User Score
6.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 441 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 77 out of 441

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Mar 13, 2014
    0
    Totally Forgettable. Too much cliche scenes and very weak story makes this sequel one of the worst I have ever seen. Amazing how the trailer could be so deceiving. Don't waste your money!
  2. Mar 7, 2014
    3
    Saw this movie last night in 2-D. My first issue was that the blood effect look cheesy but perhaps in 3-D may have looked better. Eva Green was awesome but the leading man sucked. Wasn't buying the story because they had these regular soldiers able to take on the immortals like they were nothing. Absolutely loved the first 300 but this 300 I walked away disappointed and bored.
  3. Mar 23, 2014
    0
    The only thing I find myself thinking when I see a movie like this and then arrive @ metacritic, is what on Earth these people are thinking who give it a positive score. I wish I could be in their head for just an hour, just to see how truly stupid these people are.
  4. Mar 9, 2014
    1
    Disjointed mess. Way too much CG blood. Reality suspension aside, the effects were terrible.
    Just a poor attempt to play the 'stylish cinematography' while over saturating poorly constructed fight scenes.

    Weak sauce.
  5. Mar 26, 2014
    0
    Stupid film. Which nation is the good one?? The one who killed a family and raped the little girl or the one who saved the girl??? The cast is awful except Eva Green...
  6. Mar 15, 2014
    1
    Such a horribly written script! movie cliches one after another mixed with overly done slow mode fight scenes. The color saturation was so badly done that it made the actors look horrible! The diversion from historical events were also annoying, not that I planned to see an accurate re-telling, it was laughable how sad.
  7. Apr 9, 2014
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This film is aimed at making Americans (analogous to the Greeks, westerners) feel good about themselves. It takes what was a wonderful history (read Herodotus Books 6-9), and uses it to create a cartoon - a caricature of what the producers think will be a more appealing story, but is yet inferior to the real one. I would much rather have seen thousands of Spartan warriors (among the rest of the Greeks) fighting at Plataea than seen Spartans coming to save the day at Salamis IN BOATS! That's insane. Both the Greek naval victory at Salamis (led by the Athenians), and the Greek land victory at Plataea (led by the Spartans) individually make better stories. I feel sick just writing about it. It's an indictment the creators of this film are making of the audience - that we are idiots, and they are correct in that assessment. Expand
  8. Apr 4, 2014
    1
    This is an example of a film that should never make it past the drawing board. Its vapid and pointless story drags on from one CGI scene to the other, until it finally ends. Thank goodness, now I can go home and play some video games because the movies today aren't doing it for me anymore.
  9. Mar 12, 2014
    3
    I waited the whole movie for a movie to start. It never did. The story is nonexistent, unclear, and inconsequential. The whole thing piggybacks on your remembrance of the first movie. It's not bad, just sort of empty. Plays it safe
  10. Mar 26, 2014
    2
    I had to give up on this one somewhere around the halfway point. Maybe something interesting happens after the one hour mark, but I wasn't willing to stick it out.

    To be fair I found the original more than a little underwhelming, so I'm probably not in the target demographic, but I was hoping that the sequel might provide at least a little entertainment value. Unfortunately it seems to
    be little more than a group of interchangeable bearded men in good shape dancing around a sprinkler system spraying far too much CGI blood. If you like that sort of thing you'll probably eat it up, but I'm sure there are already more than a few 'adult' websites that cater to that fetish.

    P.S. It's probably time to retire the technique of slllooooowwwiiing the action down before speedingitupastheswordstrikes.
    Expand
  11. Apr 5, 2014
    0
    Foul, racist American propaganda painting the great and enlightened Persian empire as a bunch of savages. The "suicide bomber" was particularly sickening.
  12. Mar 16, 2014
    4
    This movie was a huge disappointment, because I fell so much in love with the first one. The actors and actresses in the first one were way more passionate and believably intense. It was boring the fighting seemed unrealistic and sort of video gamish. The blood looked fake. Just wasn't impressed
  13. Mar 8, 2014
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Meh is how best to describe this sequel. I saw the Double Feature of the two 300 movies on Thursday evening, and I was left wanting. Being a big fan of the 1st movie, I went in with little expectations to return this obvious money making opportunity into a worthy sequel. They did try to capitalize on 2 of the best features of the first movie, which was war strategy with amazing looking graphics. The first movie was battle on land, and the sequel is on water. What it fails to bring back was good characters to root for.

    SPOILER:

    There is an odd aggressive sex scene with our hero and the evil warrioress of the sea, and it makes little sense. Even if she is quite sexy, and I did not balk at seeing more of her, it seemed to be added to appease a portion of the audience who needed a break from the violence and bad character development. The hero was just not the same after that, and how could you as a movie goer want to root for his success after succumbing to his pent-up prostate? Sure he has had dating problems, but he decided to marry Greece and as soon as someone flashes a leg, our hero decides to be unfaithful to his motherland? Come on Dude!

