The 300 Spartans
|
List Price: Our Price: $3.40 You Save: $11.58 (77%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.30 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of The 300 Spartans
Movie Review: cant beat the old
Summary: 5 Stars
I have to say, even though this is an old movie, you just cant beat it.You can watch it time after time. It's just a classic!Movie Review: The Alamo of Ancient Greece
Summary: 4 Stars
1961 film on the defiant stand at the pass of Thermopylae in 480 B.C. by Spartans against the Persian hordes of Xerxes. Although a 'B' movie not unlike the 1963 version of 'Jason and the Argonauts', the film makes decent attempts towards accuracy and reflecting the norms and values of each culture.
The film follows the general historical facts pretty accurately. To avenge his father Darius' humiliating defeat at Marathon, King Xerxes of Persia prepares a major invasion of the Greek mainland with a gigantic army of over 100,000 men: the largest ever assembled up to that time in antiquity. Upon the Persians crossing the Hellespont into the Greek mainland, the Greek city states meet and discuss what to do next. King Leonidas of Sparta (Richard Egan) calls for an avant garde contingent to delay the Persian army at the pass of Thermopylae (The Hot Gates), a narrow mountain pass so called because of the hot geysers nearby. A protracted battle there would delay the Persians and give the Greek cities time to mobilize and prepare their defenses. Debate ensues but Leonidas knows there's no time to waste. Ignoring a Spartan holiday's restrictions on fighting, Leonidas heads out with a group of his own bodyguard of 300 hoplites to the mountain pass: inspired by the Spartans' bravery, other Greek cities contribute a force of approximately 6000 men.
At Thermopylae, the Greeks hold a narrow pass with a smaller force, giving them the most favorable position for a defense. The small plain leading to the pass had the topography of a trapezoid covering a very small area with mountains on two sides and cliffs to the sea on the other. The terrain offering limited maneuverability, the Greek hoplites defeat the poorly organized foreign army several times: the Persians being primarily adept at cavalry and archery were ill-prepared to fight in close quarters with heavy infantry formations such as the Greek phalanx. The Greeks armed with heavy armor, large metal shields, and long spears were much better equipped than the Persians who barely wore any armor and carried wicker shields. Victory almost seems plausible but the majority of the Greek army chooses to retreat and prepare better defenses; with their departure, only Leonidas and his 300 hoplites remain to hold the Persians back. After being betrayed and encircled, the remaining Spartans choose to stand their ground and fight to the bitter end.
As shown in the film, the battle was a phyrric victory for the Persians that cost them many lives as well as the initiative. Although Xerxes would later exact revenge by plundering the Greek countryside and burning Athens, the Persian fleet's destruction by the Athenians at Salamis effectively cut off the main army from future supplies or reinforcements. In desperate straits, the Persian ground forces were finally crushed at Plaetea. The Persians would never again attempt an invasion of Greece; instead, the Greeks (with memories of Xerxes still in their collective psyche) eventually conquered Persia under Alexander The Great a century-and-a-half later. As for Thermopylae, the original stone plaque placed in memory of the brave Spartans who so valiantly stood their ground is still there today 2500 years later.
The film does a good job at contrasting both the Greeks and Persians in terms of their cultures and military traditions such as social structure; political organization; as well as military discipline. The story shows how the Greeks and even the Spartans were endowed with a sense of equality while the Persians were not. Greek aristocrats were more first-among- equals as opposed those in Persia who clearly distinguished themselves from those they ruled and were bound to do the King's bidding on a moment's notice. The sense of equality was a product of the independent city-state that was governed by a constitutional government and written laws. Even Sparta's dual monarchy was a constitutional one. Persia on the other hand was the largest known empire: its boundaries spreading from Egypt to India. Its kings were very much like the pharaos of Egypt: absolute monarchs vested with divine powers to rule through a feudal system of noble vassals and their retainers. The Persian king was inviolate and would dispense with laws and his subjects on a whim: his word was law and to disobey or disappoint him could mean a cruel death by a method pleasing to his fancy.
In terms of military organization, the film shows how Greeks treated war as a science instead of just a random display of power: there was high cohesion among the soldiers as they were free men collectively fighting for their homes. In contrast, the Persian army was a mixed bag of vastly different cultures and fighting styles in which the king, not his generals, had supreme command even though he knew little about military strategy. Persian military organization and discipline was therefore lax with a very rigid top-to-bottom command structure: their camps were always accompanied by all sorts of fluff such as courtiers, entertainers, harems, relatives, and other useless baggage. The Greeks were, well, Spartan in comparison. One error in the film is showing the Spartans throwing short spears. Javelins and arrows were used by the Helot squires. Spartan soldiers carried a 10-12 foot spear which they held over their shields to thrust and poke at the enemy: they didn't throw their spears as the phalanx would lose its effectiveness especially in a defensive engagement.
