"300" Talkback (Spoilers)

[Funkatron]

"Prepare for Glory!"

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/MMPO/505398.jpg


Release Date: March 9, 2007
Studio: Warner Bros. Pictures
Director: Zack Snyder
Screenwriter: Michael Gordon (II), Zack Snyder, Lynn Varley, Kurt Johnstad, Frank Miller
Starring: Gerard Butler, Lena Headey, Michael Fassbender, Vincent Regan, Dominic West
MPAA Rating: R for graphic battle sequences throughout, some sexuality and nudity.
Plot Summary: In the ancient Battle of Thermopylae, King Leonidas and 300 Spartans fought to the death against Xerxes and his massive Persian army. Facing insurmountable odds, their valor and sacrifice inspire all of Greece to unite against their Persian enemy, drawing a line in the sand for democracy.


Comments? What are your thoughts?

Gonna see this tonight with a few friends. Critics so far are giving it average ratings, but user ratings hav been pretty positive.

[Terminatah]

I saw this at an advance screening last month, and it's the best movie I've seen all year. I'm seeing it again tonight. Not to jinx anything, but Snyder leaves me feeling totally relaxed about Watchmen.

-Terminatah

[IrishBeauty]

I like never go to the movies anymore but I've been waiting to see this for awhile. I hope it's as good as it looks. I'm so excited. Let me know how it is if you see it this weekend.

[Noukon]

It's pretty good. Not a masterpiece of film direction, or anything, but it's quite a spectacle, and beautiful to behold.

[Simpler Simon]

I caught the midnight IMAX screening, which was perfect for such a visually rich film.

The lack of a strong story is a minor but notable quibble. If you're expecting anything except chest beating and lots of action and gore, you're watching the wrong flick. However, the characters are very strong and likeable. That covers a lot of the story deficiencies.

The one story element they added (which I heard was not in Frank Miller's original series) was the subplot with the queen and the council. It was a good idea to give her something to do other than stand around and look pretty, but the subplot doesn't really influence things on the battlefield.

The hunchback soo looks like Gollum. And the costumes for the Persians was really nice. Xerxes and those guys in the masks creeped me out.

Every time Gerald Butler yells something, the Spartans start hacking up the Persians. Do I sense a pattern here?

Overall, the epic scope makes this one to see in theatres.

[Noukon]

The one story element they added (which I heard was not in Frank Miller's original series) was the subplot with the queen and the council. It was a good idea to give her something to do other than stand around and look pretty, but the subplot doesn't really influence things on the battlefield.


I believe the point of this was to give Leonidas' last line more meaning. In context of the film, if he says, "My queen, my wife, my love," when we haven't seen the queen for an hour and a half, it seems really detached, and some of the dumber audience members might not even get what he's talking about.

[Hanshotfirst113]

I saw this at an advance screening last month, and it's the best movie I've seen all year. I'm seeing it again tonight. Not to jinx anything, but Snyder leaves me feeling totally relaxed about Watchmen.

-Terminatah

He's making Watchmen? Great, the movie I wanted to stay in development hell :sad:. Is 300 out already? What did I miss? Why didn't Miller involve himself.

[blee337]

Fantastic movie. This is what you go to the movies for.

I am sure critics will disect it to no end, but the bottom line is that it has been a long time since I have walked out of the movie theater that excited about what I just watched. Highly recommended.

[Beat]

Most of the critics loved it it seemed, the ones who didn't complained about historical accuracy (the actual number of Spartans and Persians has been a subject of constant debate in historical circles, and several hard line Middle Eastern scholars claim the battle never happened) and dialog.

I thought it was awesome. Every man on this forum has a duty to see this film.

[PeterFries]

Most of the critics loved it it seemed

Um, no they didn't. I just heard a radio critic on my way home from seeing it say it may have been the worst movie he'd ever seen. He's hardly alone. Check out Rottentomatoes.


I thought it was awesome. Every man on this forum has a duty to see this film.

Although I liked it an awful lot, too, I wouldn't go that far. Not everyone is going to like this. It's a violent, simplistic cartoon with some disturbing ideas and subtext that are thankfully cancelled out by its over-the-top luridness...

I'm a lifelong comic book fan and a videogame artist, so this movie was right in my wheelhouse. I can understand a lot of people having a visceral dislike of this movie, though.

[Wonderwall]

He's making Watchmen? Great, the movie I wanted to stay in development hell :sad:. Is 300 out already? What did I miss? Why didn't Miller involve himself.

Miller is involved, I think he's directing it too, and if not, I know hes taking a role in development of the movie. ANd 300 came out today.

