300: Rise of an Empire

Should there be a limit on when sequels can be released following the original? You'd think studios would want to strike while the iron is hot in most cases. Well, most cases, not all. Released in 2006, 300 was a huge success, earning almost $500 at the worldwide box office. I was a little surprised then last year to read a sequel was in the works. To be fair, it's not exactly a sequel in the most literal sense. Still, I'm a huge fan of the original 300 so I had to at least check out the follow-up, 2014's 300: Rise of an Empire.

As an immense Persian army totaling in the hundreds of thousands descends on Greece, Persian God-King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) prepares for a complete and utter takeover. While Leonidas, the King of Sparta, and his personal guard of 300 Spartans look to bottle up the Persian forces at Thermopylae, an Athenian general, Themistocles (Sullivan Stapleton), is desperately trying to unite the Greek city states in hopes of mounting a defensive effort. His plan is to take on the gigantic Persian navy with a limited navy supplied by the city states, but even the thought of victory will require a creative defensive plan, relying on guts and some luck too. Themistocles' hopeful victory seems desperate at best, especially when the Persian navy is commanded by a powerful female warrior, Artemisia (Eva Green), with Greek blood who wants nothing more than to lead her forces to a decisive victory.

So yeah, I loved 2006's 300. I loved the graphic novel-like look, loved the characters, the over-the-top, bloody action, and I've always been a sucker for sword and sandal epics. It is and was an all-around winner. Naturally, I had to give this follow-up from director Noam Murro a shot, with 300 director Zack Snyder co-writing the script with Kurt Johnstad based on a still to be released graphic novel from Frank Miller. So why isn't it a sequel? The story in 'Empire' is actually going on as the events with Leonidas and the 300 Spartans are transpiring. 'Empire' is based off the real-life historical battle of Salamis (<----obvious p="" spoilers="">
When '300' was first released, it's visual look resembling a graphic novel adaptation was completely new. It tweaked a familiar formula with some incredibly graphic -- if cartoonish -- violence shown in stylish, slow motion battle scenes. Now eight years later, it doesn't play like it is so original. The story is never dull, but it also never managed to pull me in like its predecessor. Buff, bearded hero to lead the way? Check. Some hard-edged, angry motivational speeches about loyalty and fighting and patriotism? Double and triple check. There's a pretty graphic sex scene -- Stapleton and Green absolutely going at it -- in the vein of the first movie, and a character subplot of a Greek warrior worrying about his hopeful warrior son is plucked right from the original. It's not bad. It's just not that good either. Too familiar, doesn't create enough of its own identity.

It's weird to think of it now, but back in 2006, Gerard Butler and Michael Fassbender (making his film debut) were far from big stars. 'Empire' tries that route again, going down the route of casting relatively unknown actors to fill the major roles. Stepping into the main heroic warrior role is Stapleton (Gangster Squad, Animal Kingdom) as real-life Athenian general Themistocles. It's a part not quite as good as what Butler did in bringing Spartan leader Leonidas to life, but it's still pretty good. He delivers an impassioned, fiery pre-battle speech pretty well too, a requirement for the part because there's at least three or four of them. The problem becomes the rest of the Greeks. They just aren't especially memorable beyond Themistocles. There's also Callan Mulvey as Scyllias, Themistocles' right-hand man, a capable warrior and even a spy, who's also worrying about his son, Callisto (Jack O'Connell), who so desperately wants to be a famed Greek warrior. Also watch for Hans Matheson as Aeskylos, a warrior who looks worried a lot.

By far the best thing about 'Empire' is Eva Green as the badass, ass-kicking Greek woman turned Persian naval commander Artemisia. As she's shown in Casino Royale and looks like she'll show again later this summer in the Sin City sequel, Green is one tough actress who can hold her own with the guys. That's on display anytime she's on-screen here. This is one nasty character, cold-blooded and full of hate and vengeance. Too often female characters are thrown into action movies....well, just because, but Green is a scene-stealer each and every time she is on-screen. An excellent part.

Beyond Green's performance, the best thing about 'Empire' unfortunately is mostly the nods to its predecessor. We get snippets here, a brief scene here of Leonidas and his last stand at Thermopylae. We learn how Santoro's Xerxes become a god-king in a cool flashback narrated by Leonidas' wife and queen of Sparta, Gorgo (played by Lena Headey). Along with Santoro and Headey, also look for returning stars David Wenham as wounded Spartan warrior Dilios, Andrew Tiernan as treacherous hunchback Ephialtes and Peter Mensah -- last seen being kicked into the Hole of Death -- as a key person from Atermisia's past. Fans of the original 300 will get a kick out of these touches, but when a movie is struggling to forge its own identity, these touches prove distracting. You're thinking about the other film, not the one you're watching.

Yes, the naval battles are pretty cool as Themistocles unleashes his outnumbered strategy on the attacking Persian forces. The action scenes were never in question, full of slashing swords, thrown spears and lots and lots of flying blood filling the screen. These scenes lack that emotion, that effectiveness that '300' had in abundance. Cool to watch, but there's not that special quality. Professionally done, but unfortunately 'Empire' is lacking that one special thing, that feeling that permeates throughout the entire movie. A disappointing end result.

