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.

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.

Ancient history's Alamo was the Spartan guard of King Leonidas who held the Persian army at Thermopylae, 300 men against the army of King Xerxes which numbered in the thousands. It's the oldest last stand story in recorded history and an inspiration for all that followed. The plot in fact is remarkably similar to John Wayne's version of The Alamo and a little bit of Fort Apache thrown in as well. Richard Egan as the Spartan King and a bit more of a modern constitutional monarch in the film than he was in real life. The Greek city states prize their precious independence so much so that they cannot unite in the face of overwhelming danger. Egan is similarly boxed in when he tries to mobilize Spartan opinion as it conflicts with some religious festival. Only the 300 men of his personal guard can he command and off he goes to save Greece itself knowing full well they all might die.Doing his best to help is Themistocles of Athens played by the erudite Ralph Richardson. He shares Egan's view of a united Greece, but who's to do the uniting, always a problem in these situations.You could not make a film today that is such an embrace of the Spartan militaristic culture as The 300 Spartans. Still this was the society this particular city/state developed. Director Rudolph Mate an old hand at action films staged the battle scenes impressively. I would also like to single out David Farrar as King Xerxes, a single minded adventure/conqueror as the world ever has seen.The 300 Spartans, a rousing tribute to some very brave men in the ancient Greek world.

Richard Egan is Leonidas, king of Sparta, one of many independent city states in Greece. Greece is about to be invaded by Xerxes, David Farrar, and his army and navy, which have overwhelming numbers of resources. The first city in Greece that will be taken is Athens, a rival city to Sparta, but the Athenian leader, Themistocles, Ralph Richardson, appeals to Egan for help. If the city states like Athens and Sparta can band together in common defense, they may turn back the invasion. There is disagreement among the Spartan rulers. Why should they help other city states? After all, there is no such thing as "Greece" yet. The wind up is that Egan shows up to hold the narrow pass at Thermopylae with about 300 Spartans, while the Athenians attack the Persians by sea. The Spartans get the job done, too, and beat Xerxes' men back several times until the Persians find an old path around the pass that allows them to surround and wipe out the Spartans.It's roughly congruent with what we know about the battle at Thermopylae, if I can remember it. The majority of Spartans failed to show up at Thermopylae because they were held at home by a religious ceremony. Athens had a great navy; Sparta had none. The battle is often brought up as a perfect example of bravery, discipline, and loyalty. I mean, 300 men against maybe a quarter of a million.The performances aren't bad, either. Richard Egan's range as an actor was limited but he was always a likable guy with his broad smile and muscular frame. Ralph Richardson is as good here as anywhere, which is saying a lot. He's an exceptional actor. David Farrar is convincing but his role is that of the one-dimensional heavy, always growling and ambitious. His sadness at the death of his brother lasts about two seconds before he's plotting revenge again. The writers have dehumanized him and a couple of other characters.This story is one of the few that could actually benefit from CGIs but, considering they weren't available, the director does a reasonable job in handling the battles without them. Lamentably, Rudolph Mate, the director, handles the story as just another piece of work, with no imagination, rather carelessly. I'll give one example. The unseasoned but very pretty Diane Baker is brought to a Greek homestead and faints from hunger and exhaustion while leaning against a friend -- and she remains standing, with her head slumped to her shoulder. This maintains the pace of the scene. If she fell to the ground, as fainting people are wont to do, the man who carries her off would have to bend down and clumsily pick her body up. Mate maintains the syncope while skipping the bothersome fact that a fainting body must, by definition, collapse. It's an old, established cinematic convention -- the unconscious body being dragged while still upright -- but how stupid does the director believe the audience to be? Are we supposed to think that only the head faints? (I'd love to work in a pun on the word "feint" here but I can't think of any way to do it.) I wish we were able to learn more about the political and social background of the battle, as well as the personal stuff. We see that the Spartans are incredibly courageous and skilled at warfare, but most people already know that. We don't learn that Sparta raided a neighboring valley for slaves whenever they ran short, or that the slaves worked in the fields, kept the households, and did such menial tasks as rotating the tires on the family car. This released the Spartan men to do what they did best: (1) prepare for war, and (2) wage war.You think boot camp at Parris Island was rough? That was nothing compared to the Japanese naval air training center at Etajima. And Etajima was nothing compared to Sparta. Boys were permanently removed from their parents, beaten, trained in martial arts, exposed naked to severe weather, and winnowed out until only the most hardy were left. They weren't allowed to have anything to do with women until in their late teens. A note to those with strong opinions on the issue of gays in the military: a part of the training of these world-renowned warriors was to spend some time as sex slaves to an experienced mentor. When they were finally ordained as warriors, after decades of training, they were told to come back with their shield or on it. If a Spartan man wanted to be buried with his name on his head stone he must have died in battle. (A woman had to have died in childbirth.) And all we learn from this movie is that they were brave fighters.