User Score
6.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 503 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 95 out of 503
Watch On

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. Aug 1, 2014
    5
    This sequel simply cannot stand up to the original. I'm fine with a little dramatic licence with fight scenes or the historical narrative, but this film drifted far beyond the point of suspended belief.
  2. Jul 8, 2014
    5
    אם אהבתם את הסרט הראשון מהסיבות הנכונות, אתם לא תאהבו ואפילו תשנאו את הסרט הזה, אבל אם מה שאהבתם בסרט הראשון זה את האפקטים הדם והקרבות ולא הבנתם את הנקודה בסרט הקודם אתם תאהבו גם את זה ויכול להיות שגם יותר מהקודם. אבל עדיין יש שם כמה דברים טובים כמו זה שהם לפחות לא הרסו את הדמויות הישנות ועדיין מרגישים ב-480 לפנהסאם אהבתם את הסרט הראשון מהסיבות הנכונות, אתם לא תאהבו ואפילו תשנאו את הסרט הזה, אבל אם מה שאהבתם בסרט הראשון זה את האפקטים הדם והקרבות ולא הבנתם את הנקודה בסרט הקודם אתם תאהבו גם את זה ויכול להיות שגם יותר מהקודם. אבל עדיין יש שם כמה דברים טובים כמו זה שהם לפחות לא הרסו את הדמויות הישנות ועדיין מרגישים ב-480 לפנהס
  3. 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 toTries 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
  4. 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.
  5. Mar 7, 2014
    5
    This visual and stylistic exercise in blood letting turns out to be not quite as good as the original 300. Some concise narration at the beginning sets the scene, but the story matters little. Basically this is the formula as before, the main difference being that most of the battles here take place on the sea rather than on land. Production Design vies with CGI for attention and continuesThis visual and stylistic exercise in blood letting turns out to be not quite as good as the original 300. Some concise narration at the beginning sets the scene, but the story matters little. Basically this is the formula as before, the main difference being that most of the battles here take place on the sea rather than on land. Production Design vies with CGI for attention and continues to blur the line between these two crafts. Likewise, the somewhat bombastic score competes with Dolby sound. The one thing of which the film cannot be accused is to not have used all the technologies at its disposal. Viewed in an IMAX format and in 3D (D Box was also an additional option) the film is certainly a feast for the eye and ear. The speed ramping gimmick is again employed to enhance the dubious enjoyment of torn flesh, severed limbs and lashings of blood flying off the screen. One thing is for sure, subtlety was obviously not discovered in THIS century.

    Acting wise, Eva Green steals the film and she has an erotically charged scene of sexual power play with leading man Sullivan Stapleton (Strike Back) which is also as camp as Christmas. The combination is somewhat disconcerting, not to mention rather funny.
    For all its faults, though, there can be no denying that this is a visually stunning achievement. A short underwater dream sequence also impresses as, in fact, do all the under water shots. However, like its predecessor, an inevitable repetitiveness allows one to become anaesthetised to events which by turn become ever so slightly monotonous.
    Expand
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Jun 15, 2014
    6
    Having only seen the briefest of trailers for 300: Rise of an Empire I was not too sure what to expect. (Even with the title hints)

    The follow up to 300 turns out to be set at the same time as the first film, only your seeing battles being fought mainly on the open waves. Quality wise, this film is on the same par as the first one, with great CGI and the same stylised scenes. However
    Having only seen the briefest of trailers for 300: Rise of an Empire I was not too sure what to expect. (Even with the title hints)

    The follow up to 300 turns out to be set at the same time as the first film, only your seeing battles being fought mainly on the open waves. Quality wise, this film is on the same par as the first one, with great CGI and the same stylised scenes.

    However the story has a little less backbone, clutching at straws at certain times. That's not to say the story is terrible, just not as deep. You are introduced to several new characters and some old ones which end up being your main focus of this film.

