Escape to the Movies: 300: Rise of an Empire

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

300: Rise of an Empire

THIS! IS! Not exactly Sparta.

Watch Video

Oh my god, I soooOOOooo agree with bob about the Arkham Knight trailer. If they make captions for the first half of that trailer, they should just make them the words "DADDY ISSUES" flashing across the screen. Jaysis Chroist.

That batman joke tickled a bit.

I think I might watch this film just for the sake of the villain and the characters, especially since last time around it was just Good v Evil and nothing else.

That actually sounds pretty cool. The first 300 was a good movie but only by accident. The Subtext of seeing how brutal the Spartans posed against the even more thuggish and brutal slave driver Persians made you think about your own standards was compelling. However I don't think this was intentional or at least not what Frank Miller intended. If the squeal is smart on purpose that sounds great.

>Bob showing his buttdevastation over 300's depiction of a bunch of alpha males holding a ridge.

I can understand the criticism behind it, and granted it is valid, but did you really have to come off whiny about the whole thing? This goes as bad as calling back to your SNES days. I always liked Bob the personality, but Bob the person always grated me the wrong way. I can't help, but roll my eyes at his bias moments

I never saw 300, now I feel I need to see it and this one when they are both on blue ray. Or would it really be worth catching 300 now so I can catch 300: Rise of an Empire on the big screen?

Someone already beat you to that Batman joke, MovieBob: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bovfqxydwsw

Anyway, never saw the 300 movie, and while this movie sounds good, I probably won't see it in the theaters.

walsfeo:
I never saw 300, now I feel I need to see it and this one when they are both on blue ray. Or would it really be worth catching 300 now so I can catch 300: Rise of an Empire on the big screen?

Not having seen the second, I couldn't say. But I passed on going to see 300 and I kinda regretted it. It's such a visually striking film that I can't help but think seeing the big screen version would have added considerably to the spectacle.

And while I never though 300 needed a sequel, I'll still be trying my best to make time to see this one while it's at the theater. :)

Well, that sounds interesting, but I've also heard some less than stellar things about this one, and I genuinely did not like 300 (found it uninteresting to be honest). It sounds like the only stand out is the apparently, and I quote, 'gonzo' performance by Eva Green. Everything else just sounds like mindless flashy bloodshed.

Well, sounds like something to go burn away the time on this weekend and not regret doing so. Awesome review Bob.

300 was utterly dumb, but very enjoyable. The fact that there was a sequel didn't seem necessary, yet, considering this review, it actually sounds fun. The thing about Ancient Greece is that, when it comes to Western culture, it did a lot of 'firsts'. To the best of our knowledge, Themistocles was world's first politician as we in the modern day would recognise him. Not just was he an effective orator when it came to affairs of state, but also in private matters. Usually, he skills would be turned to legal matters; i.e. defending his clients in a court of law.
From my experience, too much of Ancient Greece is criminally under-exposed. With Pericles's Funeral Oration, you have the first public defence of Democracy as an ideal. With Athens itself, you have a maritime trading empire using its proceeds to fund a 'welfare state' in its home city. With the Melian Dialogue, you have the first open piece of realpolitik. Then there's the Peloponnesian War, The Spartan Hegemony, the King's Peace, the Theban Hegemony (featuring Epaminondas and Pelopidas - the first geek/jock combo in recorded history), the Battle of Mantinea, King Philip and the rise of Macedonia. Finally you have Alexander the Great. Now that has been covered, but not very well - Colin Farrell.

It's ballsy to take a kind of 21st century approach to masculinity and use it to deconstruct its traditional ideals. It's amusing to see the obvious bullies of yesteryear going on Fox News and bemoaning the loss of "masculinity" and whine about how they have to watch what they say or do because it might be construed as sexist, still completely oblivious to the fact that it IS sexist and what they're actually complaining about is the loss of their privilege to bully and belittle others to make themselves feel big. I think this carries extra weight in the 300 franchise as the comics and thus the movie was a gross exaggeration of fact and applies a bluntly Americanized perspective onto the Spartans. So Americanized, in fact, that the Spartans in 300 seem to live in this state of constant denial about their cultures own flaws. Pederasty was just as prominent in Sparta as other parts of Greece. Slaves were the backbone of Sparta because a bunch of men devoted to soldiering weren't going to go out and grow crops, were they? Leonidas might have taken 300 Spartans with him to the Hot Gates, but they were backed up by something like 12,000 other Greeks.