As far as social structures, the film improperly compares the two when it states that the conflict represented a fight between free men and a society of slaves serving a despot. The film fails to note that all societies in antiquity practiced slavery and that slaves in Greece were probably no better off than those in Persia. Furthermore, freedom in Greece was limited. Sparta was a military state ruled by a dual monarchy in which male and female citizens were all trained to be soldiers: its economy was entirey dependent on a large slave society (helots) to support the citizenry. In democratic cities such as Athens and Corinth, political suffrage was given only to adult men who were vested with property and usually born free in the city itself (the liberal enfranchizement of foreigners through broad grants of citizenship was a uniquely Roman concept): women, children, slaves, and foreigners had limited to non-existant rights.
Again, this is a 1960's 'B' movie. The script is weighed with Cold War propaganda. Although many of the main actors are seasoned theatrical actors, most of the method actors playing secondary roles are pretty stiff. Despite these faults, the plot moves at a rather steady pace and has good action. The cinematography is quite good and the combat scenes are well choreographed. A good film to rent or own. I heard that Michael Mann is planning to adapt and direct Stephen Pressfield's book 'Gates of Fire' for film; I look forward to seeing a modern version of this epic battle.
Movie Review: Good telling of an historic event...
Summary: 4 Stars
This flick is a very good effort at telling the story of the 300 Spartans who died defending the pass at Thermopylae (as it has come down to us) against the Persians.
I am always a bit amused at reviewers that 'measure' and slam ancient peoples, events and times using their modern 'yardsticks'! Most Greeks around that period both admired and feared the Spartans. Were the Spartans ruthless? Sure! But the Spartans were only MORE ruthless and militarily astute than other Greeks at the time and shouldn't be singled out for any particular 'knocking'. It was a different world; with different morals and values. It was a dog-eat-dog world of almost constant warfare between all the various Greek city-states. The Spartans simply evolved into the recognized top-dog. Since only free Spartans could serve in the army and the army is estimated to never have been more than 8-10,000 at the height of Sparta's power, diplomacy was always exhausted before going to war. When war was decided upon, up to half the army had to remain at home, to put down potential revolts by their slaves, the Helots, who had a habit of rebelling when the army was away. Sparta simply couldn't afford to lose many men in battle, and so, was actually reluctant to go to war. But when they did go to war... the other fella had better watch out!! In the movie King Leonidis receives word that the Spartan Council decided to fortify the Isthmus of Corinth instead of following him to Northern Greece (thus dooming the 300 Spartans). The decision is never explained in the movie, and the viewer is left with the impression that the council 'screwed' Leonidis and his troops. In reality, it was a very pregmatic move since the Isthmus is just a day or two forced march from home, allowing the army a quick response if the slaves revolted. It was Leonitis who ignored the council and took it upon himself to march north with his personal body guard. It is fortunate for 'western civilization' as we know it today that the Spartans (and around 7000 other Greeks) held Thermopylae and delayed Darius and the Persians long enough for the Greek cities to rally and eventually defeat them. It is a tribute to their bravery and sense of duty that the 300 Spartans (and 700 Thespians) died defending the pass to delay the Persians until the other Greeks were able to retreat from the trap.
There is a Greek saying attributed to Spartan women who saw their husbands and sons off to war. Women gave the shield to their men and told them... "With this, or on it!" Since the shield was the heaviest part of any soldier's armour, if things went badly during a battle and they had to exit the field in a hurry, the shield was the first thing thrown away in flight. The saying meant for the men to come home with victory ('with this shield') or dead ('on it') as shields were commonly used as battlefield 'stretchers'. This 'hardcore' attitude was very real, since a woman's stature in Spartan society, and especially among other Spartan women, was linked directly to her husband's/son's performance and bravery in battle.
To a Spartan, prowess in battle was everything... understandable in a martial society. All energies were directed toward supporting and securing the state, so agriculture and the arts were considered 'unmanly' occupations and had no real place in their culture. Note in the movie the statement about the Spartan mother that killed her own son when she saw he had a wound in his back.
Movie Review: Your spear is for yourself. Your shield is for the line.
Summary: 4 Stars
Here is a credible portrayal of the heroic stand that the 300 Spartans made at the pass of Thermopylae in 480BCE. Trying to make their way through the pass was a Persian army that likely numbered around 200,000. It was led by king Xerxes, son of Darius. The Persians were set on conquering Greece, and Xerxes was out for revenge. 10 years earlier, in 490BCE Darius had launched an ill-fated invasion force that was turned back at Marathon. This time, Xerxes believed he had a large enough army that the outcome of the war between Greece and Persia would not be in doubt.
