IMDb > 300: Rise of an Empire (2014) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
300: Rise of an Empire
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
300: Rise of an Empire More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 52:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 519 reviews in total 

245 out of 344 people found the following review useful:

Ruined absolutely ruined (spoiler alert!)

1/10
Author: Annaparsons859 from United States
7 March 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie was absolutely a waste of my time and my money. I went to my local theater on March 7th which is also my birthday and I wanted to see the movie based on the performance of the first 300.

The first 300 had catharsis, it had actual character development and made you want to keep going. This new 300, "rise of an empire" was absolutely horrendous. Rise of an empire, what empire?

This Great War that united the Greeks was barely touched on. It was all about the blood and the guts and breasts. I don't mind nudity. I don't mind blood. But the way the director went about it only cheapened the experience. This movie has a line in it "you fight harder than you f***" (Artemisia). It could have been beautiful and filled with the promise of something both hilarious and invigorating if the scene it referred to had not been so vulgar. 300 Rise of an Empire was not worth the money I spent on it. There are books out there on this point in history, historical fiction books that have stronger character development than this script. The actors did the best they could with what they had, but writers and director, you owe the public an apology for this poor display of cinematic "genius". It was cheap, crude and not well thought out. I had higher hopes. Next time actually make something worth watching.

Was the above review useful to you?

272 out of 407 people found the following review useful:

This movie is an insult to any Persian

1/10
Author: zohrabi64
13 March 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I'm a Persian, I watched the movie last night and I think it was really unjust to our history, and it's not making it OK by simply saying that it was made upon a comic book, there are many points which I couldn't close my eyes on and this is why I'm writing this. if you don't care about the accuracy of historical events you will probably enjoy the movie and in that case you don't need to read this review just move on to the next. But if you are aware of the conflicts between the east and west, the history of Greko- Persian wars and relationships etc you will suffer thorough the movie and here is why: 1- The history is twisted in the movie and very one sided 2- The movie makers present Persians as terrorists since they use suicide bombers to win the battle which is a shame, how could they relate something that accrued just in the recent history to a great nation like Persia!. 3- The Persian king Xerxes, is presented as a cowered, Darius, father of Xerxes was killed by Themistokles, a Greek general, and before his last breathes he tells Xerxes that "do not repeat my mistake, only gods can defeat Greeks"! while Darius never left Persia to attend this war and he was not killed by Themistokles and until this day, Iranians are visiting his tomb and paying him respect. 4- The customs for Iranian soldiers and the king himself are simply Arabic customs, the general who trained Artemisia is a black person, with my respect to Arabs and every other racial group, I'm I the only one who notices this movie and feels deeply sorry for the racist movie makers?! Is it hard to tell Persians and Arabs and Blacks apart? It's just sick man who are these wild, not civilized people with long beards in this movie? With a simple look at the statues of Persepolis you can find out how Persians looked like. 6- Muhammad Dandamayev a Russian historian, mentions in his famous book "A political history of the Achaemenid empire"; that after the Spartans killed the Persians messengers they realized what a big mistake they did and sent two soldiers to Persia so they can be killed instead of the Persian messengers and Xerxes tells them "I would be like a nation that violated the internationally known values and performed a disrespecting act of cowardliness" apparently this scene was shown as a remarkable thing to do in the movie 7- Last and most important point is in the movie, the Persians did not care about the slaves and the soldiers who were killed but the Greeks were defending not only their country but the freedom and democracy and apparently they don't have any slaves working for them, while slavery was widely spread at that time and it wasn't like the recent slavery of African people, the color did not matter and the Greeks were using them to build their citadels like Acropolis, surprisingly the Persians were paying workers to build Persepolis! the reason I remember this one in particular is that it was discovered just recently, archaeologists found some payment receipts made of rocks if I'm not mistaken belonged to workers who participated in building Persepolis from different nations. Democracy does not have the same meaning as the democracy we know nowadays, it's funny how this movie reflects the American perspective toward Middle-east.

Was the above review useful to you?

231 out of 363 people found the following review useful:

Terribly stupid and pointless

2/10
Author: jo-185-56717 from Germany
17 March 2014

How could you mess up a sequel to 300? The story of the first movie was simple and straight forward, yet jam packed with wit and beautiful details...and came along with a look that was fresh and sexy, very self assured and uncompromising.

Rise of an Empire is a joke compared to the original and a huge let down for anybody who appreciates good (or even visually appealing) movies. The story is unnecessary complicated but doesn't make much sense. While the visuals in the first movie seemed stylized and fresh, ROAE seems cheap, the 3D never really impresses (enough to justify it's use) and I had a hard time finishing the movie, partly because I couldn't believe how they could do this to the franchise...and how Zack Snyder is still part of this...I don't think he sleeps well these days.

Typical Hollywood sell out of a creative original idea. Really surprising to me are all those good reviews all over the place, but I guess quality standards are just ridiculously low these days.