    You still get the same level of violence as you did in 300, only this time its a little unnecessary. Far too many blood gurgling scenes with unrealistic blood letting, which add nothing to the film or story. The level of swearing has also been ramped up, although i'm undecided if this is a good or a negative thing as far to often in films you find either the swearing missing or too extreme for the actions on screen. Maybe Rise of an Empire got this level just about right?

    Either way this is not a film for little ones or for a quiet night in watching a film with the wife.

    Overall, the film is worth a rent if you have seen the first one. But don't expect the same quality of film here.
    Expand
  10. 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
    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
  11. Mar 8, 2014
    6
    When going into a 300 movie, you don't expect it to me smart as hell and the best movie ever. However, you walk into it thinking at least it will be dumb fun. This was dumb fun during the fight scenes and the other scenes were taken too seriously. It was as if the director wanted it to be smart, but used silly characters and quite silly premise. It also had a creatures that were quiteWhen going into a 300 movie, you don't expect it to me smart as hell and the best movie ever. However, you walk into it thinking at least it will be dumb fun. This was dumb fun during the fight scenes and the other scenes were taken too seriously. It was as if the director wanted it to be smart, but used silly characters and quite silly premise. It also had a creatures that were quite silly and unnecessary as well. Unlike the original, where the creatures were pretty human and didn't seem too far fetched. These seemed useless.

    The special effects were impressive and the comic book feel was rewarding. It was just dogged down by quite lame action scenes with the fighters seeming supper hero. Though this really wasn't a negative, because its a war movie and I should have suspected that. The special effects though of the fighting seemed fake. Almost like a video game or Matrix reloaded when he fought all the Smiths. The fight scenes wasn't too bad, but wasn't as good as the original. I don't want a movie like this to be completely factional correct, but something like the formation of Spartans, the random idea for the Persians to back themselves into a corner, and even the use of slaves wasn't rewarding.

    Overall the movie wasn't too bad and it seemed like it could have been worse. Though scenes like the random sex scene were useless things in the movie. Things that could have been approved and or left out. Overall I wasn't angry at the movie and don't really consider it a score. I would give it a 6.5/10
    Expand
  12. 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
  13. Mar 8, 2014
    5
    it's not Historically accurate nor logically making sense kinda movie , but for those who like a good 3d , it can be enjoyable. overall good footage but a bad story
  14. Mar 10, 2014
    5
    Rubbish film, but who knew that Eva Green had such nice breasts? At least the first film presented a plausible idea that 300 could fight off thousands in a confined space, but thousands of ships against twenty? Stupid, stupid, stupid. And while they're doing this, everyone just stands around on ships with no defences. No one fires arrows at each other; they just wait and try to ram ships.
  15. Apr 3, 2014
    5
    Not very good, really. Not even as good as the first movie, and that wasn't that amazing, even though it was fun. The violence here becomes repetitive and mechanical, and the whole thing becomes draggy and portentious. And too long. Some of the actors are OK (Green), though there are certainly wooden performances as well. The sequences involving Sparta (and the tedious Spartan will-we,Not very good, really. Not even as good as the first movie, and that wasn't that amazing, even though it was fun. The violence here becomes repetitive and mechanical, and the whole thing becomes draggy and portentious. And too long. Some of the actors are OK (Green), though there are certainly wooden performances as well. The sequences involving Sparta (and the tedious Spartan will-we, won't-we join in dynamic) were particularly disjointed, for some reason. Special ridicule should be reserved for the cavalry charge at sea, which wins the award for the stupid spectacle for spectacle's sake approach to stretching movies out pointlessly. Some good action sequences, but overall, a bit disappointing. Expect another sequel, though. Expand
  16. Mar 8, 2014
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Dissapointment
    This new movie of 300 is a big dissaster, the screenplay is HUGE dissaster in many parts it has no sense. One thing it really surprise me, was the part Artemisia had brown eyes and later her eyes were completely blue. The direction in charge of Noam Murro is a regular performance. The effects of 300 and 300 Rise of an Empire have no difference between them. This film is only another movie
    Expand
  17. Mar 23, 2014
    5
    In order for us, the viewers, to understand the appeal and validity of 300: Rise Of An Empire, it is important to remember its roots. If you bear the original in mind, and then ask yourself what progress has been made in the form of storytelling, visual invention, direction, action and scripting between this and that, then you might start to form an answer as to why this is not as great asIn order for us, the viewers, to understand the appeal and validity of 300: Rise Of An Empire, it is important to remember its roots. If you bear the original in mind, and then ask yourself what progress has been made in the form of storytelling, visual invention, direction, action and scripting between this and that, then you might start to form an answer as to why this is not as great as some have claimed, all on your own.

