Read Mixed User Reviews for 300: Rise of an Empire

5

grandpajoe6191Aug 27, 2015

"300: Rise Of An Empire" is a carbon copy of its enjoyable predecessor as it drains what made the first movie so great and injects overly-used slow mo sequences, droll before-battle pep talks, and excessive gore to suck out the juice in the"300: Rise Of An Empire" is a carbon copy of its enjoyable predecessor as it drains what made the first movie so great and injects overly-used slow mo sequences, droll before-battle pep talks, and excessive gore to suck out the juice in the brains of the audience.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

4

DalekJul 25, 2014

It took them seven years to make a sequel. There isn't much to say about this film. It's disappointing. The storyline isn't really anything interesting because its pretty much the typical revenge **** like in almost every other film thatsIt took them seven years to make a sequel. There isn't much to say about this film. It's disappointing. The storyline isn't really anything interesting because its pretty much the typical revenge **** like in almost every other film thats being released nowadays, the characters are boring, they're the standard characters wanting vengeance, and the CGI is insanely bad. At some points it actually felt like I was looking at video game gameplay...

As a comparison as this film has large battle sequences, Lord of The Rings budget was $93 Million and the budget for this (ROAE) was $110 Million. A film from 2001 had more believable CGI then a film from 2014, and I'm not even a fan of Lord of The Rings.

Of course, they're making another sequel for this film when they could had easily just made this film another 30-40 minutes, then it would had been the end of it... Either way, I hope they do a better job next time. Although, what do we expect digging out a sequel to a 7 year old film? It'll probably be another 5 years for the sequel.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

5

AlexanderLuthorAug 1, 2014

This sequel simply cannot stand up to the original. I'm fine with a little dramatic licence with fight scenes or the historical narrative, but this film drifted far beyond the point of suspended belief.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

5

HISHEhebJul 8, 2014

אם אהבתם את הסרט הראשון מהסיבות הנכונות, אתם לא תאהבו ואפילו תשנאו את הסרט הזה, אבל אם מה שאהבתם בסרט הראשון זה את האפקטים הדם והקרבות ולא הבנתם את הנקודה בסרט הקודם אתם תאהבו גם את זה ויכול להיות שגם יותר מהקודם. אבל עדיין יש שם כמה דבריםאם אהבתם את הסרט הראשון מהסיבות הנכונות, אתם לא תאהבו ואפילו תשנאו את הסרט הזה, אבל אם מה שאהבתם בסרט הראשון זה את האפקטים הדם והקרבות ולא הבנתם את הנקודה בסרט הקודם אתם תאהבו גם את זה ויכול להיות שגם יותר מהקודם. אבל עדיין יש שם כמה דברים טובים כמו זה שהם לפחות לא הרסו את הדמויות הישנות ועדיין מרגישים ב-480 לפנהס… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

5

MovieMasterEddyApr 6, 2016

Classical historians disagree, but it was probably Herodotus who first posed a question that would ring out across the ages, unanswered till now: Wouldn’t Eva Green look awesome kissing the severed head of an insolent captive? “300: Rise ofClassical historians disagree, but it was probably Herodotus who first posed a question that would ring out across the ages, unanswered till now: Wouldn’t Eva Green look awesome kissing the severed head of an insolent captive? “300: Rise of an Empire” puts the issue to rest (the answer: yes, but it’ll never last) and strives to uphold the rah-rah style of visuals and rhetoric established by its popular predecessor, “300.”

Greece — or its tightly rendered, color-constrained graphic equivalent — is again in danger, but the battles in this contemporary sequel center on the sea. Free city-states are mustering a defense against the Persian invaders and their myriad ships, under ever-darkening prospects (and skies).

Unlike the death-cult Spartans, led to war in the earlier film by Gerard Butler in a performance that unleashed a thousand meme variations, this motley crew of slightly less chiseled Greeks follows the less inspiring, or, at any rate, less shouty, Themistokles (Sullivan Stapleton of “Gangster Squad” and the TV show “Strike Back”).

The hacking and impalement of ancient combat still yield gore that defies gravity and invites our delectation in the obligatory money-shot slow-motion. But the bigger mortal threat to manliness lies in the Persians’ vicious naval commander, Artemisia (Ms. Green), impossibly willowy and virtually dripping black, like an Aubrey Beardsley drawing.

