The 300 Spartans (1962)

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

An excellent epic adventure movie, retelling the tragically heroic defence of the Strait of Thermopylae by the Spartan king Leonidas, his bodyguard of 300 men and supporting Greeks. From what I've read, Hollywood for once stays fairly true to the actual historical story, only to my mind contriving a romance between the young son of a disgraced former Spartan king and the daughter of another high-ranking Spartan officer and the subterfuge of a Greek-sympathetic queen within the camp of the Persian king Xerxes.In the early part of the film, there's lots of exposition as different characters get to explain the then-current political situation passed off as dialogue just to make sure the audience understands the historical context. Another minor criticism I might make is that the physical location of the Strait in the movie failed to convey to me its narrowness and hence terrible danger of their defence. While the battle scenes lack the realism of what you might see in a modern-day feature and you never really get the sense of the overwhelming numbers of the Persian army, it's impossible not to get caught up in the spirit of the Spartans futile but heroic resistance and there's real pathos in the ending as death rains down literally, at last, on them.Ralph Richardson is the big name classical actor brought in like Olivier in "Spartacus" to add gravitas to proceedings and this he does capably but Richard Egan, as the noble Leonidas, is particularly good in a performance which makes you wonder why he didn't go on to become a major leading character actor of the 60's. David Farrar, as the mood-swinging Xerxes is perhaps too pantomime-villainy in the part however.I was first taken to this movie with my classmates by a school-teacher as a history lesson many years ago and it made a big impression on me then. Revisiting it today, I got more this time of the history as well as the adventure, but in both ways this is a sword and sandals epic of the best type. A great story, well told, in short.

This is a truly awful film which is not worth the time or trouble to watch. The acting is terrible, stiff and wooden, ( and that includes Ralph Richardson ). It's badly written with laughable dialogue that comes across almost as a spoof. You get the impression that the director, if that's the correct term, used every first take just to get it over with. There's no tension or excitement or anticipation engendered. There is no sense of epic scale or epoch changing import to the unfolding events. The battle scenes are pedestrian and unconvincing, the locations hardly spectacular. The costume design is passable, the soundtrack is not. It's impossible for me to think of any redeeming features for this feature. Do not waste your time on it. It is truly awful.

This film is truly awful and should be allowed to expire gracefully. Okay, an attempt is made to explain some of the Greek politics which led to 300 men being pitched against tens of thousands. My goodness, it even has Ralph Richardson as Themistocles - he turns in a professional performance though I wonder what he made of the finished product, assuming he watched it? It was filmed in Greece and the blue skies are lovely. That's all the good points though. The worst feature is the script, which is really, really dire. David Farrar as Xerxes has some of the worst lines, and they are extraordinarily bad - I see that he retired to South Africa after making this movie and who could blame him? The Cold War message is overt and the lame subplot - no sex before we get married, thanks - cringe-making. I watched it as far as the scene where a detachment of Spartans attack the Persian camp by night. They wade through the bay in a long line, wearing full armour, with their cloaks on ... and nobody spots them! The film crew must have killed themselves laughing. This was slack, underdeveloped script writing, the writer obviously couldn't be bothered, treating his audience with contempt. Direction was by the numbers and acting wooden, all in all, typical early 60s dross.

FIRST: I gotta say that, for its flaws, "The 300 Spartans" is a shining beacon of film-making in comparison to that awful, offensive "300" (2006) that decided to replace warriors with posers in underwear. ANYway...moving on.This is a fun movie, and one that has a few areas of really great excellence. The cinematography, firstly, is easily on the level of the masterpiece epics like Ben-Hur and Spartacus -- truly lush and beautiful, intelligently constructed to the service of the story's drama. Costumes, props, sets, all are fantastic and create the right kind of ancient, and mostly historically accurate, atmosphere. The lines of scarlet-cloaked high-plumed Spartans marching through Grecian scrub-land to battle can be quite impressive to behold. A "visual feast" someone might say, and while the phrase is a bit overused and pretentious, it has some validity here. It's a good-looking film.Much of the acting is also strong. Richard Egan had a background in the US military as a veteran and hand-to-hand combat trainer, and he carries well the brusque nobility of the Spartan general Leonidas. Also, John Crawford is intriguing and intense as Leonidas' right-hand man Agathon. Of all the actors, he seems to most completely embody his character, despite having a fairly limited secondary role. On the other side, David Farrar is a good Xerxes. He hams it up a little bit, but makes it work by suggesting that Xerxes himself was a bit of a ham. After all, Xerxes was emperor of most of the known world, including proud Egypt, and came from a long line of famous kings. Watching Farrar, we think that Xerxes is the over-actor, which means Farrar has embodied the character.BUT there are some inescapable flaws that prevent "The 300 Spartans" from being a truly great epic. Firstly, the script is serviceable at best, and cheesy (in the bad sense) at worst. Xerxes in particular gets some bad lines, and it is a testament to Farrar's charisma that he sells them to the audience at the moment they are said (if not in retrospect).Next, the two female characters (Ellas and Artemisia). The sad fact is that they function solely to give a romantic aspect to this otherwise testosterone-fuelled war film. Their scenes (with Phylon and Xerxes, respectively) tend to have little to do with the main plot (Ellas' especially) and distract terribly from the matter at hand. Their characters are both one-note, with little thought having gone into their creation. They are also poorly cast, and likely poorly directed as well. No one really seems to know what purpose they serve, beyond "Hey, audiences like romances with pretty people, so hopefully this will make us more money; plot coherence be hanged!" Now, they aren't TOO achingly horrendous. Diane Baker as Ellas is pretty and somewhat charming -- she just doesn't fit into the story, or the ancient world. And Ann Wakefield as Artemisia could maybe have had some fun with her slinky, Cleopatra-esquire role had it been better written and directed -- but as it is, she just pouts and glowers and tries only half-heartedly to romance Xerxes.Thirdly, probably the weakest link of all is the character of Phylon, who functions as the romantic lead (to Ellas) and something of the movie's hero. The movie clearly wants him to be the "human element" in the story, but he fails pretty badly. Known mostly for commercials in the '50s and '60s, Barry Coe is so badly miscast that it really grates every time he opens his mouth. You'd think he just wandered off a Brooklyn street and had a cloak and shield thrown at him. The ancient-style dialogue dives off his tongue and crashes in his flat, nasally American accent, and while physically fit he does not carry the presence of a Spartan warrior. Seems more suited to a jazz dance studio or a beach-party movie than the epic battle of Thermopylae!So there you have it. Three key performances are totally miscast and poorly thought out, with weak and unfocused direction to boot. The script ranges from okay to losing its way in a morass of obligatory romantic goop. But most of the other performances are quite strong indeed, enough to make up for weak dialogue, and the production values are quite outstanding. Even the music can be quite good and interesting. For the charismatic performances I mentioned above, and the great cinematography, I recommend this film.