It's nice to see this movie not fail, even if it's only real victory is overcoming our lowered expectations, so I hope it does get people talking. If nothing else, burying Frank Miller as fast as we buried Dennis Miller should be reason enough to see it.

Seems very interesting if only because it's a movie about a war that isn't world war 2, serious Hollywood why aren't there more Punic war movies? Extra credits made it awesome only using pictures and a guy talking.

So does this mean we can finally get a wonder woman movie? We have had two really good sword wielding women who were badguys/morally ambiguous does that mean we can now have a good one?

This all leads to the peloponnesian war that lasted 27 years, right?

Surprising. I had no real interest in seeing this, but your suggestion that it's critical of its sire makes me want to give it a chance.

I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I think I'm sick of the Arkham franchise. Of course Asylum was amazing and City was an immense improvement, and obviously Origins was hampered by its development team, but it looks like the franchise is completely stuck in its rut of "Play as Batman in a Free-Roam Environment with extra playable characters in the challenge maps". What is actually stopping them from making allowing you to freeroam as Robin / Nightwing / Batgirl? Why not have the campaign (or at least sections of it) playable as other characters? I mean, I get that "Batman is always specially awesome solo" or whatever, but a lot of the interesting Batman mythos is dealing with the Bat-Family. And why not take a break from Batman and make a damn Superman game already, Rocksteady?

Wow, what the fuck. That was the very last thing I expected a review of some random 300 sequel popping up seemingly out of nowhere to be. I... unbelievably... may have to watch that...
And, yeah, I saw 300 and it was shit. Enjoyable while it lasted, admittedly, but shit nonetheless and a movie I watched only once and forgot about quickly (excepting the various references other media kept making to it, of course). So this is... odd. In a good way.

The best review of the original 300 is still The War Nerd's review.

I'm very glad to hear that the sequel apparently tries to fix some of the problems. I'll still wait for the DVD rental, though.

themilo504:
Seems very interesting if only because it's a movie about a war that isn't world war 2, serious Hollywood why aren't there more Punic war movies? Extra credits made it awesome only using pictures and a guy talking.

Hear, hear. I would pay good money for a series of films on the Punic Wars. With "the marvel treatment" would be best.

I found the concept of them doing this sidequel/sequel/prequel to 300 focusing on Themistokles, if for no other reason than (if my simplistic understanding of history is correct) Themistokles was maybe the main reason that Leonidas and his Spartans (and the rest of the troops at the Hot Gates) lived more than an hour. His naval forces prevented Xerxes from simply putting half his troops on a boat and sailing around Leonidas & Co long before they knew about the 'secret goat path.' In 300, its depicted as if a storm wrecks all their ships, leaving them to have to go through the Spartans to get anywhere - completely ignoring this massive contribution. So focusing this movie on him struck me as an apology from the start, but it does sound like they made a good movie out of it. Might have to see this one.

Ashoten:
That actually sounds pretty cool. The first 300 was a good movie but only by accident.

I really can't call it an accident if a movie's greatest strength lies in exactly what it set out to do: have a bunch of the alpha-est alpha males get down and dirty with some glorious slow-mo carnage against exotic enemies.

Which, incidentally, pretty much is a spot-on interpretation of the original story of Thermopylae. That's a story that's stuck with us throughout history not because of the historical significance of the Persian Empire being thrown back, but because Sparta was made out to be just that badass.

But beyond that, I must say I'm pleasantly surprised by the notion Rise of an Empire is anything but utter garbage suffering from terminal sequilitis.

And here I was thinking that 300 (the comic) was Frank Millers take on the glorified form that "heroic" military acts take once they have been passed through the sieve of history and myth.

The Battle of Thermopylae, on Franks tale, isn't a historical narration of the events that took place. What Franks tale does, and this is my understanding from reading the comic, is tell the story as a sort of legendary act that resembles more fiction than fact. Its the glorified abstraction of what took place.

300, the movie, its the "Hollywood" take of this very concept. Everything you see on that movie its what would happen if today we were to exaggerate the events of that battle and retell it using the presents standards for glory. It is over the top because the events of that battle are remembered in an over the top manner and the movie just uses hollywoods "over-the-top'nes" to tale that myth.

Prepare for glory, through the eyes of Hollywood.