    Telling partly the same story as the original film, but changing the perspective is a nice idea, if for no other reason than the possibility of maybe witnessing something previously unseen from Leonidus' adventures the last time around. Unfortunately, there is no new appearance from Gerard Butler here, but many of the previous cast do make welcome returns. Lena Headey's Queen Gorgo, to the now ex-King Leonidus, is just as beautiful, bullish, stubborn and independently oligarchical as ever, but probably features even less than the first outing. David Wenham is back again as Dilios, the one that got away, returning to Sparta to tell the tales of valour, courage and sacrifice that the original three hundred achieved in their battle with the god-king Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro), who is also back, having flesh added to a character that was sorely lacking a backstory the first time around.

    But the real focus of this new adventure (or new version of an old story with added opinion) concentrates on the leader of the Athenian fleet. Yes, ladies and gentlemen please welcome Sullivan Stapleton, as the difficult to pronounce and even trickier to spell Themistocles. And any new hero really needs a new adversary, so as if fighting the entire Persian Army and a King (who is also a God, don't forget), we are introduced to the testicle-shrivelling Artemisia played by Eva Green. Artemisia, the real power behind Xerxes' throne is rampant, driven, single-minded and extremely dangerous. Femme fatales don't come much more 'fatale' than this here **** from hell.

    But for all of the new faces and mostly welcome old ones, what is it we really have here? The same comic-book stylised battles, ad-infinitum, slow-motion death throes, spattered scarlet aplenty, interspersed with rousing speeches and verbal sparring. Like its parent, Rise Of An Empire is beautful to look at and grand and glorious in scale and intent. But strip from it the eye-candy, which is incase we forget, the real appeal of the original, we are left with a passable script and less enthralling acting than before. Eva Green's performance as Artemisia is probably the most interesting, if not the most rounded. Lena Headey's return as Gorgo is the most fulfilling, but she has the fortunate happenstance of not having to carry the entire film on her shoulders. Aussie Stapleton however, is responsible for the rise or fall of his fleet and the film and honestly, you have to question whether he has the same presence as the formidable Butler as Leonidus. There will be no 'THIS IS SPARTA!!' quotes this time around, I'd wager.