A Greek who suffered horrifically at the hands of warring countrymen, she’s revealed as the éminence grise behind Xerxes (swaggeringly reprised by Rodrigo Santoro), though Ms. Green sometimes suggests cruel hauteur more often than she puts it across. Meanwhile, the Persian emperor’s origin story — his transformation into a bejeweled, manscaped god-king — is revealed, in a process evoking a brisk dip in molten gold.

The naval collisions and melees play out in panel-like renderings that are bold and satisfying for the first half-hour but lack the momentum and bombastic je ne sais quoi of “300.” Someone was also apparently worried that the film’s depth of field wouldn’t come across, judging from the ubiquitous particles suspended in the air, as if some unseen Greek had just dusted. (The director, Noam Murro, who has primarily specialized in commercials, took over from Zack Snyder this time. Mr. Snyder wrote the screenplay with Kurt Johnstad from Frank Miller’s graphic novel “Xerxes.”)

Strategically speaking, the Greeks’ underdog maneuvers work, until they don’t, while the Persians are unstoppable, until they aren’t. Themistokles supplies a politician’s skeptical perspective on the Spartans, while a brave father-son duo serve to personalize the notion of self-sacrifice with regular check-ins.

It might also be added that the film arrives at a somewhat different, less freshly besieged era than “300,” released in 2007. But the political climate might matter less than the over-the-top example of faux period excess provided by several seasons of “Game of Thrones.”

That show’s bedroom maneuvers might have influenced a pivotal scene in which the long, rivalrous gazes across the sea between Themistokles and Artemisia lead to their finally getting a room. In the telling aftermath, the ruthless Persian commander is more or less recast as a woman scorned, ultimately leaving Greece, and everyone’s machismo, mostly intact.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

4

drewstroyerApr 5, 2014

Tries much too hard to reproduce the successes of the original, but falls short in nearly every way. There were a few cool action moments as they fight on the sea, but the plot is totally uninteresting and the characters are too cliche toTries much too hard to reproduce the successes of the original, but falls short in nearly every way. There were a few cool action moments as they fight on the sea, but the plot is totally uninteresting and the characters are too cliche to like. I might have been able to enjoy it as a short action/semi-hero movie with style, but it took itself much too seriously to enjoy it. It seems to drag on and on, trying to produce depth that it just didn't have. It took too long to tell a story, and the story was too cliche and uninteresting to be the focal point. Pass.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

4

UnurautareMay 3, 2014

The only reason I'm not giving this a 0 or a 1 is because of the sexy jew actress, the movie is horrible otherwise and not worth watching, she makes the movie barely watchable, otherwise it would have been an even larger fail.

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

5

foxgroveMar 7, 2014

This visual and stylistic exercise in blood letting turns out to be not quite as good as the original 300. Some concise narration at the beginning sets the scene, but the story matters little. Basically this is the formula as before, the mainThis visual and stylistic exercise in blood letting turns out to be not quite as good as the original 300. Some concise narration at the beginning sets the scene, but the story matters little. Basically this is the formula as before, the main difference being that most of the battles here take place on the sea rather than on land. Production Design vies with CGI for attention and continues to blur the line between these two crafts. Likewise, the somewhat bombastic score competes with Dolby sound. The one thing of which the film cannot be accused is to not have used all the technologies at its disposal. Viewed in an IMAX format and in 3D (D Box was also an additional option) the film is certainly a feast for the eye and ear. The speed ramping gimmick is again employed to enhance the dubious enjoyment of torn flesh, severed limbs and lashings of blood flying off the screen. One thing is for sure, subtlety was obviously not discovered in THIS century.

Acting wise, Eva Green steals the film and she has an erotically charged scene of sexual power play with leading man Sullivan Stapleton (Strike Back) which is also as camp as Christmas. The combination is somewhat disconcerting, not to mention rather funny.
For all its faults, though, there can be no denying that this is a visually stunning achievement. A short underwater dream sequence also impresses as, in fact, do all the under water shots. However, like its predecessor, an inevitable repetitiveness allows one to become anaesthetised to events which by turn become ever so slightly monotonous.… Expand

6 of 10 users found this helpful64

All this user's reviews

4

Carmy39Mar 16, 2014

This movie was a huge disappointment, because I fell so much in love with the first one. The actors and actresses in the first one were way more passionate and believably intense. It was boring the fighting seemed unrealistic and sort ofThis movie was a huge disappointment, because I fell so much in love with the first one. The actors and actresses in the first one were way more passionate and believably intense. It was boring the fighting seemed unrealistic and sort of video gamish. The blood looked fake. Just wasn't impressed… Expand