[Mog]

I dined in hell at 10PM last night. It was a great movie, with tons of great visuals. It should win a few awards along the lines of cinematogrophy, but I doubt it will be a movie of the year nominee.

[Joe]

Seems like a typical stylish action flick, though closer in lines with the recent Sin City Movie. I don't expect this to even be remotely historically acurate (based on what we know) nor do I expect the plot to be more than give a basic setting. It looks like one of thos emovies that prides itself in being "badass". Given that I liked the Sin City film, this should at least be somewhat entertaining.

I'll wait for this to come out on tape, though

[Greg1]

Suffers from "lots of flashy bits holding up a weak plot". The visuals are stunning, and the actors do a decent job (the best one being the whats-his-name narrator guy), but there just isn't that strong of a story here.

[Beat]

Suffers from "lots of flashy bits holding up a weak plot". The visuals are stunning, and the actors do a decent job (the best one being the whats-his-name narrator guy), but there just isn't that strong of a story here.

The graphic novel had the same issue. Heck, a lot of Miller's work is textbook style vs. substance.

Not justifying it, just saying.

[The Clown Prince]

This movie is gonna have a HUGE weekend at the box office. Friday's estimates are in and Friday alone it pulled in $27.8 million in 3,103 theaters and I believe that includes many of the midnight showings that there were. Not sure if IMAX totals are in that but I would have to imagine it is.

Based off that I estimate, I guess anywhere from $73 million to an $80 million opening. And for an R rated movie, that's pretty good.

The Clown Prince

[Hades]

This movie was just down right excellent. Nuff said. Automatic 10/10 stars.

As for Rottentomatoes, it just proves that no one there knows what a good movie is. They would all rather watch trash like Dreamgirls and stuff that makes your eyes water rather than something with a good story, music, battle scenes, and has an artistic style to it.

Lastly, those who whine about the movie being historically inaccurate need a life. Not everything based on real events has to be factual.

I'm confused though. Some of you guys have said that Miller is helping on The Watchmen, but he didn't do The Watchmen. That is Moore. Anyway, I look forward to it, as it will make a great movie. I never got into the comic, too slow moving for my taste, but I would love to see it on the screen.

[Lord Dalek]

For a piece of hotblooded action garbage, 300 was pretty fun. Not high art, not well written (then again Frank Miller always sucked at writing, his strengths come from visual style and characterization), and endlessly entertaining. It's no Sin City though, and Zack Snyder lacks the visual gusto that RR brought to that flick. Never the less I enjoyed it. *** 1/2 out of *****

[PeterFries]

I'm confused though. Some of you guys have said that Miller is helping on The Watchmen, but he didn't do The Watchmen. That is Moore.

Snyder, not Miller. The director of 300 has done some preproduction work on a Watchmen movie. I wouldn't expect Moore to get involved, as he has washed his hands of any Hollywood adaptations of his work, and turns over the money from any to the artists involved. Maybe Dave Gibbons will get a nice check at least, and get consulted for some design work.

I can't picture Watchmen working as a movie, since a two hour adaptation would be like a dumbed down Cliff's Notes version of the graphic novel (ironically, the opposite problem Snyder probably had padding out 300 into movie length).

[Hanshotfirst113]

This movie was just down right excellent. Nuff said. Automatic 10/10 stars.

As for Rottentomatoes, it just proves that no one there knows what a good movie is. They would all rather watch trash like Dreamgirls and stuff that makes your eyes water rather than something with a good story, music, battle scenes, and has an artistic style to it.

Battle scenes and a strong visual asthetic do not necessarily a good movie make. Considering that Troy had both, and was mediocre to the last degree.


Lastly, those who whine about the movie being historically inaccurate need a life. Not everything based on real events has to be factual.

Depends. There's a point where you'd be insulting the soldiers in WWII if you wrote something stupid about them. It's a slippery slope.


I'm confused though. Some of you guys have said that Miller is helping on The Watchmen, but he didn't do The Watchmen. That is Moore. Anyway, I look forward to it, as it will make a great movie. I never got into the comic, too slow moving for my taste, but I would love to see it on the screen.

Um, the critics on Rotten Tomatoes may also be a bit higher profile and thus have high standards or low standards depending upon Roger Ebert or some trashy website, so be careful. Ever here the phrase "style over substance?" I'm inclined to agree with Lord Dalek about Miller. And Moore will not be involved with Watchmen, as doesn't want his works to be adapted at all. Or course, as Gibbons also worked on the piece, I have to respect his wishes even though I tend to agree with Moore that his works shouldn't be adapted. Watchmen will probably do what V for Vendetta did and completely turn the entire theme of the work on its axis to change it from a psychologically intense character study into a superhero action film.