    The rest of the movie tried to overcome the messy script with memorable fight scenes, Unfortunately for me, I just watched the 1st movie back to back, and there was little original in the 2nd movie to allow me to enjoy it fully. It isn't a bad movie, it just lacks that emotional connection we need with the characters, and that ultimately is the flaw. Even though the fights were the same, it is the slow-motion sequence of the fights and the over the top speeches that made you enjoy the first 300 movie. If you want more of that, then unplug your brain for 2 hours and enjoy.
    Expand
  14. Apr 5, 2014
    4
    Tries much too hard to reproduce the successes of the original, but falls short in nearly every way. There were a few cool action moments as they fight on the sea, but the plot is totally uninteresting and the characters are too cliche to like. I might have been able to enjoy it as a short action/semi-hero movie with style, but it took itself much too seriously to enjoy it. It seems to drag on and on, trying to produce depth that it just didn't have. It took too long to tell a story, and the story was too cliche and uninteresting to be the focal point. Pass. Expand
  15. Jul 3, 2014
    3
    Ugh! Down right awful!

    (I decided to put as much into this review as the writers and actors, barring Eva Green who's always on point, put into this movie).
  16. Mar 11, 2014
    4
    It was okay. I found 300: Rise of an Empire to be somewhat entertaining, but somehow the blood effects are even less realistic than those in the original 300. The cast is also quite pale compared to the original(Gerard Butler, Michael Fassbender, etc.) Eva Green was really over the top but I suppose in a good way. I don't really think it's necessary to see in theaters.
  17. Jun 19, 2014
    4
    -Blood effects were "overdone"
    -Fighting looked very unreal almost like a videogame and didn't fit the theme of the movie
    -This movie is clear example of why moviemakers should not abuse CGI as it destroys the immersiveness and
    no one takes it seriously for instance how can a skinny female slice through piles of armoured warrior in one stoke and pour gallons of blood.What a joke of a movie.
  18. Apr 22, 2014
    3
    What was I didn't understand what was director and the movie maker was doing there. Movie was complete failure after a great first movie we were expecting something greater but it was disappointing. And cast was not right.
  19. May 3, 2014
    4
    The only reason I'm not giving this a 0 or a 1 is because of the sexy jew actress, the movie is horrible otherwise and not worth watching, she makes the movie barely watchable, otherwise it would have been an even larger fail.
  20. Jun 5, 2014
    4
    The first 300 wasn't an amazing film.
    But it had a number of well executed scenes for its budget which made an impact.
    This is completely lost in the second film. Like many sequels, its completely flat. Ironically, graphically it is superior to the first one, you can see the producers really worked on creating beautiful environments like the seas of Greece or the Empire of Persia. One
    exception to this is the surprisingly awfully rendered CGI blood which is very distracting and which somehow wasnt a problem in the first movie. Incredible nobody caught that problem.
    In any case, the movie is completely bland and flat. Somehow the cast doesnt deliver the same memorable emotional impact the first one did. They are unbelievable. The Greek fighters look like English teens out of London with muscles built in fitness centres (not battles), and Eva Green -although an amazing actress- doesnt make sense as a war leader supposed to lead an Army of macho Persians.
    Also the whole scenario is simplistic and the scenes dont make sense. You really get the feeling they tried to reproduce the same impact as the first film, but they didn't.

    Overall a huge let-down. But still to be watched for any fans of period films.
    Expand
  21. Jul 25, 2014
    4
    It took them seven years to make a sequel. There isn't much to say about this film. It's disappointing. The storyline isn't really anything interesting because its pretty much the typical revenge **** like in almost every other film thats being released nowadays, the characters are boring, they're the standard characters wanting vengeance, and the CGI is insanely bad. At some points it actually felt like I was looking at video game gameplay...

    As a comparison as this film has large battle sequences, Lord of The Rings budget was $93 Million and the budget for this (ROAE) was $110 Million. A film from 2001 had more believable CGI then a film from 2014, and I'm not even a fan of Lord of The Rings.

    Of course, they're making another sequel for this film when they could had easily just made this film another 30-40 minutes, then it would had been the end of it... Either way, I hope they do a better job next time. Although, what do we expect digging out a sequel to a 7 year old film? It'll probably be another 5 years for the sequel.
    Expand
  22. Jul 28, 2014
    2
    Not even half as good as the first part.

    Very weak performances, especially of the leading man. Even the guy playing Xerxes isn't as good as he was in the first movie. Perhaps the only one performance that can be deemed 'good' is that of Eva Green, and even she didn't have enough to work with. The script is too cheesy to have any emotional resonance. Even that sex scene was way too
    stupid.

    The fight scenes are somewhat entertaining, though the idea of standard Greek soldiers easily killing the Immortals wasn't very convincing. These Immortals (aside from the entire Persian archery) were the only warriors who could kill some of Leonidas's 300.

    Another thing that really bothered me was the blood. Too excessive. In 300, it was done within reason; and when it was, it looked real. But here, it's way overdone. Pools of blood coming out of people's bodies, and not realistically-looking as it should (and could) be. The slow-motion effect was also overused.

