The return of the Historically Inaccurate Manly Movie!
300 was a movie that spawned a rebirth of stylized slow-mo action films back in 2007. It along with Sin City (both the comic book creations of author Frank Miller) also helped upsurge the comic book film genre and the hyper stylized green screen filmmaking. Both were considered revolutionary at the time that they were made as well as being lauded for being literally accurate to the text and images of their respective graphic novels. But the key words there should be "at the time."
The Plot
In this follow up to the original smash hit, Rise of an Empire shows a different side of the war. While Leonidas and the Spartans held the Persians back at the Hot Gates, the Athenian Navy held the Persians back from making complete landfall on Greece. Leading the charge of the Athenians is the military commander Themistocles (Sullivan Stapleton) who goes against Persia's most vicious naval command and military genius, Artemisia (Eva Green). While the Spartans may rule the land, the Athenians rule the seas in an epic battle that will stain the ocean with blood!
Analysis
It is a wonderful thing to be considered a "revolutionary" film. Whether small or big, if something comes along and then others try to emulate, then that film really should be called revolutionary. Unfortunately, that usually means imitators are to come. Now, the TV Show Spartacus may be a stylistic rip off of the testosterone, blood shedding, female nudity bonanza of 300. Coming off of the 300 craze there was a definite need to fill that void and Spartacus does that. But like The Matrix caused an abuse of bullet time, 300 would result to an abuse of "ramping." As in the action slows down then speeds up then slows down to put emphasis on a certain attack. It works wonders the first time it is seen, but when used over and over again it is clear that there is not much originality with action. At least it is not as bad as the shaky cam action introduced in the Bourne Films.
Then of course there is the other subject that has to be addressed: Historical Inaccuracy. I can argue that the narrative of the 300 graphic novel was meant to be a visual propaganda storytelling by a soldier trying to rally his troops for war. So of course the story is exaggerated and the enemy is made out to be monstrous. Though in the movie they took the "monstrous" portion of the propaganda to the extreme. But then again the best propaganda does make the enemy literal monsters. And that's how the story was intended. A soldier rallying his troops by telling them an exaggerated story of true events that make them feel superior and the opposing party as monsters. Unfortunately because of the times we live in, people will not see it that way and they have every right to see it that way.
The Persian Empire were not monsters and they were in fact more civilized than the Greeks who were known for keeping slaves, something the films and the comic completely leave out. But because the movies is visual propaganda to serve the movie's storyteller, it does come off as a literal propaganda against modern Persians. It is their right to take offense in this. I have a Persian friend who is offended by this. But at the same time I could say that I should be offended by Act of Valor for portraying Filipinos as monsters. But I'm not. And is it the same thing? No, because at least the Filipinos still looked Filipino whereas the Persians in 300 look like monsters. But this brings me to another point. Everyone is capable of being a monster, but it takes an intelligent person to see that. It also takes an intelligent person to know that this movie is not by any means trying to be historically accurate nor claim that this is historical truth. It is a film that is meant to just give a simple message of freedom is worth fighting for but the characters just happen to be based on real historical people.
But does this sequel have the same message? Well...
Review
I enjoyed the film. That doesn't mean I think it is good. But I enjoyed it enough to where I think it meets up to the standards of the previous film. But it doesn't surpass it. The fact that the most memorable scene in the movie is the ultra violent and extremely hot sex scene between Eva Green's Artemisia and Sullivan Stapleton's Themistocles, and I mean this is one of the hottest sex scenes I've ever seen in recent films so far, then that kind of tells you something about the rest of the film.
Zack Snyder was working on Man of Steel when this film was in production so directing duties got passed on to Israeli director, Naom Murro, who does an adequate job of mimicking Snyder's style from the first film. But that's where the problem lies, the director was mimicking the exact same style from the first film. That shouldn't be a problem when dealing with a sequel, but when the notion of bringing in a new director to take on an established property usually means something has to be changed. The stylistic difference between Kenneth Branagh's Thor and Alan Taylor's Thor: The Dark World are obvious but they still feel like they're related and connected. Murro doesn't show a distinct style difference or flair here the way Snyder does when he was at the helm. This may not be his fault as this is his first foray into large action epics having only directed a romantic comedy previously. And while the Naval Battles are indeed fantastic there wasn't really a memorable moment that stood out. All the action was just fine and acceptable entertainment for the time. I could even say that it wasn't as gory as the last movie. Hmmmm.
Usually I'd go on to say how the actors are incredible, but for this film that praise only belongs to one person: Eva Green. She comes in to this saga as Artemisia, a Greek Woman who was forced into slavery then rescued by Persians who would then breed her into the ultimate military genius. It is interesting that the film would acknowledge that the Greeks had slaves yet completely ignore it when they keep establishing that the Persians are the ones who enslaved people. So that was a little odd, but it is her backstory. And Eva Green fully loses her self in the role. She is a powerful presence who remains in one's memories well after the movie is over. She is the ultimate villain, far more interesting and scarier than King Xerxes from the previous film, who in here even he has reason to fear her. And like I said, her sex scene with Stapleton's Themistocles is incredible and extremely hot. And I saw that in IMAX 3D with a lady friend who dragged me to movie... Thank you IMAX 3D.
Which brings me to Sullivan Stapleton. The only memorable thing about him in the film was he was the guy who got the savage warrior woman to bend over. But I really have to place a lot of blame to the script more than his acting. His character is not Leonidas and his army is not the Spartan army of killers but an army of ordinary people who really want to fight for their people. So he's not as testosterone fueled on overdrive as Leonidas but rather a smart and caring leader who does worry when his troops die. This would work great if Gerard Butler's Leonidas was not a precedence. It leaves Themistocles and his forgettable supporting Athenian cast looking like terrified soldiers rather than the manly blood thirsty soldiers introduced in the previous film. While it does offer a clear distinction that Sparta really is different from Athens, that distinction lacks the punch this film needs.
Final Thoughts
This is an enjoyable passable entertainment. It is not a history lesson so don't view it that way. This is more like a historical fantasy imagined by a teenage boy who just discovered that girls look better naked. That is not necessarily an insult, but that's how it feels like. It is still entertaining and weirdly enough it can be edited with the previous 300 film into a single 3 hour epic. It is possible to do that with these two films. And that would be incredible. But as a standalone, it is just okay.
SCORE: 6.7/10 - Eva Green is ridiculously hot... oh yeah and cool action
No comments:
Post a Comment