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): **/****

Casino Royale (2006)

Ah, here we are, just days out from the release of the newest James Bond flick, Skyfall. Why don't we take a trip in the way back machine to 2006 when the incredibly successful franchise was being rebooted. A casting choice that concerned fans was chief among the issues when 2006's Casino Royale hit theaters. Ask most Bond fans -- including this one -- but those concerns were ill-founded.

Fresh off receiving his '00' status (license to kill), MI6 agent James Bond (Daniel Craig) is pursuing a bomb-builder in Madagascar and stumbles upon clues to an international terrorist financier, Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen). The infamous financier is up to something, and Bond manages to stop his plan, but it causes another. Le Chiffre is now in the hole over $100 million to various terrorists he handles money for. Desperate and seeking his money, Le Chiffre organizes a high stakes poker game at Casino Royale in Montenegro. The biggest problem standing in his way? Bond, who with a $10 million buy-in from the government -- and treasury agent Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) -- has a seat at the table. Win? Eliminate Le Chiffre's business. Lose? Then, MI6 and England will have directly funded terrorism.

By 2002, the Pierce Brosnan James Bond movies had all been played out, closing with the atrociously bad Die Another Day. Even with the progressively bad Brosnan efforts (no fault of the actor, just the scripts), fans still objected to the casting of Craig in the iconic role of James Bond, 007 himself. It's understandable. Everyone has their favorites, even their perception of who/what Bond is. What was the end result in this 2006 reboot from director Martin Campbell (who also directed the Brosnan venture Goldeneye)? A throwback but modern effort, encapsulating all the style and action that fans have come to expect while also breathing fresh life into the franchise. Big picture? It's one of the best Bond films, and easily in my top 5 overall.

Throw aside the gorgeous locales, beautiful women, cool gadgets and ridiculous action, the success of 'Royale' is simple. It's Daniel Craig as Bond. Yes, all those other things are there, but this is James Bond as author Ian Fleming originally intended and wrote about. At the character's heart, Bond is a hired killer; a brutally effective, even obsessed killer. He's cold, sinister and has little sense of humor. Thankfully, Craig doesn't go that deep. He takes the best of the previous Bonds -- Connery's toughness, a toned down humor of Roger Moore, and the general suaveness of Brosnan -- but manages to spin it into his own character. Handling much of his own stunts, Craig is incredibly believable in the part and makes a fictional character more believable. He doesn't feel like a cliched stereotype. Instead, he's a secret agent, sometimes willing himself to survive the hellish world he's working in.

On top of the perfect 007 casting though, 'Royale' does all the little things right. The first is that style that these films always deliver on. The locations have us bouncing around from Venice to the Czech Republic, Lake Como to the Bahamas like globetrotters. The look of the film is a stunner as we follow Bond's exploits. Chris Cornell provides the theme, You Know My Name (listen HERE), and composer David Arnold's score is a gem, playing on the familiar Bond theme with a mix of action-packed music and quieter, romantic moments. From behind the camera though, Campbell most importantly gets it right. This isn't just an action movie. Yes, there are boatloads of action (more on that later), but there's also an interesting, twisting story, quieter moments between Bond and Vesper that feel authentic, and that incredibly dark humor that rides along with the story. Like I've said before, it's the little things that make a good movie a great movie.

Now to be fair, yes, all those other things are very important to a Bond movie. But let's be honest. Bond is a secret agent, and that means A-C-T-I-O-N! 'Royale' is a great movie, but it's also a great action movie on a whole other level. The opening sequence has Bond pursuing a bomb-maker (Parkour/free runner Sebastien Foucan) through a construction site; Bond's physicality vs. Foucan's effortless movements. Watch it HERE. That scene is an essential one in showing how Craig's Bond will stop at nothing to accomplish a mission. Another highlight has Bond chasing down a hired gun trying to take out the largest airliner ever built in a ridiculously cool back and forth chase on an airport tarmac. The other action sequences are on the small scale, hand-to-hand combat, more personal fights that are effective in that smaller scale. All together though, they're a gem. In a weird way, the poker scenes are like action sequences; packed with tension and adrenaline.

And how about the rest of that cast? Green is not your typical Bond girl, but in that sense, she's perfect. Her Vesper is similar in character to Bond, making them an ideal pair as they basically hate each other for much of the film. Mikkelssen too is an atypical Bond villain; not one bent on destroying the world, just staying alive and getting his money back. However you cut it, Green and Mikkelsen are ideal casting choices. Giancarlo Giannini is a scene-stealer as Mathis, Bond's ally in Montenegro. Judi Dench returns as M, Bond's veteran MI6 superior, and doesn't disappoint while Jeffrey Wright is a new and welcome addition as Felix Leiter, Bond's CIA counterpart. In the Bond eye candy department, look for Italian beauty Caterina Murino in a small but key part.

