2 out of 5

Director: Rudolph Maté

Okay, I’m not a history guy, and this is movie had that slow, “epic” feel that just didn’t do it for me. “300 Spatans” is, perhaps, the more realistic depiction of that story you saw in “300.” Based on the other reviews, much more informed than I, it would seem, this is a more realistic historical portrayal of the going-ons. But to your lay movie viewer, someone open to watching anything… I didn’t get into this movie. I think that history – the flat, plain truth – can be depicted awesomely in film, if done with, I don’t know, some sort of understanding as to why you’d do it on screen instead of text. This does not mean flash or big budget, it just means embracing the media you’re using. And “300 Spartans” just screamed textbook to me, from beginning to end. The story was there, and moderately interesting in its presentation, but the acting felt very mundane (lacking even the sort of confident panache that 50s/60s flat-delivery acting provides) and the sets /costumes looked left over from something else. You know how nowadays a movie comes out and then there are 10 knockoffs by smaller production companies? This feels like a 1962 version of that. The other reviews suggest history buffs will be satisfied – specifically those turned off by actioners like 300 – so if the History Channel (the king of textbook, dry history documentaries) is your thing, by all means, so might be this movie.