300 : La Naissance d'un empire

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.

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 can't understand why Zack Snyder didn't direct this sequel, and how someone who has never directed an action sequence before and just one feature film can be entrusted with a production of this magnitude. That would already be a recipe for disaster, even though in reality Snyder was supervising.

In an attempt to live up to it's predecessor, 300: Rise of An Empire is action-packed, presents impressive visuals and is very bloody. In fact there is more action, more blood, and more nudity than in the original 300. As for the plot, there really isn't much to chew on. A naval commander, Themistocles is supposedly trying to reunite Greece. Since the story takes place before, during and after King Leonidas leads his men to fight the Persians, it can be hard to follow at times.

Most of the acting was mediocre and couldn't quite compensate for the weaknesses in the story. The Australian actor cast as Themistocles in my opinion was a very bad choice, and comes nowhere close to what Gerard Butler did as King Leonidas in 300. He just doesn't bring that rugged heroic presence on screen as is expected. Interestingly I read somewhere that director Noam Murro insisted it would be Sullivan Stapleton who played this character, claiming he was 'the one'. Eva Green on the other hand is plays an excellent villain as Artemisia.

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.

Not as good as the first one, but still watchable.