    In summary, an average return that thankfully doesn't undewhelm visually, but fails to really add anything but previously missing plot holes in a story we have already seen before. With some interesting, if not altogether satisfying characters, Rise Of An Empire is a sickly thrill a minute, but like a decent sweet and sour chicken, you'll probably be hungry again in half an hour.
    Expand
  18. Mar 31, 2014
    6
    300 Rise of an Empire is an aesthetically pleasing film. The battles scenes and setting are visually stunning. For me the story does fall flat, and the characters with an exception of one or two are very generic and predictable. You see this movie for the battle scenes and they don't disappoint. Not as groundbreaking as the first but still worth a watch
  19. Mar 8, 2014
    5
    There is a big lack of immersion, the story is not well connected with the real historical events, the sea battles are dark and short, not really a good film!
    The beginning is really nice but later is going down minute by minute!
  20. Mar 11, 2014
    6
    This adaptation of Frank Miller’s graphic novel tells the story of greatly-outnumbered Greeks who valiantly fight the Persian hordes, this time mostly on water. The style is operatic: full of grand dramatic moments, oversized emotions and dazzling violent ballets. The animated visuals are beautiful and thick (with lots more slomo blood this time). It's more amped up than the original andThis adaptation of Frank Miller’s graphic novel tells the story of greatly-outnumbered Greeks who valiantly fight the Persian hordes, this time mostly on water. The style is operatic: full of grand dramatic moments, oversized emotions and dazzling violent ballets. The animated visuals are beautiful and thick (with lots more slomo blood this time). It's more amped up than the original and features two women in the battles, but it's still the same style with pretentious dialogue and highly stylized action. Expand
  21. Mar 9, 2014
    6
    It lacks the unworldly mythologies of the first title, but its spectacular animation will still be entertaining enough. 300: Rise of an Empire is the prequel, event in between and also sequel of 300, this might be overreaching as it cumbersomely tries to tell wider scale background of the war. Eva Green was amazing as the Nemesis, and the lil background story did good to the character,It lacks the unworldly mythologies of the first title, but its spectacular animation will still be entertaining enough. 300: Rise of an Empire is the prequel, event in between and also sequel of 300, this might be overreaching as it cumbersomely tries to tell wider scale background of the war. Eva Green was amazing as the Nemesis, and the lil background story did good to the character, however, 300 was Epic because of the Spartans. an almost invincible breed of warriors. Leonidas was also way charismatic than whatever Stapleton delivered... Sadly this movie is 90% about Greeks fighting.. and for that, i reckon you're better off watching Troy. Expand
  22. Mar 7, 2014
    5
    Big disappointment.. The beginning of the movie starts off great and interesting but the movie gets terribly written lines, boring action sequences, some atrocious acting, and a bland story. What saved me from giving this movie a lower score is: Eva Green's outstanding performance, stunning visuals, and the beginning's interesting sequences. The movie got quickly boring and I was about toBig disappointment.. The beginning of the movie starts off great and interesting but the movie gets terribly written lines, boring action sequences, some atrocious acting, and a bland story. What saved me from giving this movie a lower score is: Eva Green's outstanding performance, stunning visuals, and the beginning's interesting sequences. The movie got quickly boring and I was about to fall asleep in the last 3rd part of the movie. Also, this movie doesn't even have an ending pretty much. Just a cliffhanger in a way. Doesn't even show what happens! How does a movie do this? If Hollywood is considering a sequel, then they better think of a better concept, story, and better actors/actresses like Eva Green. 5/10 Expand
  23. Mar 9, 2014
    6
    First the good news. It's a great looking film, and Eva Green was one bad ass chick. On the flip side, the leading man did not have the charisma of Gerard Butler from the first film. The battles get tiresome after awhile, as there is only so many ways you can stab and slice people with a sword. Not a horrible film thanks to its look, but not a Blu-ray purchase either.
  24. Aug 21, 2014
    5
    This sequel takes the battle to the seas with all of the gory, slow-motion action you would expect. However outside of Eva Green and an impressive visual style the movie fails to include anything really entertaining. Leaving this blood-bath feeling like a waste of time that only serves to exist to set up a 3rd "300" movie.

    It's Eva Green who makes the movie even remotely worth watching.
    This sequel takes the battle to the seas with all of the gory, slow-motion action you would expect. However outside of Eva Green and an impressive visual style the movie fails to include anything really entertaining. Leaving this blood-bath feeling like a waste of time that only serves to exist to set up a 3rd "300" movie.

    It's Eva Green who makes the movie even remotely worth watching. Her performance is excellent as always, and she once again captures a near-perfect combination of darkness and sexiness with her character. It's just a shame that everything around her is so lackluster. The plotting suffers because none of it's Greek characters, the ones we're supposed to be rooting for, are any good. Lead Sullivan Stapleton does the best with what he is given, but his character is too weak in the personality department to hold the film up.

