Even with some gripes I have to admit that 300 Rise of an Empire was both entertaining and fun, it was easily one of the better action films I've seen so far this year and if you feel like getting some blood and nudity from both genders this weekend you should give it a shot. 4/5 Good
Thoughts of Lee
You know that amazing sensation of watching someone pathetic and unlikeable desperately attempt to be cool and awesome by hiring a starving Keifer Sutherland to chew every bit of scenery he can find? And watch it literally blow up in their face like some kind of appropriate metaphor? That was Pompeii.
And you know that depressing letdown feeling of meeting the cool, awesome, over-the-top, super-styslistic badass' younger sibling who tries his damndest to be like his big brother? And only ends up falling miserably short and looking contrived and wannabe? That was the new 300.
Originally posted by Esau CairnNo... I see a comparison in their style. Both draw heavily from the original 300 (obviously) and the Spartacus TV show (which itself drew heavily from the original 300). That they decided to release these two movies so close to one another is irrelevant (but also no surprise).
The fact that you see a comparison simply based on watching both movies so close to each other.
Pompeii was a greater failure in its lines and story--they weren't disappointing (I had no expectations), they were just hilariously bad. But at least they were hilarious. Plus Keifer Sutherland chewed the scenery every moment he was onscreen. Big plus entertainment-wise. 300: Rise of an Empire was boring. And frustrating--a problem for sequels.
The new movie lifted Spartacus' fondness for 'c*ck' and 'f*ck' in an attempt to emulate it (and Game of Thrones) and it stood out in blatant contrast with the original (not in a good way). They also attempted to spice up the narration, substituting David Wenham's laconic gravel with Lena Heady's quasi-poetic purple prose. It felt forced and out of place. They cast a generic looking actor as the forgettable lead with no personality and only a shadow trace of Leonidas' gravitas and charisma. They introduced a contrived sub-plot of Gorgo refusing Spartan aid based on disliking Themistocles' "dream" of a united Greece (something he barely mentions--he was more concerned with just not being conquered) and not wanting to sacrifice more Spartans to stop the Persian invasion her husband died resisting (which flies in the face of her and Leonidas' resolve from the first film and the Spartan love of battle and glorious death as stated in both films).
The action was repetitive, overly long, and boring. The original kept changing it up with the slo-mo phalanx, the cliff-toss, the arrow cloud, the Immortal trap, the elephant attack, the "magic" grenades, the rhinos, the giant/ogre--no scene or style of fighting overstayed its welcome, it stayed varied. Yet for an almost purely CGI film with a plethora of computerized possibilities, the second film's fight scenes of overly-choreographed swordplay and boats ramming together were largely unimaginative and repetitive. Even the side-characters were bland--Michael Fassbender, David Wenham, and the Captain stood out as characters, and the captain's grief was believable his son was beheaded in slo-mo (which was awesome). But when that young guy's dad died (something immediately predictable as soon as they were introduced) he just looked passively at his body and waited to be told he was allowed to sit at the grown-ups table. That was both eye-rollingly awful dialogue and totally emotionless.
The ending of the first film was bittersweet but badass, and because the movie successfully made us like Leonidas and the Spartans, the ending had emotional weight and staying power. This new one just ended--Artmesia just sort of flopped dead after another protracted, mind-numbing battle, Lena Heady got the fight scene she probably insisted on having during contract negotiations (and it looked silly and bad to boot), and Xerxes just walked off to set up an establishing shot for the likely sequel. Stupid and boring ending.
Eva Green was something of a saving grace, but not because she was any great hell. She just had enough of a character and enough variety in her delivery that it stood in contrast to Themistocles (he really was bland and terrible). Xerxes should have been more prominent; he's cool and creepy and weird and scary and interesting. He was the one thing done right here.
