I was not a fan of Clash of the Titans remake that was released in 2010. As for the sequel, The Wrath of the Titans, I think I fell asleep in the middle of it — either that, or I just zoned out while thinking about how much I was craving a Twinkie. Ultimately, I have an equal jaded dislike for each of them.

Nonetheless, while clicking through Rotten Tomatoes, I saw that Wrath of the Titans had a 30 percent rating from the critics (I expected worse) and 70 percent rating from the audience. There was an overwhelming amount of green splats in the reviews so I decided to hunt down the red tomatoes to see HOW and WHY people gave this movie a good rating:

Here’s how Jonathan Liebesman of Time Out London started off his review:

Louis Leterrier’s 2010 ‘Clash of the Titans’ remake was a pinnacle in will-this-do multiplex joylessness, clad as it was in mangy post-converted 3D and narrated by Gemma Arterton with all the Sloaney enthusiasm of a Peter Jones cashier ringing up your purchases. A sequel seemed about as uncalled-for as could reasonably be said of a film that grossed £300 million worldwide, yet here it is, with Sam Worthington’s Aussie-accented demigod Perseus and his beardy superiors, Zeus (Liam Neeson) and Hades (Ralph Fiennes), back to pin Greek mythology to the ground and punch the sense right out of it.

That sounded unbelievably pompous. There are TONS of 10 dollar words in there are some self-indulgent references in there (Peter Jones cashier?) Then again, the writer is from Time Out London, so his irritating sophistication is excused. Nonetheless, Liebesman goes on to say: “Replacing Leterrier with South African journeyman Jonathan Liebesman has righted a world of wrongs: crisper effects, tighter pacing and more inspired casting add up to a sword-and-sandals romp that betters not only its predecessor but even the 1981 original ‘Clash of the Titans’ for engaging and boyish silliness.”

He does have a point there. The movie is quite silly and the new director of Wrath worked with what he had and did a good job with all the sparkly CG bells and whistles. Movie critic Roger Moore from McClatchy-Tribune News Service agrees with the new slick look of the movie saying that “the 3-D is a lot better” and that the director and company “give it a lighter touch, a bit of mythic whimsy amongst all the muddle about gods, demigods, the father of gods and the end of the age of gods.” He also said, “3-D fool me once, shame on you, 3-D fool me twice, shame on me?”

Ugh. I am rolling my eyes.

Finally, James Mottram of Total Film ruling that the movie was “Leaner, meaner, and far superior to 2010’s Clash cock-up. From top-grade 3D to a multitude of monsters and a welcome influx of acting talent, this is pure popcorn pleasure.”

Influx of acting talent? I’m not too sure about that, I do agree that Qui-Gon Jinn (a.k.a. Bryan Mills a.k.a. Ra’s Al Ghul a.k.a. Oskar Schindler a.k.a. Liam Neeson) and Lord Voldermort (a.k.a. John Steed a.k.a. Amon Goeth a.k.a. Charles Van Doren a.k.a. Ralph Fiennes) had a lot more to do in this installment, but that combined with the “wrath” of fancy computer stuff did not cause me to go into a cinematic frenzy…but I did like the Pegasus. It was really pretty.

Wrath of the Titans opens in theaters today.