    A very terrible and forgettable movie. Not worth the 90 minutes spent watching it.
    Expand
  23. Aug 4, 2014
    4
    I didn't enjoy this as much as the first. They should have carried a sign that read "girl power" in this film. I Wasn't sure if I was watching "sucker punch" with women beating up men with their sheer force and strength. Only z. Snyder would conceive of something like this. My history may be a little Hazy but weren't women during this period property or slaves?

    The action scenes weren't
    bad and the visuals were well done. The story I think hurt this film. Expand
  24. Jul 27, 2014
    3
    Visuals (not believable but they didn´t want them to be believable I suppose, so it´s ok). Just that. Nothing else is interesting. If anything, I´ll give a couple of actors kudos for putting some effort in this movie.
  25. Aug 12, 2014
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. You know that movie you like? And then that sequel that comes out and ruins it? Well, this is that movie! I never loved 300, but it's super macho killing was moderately interesting when watched either drunk or stoned, but rise of an empire basically comes along and takes a huge dump on it. *Spoilers ahead *

    Okay... Get this...
    According to this movie, you know that Xerxes god character? Well he has this sister right... And she's totally the brains of the operation and 100% manipulated everything that happened in movie 1 because... She's... Ugh... Female I guess... And it's only %10,000 unrealistic for a bunch of arab men to follow a woman into battle in ancient times, but WHATEVER, it's a movie... But... This whole flick is about her failed attempts to look arousing while smirking from ear to ear and it culminates in her telling off Xerxes really big to "Go sit on your golden throne and enjoy the safety my army provides you." If the makers of this film had any sort of respect for the 1st movie, they wouldn't reduce Xerxes to such a pathetic character, I mean, he already basically lost in movie 1, and now we're supposed to believe he can't even run his own army? What's left? Will the 3rd 300 movie feature a distant cousin who totally manipulated Xerxes, his sister and all of humanity into a war while leisurely eating grapes in a distant land? Makes about as much sense as this crap. I enjoyed the movie for a while but little sis running the show and her 13 foot brother being a weakling got old really fast. After she told him off, I didn't even bother watching the final battle. What for? I did jump ahead a little and saw Leonidas' queen charging the enemy, and instantly felt good about my decision to skip the last 25 minutes... It was bad. Expand
  26. Jun 1, 2014
    3
    This sequel just didn't live up to the first film. Sullivan Stapleton delivers a decent performance but the most notable performance was Eva Green's. Being that this is supposed to be full scale war, I expected it to be more epic than the first.
  27. Aug 12, 2014
    1
    I loved 300 really awesome movie i never even blinked while watching it and my eyes turned red . honestly i hated 300 rise of an empire it sucked . this movie i waited for it so badly but it smacked me at the face once i watched it . it has a very bad continue . the characters is the worst of all . if they changed eva green's character to a male character and tweaked the story i mean a lot it would have a shot . one last thing the performance is REALLY REALLY BAD REALLY REALLY SUCKS . i gave it 1 because of the fight scenes only . Expand
  28. Mar 15, 2014
    1
    Se il primo 300 meritava un 2 questo merita un 1 per la presa per il culo di farti credere che vogliono dare spessore alla trama e ai personaggi cattivi.
  29. Mar 19, 2014
    3
    Вторая часть полностью копирует первую в сюжете и очерёдности сцен: Сначала горстку войск посылают на сражение с могучей армией, среди них есть отец и сын, один из которых погибнет ; горстка вешает люлей в первые дни ; Затем главнокомандующего вызывают на "переговоры" и тот отвечает отказом капитуляции ; затем их пытаются взорвать, но не выходит ; затем эпичный финал.
    Но без колоритных
    спартанцев и золото-бордовой цветовой гаммы (которую сменили на сине-серую) - фильм проигрывает первой части.
    Жалею что ходил на это убожество в кино! Никому не советую.
    Expand
  30. Apr 16, 2014
    2
    A total waste of time and money. This movie could've been something BIGG! Too much meaningless slow-motion scenes, very weak story + poor acting. An episode of SPARTACUS alone is worth both 300 movies.
  31. Aug 26, 2014
    3
    300 was a beautiful experience that failed to be replicated in 300: Rise of an Empire. The story was uninspiring to the point I lost interest in the film shortly after pressing play.
Metascore
48

Mixed or average reviews - based on 34 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 12 out of 34
  2. Negative: 9 out of 34
  1. Reviewed by: Drew McWeeny
    Apr 18, 2014
    75
    300: Rise Of An Empire is a worthy sequel to "300," stylistically consistent and equally loony, featuring what may well be the first truly can't-miss performance in a film this year.
  2. Reviewed by: Richard Corliss
    Mar 10, 2014
    60
    For all the energetic milling, Rise of an Empire proves superior to its predecessor by making war a game both sexes can play, on nearly equal terms. In comparison, the R-rated "300" seems as innocent as Adam in the Garden before the delicious complication of Eve — or Eva.
  3. Reviewed by: Peter Bradshaw
    Mar 10, 2014
    40
    It really is pretty dull, though, with the same moments of campy silliness: the same frowning gym bunnies with the same digitally enhanced abs.