300: Rise of an Empire (2014): **/****

Public Enemies

In the age of the gangsters, the 1930s in Depression-era America, one name stands out above the rest. Sure, there's Pretty Boy Floyd, the Barkers, Baby Face Nelson, Machine Gun Kelly, Alvin Karpis, even Bonnie and Clyde. But the name John Dillinger stands out, Public Enemy No. 1, a gangster, bank robber and possible killer who rose to notoriety in the early 1930s. I reviewed this movie from 2009 that works as a quasi-biography, but rewatched it recently and updated the review. Here were go with 2009's Public Enemies.

It's 1933 in Crown Point, Indiana and John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) has been caught and is just being brought to prison, or so his guards think. Instead, the notorious bank robber has arranged a breakout, a group from his gang busting out with him. With his gang back together again, Dillinger goes on a spree, robbing banks all over Chicago and into Indiana and Wisconsin. The gangster feels the noose tighten around his neck, his notoriety forcing the government's hand in bringing him to justice. The Bureau of Investigation (the FBI) is in its infancy, J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) placing a young but capable agent, Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), in charge of bringing Dillinger to justice. Using all the technology available to them, Purvis and his agents do everything they can to capture Dillinger, but can the notorious bank robber continue his crime spree?

This 2009 crime thriller is based off a book of the same name, Public Enemies, by author Bryan Burrough. It's a great read, non-fiction at its best. Burrough's book covers a ton of ground about one of the more violent, turbulent times in American history. The 1930s were the time of the gangster, killers, bank robbers and thieves working on a grand scale with a trail of fast cars, money and riches and dead bodies. Almost every single one of them died bloody and violent. It was a bloody, violent, fascinating time in American history. Originally thought of as a miniseries, Burroughs turned his research into a book. With so many people, places and incidents, the film version was condensed to John Dillinger vs. Melvin Purvis. It's a wise choice because Burroughs' novel as is would have been overwhelming.  

We meet other people, but this is Johnny Depp's movie as he brings John Dillinger to life. A sympathetic character? No, not quite. It is on the other hand a fascinating character to watch. The people who met him during his crime reign of terror, a lot of witnesses said he was charming, likable and friendly. One of the biggest movie stars around, Depp is the best thing going in this movie, making Dillinger a human being, not just a historical name. Depp's Dillinger seems to know the life he's chosen necessitates a live-fast, live-hard mentality. Knowledge of the historical facts or not, you just know Dillinger is leading a doomed life. Sooner or later, his luck will run out. It's really the only character here given any sort of development or characterization too, John given a love interest in Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard), a coat check girl from a poor background who falls hard for the gangster, as does he for her. Depp and Cotillard have a believable, real chemistry, giving the story that necessary human element.

Who best to direct a high-arcing crime thriller? How about a director with movies like Heat, Thief, Last of the Mohicans and The Inside to his name? Michael Mann takes the helm here for this style-heavy period piece.  'Enemies' was filmed on location in Chicago and around the Midwest where much of the story actually took place. Chicago serving as a backdrop for a story is never a bad thing, giving an air of authenticity here. The suits, the hats, the gentleman gangsters, the cars, it all adds up a to a more than worthy time capsule to 1930s Depression-era America. If there's a fault, Mann is too interested in the style, not the substance. He shot with a digital format, giving those scenes an odd, fuzzy look. The editing is fast and hard -- almost schizophrenic -- to the point the movement is hard to follow. Replace some of that aggressive style which doesn't necessarily work with some more story and characterization, and then we're talking.

Depp's movie, no doubt, but in star power, Christian Bale isn't far behind. It's just star power though. Bale is a really good actor, but he's given little to do here. The real-life Melvin Purvis was a bit of a dunce, the movie choosing not to delve too much into that angle. Bale is okay, but it's a necessary, workmanlike part, nothing more. Crudup does a good job with his quick scenes as Hoover, a glorified cameo. As for Dillinger's gang, look for Jason Clarke, Stephen Dorff, David Wenham and another violent gangster, Stephen Graham as maniacal Baby Face Nelson. Stephen Lang is memorable as a Texas lawman, Charles Winstead, brought in to help Purvis, Rory Cochrane playing one of his fellow Chicago FBI agents. There's also quick parts for Channing Tatum, Carey Mulligan and Giovanni Ribisi, and in the case of Tatum and Mulligan, don't blink or you'll miss them. There's plenty of other appearances that probably deserve some attention, but they're not around long enough to mention.