I understand why so many people think 300 is beneath them. I know Woody Allen wouldn't have done it that way, but I still think Snyder did a good job adapting Franks comic.

I liked the original 300 a lot... what can I say?, I like it big, dumb and flashy. If the new one is bigger, flashier and slightly less dumber, then I'll definitely have to check this one out.

Sooo... it's good? How the fuck did that happen? I first saw the poster of it and assumed it was a Amazing-Spiderman-esque cash grab.

Of course, I still see it as a blatant cash grab, but one that at least tried to be more than what it was expected to be. Might actually see it.

Honestly amazed how much I want to see this now considering this sequel logically has absolutely no right to even exist.

I'm actually pretty psyched about this movie right now. None of the other cool critics I follow seem to be able to stop talking about Eva Green either so I guess I have to see it.

I know it seems like it should be an unnecessary sequel but at least they seem to have taken it in a good direction.

This is the 300 "sequel" I want to see:

"The Warriors" is a 1979 movie about gangs in New York, one of which (the Warriors) is framed for the murder of a prominent leader. The Warriors then have to flee through territory claimed by other gangs (who are all hunting the Warriors due to said murder) in an effort to return to their home turf on Coney Island.

The plot of this movie was loosely based on "Anabasis", an account of a Greek mercenary army who fought to usurp the Persian throne for a rebellious prince. The prince was killed in battle, and the Greek army, their mission a failure, had to march through Persia to the coast in order to return to Greece.

I think it would be amazing to portray this story using the "300" aesthetic. You could call it "300: Subtitle", or "The Warriors", or "The Ten Thousand" (the name of the Greek army); any of those names would work fantastically.

The Gentleman:
Sooo... it's good? How the fuck did that happen? I first saw the poster of it and assumed it was a Amazing-Spiderman-esque cash grab.

Of course, I still see it as a blatant cash grab, but one that at least tried to be more than what it was expected to be. Might actually see it.

Apparently there's a scene where Eva Green's character cuts off one of her men's heads and makes out with it. That's what convinced me.

Saw it in theaters last night and I just really didn't like it.

Eva Green carries this movie so hard that the other performances just pale in comparison. And where you found Sullivan Stapleton's performance understated, I found it just boring. The action also feels like its aping 300's pacing to a tee. Big fight, win, pull back for next regroup and speech, big fight, ect. And the clear sequel hook near the end just annoyed me, because I don't want to go back to the idiot Xerxes again. The whole thing was just very underwhelming to me.

caballitomalo:
And here I was thinking that 300 (the comic) was Frank Millers take on the glorified form that "heroic" military acts take once they have been passed through the sieve of history and myth.

The Battle of Thermopylae, on Franks tale, isn't a historical narration of the events that took place. What Franks tale does, and this is my understanding from reading the comic, is tell the story as a sort of legendary act that resembles more fiction than fact. Its the glorified abstraction of what took place.

300, the movie, its the "Hollywood" take of this very concept. Everything you see on that movie its what would happen if today we were to exaggerate the events of that battle and retell it using the presents standards for glory. It is over the top because the events of that battle are remembered in an over the top manner and the movie just uses hollywoods "over-the-top'nes" to tale that myth.

Prepare for glory, through the eyes of Hollywood.

I understand why so many people think 300 is beneath them. I know Woody Allen wouldn't have done it that way, but I still think Snyder did a good job adapting Franks comic.

The way I heard it, Hollywood did it before Miller already, since he said he was inspired by the movie "The 300 Spartans", which had more plausible outfits for the Greeks and Persians. And if Woody Allen made a movie like this, I prefer the Woody from when his movies were funny.

OT: I liked the first 300, and I was still going to San Jose State when it came out. As the self-proclaimed Home of the Spartans, we went all out latching on to that movie, especially because it was the same year as out 150th Annivarsary. I'm glad this movie's also a good one, with more depth and still kicking ass, so I will definitely see this.

Did anyone else look at this and have the thought "THAT is what Wonder Woman is supposed to look like!!!" Not some twig like super model. That! With the fiery personality. The armor. the swords. Why WB oh why did you not look in house and see this?

Three Hundred (again)! This time not as written by an utter smeghead! Coming soon, to a cinema near you.

Sounds... Surprisingly interesting, I must say. Might very well be worth a watch, sometime.

Quite happy to see that you've enjoyed this one Bob.

Will most definitely check it out in the coming weeks.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here