300 sequel

[JasonEvans]

Saw a screening last night and just wanted to chime in quickly...

300: Rise of an Empire was a really disappointing flick to me. I loved 300 and the highly stylized way it put images on the screen. While this new film imitates that visual look, it falls so far short in characters and story that I found myself bored and eager for it to end. My 17 year old son agreed, leaning over to me at one point and saying, "when are they going to have the last big battle and wrap this up so we can go home?"

The filmmakers go for over-the-top gore as often as possible. There are more gruesomely severed limbs, decapitations, and slo-mo blood splatters in this film than I have ever seen on the big screen. It is like every time they shot a battle scene they asked themselves, "How far is going too far in this one? If we are unsure, lets make sure we go too far by going ever farther!" Some of it comes across as cool and fun/funny, but you tire of it very quickly and it just becomes silly.

But as I reflect on the film, I keep coming back to how disappointing the script was and how disinterested I was in everything that was going on. The original 300 had a great sense of the stakes of each battle and the tactics/actions that would win them. This tries to do the same thing (with naval battles) but it really falls short. The original 300 gave us characters, especially Leonidas, who were larger than life and tremendously charismatic. When they fought, we knew who they were and we cared about their fate. This time, I could barely remember anyone's name. There is a key moment where the hero gives what passes for an impassioned speech and concludes by telling the Athenian/Greek soldiers that if they want to leave and go home, they can. I was sure they would all just leave because there is no way I would have laid down my life for this guy. It was almost laughable.

I don't have time at this moment to get into more detail. If folks want more, let me know and I can chime in later. It wasn't an awful film, not by a long stretch. It had a few amusing moments of humor and the comic-book look onscreen was fun at times. But it lacked the heart, emotion, adn quality storytelling of the original. I had high hopes... and they were mostly dashed against the rocks. Sigh...

-Jason "on a side note, my critic friends who saw Sherman and Peabody said it was pretty awful too... March ain't a great time for movies" Evans

[Olympic Fan]

Jason,

I'm curious about the historical aspects of the story.

In 300, the historical basis of the film was pretty solid -- at least in the sense that 300 Spartan soldiers really did march to the north of Greece and anchor a multi-state Greek army that defended the pass at Thermoplye against a much, MUCH larger Persian army. When their position was breached, the Spartans did stay and die to the last man so that the rest of the army could escape (at least that's Herodotus version). The film ends with the opening of the Battle of Platea, a little over a year later, when a united Greek Army really did crush the Persian Army.

But in between Thermolye and Platea was Salamis, one of the four or five decisive naval battles in history.

Historically, what happened its that Xerxes' army overran northern Greece after Thermoplye. They captured Athens and forced the population of the city-state to flee across the narrow straight to the island of Salamis. Those Athenian sailors were fighting for their homes and to protect their families in the most literal sense (the idea that any of them could "go home" instead of joining Themosticles in battle is ludicrous).

I don't understand why they couldn't have done with Themosticles what the first movie did with Leonidas. He was a giant -- not only the admiral who won the Battle of Salamis, but also a politician who led the pre-war battle to build the Athenian Fleet and a diplomat who organized the coalition of Greek city-states.

From the bits and pieces of what I've seen and read about the new 300, I'm confused as to how they could mess up a magnificent and straightforward story. Do they really talk about the Battle of Marathon? If so, do they make it clear it was a full generation earlier (led by Xerxes predecessor, Darius)? How do the Spartans figure in the story -- they had NOTHING to do with Salamis (they were busy defending the narrow entrance to Peloponesia at Corinth).

I could enjoy 300 because even with all the fiction (the battle elephants?) is was well-grounded historically. Is this one?

BTW -- I know this is off topic, but how about a movie about the 1941 Battle of Thermoplye, when a small force of ANZAC soldiers walked in the footsteps of Leonidas and the 300, defending the pass for some 48 hours against the invading Nazi army to give the bulk of the British Army a chance to escape Greece for Crete.

[JasonEvans]

Well, I don't know much (anything?) about Greek military history so I may have missed some stuff in the movie. Still, let me try to address your questions. The easiest way to answer all this is to take it on graph at a time.



In 300, the historical basis of the film was pretty solid -- at least in the sense that 300 Spartan soldiers really did march to the north of Greece and anchor a multi-state Greek army that defended the pass at Thermoplye against a much, MUCH larger Persian army. When their position was breached, the Spartans did stay and die to the last man so that the rest of the army could escape (at least that's Herodotus version). The film ends with the opening of the Battle of Platea, a little over a year later, when a united Greek Army really did crush the Persian Army.