I'm a diehard James Bond fan, but I am able to judge the flicks for what they are -- some classics, other good to great, and a few just plain bad. But this 2006 film -- the 21st in the official franchise -- is about as close to a perfect Bond film as you can get. It has everything going for it, and the capper is the final line, a perfect end to the film if there ever was.

Casino Royale <----trailer (2006): ****/****

The Golden Compass

Is there a harder task when it comes to making movies than turning a book, a respected and much-loved book, into a big screen movie? First, there's almost no way to appease all the fans because there's no way you can do everything right. Second, many books would be better presented as a miniseries with plenty of time to develop plotlines and characters. Unfortunately, 2007's The Golden Compass falls into the category of a less than successful translation from book to big screen.

Just last week I finished the first book of author Phillip Pullman's trilogy dubbed His Dark Materials on a recommendation from my aunt and cousin. I typically avoid series like this, Harry Potter, Chronicles of Narnia, Twilight, but this one sounded interesting. It takes place in a universe similar to ours in a time that's hard to classify (Victorian England, early 1900s maybe?) that is full of great characters, an exciting story and a darkness to the proceedings that surprised me. Unfortunately, the movie struggled to deal with the story.

For one, director Chris Weitz says he shot enough footage for a 2.5-3 hour movie, but the final running time is a crisp 113 minutes. In other words, a lot of the story got left on the cutting room floor. There is a ton of potential in Weitz's movie, but it never lives up to what it could be. A 3-hour movie could have helped remedy this, but as is the story is muddled at best, characters go in and out for long stretches of time with little development, and the ending is changed pretty drastically from the book's ending which comes as a complete surprise and a perfect springboard for the rest of the series, which I am looking forward to reading. The plot description's going to be a doozy so brace yourself.

Living at Jordan College in England, Lyra Belacqua (Dakota Blue Richards) is an orphan, a young girl growing up without a care in the world as she explores the college and city with her friend, Roger (Ben Walker). One day her uncle, Lord Asriel (Daniel Craig) comes to visit her but to also ask the college for funds for a trip to the North Pole to explore a route to other worlds. Lyra desperately wants to go along, but Asriel refuses and leaves her behind. But strange things are happening, children are disappearing, including Roger, with no clues left behind as to what happened. For Lyra, a beautiful, polished woman of the world, Mrs. Coulter (Nicole Kidman) shows up asking if she'd like to be her assistant. Before she leaves, the president of the college pulls Lyra aside and gives her something, a Golden Compass, a device that can reads people's true intentions.

Everything is not so rosy as it seems with Mrs. Coulter, and it's not long before Lyra and her daemon (soul in animal form) Pantalaimon (voice of Freddie Highmore) must escape and head to the north in search of Roger and the other lost children. Along the way, she meets a variety of characters including John Faa (Jim Carter), Farder Coram (Tom Courtenay) and the Gyptian people, Lee Scoresby (Sam Elliott), a Texan aeronaut, Serafina Pekkala (Eva Green), a helpful witch, and Iorek Byrnison (voice of Ian McKellen), an armoured bear exiled from Svalbard, home of the bear kingdom.

Overwhelmed much? I read the book, and I'm a little overwhelmed at the amount of information thrown out there in the story. The obvious difference is that Pullman's book has a lot more time and space to introduce these many characters whereas the movie has about 2 hours to get this all accomplished. It's a shame because the casting is strong across the board. As Lyra, 13-year old Richards was a perfect choice. Craig makes the most of a small appearance as Asriel, and Kidman as Coulter is a nice twist on the typical character she plays. McKellen's voice didn't work for me as Iorek, but an armoured polar bear? Still cool. Sam Elliott is as always, very cool, as Scoresby.

Reviewing this movie is tough because there is A LOT going on, and a lot I could complain about from the overuse of CGI to the alterations to the story and the order it is dealt with to the different ending. Big picture is this, the movie as is in its 2-hour form is not very good. I don't know how much better a 2.5 or 3 hour movie could be, but it certainly couldn't hurt. I'd say give Pullman's book a try and then give the movie a try, not the other way around.

And I feel like I have to mention the Catholic Church's objection to this movie which I think is ridiculous. The Catholic Church is that paranoid guy who thinks everyone is always talking about him regardless of whether they actually are. In this case, a thinly veiled dig at the Church has a "Magisterium" trying to make its believers follow blindly with no thought. Like I said with the objections to the Da Vinci Code, if anyone takes their beliefs from a movie or a book, basically a work of fiction, the Church has bigger issues to worry about. End of rant.

The Golden Compass <----trailer (2007): **/****