Unfortunately for Xerxes, he had never faced a fighting force of the like fielded by the Spartans. The valiant Lacedamons along with a handful of Greek coalition forces held the pass for the better part of 3 days.
On the third day, the Spartan king Leonidas dismissed the rest of the Greek forces so that they would live to fight another day. The Thespians declined to leave and they stayed and fought to a last man alongside the Spartans.
It is this obstinate and awe-inspiring battle that is depicted in the film. All-in-all, it is quite well done and does a reputable job of introducing most of the major characters in the period such as Themosticles, Leonidas, Xerxes, Mardonious, Aspasia and Ephialtes.
The best part of the film lies in its authenticity regarding Spartan battle dress and weaponry. In the film the Spartan shields have an upside down "V," which was the symbol of the Homoioi (full citizens). This was, in fact, what their shield depicted.
The Laconians had a long (roughly 8 foot) spear + a short-sword, and this is what the actors wielded. The Spartans also wore red to (supposedly) hide their blood, and this is accurately brought out in the film as well.
On the downside, there are a few weak parts of the script. The most egregious is an anachronism; Mardonious informs Xerxes that the Spartans "fight like machines."
There are also some directorial lapses and a few spots where armies are supposed to be in close combat and yet the extras move so slowly that you think they don't have a care in the world. I rather doubt the tension at Thermopylae 2,500 years ago would allow for such insouciance.
The acting is fairly good. Richard Egan gives a solid performance as the venerable Leonidas. The Xerxes in the film is not, I would think, too far removed from the actual pompous king who invaded Greece all those centuries ago.
Aside from all that, the primary reason one should buy this DVD is that it is real history. While some of it is fabricated and fudged, it is nevertheless an excellent representation of what really happened. To this day, to commemorate those three days in August of 480BCE there is an epigraph at Thermopylae. Translated into English, it reads thus:
GO TELL THE SPARTANS, STRANGER PASSING BY
THAT HERE OBEDIENT TO THEIR LAWS WE LIE.
Movie Review: Old after-school favourite finally on DVD -- done up right!
Summary: 4 Stars
I have fond memories of seeing this movie often in my youth, back in the days when a character called Barry Lillis used to host WGRZ Buffalo's after-school "Money Movie". They used to devote a whole week at a time to the genre along with other classic sword'n'sandal epics like the Steve Reeves flicks, etc. While the historical accuracy of some of these movies may be questionable, I have to say they really opened up my young eyes to ancient history and sparked an interest which has stayed with me to this day.
Now watching this movie again for the first time in 25 years or so, like many other reviewers here it isn't quite as wonderful as I remembered. But compared to other Italian-made B-movie epics of the time, I would say this production with American, British, French and Greek involvement is still a cut above.
Richard Egan makes a decent Leonidas (--OK maybe a bit wooden, but hey it's a B-movie, right?), and keeps the film firmly anchored. But I did find the Shakespearean thespian British accents of some of the other actors made some of these ancient Greeks and Persians seem more like genteel English gentlemen to me (--in particular the actor playing Xerxes, whose blue eyes didn't help his believability either.) And then of course the filmmakers had to go and throw in a sappy love story that doesn't really serve any purpose.
Well, what can I say? If you go into this expecting a "Gladiator" or even a "Ben Hur", you'll probably be disappointed. But if you take it for what it is -- a typical early 60's grade-B sword'n'sandal flick -- you'll find it's a damned good one at that. Probably that's why there are so many of us who, even recognizing that the film is very much of its era and does have its shortcomings, are still so glad to finally have it available on DVD to own and watch anytime.
As for the DVD itself, they have done a beau~tiful job restoring the colours and it really looks great. And best of all the film is presented in wide-screen format, which is not done often enough in DVD releases of this type of movie. Don't expect too much in the way of extras (the English and Spanish trailers plus a few old B & W TV spots), but for me having this movie so respectfully restored and released in widescreen is reason enough to be happy.
I don't know....say what you will, but even though they're cheesy and dated, somehow I still think I'd rather watch one of these old sword'n'sandal type movies starring a Steve Reeves or a Richard Egan instead of one of today's big-budget, over-hyped "blockbusters" starring the latest overpaid "hot stars" of the day like Brad Pitt or Orlando Bloom. Somehow they seem to have more of a soul to them.
Geez, I must be gettin' old huh....? ;)