300: Rise of an Empire | Noam Murro | March 7th, 2014
In this sequel to Zack Snyder’s 300 (2007), we return to the lands of ancient Greece. Based on Frank Miller’s unpublished work ‘Xerxes‘, Rise of an Empire follows events that unfolded before, during, and after King Leonaidas’ last stand at Thermopylae. Though Snyder did not return to direct, he produced and co-wrote the screenplay. While the original wasn’t exactly a critical success, it’s stylish presentation and brute force won the praise of audiences. This begs the question; does this expansion offer enough to keep the fight going?
A large component of the 300 series is the visual style, meant to emulate (and in some cases embellish) it’s graphic novel beginnings. The first film was notable for using minimalistic physical sets backed by blue screens, allowing artists to design the more expansive dream-like environments. Rise of an Empire employs these same techniques, but the actual setting has widened to encompass far more. The smaller corridors of Sparta and the Hot Gates are traded for the vast Empire of Persia and the Straits of Salamis. All of the slow motion sequences, blood, and gilded chromatics return to dazzle us, but seem to become a bit trite and predictable. The blue of the Athenians’ fanfare gets muddled in the grey and stormy seas, in contrast to the Spartans’ red against gold. That’s not even a direct criticism, but it’s a small representation of the lackluster and absent execution of new ideas. The production just hasn’t changed much, it feels like an interchangeable copy. But to it’s credit, Rise’s well-choreographed fighting scenes will still get your adrenaline pumping.
I thought the plot itself was mediocre at best. 300 was a shot-for-shot adaption of the graphic novel, so it was easy to make comparisons, but that’s not the case here. Being that ‘Xerxes’ is unpublished, I was under the assumption that it would be about, well, Xerxes. The self-proclaimed ‘God King’ (Rodrigo Santoro) created a rather compelling and mysterious character in the original…as well as a creepy one. Rise of an Empire attempts to shed light on that, but really only provides sparse moments and details. The story mainly follows General Themistocles (Sullivan Stapleton) and the campaign to defend a free Greece. An Athenian, his vision of a united country is not shared with that of the Spartans, Leonidas’ widow (Lena Headey) still in mourning over her husband’s sacrifice. The main antagonist is Artemisia (Eva Green), commander of the Persian navy and essential matriarch of the empire. Born in Greece herself, she developed a deep loathing for her own people and allied with Xerxes out of personal ‘revengeance’. I thought Green did a pretty fair job of being terrifyingly brutal, it’s always great to see a female in a non-fragile role. Honestly, Stapleton didn’t do a bad job either, but the characters just aren’t that engaging, save for a really awesome sex scene. There is also a father-son subplot that was so stereotypical it made my eyes roll.
The first film’s success was due in part to the absolutely infectious personalities of Leonidas and his men. His brash dialogue went viral, inspired numerous parodies, and became a part of the public lexicon. Rise of an Empire lacks that sort of appeal, it seems to exist as more of an afterthought than a companion. Also, Spartan warriors were known for their strength and skill in combat, the chiseled physiques of the three hundred men destroying thousands of enemies. Most of the Athenian forces are made up of farmers and trade workers, who still seem to somehow be jacked and infallible. I guess you could chalk it up as a reference to the idealistic Classical/Hellenistic art forms of the day? Another interesting note is that there aren’t any fantastic, monstrous beasts this time. (Remember that 300 was essentially narrated by Dilios, told to the remaining Spartan warriors to bolster their spirit before the Battle of Plataea.) Oral histories were often decorated, becoming legends over the centuries. Whether or not this difference was intentional is up for debate.
We have so many sequels and reboots these days, it’s become custom to judge films as ‘warranted’ or ‘blatant money grabs’. I don’t think Rise of an Empire was a total cash-in, it was entertaining enough, but it’s a puzzle that is missing too many pieces. Much like Xerxes, you can probably walk away from the whole thing like it never even happened.
Join the conversation