    With the action feeling dull, uninteresting, and filled with WAY too much slow-mo everything falls on the back of Green to keep this war afloat. Unfortunately not even she can save it from sinking into the bottom of the ocean of mediocrity. The only thing I can say is see it for Green or don't see it at all.
    Expand
  25. Apr 16, 2014
    5
    Not the worst movie I`ve seen. Visually I liked it, although I understand the criticism of it. It really is more like a series of paintings than a conventional movie; seeking to capture the style of the comic book from which the story originates. As with the original 300 most of the historical anecdotes from Herodotus are there, sort of, with a lot of Miller`s creative twists added in.Not the worst movie I`ve seen. Visually I liked it, although I understand the criticism of it. It really is more like a series of paintings than a conventional movie; seeking to capture the style of the comic book from which the story originates. As with the original 300 most of the historical anecdotes from Herodotus are there, sort of, with a lot of Miller`s creative twists added in. Nothing is historically accurate per say, but then not too many things are entirely made up either, with the notable exception of the Spartans appearing at Salamis rather than Plataiai. Perhaps I should rephrase and say that not too many narrative elements are made up, while a lot of the more...decorative stuff is made up entirely and above all hilariously. Including transvestite 8 foot tall Xerxes making a pact with an evil god, Immortals filing their teeth and all the rest of it. Personally I don`t think it was quite as imaginative in this regard as the first movie. At least there weren`t obese executioners with meat cleaver prosthetics for hands in Rise of an Empire.

    However, the story manages to be weaker than in 300 and I was sort of waiting for it to end and leave me alone for the last 30 minutes or so. It`s not that it`s exactly boring, but it just seems to disappear into the visual effects somewhat and abandons the actual historical intrigue it could have drawn on as much as any contrived romantic intrigue it seemed to be considering. Themistokles is stiffly portrayed and so is I think his counterpart Artemisia. They are restricted to inspirational huddle-speeches and incomprehensible behavior respectively. I think it`s fair to say that while Themistokles may very well have been this dull, Artemisia was not borderline psychotic in real life.
    The acting is in fact fairly embarrassing all round, as is the caricature of the Persian degenerates vs the noble Athenians. In its defense one might present that this was more or less how the Greeks saw themselves at the time, being massive chauvinists after all. And while I`m sure Xerxes had a few black and brown people in his army - after all he was ruling the Middle East as far as the Indus - I seem to recall something about the Persians being Indo-European, and therefore presumably white themselves. Some of the inventions and visual schemes are Miller`s and can`t therefore be blamed on Murro. But Miller didn`t make the Persians black or brown as I recall, so this is entirely on the director.
    Whether it`s crude, racist propaganda designed to glorify the USA -which in my mind has very little in common with ancient Greece in any way, - or just a goofy attempt at displaying the cultural division the Greeks undoubtedly felt, I`m not sure. But considering the base level of US propaganda against Iran these days perhaps it might at least be advisable not to have Persian suicide bombers in movies about the Persian Wars.
    As for oppressed women and slaves this was just how all societies were at this time, and for all this the Greeks did in fact invent the modern, civilized notion of political freedom and popular rule. Obviously it had to start somewhere and as it happens it started with free men and didn`t really expand beyond this for about 2400 years after the Persian Wars. But I must say that people who belittle ancient Greece because of these restrictions are ignorant to the point of imbecility. And this concludes my rant against political correctness...

    All in all it might be worth watching this for the visuals if nothing else, unless you absolutely hated the original movie. If you liked the original then chances are you`ll like this one. I still think it falls a bit short though. When you know the source material here, and are at least somewhat aware of the particulars of the Persian Wars, then you also know how much is left out which would have made the movie a lot better. Classical Greece was born as much in the mud at Plataiai as at Salamis yet it`s not even in the movie. And neither is Pausanias who was the other leader of the Greek victory after the death of Leonidas. Instead the Spartans come sailing, led by a woman! And thousands of dead Spartans turn over in their graves....
    Expand
  26. Mar 15, 2014
    6
    Sullivan Stapleton does a good enough job trying to replace Gerald Butler as the leading male and his performance is satisfying enough that you won't miss Butler that much. Eva Green was a great female lead though and does a good job. The rest of the cast is solid.

