300, for me, was about both the story and the combat ability of the Spartan hoplite. Athens played a pivotal role in the Persian invasion force. Had they not been there, Sparta would have fallen and Greece would have burned. As such, this movie pretty much avoids that whole thing altogether. Instead of 200 ships at Artemisium it was 50 in a circle. Instead of 366 ships at the battle of Salamis it was 4 and Themistocles on a horse. Basically, they took the most extreme stories they could and made them more unbelievable. Athens didn't burn, and all of Greece didn't suddenly spring upon the fleet at the last second. I would have much rathered that the director took the story of Themistocles and expanded upon the battle of Artemisium where he used the terrain to his advantage and then moved to Salamis. Even so, Salamis wasn't an open ocean but a small inlet. I know that these movies take a certain liberty with the story, but this was worse than creative license. It was obscene. Finally, the (apparently needed) sex scene was obvious about 10 or so minutes before hand and rather embarrassing to watch. I was disappointed in this one.
77 people found this review helpful
I recommend watching this, especially if you saw the first one. Too bad Themistokels and Artemisia didn't find one another before the war, they were evenly matched. I did feel sorry for the poor horse, but then when was younger, I worried about the horses drowned when the red sea went back together. you older folks will get that....
2 people found this review helpful
- Flag inappropriate
- Show review history
I didn't see the problem with this movie. It gives a nice contrast between the brute-force Spartans and more strategic-minded Athenians. It wasn't like the first movie because it wasn't supposed to be. I also liked how story details left out of the first movie were filled in, like the battle of Marathon and Xerxes' rise. The ending gave me chills. Not the best movie ever, but certainly not the worst, in my view.