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

5

craneo98Mar 8, 2014

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Dissapointment
This new movie of 300 is a big dissaster, the screenplay is HUGE dissaster in many parts it has no sense. One thing it really surprise me, was the part Artemisia had brown eyes and later her eyes were completely blue. The direction in charge of Noam Murro is a regular performance. The effects of 300 and 300 Rise of an Empire have no difference between them. This film is only another movie… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

5

choc_raisinsMar 23, 2014

In order for us, the viewers, to understand the appeal and validity of 300: Rise Of An Empire, it is important to remember its roots. If you bear the original in mind, and then ask yourself what progress has been made in the form ofIn order for us, the viewers, to understand the appeal and validity of 300: Rise Of An Empire, it is important to remember its roots. If you bear the original in mind, and then ask yourself what progress has been made in the form of storytelling, visual invention, direction, action and scripting between this and that, then you might start to form an answer as to why this is not as great as some have claimed, all on your own.

Telling partly the same story as the original film, but changing the perspective is a nice idea, if for no other reason than the possibility of maybe witnessing something previously unseen from Leonidus' adventures the last time around. Unfortunately, there is no new appearance from Gerard Butler here, but many of the previous cast do make welcome returns. Lena Headey's Queen Gorgo, to the now ex-King Leonidus, is just as beautiful, bullish, stubborn and independently oligarchical as ever, but probably features even less than the first outing. David Wenham is back again as Dilios, the one that got away, returning to Sparta to tell the tales of valour, courage and sacrifice that the original three hundred achieved in their battle with the god-king Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro), who is also back, having flesh added to a character that was sorely lacking a backstory the first time around.

But the real focus of this new adventure (or new version of an old story with added opinion) concentrates on the leader of the Athenian fleet. Yes, ladies and gentlemen please welcome Sullivan Stapleton, as the difficult to pronounce and even trickier to spell Themistocles. And any new hero really needs a new adversary, so as if fighting the entire Persian Army and a King (who is also a God, don't forget), we are introduced to the testicle-shrivelling Artemisia played by Eva Green. Artemisia, the real power behind Xerxes' throne is rampant, driven, single-minded and extremely dangerous. Femme fatales don't come much more 'fatale' than this here **** from hell.

But for all of the new faces and mostly welcome old ones, what is it we really have here? The same comic-book stylised battles, ad-infinitum, slow-motion death throes, spattered scarlet aplenty, interspersed with rousing speeches and verbal sparring. Like its parent, Rise Of An Empire is beautful to look at and grand and glorious in scale and intent. But strip from it the eye-candy, which is incase we forget, the real appeal of the original, we are left with a passable script and less enthralling acting than before. Eva Green's performance as Artemisia is probably the most interesting, if not the most rounded. Lena Headey's return as Gorgo is the most fulfilling, but she has the fortunate happenstance of not having to carry the entire film on her shoulders. Aussie Stapleton however, is responsible for the rise or fall of his fleet and the film and honestly, you have to question whether he has the same presence as the formidable Butler as Leonidus. There will be no 'THIS IS SPARTA!!' quotes this time around, I'd wager.

In summary, an average return that thankfully doesn't undewhelm visually, but fails to really add anything but previously missing plot holes in a story we have already seen before. With some interesting, if not altogether satisfying characters, Rise Of An Empire is a sickly thrill a minute, but like a decent sweet and sour chicken, you'll probably be hungry again in half an hour.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

4

SimpleMethodMar 11, 2014

It was okay. I found 300: Rise of an Empire to be somewhat entertaining, but somehow the blood effects are even less realistic than those in the original 300. The cast is also quite pale compared to the original(Gerard Butler, MichaelIt was okay. I found 300: Rise of an Empire to be somewhat entertaining, but somehow the blood effects are even less realistic than those in the original 300. The cast is also quite pale compared to the original(Gerard Butler, Michael Fassbender, etc.) Eva Green was really over the top but I suppose in a good way. I don't really think it's necessary to see in theaters.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

6

jppl1999Mar 17, 2014

Interesting movie. It just shows what 300 is all about in a movie with non-significant mistakes in the development, showing a nice background and a story with some problems at the moment of showing the meanness gore during the majority of theInteresting movie. It just shows what 300 is all about in a movie with non-significant mistakes in the development, showing a nice background and a story with some problems at the moment of showing the meanness gore during the majority of the movie with unnecessary slow motion and fake blood effects, but at last its saved by Eva Green's performance, with a deep and complete character that is enjoyable to watch.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