Then again Frank Miller always sucked at writing, his strengths come from visual style and characterization.

It's the annoying and endless noir cliches which he drove harder and harder into the groud that bothered me.



The graphic novel had the same issue. Heck, a lot of Miller's work is textbook style vs. substance.

Not justifying it, just saying.


No, no, that's a valid point. Miller is good a depicting a world and stylizing things for social commentary, but he isn't anywhere near as skilled at character development as Moore, for example.



Snyder, not Miller. The director of 300 has done some preproduction work on a Watchmen movie. I wouldn't expect Moore to get involved, as he has washed his hands of any Hollywood adaptations of his work, and turns over the money from any to the artists involved. Maybe Dave Gibbons will get a nice check at least, and get consulted for some design work.

I can't picture Watchmen working as a movie, since a two hour adaptation would be like a dumbed down Cliff's Notes version of the graphic novel (ironically, the opposite problem Snyder probably had padding out 300 into movie length).


So much of Watchmen is internal that it's unfilmable anyways. Now if Terry Gilliam or someone like that were to take it on, I'd be interested. I may not always agree with Moore, but respect him for sticking to his guns while having respect for the artists who worked on the pieces as well. That takes a lot of guts on his part, and I give him full credit for him.

[Strollymonster]

Just got back from seeing it...it was decent.

First off, yes, this movie is utterly gorgeous. Some of the best visual effects and cinematography in the past decade, to be sure. Even so, beauty does not a good movie make.

I knew better than to come to the movie expecting anything historically accurate. However, as a history major, it was impossible to ignore some of the crazy crap that Miller pulled here. I mean, freakin' rhinos and elephants? Did Hannibal travel back in time a few hundred years to team up with Xerxes? I don't care how much you're 'embellishing', a single spear does not bring down a charging rhino. Then there was the bizarre decision to depict the Spartans without any chest armor...I honestly don't know what would be gained by having a bunch of needlessly half-naked guys added to the movie, but whatever.

Then there was that whole 'Spartan code' bit that was also pretty much total BS. Spartans were practical fighters that knew the value of knowing when to retreat and regroup. The only reason that Leonidas even stayed after the Persians began to outflank them was to stall Xerxes as much as possible so he could buy time to let the retreating Greek forces prepare to hold off the then-inevitable Persian invasion. If he hadn't, it's likely that the Persians would have caught up to the retreating men and probably decimated them since they wouldn't have had time to get reinforcements.

I guess my biggest issue with this movie is that it feels like a rehash of Lord of the Rings at a lot of points. Seriously, when they pulled off the mask of one of the Immortals and the guy looked like a freakin' Orc, that was just a bit much. Then you've got your Gollum-esque traitor guy and the giant guy that bore more than a passing resemblance to an Uruk-Hai. The entire use of differing color-schemes was also highly reminiscent of LOTR.

The obvious political parallels that they pulled out didn't help much, either. Honestly, 'freedom isn't free'? While it's true, they could have at least changed the wording up a bit.

Overall, terrific action movie and a great lesson in visual development with a paper-thin plot and no real depth. At least give it a rental when it's out.

[PeterFries]

I knew better than to come to the movie expecting anything historically accurate. However, as a history major, it was impossible to ignore some of the crazy crap that Miller pulled here. I mean, freakin' rhinos and elephants? Did Hannibal travel back in time a few hundred years to team up with Xerxes?

Dunno about Rhinos, but war elephants were used by Persian armies, and long before them by the Vedic armiesof Iron Age India. I don't know that Xerxes had any to deploy against the Spartans at Thermopylae.


Then there was the bizarre decision to depict the Spartans without any chest armor...I honestly don't know what would be gained by having a bunch of needlessly half-naked guys added to the movie, but whatever.

That depiction is straight out of Neoclassical paintings of the battle like the 1814 "Leonidas at Thermopylae" by Jacques-Louis David (note that these Spartans were wearing even less):

http://www.oceansbridge.com/paintings/artists/d/david-jacques-louis/oil-big/leonidas_at_thermopylae_detail_1814_XX_louvre_paris_france.JPG



I guess my biggest issue with this movie is that it feels like a rehash of Lord of the Rings at a lot of points.

The movie probably was influenced by LOTR, though the graphic novel it painstakingly recreates is more of a rehash of the 1962 300 Spartans (http://imdb.com/title/tt0055719/), a movie Miller acknowledged as his inspiration. The "arrows blotting out the sun/fight in the shade" line comes right out of that movie.


