300: Rise of an Empire (2014) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
540 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Ruined absolutely ruined (spoiler alert!)
Annaparsons8597 March 2014
Warning: 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.
259 out of 370 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
This movie is an insult to any Persian
zohrabi6413 March 2014
Warning: 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.
291 out of 447 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
The story is a long way from reality
ashkan_gh12 March 2014
Warning: 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.
165 out of 254 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Terribly stupid and pointless
jo-185-5671717 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!!!!!
250 out of 398 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
A far cry from the first 300
Ron Smith6 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.
224 out of 355 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
You just wanna watch the first movie instead of this piece of...
lars_46 March 2014
Warning: 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.
193 out of 305 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Go watch Disney's BRAVE
antonioballve7 March 2014
Warning: 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.
162 out of 255 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
An insult to history and viewers pockets
babelinterpret15 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
It was not even a waste of time because i got time to review mentally the real history of the Battle of marathon whilst dying watching this 3D movie. Firstly, I am tired of the dualism that Hollywood tries to portray when producing these movies: good vs bad. Portrays Greeks as clean, democratic, free civilization,... OK, but always vs dirty, vain, bloody Persians...!!! All that to get viewers to lean towards what they have to judge is good or wrong (america - middle east...). The movie does not portrays a single thing that was real at that time, not even the boats, ...neither, obviously, Artemisa who "represents"a Goddess. Overall, I am not even sure I want to write much about this movie. In fact the chopping hands, heads, blood and bad 3D are representative of what I thought it was an old style of making movies, probably addressed to -sorry- ignorant viewers or those who are satisfied with bloody movies regardless of how misleading they can be. Don't watch it, a waste of time and waste of money....
47 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
An Epic ... Fail
deburton9 March 2014
Warning: 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.
104 out of 165 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Rise of the 300's B-Team
Ruiz Manalo7 March 2014
Warning: 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.
100 out of 165 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Worst sequel ever?
ArT_of_InSaNiTy9 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.
217 out of 379 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Pirate this, it's not worth the money.
Michael Terrell17 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Let me first start by saying that I am staunchly anti-piracy. I wouldn't want you to watch this on Netflix, by virtue of the fact that you spend roughly $8 a month on Netflix, and would subsequently be paying to watch this movie.

Huge fans of the first '300', my fiancée and I went to see 'Rise of an Empire' with another couple on a whim this past Friday. Thirty or so minutes into the film, I had to lean over and ask my friend if this movie was a parody, as it was impossible to take seriously. It could have been the fact that Xerxes now has a heavy Portugese accent amongst poorly executed English accents, used by characters attempting to portray Greeks/Persians. Maybe the cartoonish, video game fight scenes (85% of the film) with a disgusting overuse of the slow motion effect that landed a heavy punch in the first film. Could it be the fact that, without any real firepower, it's almost impossible to make a naval battle truly interesting? How about the lazy use of stock footage from the original film? Maybe the sex scene, which obviously uses slow/fast-mo fighting graphics, and features some Persian chrome-face guards glancing at each other comically whilst they hear the lovemaking from outside the room, a-la Scary Movie. I honestly don't think a parody would do this movie justice.

On the other hand, I greatly enjoyed the $5 Espresso Chocolate milkshake I got from the Alamo Drafthouse. I rate that an 8/10, coming in at a close second to the Strawberry Balsamic shake, which gets a perfect 10/10 every time. I would strongly recommend either of these shakes from Drafthouse, to be enjoyed while watching something other than '300, Rise of an Empire'.
48 out of 76 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Disaster. Absolutely forgettable.
Roland S. Racz8 March 2014
Recently, I tend to think that the first couple of thousand of votes and reviewers are paid by the studios on IMDb.com and the flick will receive its real score about half a year later.

I browsed through dozens of 7 to 10 reviews and I couldn't believe my eyes. Have you seen the same movie I watched yesterday? I loved 300 but this one is a million miles from it. I really don't want to write about the performance of Eva Green and Sullivan Stapleton because they perfectly matched the movie itself: the storyline, the bloody scenes, the dialogs, everything. Forgettable, CGI-packed action with predictable rhythm of "calm" and intense scenes from beginning to end. As far as I remember, the Persians never destroyed Athens and the "rebirth" of Xerxes was also a joke, not to mention the union of Artemisia and Themistokles. 300 was almost a perfect movie but it has nothing to do with its glorious predecessor.
140 out of 248 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
this movie is nothing but a beggar in box office
parham-shidi27 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
this movie sux on so many levels , first of all by reading Herodotus history you will see that this movie is a poor effort to manipulate viewers' minds by telling lies about Persian empire.