But in between Thermolye and Platea was Salamis, one of the four or five decisive naval battles in history.

This movie is almost exclusive about battles happening at sea, battles that appear to be happening at around the same time as the 300 are making their stand. Some of the naval skirmishes happen before/during the 300 action but the decisive one happens after the 300 have died.


Historically, what happened its that Xerxes' army overran northern Greece after Thermoplye. They captured Athens and forced the population of the city-state to flee across the narrow straight to the island of Salamis. Those Athenian sailors were fighting for their homes and to protect their families in the most literal sense (the idea that any of them could "go home" instead of joining Themosticles in battle is ludicrous).

The movie does depict the destruction of Athens, though it does not carry nearly the impact that you seem to imply. One of my main criticisms of the movie is that it did not feel like the Athenians were fighting for honor and their cherished values the same way the Spartans did in 300.


I don't understand why they couldn't have done with Themosticles what the first movie did with Leonidas. He was a giant -- not only the admiral who won the Battle of Salamis, but also a politician who led the pre-war battle to build the Athenian Fleet and a diplomat who organized the coalition of Greek city-states.

Themosticles is most certainly the hero of this story and does seem to be a man of great fighting ability as well as political sway. They show him making diplomatic arguments and trying to raise a united Greek army/navy. Again, it seems they are historically accurate, though the actor playing Themosticles is no Gerard Butler in terms of charisma.


From the bits and pieces of what I've seen and read about the new 300, I'm confused as to how they could mess up a magnificent and straightforward story. Do they really talk about the Battle of Marathon? If so, do they make it clear it was a full generation earlier (led by Xerxes predecessor, Darius)?

The film does depict the battle of Marathon, it is the opening of the movie, and Darius is in charge of the Persians for that battle. I didn't really get a sense that it was a generation earlier, more like 10-15 years. Many of the characters in the rest of the movie (including Themosticles and Xeres) play large roles in the Marathon battle.


How do the Spartans figure in the story -- they had NOTHING to do with Salamis (they were busy defending the narrow entrance to Peloponesia at Corinth).

The Spartans are this largely unseen force in the movie that Themosticles keeps on talking about and wanting to bring into the fight, but for a variety of reasons he cannot get them to join him. I am not sure if the final battle was supposed to be Salamis (the movie does not name the battle as it does with Marathon), but I can tell you that if the Spartans played no role in the naval battles, then the movie is not at all accurate on that point.


I could enjoy 300 because even with all the fiction (the battle elephants?) is was well-grounded historically. Is this one?

I think you now know this answer. Based on what you have written and my viewing of the film, it may be grounded in history, but would not be described as historically accurate.

-Jason "at one point in the movie, my son said, 'when are we going to get to see the Spartans fighting again?' When it finally happened, it was a big letdown" Evans

[Olympic Fan]

thanks for the response ...

I've got to correct a couple of things I said -- Marathon was merely a decade -- not a generation -- before the invasion that led to the Battle of Thermopyle/Salamis.

Neither Darius nor Xerxes were there -- the Persian force at Marathon was led by General Datis. Themosticles WAS there ... maybe (but not definitively) in an important role.

Themosticles did lead the Allied Fleets at Artemisium, the naval action that accompanied the Battle of Thermopyle. The Greek fleet did take a lot of damage in the battle, but prevented the larger Persian Fleet from outflanking the defenders of the pass.

I was wrong to suggest there were no Spartans at Salamis. There was a small Spartan naval contingent with the allied fleet, both at Artemisium and Salamis. But it was a very small part of the fleet. The Spartans played the leading role at Thermopyle and later Platea, but Marathon and Salamis were basically Athenian victories.

One thing that I've seen in the previews that sees to be based on historical fact -- a woman -- Artemisia, queen of Halicarnassus, commanded a large contingent of the Persian Fleet.

[BD80]

... Themosticles did lead the Allied Fleets at Artemisium, the naval action that accompanied the Battle of Thermopyle.

... Artemisia, queen of Halicarnassus, commanded a large contingent of the Persian Fleet.

Was Artemisia at Artemisium?

[Olympic Fan]

Was Artemisia at Artemisium?

Probably ..

Agree the similarity in the Queen's name and the first clash between the Greek and Persian Fleets is confusingly similar, but as far as I can tell it's nothing more than coincidence -- like Dick York had nothing to do with New York, except the character he played on Bewitched worked in New York.

[JasonEvans]

Probably ..

Agree the similarity in the Queen's name and the first clash between the Greek and Persian Fleets is confusingly similar, but as far as I can tell it's nothing more than coincidence -- like Dick York had nothing to do with New York, except the character he played on Bewitched worked in New York.