4

Fostin4Jun 19, 2014

-Blood effects were "overdone"
-Fighting looked very unreal almost like a videogame and didn't fit the theme of the movie
-This movie is clear example of why moviemakers should not abuse CGI as it destroys the immersiveness and no one-Blood effects were "overdone"
-Fighting looked very unreal almost like a videogame and didn't fit the theme of the movie
-This movie is clear example of why moviemakers should not abuse CGI as it destroys the immersiveness and
no one takes it seriously for instance how can a skinny female slice through piles of armoured warrior in one stoke and pour gallons of blood.What a joke of a movie.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

6

KovacsBowmanJun 15, 2014

Having only seen the briefest of trailers for 300: Rise of an Empire I was not too sure what to expect. (Even with the title hints)

The follow up to 300 turns out to be set at the same time as the first film, only your seeing battles beingHaving only seen the briefest of trailers for 300: Rise of an Empire I was not too sure what to expect. (Even with the title hints)

The follow up to 300 turns out to be set at the same time as the first film, only your seeing battles being fought mainly on the open waves. Quality wise, this film is on the same par as the first one, with great CGI and the same stylised scenes.

However the story has a little less backbone, clutching at straws at certain times. That's not to say the story is terrible, just not as deep. You are introduced to several new characters and some old ones which end up being your main focus of this film.

You still get the same level of violence as you did in 300, only this time its a little unnecessary. Far too many blood gurgling scenes with unrealistic blood letting, which add nothing to the film or story. The level of swearing has also been ramped up, although i'm undecided if this is a good or a negative thing as far to often in films you find either the swearing missing or too extreme for the actions on screen. Maybe Rise of an Empire got this level just about right?

Either way this is not a film for little ones or for a quiet night in watching a film with the wife.

Overall, the film is worth a rent if you have seen the first one. But don't expect the same quality of film here.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

6

bmaster4616Mar 8, 2014

When going into a 300 movie, you don't expect it to me smart as hell and the best movie ever. However, you walk into it thinking at least it will be dumb fun. This was dumb fun during the fight scenes and the other scenes were taken tooWhen going into a 300 movie, you don't expect it to me smart as hell and the best movie ever. However, you walk into it thinking at least it will be dumb fun. This was dumb fun during the fight scenes and the other scenes were taken too seriously. It was as if the director wanted it to be smart, but used silly characters and quite silly premise. It also had a creatures that were quite silly and unnecessary as well. Unlike the original, where the creatures were pretty human and didn't seem too far fetched. These seemed useless.

The special effects were impressive and the comic book feel was rewarding. It was just dogged down by quite lame action scenes with the fighters seeming supper hero. Though this really wasn't a negative, because its a war movie and I should have suspected that. The special effects though of the fighting seemed fake. Almost like a video game or Matrix reloaded when he fought all the Smiths. The fight scenes wasn't too bad, but wasn't as good as the original. I don't want a movie like this to be completely factional correct, but something like the formation of Spartans, the random idea for the Persians to back themselves into a corner, and even the use of slaves wasn't rewarding.

Overall the movie wasn't too bad and it seemed like it could have been worse. Though scenes like the random sex scene were useless things in the movie. Things that could have been approved and or left out. Overall I wasn't angry at the movie and don't really consider it a score. I would give it a 6.5/10… Expand

3 of 8 users found this helpful35

All this user's reviews

4

BuddahMar 8, 2014

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Meh is how best to describe this sequel. I saw the Double Feature of the two 300 movies on Thursday evening, and I was left wanting. Being a big fan of the 1st movie, I went in with little expectations to return this obvious money making opportunity into a worthy sequel. They did try to capitalize on 2 of the best features of the first movie, which was war strategy with amazing looking graphics. The first movie was battle on land, and the sequel is on water. What it fails to bring back was good characters to root for.

SPOILER:

There is an odd aggressive sex scene with our hero and the evil warrioress of the sea, and it makes little sense. Even if she is quite sexy, and I did not balk at seeing more of her, it seemed to be added to appease a portion of the audience who needed a break from the violence and bad character development. The hero was just not the same after that, and how could you as a movie goer want to root for his success after succumbing to his pent-up prostate? Sure he has had dating problems, but he decided to marry Greece and as soon as someone flashes a leg, our hero decides to be unfaithful to his motherland? Come on Dude!