1.darius died due to poor health not killed by some coward made up archer.

2.athen was burned as an accident when the residents were escaping.

3.arthemis was not killed in the battle !!! 4.Artemisia's father was the king of Halicarnassus and parents were not killed and raped by Greeks.

5.she was a respected,brave and the first women in history to be a naval commander (being a mastermind in battles),she was not a cold blood killer.

6.the first human right rules were written by Achaemenid dynasty,how could they be this cruel?? when women in Greece were nothing but slaves in Persia they could become army commanders! 7.Persia had the greatest and most powerful army in that period (owning 40% of all the world),they had a permanent army named Persian immortals which was unique ( those times there was no permanent army, they were raised whenever there was a war).how could they be slain like melon?? i can go on and on about the lies this movie is trying to publish to replace the true history by making false heroes ,showing some goofy farmers (as they themselves announce) with six packs and incredible fighting skills .beside all these negative points, the movie itself was so boring i wanted to leave the theater.all the scenes are dark and i couldn't see the action moves most of the time.at least the first movie(beside being another fake historical movie)one was entertaining special effect wise. please don't pay for this pile of nonsense and spend your money to by the history books and read about the real events if you are interested in such historical events.
35 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Rated good by part time movie watchers. Nothing on the original. Lacking in so many ways
jason_leo9 March 2014
As a movie it is OK but as a sequel to 300 it is insulting at best. As soon as the movie begins the first thing you notice is its in full colour and within a few minutes you realise that a lot of it has been shot around the basis of 3d. I'm not a massive fan of 3d however i don't mind it when it fits to the film whereas the film fits to the 3d here instead. Gone is the slow motion beauty although it is attempted it seriously falls flat. If that is not enough the huge army of Persia is gone and instead the film is pretty much boat based which is dull at best. The whole movie is contained in the trailer. The whole get from a to b in a special way at the end was about as unbelievable as it gets. The title is fully misleading as Spartans hardly appear at all except for about two minutes and despite attempting to explain why a god-king becomes a god-king there is no empire included in this movie save for the few boats.

If you enjoy action movies for something to watch this is OK it passes the time. If however you find the original 300 stands apart for the visuals and the fight scenes then do not waste your time you will be disappointed. It is annoying to me that they used the 300 name which made me want to watch it as it really was a average film at best
104 out of 188 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
End of the original 300 legacy!
ash-san9 March 2014
The film is based as a backdrop to the original 300 storyline and paves a wave for the next part in the franchise but all the way it just drained the legacy of 300. The hero gives uninspiring talks with beats in the background score rising to make the army automatically charged up to start fighting and die... its very nonsensical just like Themistokles saying " Today is the day we water the plants" and with rising music the army responds hu rahhh and they get into the battle.

Zack Snyder after delivering the man of steel just seems to have treated this franchise as a step son by doing the screenplay but giving away the direction at Murro's hands who just couldn't pull it off. The casting of suvillian stapleton as a lead actor who clearly fumbles in dialogue delivery and acting was the biggest stupidity. The only silver lining was Eva Green and she delivered right on the money as expected with lena heady who just has a few scenes.

guess people will just have to watch this part hoping something better will come in the third. So in all a disappointing experience for one of the awaited films in my list of 2014.
88 out of 160 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Same but horrible version
Sam Littell17 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
After reading some of the reviews left by movie goers for this film I am rather pleased. Pleased, that I'm not the only person who despised this film. I didn't actually have high hopes for the film to start as most movies this year have been let downs. Well this one was no different..