    Plot wise, It's pretty much exactly like the first film but contains a lot of backstory about Xerxes and how he became the
    Sullivan Stapleton does a good enough job trying to replace Gerald Butler as the leading male and his performance is satisfying enough that you won't miss Butler that much. Eva Green was a great female lead though and does a good job. The rest of the cast is solid.

    Plot wise, It's pretty much exactly like the first film but contains a lot of backstory about Xerxes and how he became the god king that he is. It's sort of a prequel/sequel rolled into one. Sort of predictable though and because of that the movie sort of lost my interest half way through, The ending was lack-luster as well. The action is entertaining but I think the 3D sort of hurt it because you constantly had blood splattering on the screen and it was just sort of boring to look at, 3D wise, after a while.

    Overall, Despite being a sequel to a great action film, It actually sort of lives up to the epicness of the original. Sure it may not be as good but I enjoyed watch it and so did my family.
    Expand
  27. Jun 6, 2014
    6
    300: Rise of an Empire has even more gore and more slow motion action pieces than its predecessor but incorporates a story that seems to have less at stake. Entertaining for the most part but just a bridge for a third installment.
  28. Jun 6, 2014
    6
    It ended just as it was getting interesting. Lots of flashy slow-mo bits and action, but it left me wanting more.

    Also the immortals' combat sequence were obviously done in CGI, their movements were unrealistic and they stood out a bit, it was also a bit annoying how the Athenians' combat skill completely disappeared when fighting the immortals. I know it's necessary to show a skill
    It ended just as it was getting interesting. Lots of flashy slow-mo bits and action, but it left me wanting more.

    Also the immortals' combat sequence were obviously done in CGI, their movements were unrealistic and they stood out a bit, it was also a bit annoying how the Athenians' combat skill completely disappeared when fighting the immortals. I know it's necessary to show a skill gap, but come on..
    Expand
  29. May 25, 2014
    6
    300: Rise of an Empire is an ok movie i knew going into it that it wasnt going to be anything great but as a sequel it stands ok i guess. For the most part the plot fails, the cgi fails, the acting fails well other then Eva Green she was really the only likable character and really the best part of the film. The action was good so that does help for the rest of the movie but i will say300: Rise of an Empire is an ok movie i knew going into it that it wasnt going to be anything great but as a sequel it stands ok i guess. For the most part the plot fails, the cgi fails, the acting fails well other then Eva Green she was really the only likable character and really the best part of the film. The action was good so that does help for the rest of the movie but i will say that this movie does has a ton of blood. While i was on my way home i remembered the poster with the wave made of blood for the movie yeah that is no joke its like that. Ill be honest and say that i wouldnt have watched this in theaters but i went with some friends that wanted to watch it so if it wasnt for them i would have just seen this when outs out on blu ray/dvd and would recommend people just watch it that way and not waste your money.

    Overall i give it a 6.0
    Expand
  30. Mar 10, 2014
    6
    i thought the movie was predictable at moments, dosent mean the movie was bad. Even though it was predictable i didnt find it boring, it was able to stay interested with the story and found it easy to follow. The action scenes also worked really well and i had thought the blood and effects looked really cool too.
  31. Mar 15, 2014
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The original film, 2007's 300, had a cultural impact that no one could predict and made Zack Snyder the household name he is today. However, 300: Rise of an Empire, which acts as an entertaining and well made piece of cinema, lacks the charisma and originality that the the first film delivered.