The rest of the movie tried to overcome the messy script with memorable fight scenes, Unfortunately for me, I just watched the 1st movie back to back, and there was little original in the 2nd movie to allow me to enjoy it fully. It isn't a bad movie, it just lacks that emotional connection we need with the characters, and that ultimately is the flaw. Even though the fights were the same, it is the slow-motion sequence of the fights and the over the top speeches that made you enjoy the first 300 movie. If you want more of that, then unplug your brain for 2 hours and enjoy.… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

5

HiradGorgorothMar 8, 2014

it's not Historically accurate nor logically making sense kinda movie , but for those who like a good 3d , it can be enjoyable. overall good footage but a bad story

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

5

evanrmMar 10, 2014

Rubbish film, but who knew that Eva Green had such nice breasts? At least the first film presented a plausible idea that 300 could fight off thousands in a confined space, but thousands of ships against twenty? Stupid, stupid, stupid. AndRubbish film, but who knew that Eva Green had such nice breasts? At least the first film presented a plausible idea that 300 could fight off thousands in a confined space, but thousands of ships against twenty? Stupid, stupid, stupid. And while they're doing this, everyone just stands around on ships with no defences. No one fires arrows at each other; they just wait and try to ram ships.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

6

ViperspiderJun 6, 2014

It ended just as it was getting interesting. Lots of flashy slow-mo bits and action, but it left me wanting more.

Also the immortals' combat sequence were obviously done in CGI, their movements were unrealistic and they stood out a bit, itIt ended just as it was getting interesting. Lots of flashy slow-mo bits and action, but it left me wanting more.

Also the immortals' combat sequence were obviously done in CGI, their movements were unrealistic and they stood out a bit, it was also a bit annoying how the Athenians' combat skill completely disappeared when fighting the immortals. I know it's necessary to show a skill gap, but come on..… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

5

Brutus54Apr 3, 2014

Not very good, really. Not even as good as the first movie, and that wasn't that amazing, even though it was fun. The violence here becomes repetitive and mechanical, and the whole thing becomes draggy and portentious. And too long. Some ofNot very good, really. Not even as good as the first movie, and that wasn't that amazing, even though it was fun. The violence here becomes repetitive and mechanical, and the whole thing becomes draggy and portentious. And too long. Some of the actors are OK (Green), though there are certainly wooden performances as well. The sequences involving Sparta (and the tedious Spartan will-we, won't-we join in dynamic) were particularly disjointed, for some reason. Special ridicule should be reserved for the cavalry charge at sea, which wins the award for the stupid spectacle for spectacle's sake approach to stretching movies out pointlessly. Some good action sequences, but overall, a bit disappointing. Expect another sequel, though.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

6

tcaino74Mar 31, 2014

300 Rise of an Empire is an aesthetically pleasing film. The battles scenes and setting are visually stunning. For me the story does fall flat, and the characters with an exception of one or two are very generic and predictable. You see300 Rise of an Empire is an aesthetically pleasing film. The battles scenes and setting are visually stunning. For me the story does fall flat, and the characters with an exception of one or two are very generic and predictable. You see this movie for the battle scenes and they don't disappoint. Not as groundbreaking as the first but still worth a watch… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

5

jaunetajabeMar 8, 2014

There is a big lack of immersion, the story is not well connected with the real historical events, the sea battles are dark and short, not really a good film!
The beginning is really nice but later is going down minute by minute!

2 of 8 users found this helpful26

All this user's reviews

6

TVJerryMar 11, 2014

This adaptation of Frank Miller’s graphic novel tells the story of greatly-outnumbered Greeks who valiantly fight the Persian hordes, this time mostly on water. The style is operatic: full of grand dramatic moments, oversized emotions andThis adaptation of Frank Miller’s graphic novel tells the story of greatly-outnumbered Greeks who valiantly fight the Persian hordes, this time mostly on water. The style is operatic: full of grand dramatic moments, oversized emotions and dazzling violent ballets. The animated visuals are beautiful and thick (with lots more slomo blood this time). It's more amped up than the original and features two women in the battles, but it's still the same style with pretentious dialogue and highly stylized action.… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

6

lordslayerMar 9, 2014

It lacks the unworldly mythologies of the first title, but its spectacular animation will still be entertaining enough. 300: Rise of an Empire is the prequel, event in between and also sequel of 300, this might be overreaching as itIt lacks the unworldly mythologies of the first title, but its spectacular animation will still be entertaining enough. 300: Rise of an Empire is the prequel, event in between and also sequel of 300, this might be overreaching as it cumbersomely tries to tell wider scale background of the war. Eva Green was amazing as the Nemesis, and the lil background story did good to the character, however, 300 was Epic because of the Spartans. an almost invincible breed of warriors. Leonidas was also way charismatic than whatever Stapleton delivered... Sadly this movie is 90% about Greeks fighting.. and for that, i reckon you're better off watching Troy.… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