I adore the original film but this one just f*cking sucked.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
No... I see a comparison in their style. Both draw heavily from the original 300 (obviously) and the Spartacus TV show (which itself drew heavily from the original 300). That they decided to release these two movies so close to one another is irrelevant (but also no surprise).Pompeii was a greater failure in its lines and story--they weren't disappointing (I had no expectations), they were just hilariously bad. But at least they were hilarious. Plus Keifer Sutherland chewed the scenery every moment he was onscreen. Big plus entertainment-wise. 300: Rise of an Empire was boring. And frustrating--a problem for sequels.
The new movie lifted Spartacus' fondness for 'c*ck' and 'f*ck' in an attempt to emulate it (and Game of Thrones) and it stood out in blatant contrast with the original (not in a good way). They also attempted to spice up the narration, substituting David Wenham's laconic gravel with Lena Heady's quasi-poetic purple prose. It felt forced and out of place. They cast a generic looking actor as the forgettable lead with no personality and only a shadow trace of Leonidas' gravitas and charisma. They introduced a contrived sub-plot of Gorgo refusing Spartan aid based on disliking Themistocles' "dream" of a united Greece (something he barely mentions--he was more concerned with just not being conquered) and not wanting to sacrifice more Spartans to stop the Persian invasion her husband died resisting (which flies in the face of her and Leonidas' resolve from the first film and the Spartan love of battle and glorious death as stated in both films).
The action was repetitive, overly long, and boring. The original kept changing it up with the slo-mo phalanx, the cliff-toss, the arrow cloud, the Immortal trap, the elephant attack, the "magic" grenades, the rhinos, the giant/ogre--no scene or style of fighting overstayed its welcome, it stayed varied. Yet for an almost purely CGI film with a plethora of computerized possibilities, the second film's fight scenes of overly-choreographed swordplay and boats ramming together were largely unimaginative and repetitive. Even the side-characters were bland--Michael Fassbender, David Wenham, and the Captain stood out as characters, and the captain's grief was believable his son was beheaded in slo-mo (which was awesome). But when that young guy's dad died (something immediately predictable as soon as they were introduced) he just looked passively at his body and waited to be told he was allowed to sit at the grown-ups table. That was both eye-rollingly awful dialogue and totally emotionless.
The ending of the first film was bittersweet but badass, and because the movie successfully made us like Leonidas and the Spartans, the ending had emotional weight and staying power. This new one just ended--Artmesia just sort of flopped dead after another protracted, mind-numbing battle, Lena Heady got the fight scene she probably insisted on having during contract negotiations (and it looked silly and bad to boot), and Xerxes just walked off to set up an establishing shot for the likely sequel. Stupid and boring ending.
Eva Green was something of a saving grace, but not because she was any great hell. She just had enough of a character and enough variety in her delivery that it stood in contrast to Themistocles (he really was bland and terrible). Xerxes should have been more prominent; he's cool and creepy and weird and scary and interesting. He was the one thing done right here.
I adore the original film but this one just f*cking sucked.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The new movie lifted Spartacus' fondness for 'c*ck' and 'f*ck' in an attempt to emulate it (and Game of Thrones) and it stood out in blatant contrast with the original (not in a good way). They also attempted to spice up the narration, substituting David Wenham's laconic gravel with Lena Heady's quasi-poetic purple prose. It felt forced and out of place. They cast a generic looking actor as the forgettable lead with no personality and only a shadow trace of Leonidas' gravitas and charisma. They introduced a contrived sub-plot of Gorgo refusing Spartan aid based on disliking Themistocles' "dream" of a united Greece (something he barely mentions--he was more concerned with just not being conquered) and not wanting to sacrifice more Spartans to stop the Persian invasion her husband died resisting (which flies in the face of her and Leonidas' resolve from the first film and the Spartan love of battle and glorious death as stated in both films).The action was repetitive, overly long, and boring. The original kept changing it up with the slo-mo phalanx, the cliff-toss, the arrow cloud, the Immortal trap, the elephant attack, the "magic" grenades, the rhinos, the giant/ogre--no scene or style of fighting overstayed its welcome, it stayed varied. Yet for an almost purely CGI film with a plethora of computerized possibilities, the second film's fight scenes of overly-choreographed swordplay and boats ramming together were largely unimaginative and repetitive. Even the side-characters were bland--Michael Fassbender, David Wenham, and the Captain stood out as characters, and the captain's grief was believable his son was beheaded in slo-mo (which was awesome). But when that young guy's dad died (something immediately predictable as soon as they were introduced) he just looked passively at his body and waited to be told he was allowed to sit at the grown-ups table. That was both eye-rollingly awful dialogue and totally emotionless.
