iOS app Android app More

'Wrath Of The Titans' Reviews: What Do Critics Think Of 'Clash' Sequel?

Posted: 03/30/2012 1:31 pm Updated: 03/30/2012 1:33 pm

Wrath Of The Titans

"Wrath of the Titans" arrived in theaters at midnight with significantly less buzz that its predecessor, "Clash of the Titans." The original ("original") "Titans" earned over $2 million from its midnight screenings; "Wrath" pulled down just a smidge over $1 million, meaning the sequel will come well short of the $61 million "Clash of the Titans" earned in April of 2010.

Of course, while the box office results for both films are wildly divergent, the critical response has been just about the same. Both "Clash" and "Wrath" were raked over the coals by film critics. "Clash" had a Rotten Tomatoes rating of just 28 percent, and "Wrath" has so far clocked in at 24 percent.

Ahead, a smattering of the mostly terrible reviews for "Wrath of the Titans" from the nation's top critics.

PHOTOS: "Wrath of the Titans" Reviews

New York Times
1  of  10
Andy Webster from the New York Times (filling in for top critics Manhola Dargis and A.O. Scott, which should tell you all you need about "Wrath") singled out the film's digital prowess: "What you get in abundance, as before, are its true stars: monsters in digital (and in some theaters 3-D) detail, notably a chimera; three huge Cyclopes; Makhai (minions with two heads and torsos); and Kronos himself, a lumbering Gargantua of living lava, all engaged in furious, fairly bloodless PG-13 conflict."

[PHOTO: Warner Bros.]

Also on HuffPost:


Filed by Christopher Rosen  |