5

GodReviewsMar 7, 2014

Big disappointment.. The beginning of the movie starts off great and interesting but the movie gets terribly written lines, boring action sequences, some atrocious acting, and a bland story. What saved me from giving this movie a lower scoreBig disappointment.. The beginning of the movie starts off great and interesting but the movie gets terribly written lines, boring action sequences, some atrocious acting, and a bland story. What saved me from giving this movie a lower score is: Eva Green's outstanding performance, stunning visuals, and the beginning's interesting sequences. The movie got quickly boring and I was about to fall asleep in the last 3rd part of the movie. Also, this movie doesn't even have an ending pretty much. Just a cliffhanger in a way. Doesn't even show what happens! How does a movie do this? If Hollywood is considering a sequel, then they better think of a better concept, story, and better actors/actresses like Eva Green. 5/10… Expand

1 of 6 users found this helpful15

All this user's reviews

6

BikerjamesMar 9, 2014

First the good news. It's a great looking film, and Eva Green was one bad ass chick. On the flip side, the leading man did not have the charisma of Gerard Butler from the first film. The battles get tiresome after awhile, as there is onlyFirst the good news. It's a great looking film, and Eva Green was one bad ass chick. On the flip side, the leading man did not have the charisma of Gerard Butler from the first film. The battles get tiresome after awhile, as there is only so many ways you can stab and slice people with a sword. Not a horrible film thanks to its look, but not a Blu-ray purchase either.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

5

TheQuietGamerAug 21, 2014

This sequel takes the battle to the seas with all of the gory, slow-motion action you would expect. However outside of Eva Green and an impressive visual style the movie fails to include anything really entertaining. Leaving this blood-bathThis sequel takes the battle to the seas with all of the gory, slow-motion action you would expect. However outside of Eva Green and an impressive visual style the movie fails to include anything really entertaining. Leaving this blood-bath feeling like a waste of time that only serves to exist to set up a 3rd "300" movie.

It's Eva Green who makes the movie even remotely worth watching. Her performance is excellent as always, and she once again captures a near-perfect combination of darkness and sexiness with her character. It's just a shame that everything around her is so lackluster. The plotting suffers because none of it's Greek characters, the ones we're supposed to be rooting for, are any good. Lead Sullivan Stapleton does the best with what he is given, but his character is too weak in the personality department to hold the film up.

With the action feeling dull, uninteresting, and filled with WAY too much slow-mo everything falls on the back of Green to keep this war afloat. Unfortunately not even she can save it from sinking into the bottom of the ocean of mediocrity. The only thing I can say is see it for Green or don't see it at all.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

SkulbApr 16, 2014

Not the worst movie I`ve seen. Visually I liked it, although I understand the criticism of it. It really is more like a series of paintings than a conventional movie; seeking to capture the style of the comic book from which the storyNot the worst movie I`ve seen. Visually I liked it, although I understand the criticism of it. It really is more like a series of paintings than a conventional movie; seeking to capture the style of the comic book from which the story originates. As with the original 300 most of the historical anecdotes from Herodotus are there, sort of, with a lot of Miller`s creative twists added in. Nothing is historically accurate per say, but then not too many things are entirely made up either, with the notable exception of the Spartans appearing at Salamis rather than Plataiai. Perhaps I should rephrase and say that not too many narrative elements are made up, while a lot of the more...decorative stuff is made up entirely and above all hilariously. Including transvestite 8 foot tall Xerxes making a pact with an evil god, Immortals filing their teeth and all the rest of it. Personally I don`t think it was quite as imaginative in this regard as the first movie. At least there weren`t obese executioners with meat cleaver prosthetics for hands in Rise of an Empire.