    Rise of an Empire acts as both a prequel and sequel to 300, telling the story of Themistokles, an Athenian warrior who desperately attempts to unite Greece's cities so that they may defeat Xerxes navy, lead by Artemisia (Brilliantly played by Eva Green) that threatens to encircle and destroy Greece. Though the film suffers from poor character development and a rushed explanation of the origins of Xerxes's power, it does get right what the first film did expertly and that is the combat scenes. Every battle is a gratuitous flair of severed limbs, glorious slow motion and geysers of blood, and is choreographed fantastically. Fans of the first film will certainly appreciate these moments and it is these battles, both on land and sea that carry the film.

    However, Rise of an Empire does have its flaws that separates it from the greatness of the original. With the exception of Artemisia and to an extent, Xerxes, the film has little to no character development and unlike 300, I felt no connection to the supporting cast, as they were so ordinary that none of them stood out. Xerxes's rise to power was glossed over and done in roughly 10 minutes and is highly unsatisfactory to any that are unfamiliar with the fiction. While the jumps into the past were pleasing as they added context to the story of Leonidas and his 300, it was poorly initiated and chopped back and forth which halted the flow of events and the film suffered as a result.

    In conclusion, despite its flaws (and they are distinct) 300: Rise of an Empire is an highly entertaining, albeit forgettable, sequel that will no doubt have you grinning at the sheer spectacle and ridiculousness of it all.
    Expand
  32. Apr 7, 2014
    6
    If you go into this without expecting anything, then it will be alright. However, if you set the bar unreasonably high; then you'll spend two and a half hours watching garbage.
  33. Jun 15, 2015
    6
    Ridiculous, historically inaccurate, poorly written, yet throughly exciting, 300: Rise of an Empire acts as an energetically engaging theatre experience. There is no denying it is not the greatest of films and it could be thoroughly improved. The film suffers from a severe lack of character development and historical accuracy. It's pure ridiculously over flashy fight sequences make for aRidiculous, historically inaccurate, poorly written, yet throughly exciting, 300: Rise of an Empire acts as an energetically engaging theatre experience. There is no denying it is not the greatest of films and it could be thoroughly improved. The film suffers from a severe lack of character development and historical accuracy. It's pure ridiculously over flashy fight sequences make for a an immersive theatre experience regardless. 300: Rise of an Empire is best enjoyed for what it is, an over the top CGI war fest, nothing more. Expand
  34. Aug 26, 2014
    6
    I didn't think it was a great movie, but it was certainly better than the original. It had a decent story, with characters far more interesting than the predecessor "300." The action sequences were insane, and far better executed than most action movies today.
  35. 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 itIt 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
  36. 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
    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
  37. Jul 27, 2014
    5
    The movie goes like this. War, war, war, war, sex and then some more war. There really isn't a plot here. The action was occasionally good. It wasn't boring, but it never rose above mediocre.
  38. Nov 13, 2014
    4
    "300: Rise of an Empire" 10 Scale Rating: 4.0 (Bad) ...

    The Good: As expected, the fights were well choreographed and the battles were on an epic scale. The blood and guts are gleefully over-the-top, but not to the point where it becomes too much. Eva Green was excellent as the film's main villain. The Bad: The film just feels hollow without Leonidas and the 300. They try very hard
    "300: Rise of an Empire" 10 Scale Rating: 4.0 (Bad) ...

    The Good: As expected, the fights were well choreographed and the battles were on an epic scale. The blood and guts are gleefully over-the-top, but not to the point where it becomes too much. Eva Green was excellent as the film's main villain.

    The Bad: The film just feels hollow without Leonidas and the 300. They try very hard to re-create the magic of the first film and they just fall way short. They even copied a few of the scenes and story lines, which felt cheap. There was an odd sexual tension between the main protagonist and antagonist that felt forced, complete with an awkward sex scene. While the first film's grand speeches were well timed and powerful, the sequel has speeches galore. In fact, half the film is a series of rousing speeches. Ultimately, I didn't really care about the majority of the characters in the film and their inevitable deaths were meaningless.
    Expand
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.