300: El origen de un imperio

Now the professional reviewers seemed to pan this before it had any chance. In some ways it happened to the prequel also. As a fan of the prequel I was willing to give this the benefit of the doubt. I'm happy I did but it's not a patch on the original.

We have here a film that focuses on another clan of Greek fighters battling against Xerxes' men, except this time it's on warships, so it's really '300 on the Sea'. Some old faces but the opposing captains of our sides this time are the wonderful Eva Green and the less convincing Sullivan Stapleton.

The film is wall to wall action and you'll be enthralled. It's even more violent than the first. The bad thing is that the dialogue is really poor and the story not as riveting, engrossing and rousing as the first. Say what you like but there's a lot of wonderful points in the first that is what has made it a cult favourite.

If anything the flaws of this highlight just what was best in the old one. The lead ain't no patch on Gerald Butler and is outshone by Eva Green as the temptress Persian battle queen. In fairness to our new lead, he is purposely more human than the old King Leonidas, and is a great warrior without the Spartan attitude. Yet that misses out what was quite a strong point of the previous film.

In many way its a paint by numbers sequel as such (although the timeframe of the film mostly parallels that of the first). If you enjoyed the first and and want more then you'll find it here. For everyone else, probably you won't miss much if you let this one pass by. For me as a fan of the original, it was fair enough but not in the same league as the first.

A feast in so many ways! Unbelievably clear, brilliant photography. Very graphic, but never ceases to amaze. The film is ultimately not as exciting or entertaining as its predecessor, but nevertheless still fascinating. Plot flaws galore, it doesn't quite made sense why Themistokles went to Artemisia's ship, as it seemed like a suicide mission, but the sex scene that subsequently followed was indeed one to behold!

The film does become a bit repetitive and the slow motion overdone, but the eye candy more than compensates for this! Sullivan Stapleton makes a likable hero.

Making a sequel to 300 must have been a daunting prospect. After all, the story of the Battle of Thermopylae was a self-contained war film with a very definitive ending seemingly at odds with the idea of a sequel. However, the makers of 300: RISE OF AN EMPIRE have done a good job with this film, which offers more of the same while something different at the same time.

300: RISE OF AN EMPIRE is a deeply flawed film with plenty of problems, but nonetheless I enjoyed it. The film is packed full of war action - with a distinctive naval slant this time around - filmed in the same highly stylised way as in the first film. Thus we get lots of CGI blood sprays, slow motion hits, and superhuman feats. I'm easily pleased when it comes to well directed action, and this film doesn't disappoint in that respect.

Although the central characters lack the gravitas of Gerard Butler, Vincent Regan, and Michael Fassbender from the original film - and Sullivan Stapleton as the protagonist is seemingly devoid of charisma - this film does boast an excellent villainous performance from Eva Green. Green seems to be giving her all with her character in this one, relishing the opportunity to play a hard-bitten, ass-kicking female commander. She's by far the best character in the thing.

Elsewhere, RISE OF AN EMPIRE has some prequel stuff showing the rise of the Persian god king Xerxes, some concurrent stuff (a CGI composite of Butler is brought back in the same way they brought Schwarzenegger back in TERMINATOR SALVATION) and sequel antics. Unfortunately the storyline is very predictable and Lena Headey's character shouldn't have been included at all. But there are some spectacular set-pieces here, particularly the fiery attack in the water, and as mindless action it works well.

Is it a 300 prequel, sequel, or set concurrently with the events of 300? Yes. It somehow manages to be all of the above, and manages to come up with a story that leads up to the events of the original and sorta what happens afterwards as well as creating a storyline of what was happening at the same time somewhere else. It's also always fun when original actors return in cameos to reprise their roles to give further character backstory especially the "this is madness!" guy who manages to get a quick story arc.

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.