However, the story manages to be weaker than in 300 and I was sort of waiting for it to end and leave me alone for the last 30 minutes or so. It`s not that it`s exactly boring, but it just seems to disappear into the visual effects somewhat and abandons the actual historical intrigue it could have drawn on as much as any contrived romantic intrigue it seemed to be considering. Themistokles is stiffly portrayed and so is I think his counterpart Artemisia. They are restricted to inspirational huddle-speeches and incomprehensible behavior respectively. I think it`s fair to say that while Themistokles may very well have been this dull, Artemisia was not borderline psychotic in real life.
The acting is in fact fairly embarrassing all round, as is the caricature of the Persian degenerates vs the noble Athenians. In its defense one might present that this was more or less how the Greeks saw themselves at the time, being massive chauvinists after all. And while I`m sure Xerxes had a few black and brown people in his army - after all he was ruling the Middle East as far as the Indus - I seem to recall something about the Persians being Indo-European, and therefore presumably white themselves. Some of the inventions and visual schemes are Miller`s and can`t therefore be blamed on Murro. But Miller didn`t make the Persians black or brown as I recall, so this is entirely on the director.
Whether it`s crude, racist propaganda designed to glorify the USA -which in my mind has very little in common with ancient Greece in any way, - or just a goofy attempt at displaying the cultural division the Greeks undoubtedly felt, I`m not sure. But considering the base level of US propaganda against Iran these days perhaps it might at least be advisable not to have Persian suicide bombers in movies about the Persian Wars.
As for oppressed women and slaves this was just how all societies were at this time, and for all this the Greeks did in fact invent the modern, civilized notion of political freedom and popular rule. Obviously it had to start somewhere and as it happens it started with free men and didn`t really expand beyond this for about 2400 years after the Persian Wars. But I must say that people who belittle ancient Greece because of these restrictions are ignorant to the point of imbecility. And this concludes my rant against political correctness...

All in all it might be worth watching this for the visuals if nothing else, unless you absolutely hated the original movie. If you liked the original then chances are you`ll like this one. I still think it falls a bit short though. When you know the source material here, and are at least somewhat aware of the particulars of the Persian Wars, then you also know how much is left out which would have made the movie a lot better. Classical Greece was born as much in the mud at Plataiai as at Salamis yet it`s not even in the movie. And neither is Pausanias who was the other leader of the Greek victory after the death of Leonidas. Instead the Spartans come sailing, led by a woman! And thousands of dead Spartans turn over in their graves....… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

6

imthenoobMar 15, 2014

Sullivan Stapleton does a good enough job trying to replace Gerald Butler as the leading male and his performance is satisfying enough that you won't miss Butler that much. Eva Green was a great female lead though and does a good job. TheSullivan Stapleton does a good enough job trying to replace Gerald Butler as the leading male and his performance is satisfying enough that you won't miss Butler that much. Eva Green was a great female lead though and does a good job. The rest of the cast is solid.

Plot wise, It's pretty much exactly like the first film but contains a lot of backstory about Xerxes and how he became the god king that he is. It's sort of a prequel/sequel rolled into one. Sort of predictable though and because of that the movie sort of lost my interest half way through, The ending was lack-luster as well. The action is entertaining but I think the 3D sort of hurt it because you constantly had blood splattering on the screen and it was just sort of boring to look at, 3D wise, after a while.

Overall, Despite being a sequel to a great action film, It actually sort of lives up to the epicness of the original. Sure it may not be as good but I enjoyed watch it and so did my family.… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

6

csw12Jun 6, 2014

300: Rise of an Empire has even more gore and more slow motion action pieces than its predecessor but incorporates a story that seems to have less at stake. Entertaining for the most part but just a bridge for a third installment.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

JOSHDILISIMar 10, 2014

i thought the movie was predictable at moments, dosent mean the movie was bad. Even though it was predictable i didnt find it boring, it was able to stay interested with the story and found it easy to follow. The action scenes also workedi thought the movie was predictable at moments, dosent mean the movie was bad. Even though it was predictable i didnt find it boring, it was able to stay interested with the story and found it easy to follow. The action scenes also worked really well and i had thought the blood and effects looked really cool too.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

6

AgscreenMar 15, 2014

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The original film, 2007's 300, had a cultural impact that no one could predict and made Zack Snyder the household name he is today. However, 300: Rise of an Empire, which acts as an entertaining and well made piece of cinema, lacks the charisma and originality that the the first film delivered.

Rise of an Empire acts as both a prequel and sequel to 300, telling the story of Themistokles, an Athenian warrior who desperately attempts to unite Greece's cities so that they may defeat Xerxes navy, lead by Artemisia (Brilliantly played by Eva Green) that threatens to encircle and destroy Greece. Though the film suffers from poor character development and a rushed explanation of the origins of Xerxes's power, it does get right what the first film did expertly and that is the combat scenes. Every battle is a gratuitous flair of severed limbs, glorious slow motion and geysers of blood, and is choreographed fantastically. Fans of the first film will certainly appreciate these moments and it is these battles, both on land and sea that carry the film.

