300 - L'alba di un impero

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

Making a sequel to 300 must have been a daunting prospect. After all, the story of the Battle of Thermopylae was a self-contained war film with a very definitive ending seemingly at odds with the idea of a sequel. However, the makers of 300: RISE OF AN EMPIRE have done a good job with this film, which offers more of the same while something different at the same time.

300: RISE OF AN EMPIRE is a deeply flawed film with plenty of problems, but nonetheless I enjoyed it. The film is packed full of war action - with a distinctive naval slant this time around - filmed in the same highly stylised way as in the first film. Thus we get lots of CGI blood sprays, slow motion hits, and superhuman feats. I'm easily pleased when it comes to well directed action, and this film doesn't disappoint in that respect.

Although the central characters lack the gravitas of Gerard Butler, Vincent Regan, and Michael Fassbender from the original film - and Sullivan Stapleton as the protagonist is seemingly devoid of charisma - this film does boast an excellent villainous performance from Eva Green. Green seems to be giving her all with her character in this one, relishing the opportunity to play a hard-bitten, ass-kicking female commander. She's by far the best character in the thing.

Elsewhere, RISE OF AN EMPIRE has some prequel stuff showing the rise of the Persian god king Xerxes, some concurrent stuff (a CGI composite of Butler is brought back in the same way they brought Schwarzenegger back in TERMINATOR SALVATION) and sequel antics. Unfortunately the storyline is very predictable and Lena Headey's character shouldn't have been included at all. But there are some spectacular set-pieces here, particularly the fiery attack in the water, and as mindless action it works well.

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.

How the hell did the producers manage to take a superb movie and savagely sodomize it with this emetic sequel.. Bloody hell.

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.