Avoid if you can!!!!!

Was the above review useful to you?

215 out of 337 people found the following review useful:

A far cry from the first 300

6/10
Author: Ron Smith
6 March 2014

I can't understand why Zack Snyder didn't direct this sequel, and how someone who has never directed an action sequence before and just one feature film can be entrusted with a production of this magnitude. That would already be a recipe for disaster, even though in reality Snyder was supervising.

In an attempt to live up to it's predecessor, 300: Rise of An Empire is action-packed, presents impressive visuals and is very bloody. In fact there is more action, more blood, and more nudity than in the original 300. As for the plot, there really isn't much to chew on. A naval commander, Themistocles is supposedly trying to reunite Greece. Since the story takes place before, during and after King Leonidas leads his men to fight the Persians, it can be hard to follow at times.

Most of the acting was mediocre and couldn't quite compensate for the weaknesses in the story. The Australian actor cast as Themistocles in my opinion was a very bad choice, and comes nowhere close to what Gerard Butler did as King Leonidas in 300. He just doesn't bring that rugged heroic presence on screen as is expected. Interestingly I read somewhere that director Noam Murro insisted it would be Sullivan Stapleton who played this character, claiming he was 'the one'. Eva Green on the other hand is plays an excellent villain as Artemisia.

Was the above review useful to you?

158 out of 234 people found the following review useful:

The story is a long way from reality

1/10
Author: ashkan_gh from Anywhere
12 March 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The story is a long way from reality, Persian characters all have come from the mind of the patient's Writer, This movie is more damaging to Persians and no purpose other than. However, the only thing that did not distort history and not more.

If you had looked at Persepolis historical symbols only once, Fully understand all the characters and dress and culture and created a devastating. Xerxes is no way that someone that you've built and only open the doors you had a history of insulting installment. In the end, I'm not bothered because I know with such films history can never change.

Was the above review useful to you?

184 out of 286 people found the following review useful:

You just wanna watch the first movie instead of this piece of...

1/10
Author: lars_4 from Germany
6 March 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

So the Movie starts off with a pretty OK fighting scene.

Take care of this moment because this is probably the only scene that will live up to your expectations.

I will not over analyze the Movie because its just not Worth the effort.

The Movie was plain simple boring. Every scene was just taking your expectations away bit for bit and makes you realise the inevitable truth that this Movie will take Place on the goddamn ships the whole time. Except of course when they are have shitty romantic speeches about freedom and how awesome it is to be lame.

The true heart of the first 300 was the brilliant fighting scenes and the simple principle: - You want to change how we live? - Oh yeah? F you and everyone that looks like you, you shitheads! We rather F our mothers than surrender.

The sequel is the complete opposite: - Ooh, look at us. We have to have this bullshit democracy and F up Everything because we have our freedoms. Lets be lame and use Home-Alone-Traps for defense instead of real fighting scenes pumped up with some Persian-hating testosterone.

I Went to the Cinema this evening expecting a sure to be awesome Movie and all I got was this bullshit.

Im gonna spend my remaining Days praying that all the involved people in this Movie will spend the rest of their lives flipping Burgers at Burger King.

Was the above review useful to you?

155 out of 240 people found the following review useful:

Go watch Disney's BRAVE

1/10
Author: antonioballve
7 March 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

So, the last stronghold of men has been pillaged. The original 300 was about strong, brave, reckless men who would die for glory. This sequel is about a girl who outwits the whole Persian empire and defeats men in their own game. Eva Green's character was so unnaturally forced into 300's universe just to have that "strong female main character" that it was obscene. No Leonidas, no Spartans, a childish Xerxes whose only role in the film was to be an idiot so that Eva Green character's "wittiness" could come to light, and a terrible main character (forgot his name already). I won't even go into the storyline because the real story here is that the spirit of the original 300 has been utterly destroyed. This movie is so politically correct it's stupid, I guess this is what gets money nowadays. I just really hope this movie does badly so that the people who made it give a second thought before killing a franchise next time.

Only part worth mentioning: Eva Green's topless scene.

Was the above review useful to you?

208 out of 351 people found the following review useful:

Worst sequel ever?

2/10
Author: ArT_of_InSaNiTy from United Kingdom
9 March 2014

As the credits began to roll, i sat for a moment, allowing it all to sink in. Had i just witnessed the most disappointing sequel ever? I had not felt this disheartened by a sequel since "The Matrix: Reloaded" Like "The Matrix", "300" for me was excellent; groundbreaking. Fresh and original. And then instead of leaving it as is, they decide to bring in the cash cow and milk it dry. I loved "300"; the action was engrossing, the story was compelling, it was an instant classic. And i never wanted to hear the announcement of an unnecessary sequel. My gut churned when i heard it. But i never thought in my worst nightmares that it would be as bad as it was. The trailer baits you in, with what seemed a promising plot. And left intrigue. By the end of the film it is clear that it was nothing more than a cheap ruse.