The obvious political parallels that they pulled out didn't help much, either. Honestly, 'freedom isn't free'? While it's true, they could have at least changed the wording up a bit.

It's hard to take these metaphors or allegories very far, though -- Snyder says he was approached by Europeans after his movie utterly bombed at its Berlin film festival premiere, who alternately demanded to know if his Xerxes was meant to be Bush or if his Persians were meant to depict 'islamofascists', which the director pointed to as evidence that the movie's themes aren't directly meant to depict current events despite attempts to frame them that way. This is an old legend, which has been embellished a great deal over the years by many, many other artists, filmmakers, poets and writers.

[Strollymonster]

Dunno about Rhinos, but war elephants were used by Persian armies, and long before them by the Vedic armiesof Iron Age India. I don't know that Xerxes had any to deploy against the Spartans at Thermopylae.

Yes, I knew that, but I had a hard time believing that the Persians would go through the trouble of sticking them on a boat (with their food, no less) and then carry them into Greece.


That depiction is straight out of Neoclassical paintings of the battle like the 1814 "Leonidas at Thermopylae" by Jacques-Louis David (note that these Spartans were wearing even less)

I just think it was a lost opportunity. They could have given the Spartans some cool chest armor rather than dirty greased-up abs.


The movie probably was influenced by LOTR, though the graphic novel it painstakingly recreates is more of a rehash of the 1962 300 Spartans (http://imdb.com/title/tt0055719/), a movie Miller acknowledged as his inspiration. The "arrows blotting out the sun/fight in the shade" line comes right out of that movie.

You're not giving enough credit to Herodotus, the guy that originated the entire thing.


Herodotus writes that when Dienekes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dienekes), a Spartan soldier, was informed that Persian arrows would be so numerous as "to blot out the sun", he remarked with characteristically laconic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconic_phrase) prose, "So much the better, we shall fight in the shade." Today Dienekes's phrase is the motto of the Greek 20th Armored Division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_Army).


It's hard to take these metaphors or allegories very far, though -- Snyder says he was approached by Europeans after his movie utterly bombed at its Berlin film festival premiere, who alternately demanded to know if his Xerxes was meant to be Bush or if his Persians were meant to depict 'islamofascists', which the director pointed to as evidence that the movie's themes aren't directly meant to depict current events despite attempts to frame them that way. This is an old legend, which has been embellished a great deal over the years by many, many other artists, filmmakers, poets and writers.

That's part of the problem that I had. The allegories are simply too muddled-up to make any kind of sense out of them. I just feel that too much emphasis here was placed on the visuals while the story was left to suffer. They could have done a lot more, like perhaps adding the naval battle that accompanied this event.

[PeterFries]

You're not giving enough credit to Herodotus, the guy that originated the entire thing.

...

That's part of the problem that I had. The allegories are simply too muddled-up to make any kind of sense out of them.

Obviously, there were lots of versions of this story that predate 300. I was just saying that Miller based his extremely lurid, over the top take on that 1960s movie he saw as a kid.

And my other point was that there are no intentional allegories to have muddled up. Or at least that's what Miller and Snyder claim.

[Beat]

This movie was not historically accurate. The Persian army didn't have hand grenades, Xerxes didn't walk around half naked (and is actually mentioned in the Bible as not attacking the Jews because of the pleading of Esther) and the invading army was probably closer to 50,000 than 2 million. (The 2 million figure comes from Herodotus, and like everything else involving the battle, has been subject to endless debate). Basically, my Greek professor was having a fit over it.

But it's not supposed to be a documentary any more than Sin City was supposed to be an accurate representation of pulp films. (Good ones like Touch of Evil anyway)

[Cortez2301]

Really good movie.I saw it in I-max so it looked great.Alot of violence though but it was Ancient Greece so there is no surprise.Hollywood keep the Frank miller movies coming!

[Hades]

Battle scenes and a strong visual asthetic do not necessarily a good movie make. Considering that Troy had both, and was mediocre to the last degree.

What are you talking about? Troy was one incredible movie. It is no Gladiator or Kingdom of Heaven, but it is still by far the best adaptation of the Trojan War.


Depends. There's a point where you'd be insulting the soldiers in WWII if you wrote something stupid about them. It's a slippery slope.

What does it matter? If I want realistic, I watch a documentary. As far as I'm concerned, a movie could turn WWII soldiers into bumbling idiots, but if the story is good, along with the music and visuals, then I can care less.


