300: Rise of an Empire

Now the professional reviewers seemed to pan this before it had any chance. In some ways it happened to the prequel also. As a fan of the prequel I was willing to give this the benefit of the doubt. I'm happy I did but it's not a patch on the original.

We have here a film that focuses on another clan of Greek fighters battling against Xerxes' men, except this time it's on warships, so it's really '300 on the Sea'. Some old faces but the opposing captains of our sides this time are the wonderful Eva Green and the less convincing Sullivan Stapleton.

The film is wall to wall action and you'll be enthralled. It's even more violent than the first. The bad thing is that the dialogue is really poor and the story not as riveting, engrossing and rousing as the first. Say what you like but there's a lot of wonderful points in the first that is what has made it a cult favourite.

If anything the flaws of this highlight just what was best in the old one. The lead ain't no patch on Gerald Butler and is outshone by Eva Green as the temptress Persian battle queen. In fairness to our new lead, he is purposely more human than the old King Leonidas, and is a great warrior without the Spartan attitude. Yet that misses out what was quite a strong point of the previous film.

In many way its a paint by numbers sequel as such (although the timeframe of the film mostly parallels that of the first). If you enjoyed the first and and want more then you'll find it here. For everyone else, probably you won't miss much if you let this one pass by. For me as a fan of the original, it was fair enough but not in the same league as the first.

A feast in so many ways! Unbelievably clear, brilliant photography. Very graphic, but never ceases to amaze. The film is ultimately not as exciting or entertaining as its predecessor, but nevertheless still fascinating. Plot flaws galore, it doesn't quite made sense why Themistokles went to Artemisia's ship, as it seemed like a suicide mission, but the sex scene that subsequently followed was indeed one to behold!

The film does become a bit repetitive and the slow motion overdone, but the eye candy more than compensates for this! Sullivan Stapleton makes a likable hero.

What I really liked about the first movie was that it had a unique feeling never seen before or since. It was like if someone would tell this legendary epic tale around a fire like in old times and while the story was told you had the surreal images like if they came out of the mind of a young lad imagining all this in his head.

This epic effect is completely gone in this one... You never get that feeling no even for a minute. This one is more like the show Spartacus. Of course it was a deception for me but it could still have been a really good movie despite that. They kept the look, the colours, the exaggerated fighting moves, a bit of the mythical stuff and such. At least it still looks like the first one.

The big problems are the poor choice of actors and the fact that the story is pretty lame, unimpressive, boring and banal.

The main actor isn't bad but he's not special in any ways and he really doesn't look Greek, most Greeks don't look Greek, in fact the more they have an important role the less they look Greek. Greeks are not Americans... For example this guy called Hans Matheson... Look him up on IMDb ... He looks like a young British RedCoat or something... Certainly not a Greek soldier...

Anyways... I gave it 7 because being related to the first one still makes it a watchable movie but it sure was a deeply flawed failed sequel.

I didn't intend to review this movie but am doing so because I think a lot of the reviews are really slanted and uncalled for.

A lot of reviews of are calling out historical fallacies and giving the movie 1 star ratings. I think this is completely unjustified. This is entertainment and must be treated as such. HIstory aside, there's more than one element of pure fantasy in this movie, so one hardly expects the historical portrayal to be completely factual.

The storyline is average, the visual effects and action sequences are without doubt state-of-the-art. I generally hate never ending, mindless action sequences but the ones in this flick were quite watchable, there were even a few brilliant moments.

The best part of the movie for me were the characters, I find the Persians far more interesting - Xerses and Artemisia (Eva Green) are both fascinating. And my biggest gripe with this film is that these fascinating personalities didn't really have much to do. Sadly, the 300 franchise thrives mostly on action sequences and plot lines stay on the back-burner, I think that's where the opportunity of making brilliant sequel was lost and the viewer was left with a decent but forgettable action flick.

It'd be remiss of me not to give the gorgeous Eva Green a standalone mention, she looks amazing throughout and more than badass to fit her part. Her presence alone was worth the price of admission.

Is it a 300 prequel, sequel, or set concurrently with the events of 300? Yes. It somehow manages to be all of the above, and manages to come up with a story that leads up to the events of the original and sorta what happens afterwards as well as creating a storyline of what was happening at the same time somewhere else. It's also always fun when original actors return in cameos to reprise their roles to give further character backstory especially the "this is madness!" guy who manages to get a quick story arc.