The ending of the first film was bittersweet but badass, and because the movie successfully made us like Leonidas and the Spartans, the ending had emotional weight and staying power. This new one just ended--Artmesia just sort of flopped dead after another protracted, mind-numbing battle, Lena Heady got the fight scene she probably insisted on having during contract negotiations (and it looked silly and bad to boot), and Xerxes just walked off to set up an establishing shot for the likely sequel. Stupid and boring ending.
Eva Green was something of a saving grace, but not because she was any great hell. She just had enough of a character and enough variety in her delivery that it stood in contrast to Themistocles (he really was bland and terrible). Xerxes should have been more prominent; he's cool and creepy and weird and scary and interesting. He was the one thing done right here.
Sorry for the late reply & kudos & respect to your insight.
Personally I didn't judge the sequel too harshly as you, I simply immersed myself & enjoyed the experience.
* I found Heady's "poetic" narrative a welcome change compared to the numerous ( & forgettable) battle speeches done by Wenham or Leonidas. To hear her voice-over at the beginning then to surmise the film at the end felt both uplifting & bittersweet. Lena is such a strong actress & I guess the director sensed that as well.
*Yes, the actor who played Themistocles didn't have the same screen presence as Butler/Leonidas. Once I shrugged off the "natural instinct" to compare actors/characters, I acknowledged that he was neither a King of Sparta nor did he have to be as charismatic as one. Although I did cringe at times when his Australian accent got the better of him.
*Yes, Queen Gorgo did refuse Themistocles twice for not sending the Spartan fleet into battle. The first reason being that Sparta didn't care about Greece's politics or fight other people's battles for them.
I think you're being harsh on the 2nd time Themistocles got refused by Gorgo. After all, she had just found out that Leonidas was dead & was grieving for him...she was reacting as a widower, a mother would do, not as a rational Queen (until later).
*The 1st 300 succeeded in its simplicity...almost like a stage play.
Drama in Sparta, action at The Gates Of Hell. The sequel did suffer with its politics & introduction of minor characters that either gave unmemorable speeches or were simply canon fodder in the end.
*I can't say the action was repetitious considering that's what fans expected to see.
As far as boats ramming each other being unimaginative...I can only assume that that was basic naval tactics back in ancient times. I mean we're talking about wooden sea vessels powered by either wind or oar...there's really not much more action you can expect from that. And yes, some of the action scenes defied realism with the over use of cgi...but it was fun to watch.
*Yes, the sub story of another father/son tragedy just waiting to happen felt force & unfortunately not needed.
*Artmesia was a great character imo. Green & Heady were both a superb choice of women. I think Artmesia's death was well done & I also felt that under different circumstances,she & Themistocles' attraction for eachother would've been credible. She was a powerful figure & her only weakness was to be reminded of her upbringing.
*Lastly, Heady joining the battle didn't feel contrived or obligated...it was beautiful to watch & sadly not enough. The imagery of her simply in robes leading an armoured army into battle was simply cool to watch.
I truly hope the sequel does well to warrant the 3rd.
Watched it last night.
I didn't find it anywhere near as bad as I thought I would. Some bits were outstandingly ridiculous. Gorgo fighting in the final battle was about as stupid as anything I've seen in a film.
Over all though? Great visuals, good battle choreography, crap blood effects, cheesy smile inducing dialogue.
It's pretty much what you'd expect.
I enjoyed it.