Where to start... Well the actor that played Testiclees, or whatever his name was, did not fit the role at all. I did like the back story between him and Xerxes (who not only looks like a lady but actually is a lady in this sequel). Wait nevermind I didn't like it at all because it was just ending of the first movie (hero didn't kill Xerxes, C'mon really, did you even try writer). I should have got up and left right there...I even stood up and thought about it before the guy behind me yelled in arabic :/. The movie just got worse from there... I felt like this movie might have been the rough draft of the first film. Same plot, same character story lines (with little variation), same exact lines.. They even used like 14 scenes from the original film itself. Main character becomes a legend, Persians invade, One man leads army, violence, sex scene, dad dies this time instead of closet gay son, hunchback guy, betrayal, Spartans still make everyone else look like a wuss and save the day.. The one major change in this movie is Xerxes is a vagina pad in this movie vs. being an awesome antagonist.. And the actual antagonist in the film would have been good if she didn't look like a meth head the entire time... Character was dull, shallow, and unoriginal.. The strength of her character is detracted by her inability to control her emotions, which is actually pretty realistic ;). Fight scenes didn't do it for me... Just too over the top with the choreographing.. Overall this film just sucked, I currently live in the middle east and they cut out the only good part where I can only assume Testiclees tried to put it in Eva's butt and she got upset about it... I don't even review movies but I am so upset by this film that I am trolling it..

tl;dr - This is the bizzaro version of the original 300
42 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Reasons why you'll forget this movie 10 minutes after viewing it.
prabhat_kataria7 March 2014
I'll be honest here. I wasn't a big fan of 300. The script was pretty basic but what worked was the production values, the action, casting and .. the dialogues. That it what made it the moderate entertainer that it was.

Now comes the sorry sequel. Here you'll find a short list of things that make this movie un-watchable --

The story- Its like 300 all over again, minus the intensity and masculinity. Its terrible. There is no innovation , clearly the writer and director were short of any inspiration that could make the story adequately satisfying on any level. There was a kind of side story involving a father and son which was probably the worst part of this distasteful movie. By the end , i didn't care what happened to anybody as long as it happened quickly .0/10

The dialogues- So amateur, so freaking juvenile. Probably due to absence of script, the actors (oh the wretched actors!, will come to that later) were made to improvise and blurt whatever seems to be right-ish.


Warrior: There will be death and destruction!

Themistocles: Yes... (long pause)

Themistocles: There will be.

And not to forget ,SEIZE THE GLORY!!. 0/10

The casting- The actors ,all of them, even Queen Cercei, were just going through the motions. The lead guy was seriously miscast. He tried to pull a Butler, but failed...epically. Eva Green tried to do what she could with what she had, but she never had enough. Her scenes became monotonous after a while. The side actors could easily have been crew members who were given roles just to get on with this crap-fest. The only strong character , i.e Xerxes was given about 6 minutes of screen time. Its almost as if Zack 'The Hack' Snyder wanted this movie to fail, and fail it did. 2/10 (only for Rodrigo Santoro)

The production- Now this is what made the original...well mediocre. I honestly believed that the movie will stand out in this department. Now heres what i observed. Although made on a budget of 100 million, the effects were god-darn terrible. At times it felt like i was watching a TV show. Spartacus has 20 times better production value than this mess of a movie. The battle scenes felt like the opposite of epic. Has this director ever shot any action scene before, let alone a battle! I think not. I've seen better choreographed fights in Monty Python and the Holy Grail and i believed that about sums it up. 00/10

The direction- Probably a first timer, a clueless director just trying to follow a blind man's footsteps. I am not saying that a good director might have been able to pull it off, but this guy just added insult to injury. 0/10.

The climax - Don't care. Just Frickin end it and i'll be off. 0/10

And the absolute worst part-- There's gonna be another one. When people will forget how bad this was , Mr Snyder will lay another crap on us. YAY!!

Don't watch it. Please. Or if you're so darn inclined to punish yourself, i'd suggest you go easy on yourself and just watch 2 back to back recent Adam Sandler Movies.
243 out of 474 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Blood, dust(?), blood, fireflies(?), blood, ash(?), blood
blufrog498 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Is there a point to this movie? And what's with all the stuff blowing around in the background? At one point, I decided that the theater was having problems with the film and almost left to speak with an employee, but then it was never there during the battle scenes, so it must have been SOMETHING, but it was soooooooo distracting.

Not that there was much to concentrate on. Absolutely ridiculous and ultra violent, along with an--Spoiler ALERT--unpleasant sex scene. Another reviewer mentioned romance--no, there was none of that.