However, Rise of an Empire does have its flaws that separates it from the greatness of the original. With the exception of Artemisia and to an extent, Xerxes, the film has little to no character development and unlike 300, I felt no connection to the supporting cast, as they were so ordinary that none of them stood out. Xerxes's rise to power was glossed over and done in roughly 10 minutes and is highly unsatisfactory to any that are unfamiliar with the fiction. While the jumps into the past were pleasing as they added context to the story of Leonidas and his 300, it was poorly initiated and chopped back and forth which halted the flow of events and the film suffered as a result.

In conclusion, despite its flaws (and they are distinct) 300: Rise of an Empire is an highly entertaining, albeit forgettable, sequel that will no doubt have you grinning at the sheer spectacle and ridiculousness of it all.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

6

Bdado24Apr 7, 2014

If you go into this without expecting anything, then it will be alright. However, if you set the bar unreasonably high; then you'll spend two and a half hours watching garbage.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

PeterAlexanderJun 15, 2015

Ridiculous, historically inaccurate, poorly written, yet throughly exciting, 300: Rise of an Empire acts as an energetically engaging theatre experience. There is no denying it is not the greatest of films and it could be thoroughly improved.Ridiculous, historically inaccurate, poorly written, yet throughly exciting, 300: Rise of an Empire acts as an energetically engaging theatre experience. There is no denying it is not the greatest of films and it could be thoroughly improved. The film suffers from a severe lack of character development and historical accuracy. It's pure ridiculously over flashy fight sequences make for a an immersive theatre experience regardless. 300: Rise of an Empire is best enjoyed for what it is, an over the top CGI war fest, nothing more.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

ColginatorAug 26, 2015

After "300" turned out to be a surprising success, earning over $450 million at the box office on a budget of only $65 million, it did make sense to make a sequel. And with the Persian armies still roaming by the end of the film there wasAfter "300" turned out to be a surprising success, earning over $450 million at the box office on a budget of only $65 million, it did make sense to make a sequel. And with the Persian armies still roaming by the end of the film there was still potential to continue the story. But as much as "300: Rise of an Empire" tries, it's unable to recapture the same style Zack Snyder used in the first film.

Taking place partly before, partly during, and partly after the battle of "300", we follow the story Themistocles (Sullivan Stapleton) as he tries to hold off from the legions of Persian troops attacking from the seas through using his fleet of 50 warships to hold them back. The Persians are being led by Artemisia (Eva Green), the naval war lord who continues to hammer at him brutally and relentlessly.

It's enough plot to justify the violence but at the same time it doesn't have the same spirit that made "300" so enjoyable. There the focus was on Leonidas and his 300 Spartans prevailing against the odds at every turn to fight for what they believe in. But here, the story never brings any real purpose to the battle beyond defeating the bad guys. It really is just mindless violence, with no real purpose.

Whilst Sullivan Stapleton does look the role with the right muscular form to seem like the warrior he needs to be, he's still not able to live up to Gerard Butler's performance as Leonidas in the first film. Whilst he's decent at being the generic tough warrior performance, he can't quite live up to Butler's energetic, over the top delivery that made the line 'This is Sparta!' such an internet sensation. He doesn't even have any personality beyond being a generic action hero.

However, this film does introduce a greater villain than its predecessor. Possibly to combat some of the misogynistic elements of the original graphic novel and first film, we get an introduction to Eva Green as the Femme Fatale of the film. Whilst she's not up there with the best femme fatales like Barbara Stanwyck in "Double Indemnity", she's still the most interesting character of the film, receiving a dark back-story where she was born Greek, but defected to the Persian armies after her family is murdered. Not only is she a deadly warrior, but also is incredibly smart and knows how to use her sexuality as a weapon.

When it comes down to it the most important part of the film are its action sequences. And unfortunately this is really where the film falls short. Whilst it does try to copy the graphic novel look that Snyder went for the first film, it's far less successful here. The cool dark visuals used in the first film are replaced here with some weak murky visuals that end up looking less like a graphic novel and more like a video game.

It's director Murro also lacks the same directorial vision that made the battle's in Snyder's 300 so memorable. Many of his shots stick in mind due to their detail and execution with shot's like pushing the Persians off the cliff really sticking in memory. But even after just watching Rise of an Empire, it's tough to remember a single shot because it's all the action just blends together. Because of lacking any real memorability, anyone would be better off re-watching the first 300 than watching this disappointment of a sequel.… Expand