Damn! I just lost my bet that there was no way Dick York would be mentioned in this thread.

Based on the historical facts updates from OlyFan, it seems the storyline in 300: Rise is even more accurate than I first stated. A good bit of what he talks about appears to be reflected in the film.

-Jason "I wish they had just tossed history (and science) aside and resurrected Leonidas" Evans

[BD80]

...
-Jason "I wish they had just tossed history (and science) aside and resurrected Leonidas" Evans

The first use of the phrase: "It's just a flesh wound?"

[JasonEvans]

You know, I am being too hard on this flick. It was awful, not by a long stretch. I think I was just so disappointed that it wasn't of the story/character quality of the original that I came down hard on it.

300: Rise does have a stunning visual sense and the battle scenes contained more than a few sequences where the theater audibly gasped at the action. There are a few amusing lines and funny sequences. I guess what I am saying is that it isn't a total waste of your moviegoing dollar.

One more thing that annoyed me a bit though -- the air.

Readers: "Huh? What do you mean you were bothered by the air, Jason?"

Well, I'll explain. This film is being released in 3D and it looks really cool in 3D. The director wanted to show off his cool 3D effects as much as possible. Doing 3D in a battle is easy enough, but he also wanted to make everything look 3D in normal "conversation" scenes. So, he puts little specks of dust and ash in the air so we get to see stuff floating around in front of and behind the characters all the time. Viola, much 3D effect!

The problem is, the freaking dust and ash are EVERYWHERE! It is crazy and distracting! There's stuff floating in the air when they are outside, stuff floating in the air when they are inside, stuff floating in the air when they are at sea... whaaat? How is there dust and ash at sea? I have no idea, but there is.

So, in addition to having more gratuitous blood splatters than any movie I have ever seen, it has more !%!^% in the air than any movie I have ever seen.

This pic shows a little bit of it. The still images released to promote the film don't really have much of this stuff in them because I think so much of the air effects were added in late in the production process.
http://content6.flixster.com/rtmovie/11/49/114956_gal.jpg

-Jason "crud, now I am bashing this flick again... sigh, I just can't stop!" Evans

[JasonEvans]

So, did anyone bother to see it over the weekend and want to chime in? I was probably overly harsh on it and would love to hear from others.

-Jason "it did big boxoffice, but the reviews were about like mine -- visually cool but missing the character of the original" Evans

[theAlaskanBear]

So, did anyone bother to see it over the weekend and want to chime in? I was probably overly harsh on it and would love to hear from others.

-Jason "it did big boxoffice, but the reviews were about like mine -- visually cool but missing the character of the original" Evans

I can't decide if it's Zack Snyder, or it's his source of materials, but his movies have the aesthetic sensibility and subtlety of a 13-yr old boy. I guess given the target audience and the state of the movie industry, this might be considered a compliment. The visuals didn't even compensate for the terrible script, cliched moralism, and exaggerated acting in the original 300...

[Tommac]

I saw the new 300 this past weekend and thought it was equal to the first. Now you decide if that's good or bad.

[wavedukefan70s]

Did you fine folks see it in 3D or just regular?

[JNort]

While watching I had the same feeling as Jason, very underwhelmed and bored. However when the movie did end I realized my expectations were just away off base. After a little adjusting I have concluded that the film was pretty good and would recommend it.

So when is the next movie coming out? This movie ended showing xerxes (sp) on a cliff looking angry at his navy being destroyed and zooms out with him walking back to his massive land force.

[JNort]

So, did anyone bother to see it over the weekend and want to chime in? I was probably overly harsh on it and would love to hear from others.

-Jason "it did big boxoffice, but the reviews were about like mine -- visually cool but missing the character of the original" Evans

Only thing I didn't care for was the main character who IMO was to much of a pretty boy. At least with Gerard Butler he gave off a manly type of persona

[JasonEvans]

So when is the next movie coming out? This movie ended showing xerxes (sp) on a cliff looking angry at his navy being destroyed and zooms out with him walking back to his massive land force.

Do you not recall the end of 300? It is 10,000 Spartans leading an army of 40,000 Greek soldiers into battle against Xerxes bigger army but the implication is clearly that the Spartan/Greek army will win because they are only outmanned 3-to-1, an easy obstacle for a Spartan-led army to overcome.

Still, a sequel is possible because 300:Rise has already made $82 mil in the US and $158 mil internationally. The film carried a $110 mil budget so it is a lock to make money. Maybe they will have enough of a budget to resurrect Gerard Butler for the next one ;)

-Jason "what 300 needs is time travel to bring Leonidas back to life!" Evans