The film is all over the place. All this films does is take everything that made the first film great and urinate all over it. The slow motion kills are done to death....within the first 10 minutes. It contained more speeches than the Oscars. It was like a game of battleships (though i would replace the p with a more appropriate t). And between the over the top action sequences they would stand like Hercules and pose..constantly. Then there's the blood......In what can only be described as small versions of The Smoke from "Lost". Maybe done to cater to 3D, but from the very first kill it was so idiotic and made it look extremely cheap. Some of the scenes are atrociously acted. Was sometimes like they where reading their lines from a placard.

The big problem with the film is that is so evident, from the announcement it was to be made, that it was going to try and ride the coat tails of the first film. Cling on for dear life to the actual 300, to the success of the first film. And it showed. It was like "Bourne Legacy" trying to stand on its own without Jason Bourne. If it was its own film it would be one of the worst films ever. But they have the ability to constantly reference Leonidas, even, in a sign of desperation, show Leonidas on several occasions. At one point Themistokles seeks him out. But instead talks to everyone else in Sparta apart from Leonidas. Pointless one would say.

The film lacks the passion, the originality and the spirit from the first film. And yet again another moneymaker that chooses to replace those characteristics with an overexposure of mimicking and a soul-less display of film making.

Was the above review useful to you?

99 out of 155 people found the following review useful:

An Epic ... Fail

3/10
Author: deburton from United States
9 March 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

As I loved The 300, I expected a fascinating mix of action, pathos and inspired history in this sequel. What I received was an uninspired, pathetic and unmoving piece of non-history. The bright spot was Artemisia's portrayal; what was, frankly, boring was the meaningless violence. Meaningless, because the viewer was given no reason to care for the main character, Themistokles, nor for Athens, nor for the Greeks as a whole. The back stories for why both Artemisia and Xerxes turned vengeful were compelling. (Though, as a PhD historian, I can attest they are both ludicrously false.) But for the Greeks, there simply is no backstory, no reason to care for them at all. "Oh, Athens is burning, ... meh." What is worse, the actual history could have given a plot that the film sorely lacked -- a tiny, terrified democracy is convinced, by free speech and a weird prophecy, to allow itself to be physically destroyed. Then the Greeks allow all to ride on Themistokles' desperate gamble, to trick the Persian fleet into attacking them in the straights of Salamis. (By the way, Artemisia actually tries to convince Xerxes to NOT send the fleet in.) The film gives us no portrayal of Athens, democracy, weird prophecies, or Themistokles' true brilliance. Nor does it reveal that the nascent Western world was balanced on a knife edge. Instead, we are expected to believe that a horse and Sparta come to the rescue. Pathos has become simply pathetic. Not even Ozzy's excellent "War Pigs" could keep people seated during the credits.

Was the above review useful to you?

98 out of 156 people found the following review useful:

Rise of the 300's B-Team

3/10
Author: Ruiz Manalo
7 March 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

1. The back story of the villains in this film is more interesting than the story of the 2-dimensional leads in it. 2. The cartoon blood was distracting. I half expected to see some ACME Anvils land on some Persian dude's head. 3. The slow motion to fast motion gimmick was old 5 years ago, and if we want to see 300 style action sequences, we will watch 300. Beautiful imagery, but I'd rather see paintings of it rather than 2 hours of slow- mo. 4.Under explained stakes and characters. I still have no idea why anyone was fighting and what they were fighting over really. And furthermore I felt more sad for the lead villain who was raped repeatedly as a slave child rather than the leading men who think it's cool to have sex with the enemy. And the other heroes from 300 are a culture of people who not only beat children but discard BABIES if they are not born perfectly. These are our heroes? The Persians at least didn't mention that in their back story. 5. This film is almost all exposition. Nearly 80% of the dialogue is either Braveheart style speeches to 10,000 soldiers who somehow can hear one man without a microphone, or two over-acting characters speaking in inconsistent British accents to remind the audience of what's going on and what they're going to do. 6. If you can't get Gerard Butler to perform ANY speaking lines in the film, just cut him out completely. It was laughable how many times they did the "OH, Your favorite character, GERARD BUTLER, JUST left..you JUST missed him..so here is stock photos from the last movie of him...and oh his wife and this guy were in the last movie...and you know them...so they will speak on his behalf" 7. King Leonidas' wife is just as skilled as any Spartan on the battlefield and leads them from the front lines? OK. 8. If Hollywood is going to only make remakes, reboots, and adaptations of earlier works, they should at very least think a bit more on the script before pooping it out. There is no substance in this film, no real story, no stakes, and worst of all, no serious supporting actor. 9. On a positive note, the extras in this film are HILARIOUS. Comedy gold. 10. I cannot take this movie seriously, and I am their target audience. Worth a DVD rental for some fun, but even in 3D it gets old.

Try again Hollywood cash-cow Inc.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 52:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history