 |
| Warner Brothers |
When it was officially
announced a few years ago that there would in fact be a sequel to the wildly
successful 2007 film, 300, I couldn’t
help but think that essentially a remake of 300
would be the end result. When trailers, posters, photos and any type of
marketing started to surface, I was not convinced otherwise that the sequel to 300, 300: Rise of an empire, would not
dare to wonder too far off the same path its predecessor took. When I saw the
final product, the actual film 300: Rise
of an Empire, I walked out of theater feeling, with really no
disappointment or surprise, that I had just watched a remix or version 2.0 of 300. Other than the new players, an
actual antagonist and 3D blood, 300: Rise
of an Empire is not much more than a retelling of a film released seven years ago and I’m sure if I was seventeen like I was
back then, I would have been blown away.
With
Queen Gorgo (Leah Headey) narrating, 300:
Rise of an Empire begins by explaining that Athens General Themistocles
(Sullivan Stapleton) earned is place among Greek war legends by killing the
king of Persia, Darius (Yigal Naor). Shortly after this, the audience is
informed that Darius’s son Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro), now the king of Persia,
was pushed by Persian naval commander, Artemisia (Eva Green) to become stronger
or to become God like so he is sent across the dessert to a cave where he emerges
as a “God-King”. This is the same Xerxes that is seen in the first film. When
he returns to Persia, Xerxis, with his new found abilities and status, declares
war on Greece. This makes way for the rest of the film to be devoted to a
showdown between Greek and Persian armies at sea led by Themistocles and Artemisia.
If director Noam Murro is
attempting his best Zack Synder impression with 300: Rise of an Empire, he absolutely nailed it. The pace,
cinematography and chorography is nearly an exact replica of 300 but did you expect anything
different? Given the script and Synder’s involvement as a writer and producer,
Murro probably wasn’t given much of a leash. However, this doesn’t mean that
there are not any added aspects. The battles scenes take place on ships at sea.
This could offer endless opportunity but with the aquatic battle field, ships
crashing together time and time again are really all the environment has to offer
when it comes to these scenes.
Due too little
involvement, Xerxes, the main antagonist in 300,
could barely be described as a villain (which is a shame because of he is
arguably the most interesting character of the franchise). In the form of
Artemisia, 300: Rise of an Empire
offers up more of a chief villain. Do not get me wrong, she is no Nurse Ratchet
but the character is somewhat interesting and Green is respectable in the role.
Artemisia, originally from Greece, saw her mother killed by Greek solders as a
child. She rose to the top of the Persian military by killing for King Darrius.
This is all seen in brief montage and in some of her actions and
characteristics throughout the film. This can be credited to Green who does all
she can with a sub-par script and brings confidence and control to the
character.
The most satisfying aspect
of both Artemisia and Greens performance is her interactions and involvement
with Themistocles. It is never revealed but it becomes clear that there is a
history between Artemisia and Themistocles through not just what is said but also
with actions and expressions. There is a moment in the final 10 minutes of the
film that is easily the most compelling moment of the film due to Greens
non-verbal actions and a line delivered by Stapleton. Both Green and Stapleton
also play well off one another and because of this, the film is at its most
entertaining and tense when the two are on screen together.
When it’s all said and
done though, when Black Sabbath accompanies the credits, like many sequels, it becomes clear that 300: Rise of an Empire is not a sequel
that adventures to far from what 300
did seven years ago. This is interesting not because it resembles its
predecessor but the time frame. 300
became somewhat of a cult classic but seven years is more than enough time for
the flame of a film phenomenon to soften or even go out. It’s also enough time
for an audience member to personally change. So why not factor this in when
making a film so many years after the first? With a rough, opinion infused
estimate, I would say the target audience for 300 is age 14 to 22 males (not factoring in genre preferences) and given
that the majority of this target demographic is no longer in this group, why
not target the old and new? Use some the same (keyword being some) aspects that attracts the 14 to 22
age range and then put more focus on characters and story for the now older,
more mature target demographic of the first film.
Sure, a year or two
after the first film something very similar to the first film may be just fine.
In fact, given that the events of 300:
Rise of an Empire takes place during the same time frame as the events in 300, a sequel could be at its most
successful if it was released 6 months to a year after the first. Seven years
later may be the perfect excuse to step outside the box a bit. It’s interesting
how the age old expression ‘if it’s not broke, don’t fix it’ applies to the
film industry in that sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t so it is never
easy to decide what needs fixed and what doesn’t. 300: Rise of an Empire certainly doesn’t make it clear that the 300 style is broken but given that its
best features are the few (underutilized) things that 300 doesn’t have, the style definitely does not have the same bang
it once had.
Grade:
C
No comments:
Post a Comment