The 300 Spartans (1962)

Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Powerful

Excellent adaptation.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

A small army of Greeks spearheaded by 300 Spartans do battle with the whole invading Persian army.When it was released in 1962, critics saw the movie as a commentary on the Cold War, referring to the independent Greek states as "the only stronghold of freedom remaining in the then known world", holding out against the Persian "slave empire". This is interesting, as I absolutely do not see it. What is the parallel? Comic artist Frank Miller saw this movie as a boy and said "it changed the course of my creative life". His graphic novel "300" is about the Battle of Thermopylae, and in 2007, was adapted into a successful film. What I like about this is that it might be assumed that the movie "300" is a remake of this film (albeit a very different one). But, in fact, "300" comes from a graphic novel that was inspired by the original movie... so there's that extra step, giving it a more interesting lineage.

When this ran on television years ago it was quite popular. The film is sort of a continuation of the middle ages films that became a staple of Hollywood in the 1950's and 1960's. Recently some of them are getting remade because of the advances in special effects.This movie in it's time, holds it's own quite nicely. Based upon the true story from history, there is much to recommend this one. In fact the viewer might wish to do a double feature of this movie and then the recent remake 300 and compare the things in common with the differences. The story of 300 Spartans standing up to an entire Persian empire is really quite compelling, in a way more so than the Americans standing up to the entire Mexican Army at the Alamo. It is the same type of story though, hero's enshrined for the ages by doing the impossible and holding back a huge powerful enemy to buy time so they can eventually be defeated.It is interesting the same history being repeated here. This story is a great one of history, and now with modern technology almost certainly an outmoded type of hero worship from the past.

An early film version that retells the classic story of the Battle of Thermopylae, in which King Leonidas and his 300 loyal Spartan warriors fought the Persian forces of King Xerxes, who were said to number over a million. This was a childhood favourite of comic book author Frank Miller, whose comic book version of the same story, 300, was made in a 2006 film by Zach Snyder.It's hard to compare the two films because they're so very different. 300 is a heavily stylised comic book film filled with garish violence and green-screen effects. By contrast, THE 300 SPARTANS is a traditional sword and sandal adventure in which the battle doesn't even take place until the last half hour of a two hour film. If I'm honest, this has too much back story while 300 has too little.Still, there's much to recommend in THE 300 SPARTANS, not least some solid acting in the likes of rugged lead Richard Egan and Ralph Richardson in a minor role. The movie was actually shot in Greece, which adds plenty of authenticity to it, and the action scenes are handled with aplomb and just as exciting as those in 300. The first half is quite slow and there's a tacked-on romantic sub-plot which drags things down alongside a couple of those needless dancing scenes to pad out the running time, but it's still a solid, able production that provides a fairly faithful retelling of the source material. If you want a fantastic adaptation of the story that blows away both film versions, check out Steven Pressfield's gritty novel, GATES OF FIRE.

All in all, it's not a bad movie. But if you like Ancient History and have seen or read anything related to one of the most heroic and important moments of world's history (Persian Wars/Thermopylae), you'll probably feel that this movie has tried, but not really made the mark.My main feeling is the movie has lacked serious proper research. To start, the costumes are not even from the Greek period (V cent. BC) but actually later Roman (!) It is not just the acting pointing to the 60s but the superficial approach of the script (and direction) towards the motivations and personality of characters such as Leonidas, the Spartan King. Leonidas was brave but he did not take that lightly the battle and the decision to sacrifice himself and his army. He was the most respected king of Greece and Sparta the most powerful army. He knew his decision was going to shake Greece as an earthquake.A bit of research would have avoided the inconsequent laughs and silly smiles without sacrificing the story, adding key elements to give the audience the source of power of both kings (Leonidas = democracy/individual freedom; Xerxes = autocracy/submission fear) and the clash of civilisations that was about to happen.The romantic sub-plots are useless and do not help tell the story. Again, the historical sources are filled with interesting elements that could had add a lot more drama, and based on facts (as far we can tell).Although I don't want to, it is impossible not to compare with '300' from Frank Miller. Even discounting the highly graphical impact, that version has, undeniably, far better consistency in the historical elements. "The 300 Spartans" can be seen as entertainment but if you really love Ancient Greece, get Miller's 300 and then do yourself a favour and google Thermopylae. You will learn the facts having some fantastic visuals to match. Time travel guaranteed!