That's one of the weaknesses in Mann's film. Condensing Burroughs' book and doing so with just one focus -- Dillinger -- is still a daunting task. I think it tries to accomplish too much. A year-plus of story, countless speaking roles, and a whole lot of history. Depp is excellent, that's not in question. The action is very exciting, especially the infamous Little Bohemia shootout. Mann does action and does it well. The heavy, automatic machine guns, the B.A.R.s, the heavy pistols, these are guns that pack a punch so there's something visceral and adrenaline-pumping in the action scenes. Something is missing though. It's cool, but the movie doesn't have a ton of heart. The last 30 minutes are the movie at its best, Purvis and the FBI closing in on Dillinger. One what-if scene has Dillinger walking into the Dillinger Squad office, surreal and cool. The same for Dillinger's death, a stylish, cool scene aided by Elliot Goldenthal's musical score.

A good movie but with some serious flaws. It could have been a classic, and maybe with a miniseries it would have been. Still, Johnny Depp is cooler than you.

Public Enemies (2009): ** 1/2 /****
Rewrite of July 2009 review

300

Back to a topic I've written about before for this review...the anti-climactic last stand. Of course, it's only anti-climactic if you know even a little about history. So if you fit in, the endings to movies about the Alamo, the Battle of the Little Big Horn, and the Battle of Thermopylae shouldn't come as a surprise to you. But how do you make a movie where at least a good portion of the audience knows how the story is going to end? Getting there can be half the fun, but that doesn't fly with a lot of audiences.

Turning Frank Miller's graphic novel 300, based on the real life battle of Thermopylae, into a big budget action picture, director Zack Snyder stayed true to the story's roots -- in this case the graphic novel. Instead of making a historically accurate, fact-based version of this ancient battle, Snyder goes for the jugular with an over the top, very stylized telling of one of history's famous last stands. And even though the movie was a huge hit -- making over $200 million -- the criticisms rained down, but more on that later. Maybe more so than with so many other movies, it is essential to know the type of movie you will be watching when it comes to 300. If not, there's any number of places where interest may wane.

It is the year 480 BC and the Spartan king Leonidas (Gerard Butler) receives a messenger from Persia. The Persian god-king Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) is sweeping across the world with his massive army, swallowing up countries and armies wherever he goes building his empire. But with the war-heavy culture and upbringing of the Spartans, Leonidas isn't going to just roll over and let Xerxes take Sparta. The council won't allow the army to march out and face the army coming to destroy them so Leonidas finds a loophole of sorts. With his personal bodyguard of 300 men, he marches north to face Xerxes' army.

Leonidas plans for the battle at the pass of Thermopylae where Xerxes' numbers will be negated by the thin entryway. Occupying the pass, Leonidas and the brave 300 can hold back the charges thrown at them over and over again. But as the casualties mount on both sides, can they hold out in time for the council to agree to send the army to help them? Or like true Spartans, will they die in battle as they live up to their belief 'Never give up, never surrender.'? All other things aside, this movie is about the action. It gets to the point it's not just graphic violence anymore. At a certain point, it becomes a ballet, an odd dance of death with blood and guts flying around.

As somehow who doesn't love graphic violence in movies, even I was able to appreciate 300's action. It's heavy on the slow motion which works perfectly because it allows the viewer to see what's going on, how proficient the Spartans were with their weaponry, like this scene. And most of the last 75 minutes of the movie is action, pure and simple, as the Spartans repel charge after charge. You'd think it would get repetitive, but Snyder throws a curveball here and there to keep us interested, including this great fight scene with the Immortals. For one, the script is great, full of one-liners that out of context might sound overdone, but in the context of the movie could not have worked perfectly. Like this now-famous line which has been reused and reused since the movie's release.

Not having read Miller's graphic novel, I can't say how close the movie stays to its source in terms of dialogue. But the dialogue surprisingly enough is what boosts this action movie from average to above average. I for one would not have thought of an ancient massacre being the basis for good one-liners, but what do I know? Credit goes to the cast for committing to these lines, starting with Butler who delivers a movie-stealing performance with his growling voice as he spews out these great lines one after another. The rest of the cast includes Lena Headey as Gorgo, Leonidas' wife and queen of Sparta, Dominic West as the treacherous councilman Theron, and David Wenham, Vincent Regan and Michael Fassbender as three key Spartans.

Done completely in front of a green screen, the movie looks and feels like a graphic novel with its washed out colors (check out the ending for a good representation) which are nonetheless appealing to the eye. The whole movie is a visual treat, not just the expertly-choreographed action sequences. Everything down to the Spartans uniforms all works toward the visual aspect. It also made some people think this was possibly the gayest movie ever with 300 ripped, semi-naked warriors fighting together. Some people have a better imagination than I do I guess. As for the historical naysayers, this movie was never supposed to an accurate depiction of the battle. It's one crazy, over the top look at the battle that never pretends to be anything other than it is, an incredibly entertaining movie.

There are elements of Gladiator and Braveheart visible at times, but it would be hard not to reference those two classics in one way or another. But 300 stands on it's own with a style unto itself. And massacre be damned, Snyder finds a way to make the ending powerful, inspiring and emotional...and that's after the battle. Check it out here as David Wenham's Delios tells the story of the 300 to the Spartan council. A damn good ending to a great movie.

300 <----trailer (2006): *** 1/2 /****