I went for the special effects, the ship battles, of which there were several. Hundreds of men standing on a flat ship's deck, with no sides or rails, plummeting down the face of a wave of Poseidon proportions, and the men don't even sway a bit. Women engaging in sword fights in skirts (and the men in capes).

And the blood. All over the place. If the word "overkill" ever applied to anything, this movie is it. Just when I finally had enough and was ready to walk out, the show mercifully ended.

Snickers throughout the theater--and I'm not talking' about the candy bars.

But really, what was with the dust/fireflies?
41 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
sophiebo888 March 2014
Waste of money!!

I've never felt compelled to leave a review before but my Husband and I were both very disappointed with this film after both really enjoying the first 300 movie.

I was totally bored 15 minutes in but was hoping for something interesting to happen- it never happened!

I felt like it was all action/graphics but no story line, the entire film was people getting killed with swords in slow motion, ships bashing into each other like the dodgems and then there was Sullivan Stapleton's bad British accent which was a mixture between British, American and Australian.
120 out of 230 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Vulgarity vs. Romance.
supatube5 March 2014
"300: Rise of an Empire" will be no surprise in delivery other than it is possibly better than the first? There will, still, be fight scenes reminiscent of flawless dance moves, and the great choreography is what lends the film to being a great 'dance' movie (hello Step-Up 3hundred). The difference in approach comparatively between the two films would be the perverse nature of the second's delivery of the story at hand. The first had a far more romantic predisposition.

The story is more or less the same - Persians are descending onto Greece and taking over. The epicenter for the second take on the Persian take over is Athens and its people. The men are not as perfectly ripped as the Spartans. The soldiers are made up of various sized men (but there's still a great amount of shiny muscle) and not nearly as romantic in appearance as the perfect Spartans.

The sex scene is more sadomasochistic and less love making. The passion between "King Leonidas" and his queen in "300" is filled with affection and attachment whereas the scene in "300: Rise of an Empire" is riddled with force, power and control. The sexual tension in both scenes are similar in sexual tension but both portray a very different tone, one more romantic than the other.

The lighting is impeccable and the story lent well to the way in which the 3D was utilized. Instead of aspects 'popping' out at you they seemed to go deep. The landscapes had so much depth that it was hard not to make the correlation between the depth "300: Rise of an Empire" was reaching to in terms of the Persian take over. As it was not the next installment of "300" but more insight into the original story, as the story goes deeper than Sparta and the army of 300.

Eva Green is outrageously good and compelling to watch and to some degree is the "Leonidas" of "Rise of an Empire". Not to say that Sullivan Stapelton was overshadowed but his role was more meticulous and thought out, very much like the Queen in "300". The two pull the opposite sides of a war story firmly together. Not to mention how smoking hot both of them are.

Like the first, "Rise of an Empire" is undoubtedly clothed in beauty, from the moonlighting to the muscled bodies, the supple breasts to the eloquent sprays of blood, the film is about an aesthetic which is part of the story. Is it masking a lack of story? definitely not, it is the story.

"300" was ground breaking at the time of release, "Rise of an Empire" merely perfects that first step into a world of a different, and maybe more enigmatic, way of story telling. 7.5/10
164 out of 330 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
loulakaki8 March 2014
i am sicked and tired of Hollywood mess up with Greek history once again!! for god's shake is it so difficult to study some history before they decide to make a movie based on those facts? we are used to watch them ruin our mythology but it's even worse to do it with our history. where to begin and where to stop? Themistocles had nothing to do with marathon it was Miltiades and he used a brilliant battle tactic which is worth mentioning. Persians did not burn Athens. that was the point of Salamina battle, to defend the city "with wooden walls". I won't comment the scene between Themistocles and Artemisia... such a pity... good photography is not enough to save this mess.
84 out of 165 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
The most ridiculous movie
Sierra Masera17 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The most ridiculous movie that I have seen .

it just created in a studio without any reality of history . the first one was more ridiculous . it's the reason that all of the professional director denied this movie and it was like a PSP game ! every body of my friends that watched this movie was angry of spending their money for watching a demo of a game . I don't know what did they think (Creators)???!!!! maybe they thought that people with watching this game demo will be amaze and in wonder . I just loosed my time . after watching it I felt they are kidding with me , something really

ridiculous , empty of any art . I think is good for the children between 12 - 15 years as a game demo . so don't loose your time for watching this duds .
31 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews