The ensuing good-natured idiocy is tempered with wit and self-awareness: the prospect of further additions to this franchise no longer sounds like divine punishment. Read more

Joshua Rothkopf, Time Out: Countless boring sword-and-sandal skirmishes, none of which feel remotely suspenseful, until the hugeness of it all becomes a mildly passable joke. Read more

Peter Howell, Toronto Star: Worthington remains a distinctly humourless hero, which makes you long for the likes of a prime-time Harrison Ford or Arnold Schwarzenegger, who knew how to make a fondue out of cheese. Read more

Jake Coyle, Associated Press: Perhaps Liebesman, whose previous movie was the grim "Battle: Los Angeles," is too drawn to the spectacle of battle to find the balance of camp and seriousness a patently ludicrous film such as "Wrath of Titans" seeks. Read more

Andrew Barker, Variety: 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. Read more

Mark Holcomb, Village Voice: What it lacks are the very elements that made the first movie such a surprise: wit and nerve. Read more