Fails any test of aesthetic merit

Rating: 3/10 (9 April 2007)

This film significantly fails any test of aesthetic merit. Compare with the Battle of Rork's Drift as brilliantly executed in "Zulu".
Characteristation? A collection of cardboard cut-outs masquerading as actors where the one-dimensional heroes combat flat antagonists. On occasion there is a hint of potential inner conflict and character development.
Narrative development? There's a big fight: That's it. Which is a crying shame because the real battle of Thermopylae and the events that led up to it was actually *interesting* - indeed one of the most important moments in history.
Those who condemn this film the lack of historical accuracy in this film have an aesthetic point (as well as an objective one) because the *real* story is more interesting than the fictional one. Film did include the limitations imposed by the Carneian festival; well-cited and a good plot device.
Anarchronisms? The film is full of them. From the cross between an effete giant Darth Vader who's supposed to represent a short, bearded Persian King, Xerxes, to the ridiculous claim that the Spartans were fighting for freedom (they had several slaves per citizen).
Theme? Firstly, if you're going to make a film based on a real event, real people and real nations you have a moral obligation to be, well, realistic. Sure it can be an enhanced reality (cf., Mary Renault's fictional books on Ancient Greek society) but don't contradict reality.
The historical theme of Thermopylae is important; the advantages of training, terrain and courage against overwhelming odds. That is a good theme; it is worthy of exploration.
The theme provided by this film is the few and noble free West versus the many nations (from sub-Saharan Africa to the land of the Samurai) seeking to enslave them. We note of course that the the overwhelming majority of Greeks who fought at Thermopylae were on Xerxes side.
Style? Lots of CGI, technically proficient but much of it over-the-top and even inappropriately executed.
I'm a big fan of "authentic" violence in film and usually condemn the lack of graphic portrayal in others. In this case I condemn the graphic portrayal because it isn't authentic - it looked like a cheap video game.
The voice-over by Dilios were a necessary feature, partially for historicity and partially because the scenes were themselves incapable of portraying descriptive emotion. The buff semi-naked Spartans with thrusting spears was OK, and especially if that's your kink.
Tha acting was melodramatic ham with the a range of one-liners (some OK, mostly bad) and the mise en scène in most shots was thoroughly unconvincing with one excellent exception; the view of the Persian camp is actually close to the actual view from the wall).
Popular Appeal? I note that 49% of reviewers on IMDb - fully 40000 at last count - voted this film 10/10. Under these circumstances I usually despair for the future of culture; however the lasting influence of this product will be slight. As for the memory of the Spartans - this is one the greatest unintentional insults that could be cast at them.