Um, the critics on Rotten Tomatoes may also be a bit higher profile and thus have high standards or low standards depending upon Roger Ebert or some trashy website, so be careful.

Ebert is just as bad as the losers as Rottentomatoes. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if they are the ones who pick the movies for the Oscar nominations, as they have no sense of what is good or not. I don't see why we should pay these people to write critic reviews (the ones that get paid obviously) when half of their reviews are half-assesed and feel like they didn't even try to watch the movie if it didn't star their favorite bootlicking actor.


Ever here the phrase "style over substance?" I'm inclined to agree with Lord Dalek about Miller. And Moore will not be involved with Watchmen, as doesn't want his works to be adapted at all. Or course, as Gibbons also worked on the piece, I have to respect his wishes even though I tend to agree with Moore that his works shouldn't be adapted. Watchmen will probably do what V for Vendetta did and completely turn the entire theme of the work on its axis to change it from a psychologically intense character study into a superhero action film.

Moore's works do need to be adapted. From Hell and V for Vendetta are down right masterpieces in both comic and movie formats, especially V. V for Vendetta was 2006's best movie of the year as there was nothing that could top it in storytelling and characterzation. It may not be a faithful adapation in story, but the spirit was 100%. Even David Lloyd thinks the movie was perfect. The Watchmen will make a great movie. If you think V is a super hero film, then you really were not paying attention.

Spoontang, if you did not know that the Persians used Elephants in their battles, then you need to take a history course in Babylonian history. I'm not trying to be rude, but that is pretty much a given. Heck, if I recall correctly, there are even elephants shown in the murals depicting Alexander's battle with Darius III.

[Strollymonster]

Spoontang, if you did not know that the Persians used Elephants in their battles, then you need to take a history course in Babylonian history. I'm not trying to be rude, but that is pretty much a given. Heck, if I recall correctly, there are even elephants shown in the murals depicting Alexander's battle with Darius III.

Yes, I'm aware that Persians and several other subcontinent groups used elephants as both battle implements and beasts of burden. It's the idea of bringing them across the sea to use at this particular battle that was hard to swallow.

[Lord Dalek]

Yes, I'm aware that Persians and several other subcontinent groups used elephants as both battle implements and beasts of burden. It's the idea of bringing them across the sea to use at this particular battle that was hard to swallow.Tell that to Hannibal.

[Beat]

Tell that to Hannibal.

Hannibal's use of elephants as his main method of transport was considered one of the main reasons he lost.

[blee337]

In regards to those that are worried about historical accuracies....

The movie is not meant to be accurate or real. Its an exageration of the events on every level. 300 men vs. thousands. Gallons of blood at every sword thrust. "Monsters" of undead in the army. Killing a rhino with one spear and not flenching. An 8 ft. tyrant king decorated in riches to no end.
This is the stuff of campfire stories......which is exactly how the movie is presented. And presented very, very well.

[Hanshotfirst113]

What are you talking about? Troy was one incredible movie. It is no Gladiator or Kingdom of Heaven, but it is still by far the best adaptation of the Trojan War.

It doesn't exactly have a lot of competition ;). It's alright, I suppose, it just doesn't really stand out to me. It's adequate; there're OK battle scenes and and reasonable good if at times campy performances. It's just a Hollywood action picture at the end of the day. There's nothing wrong with that, but a story like the battle of Troy deserves better. Maybe the English major in me just hates the fact that Homer's epic poem, a touchstone of literature for centuries, was reduced to a by-the-numbers action movie with Orlando Bloom and Brad Pitt. What the hell are Orland Bloom and Brad Pitt doing in Homer ;)? That'd be like casting Tom Cruise in Dante's Inferno.


What does it matter? If I want realistic, I watch a documentary. As far as I'm concerned, a movie could turn WWII soldiers into bumbling idiots, but if the story is good, along with the music and visuals, then I can care less.

Character development? Script? Let us ask the families of soldiers who died if they'd mind the people who gave their lives so that we could have freedom of speech if they'd mind? It's like United 93; what if they'd been portrayed as "bumbling idiots?" Why do you think that any film involving religion stirs a firestorm of controversy? Obviously, it's just a movie, but there's a certain level of respect necessary sometimes. 300 may not really be one of those; it's been distorted anyways. If just saying that such a broad statement isn't all encomapssing.


Ebert is just as bad as the losers as Rottentomatoes.

He's one of the most respected critics in the world. Certainly, I by no means always agree with him, but he's always worth reading; more people go to him for his opinions than for mine :).


Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if they are the ones who pick the movies for the Oscar nominations, as they have no sense of what is good or not.

What is good or not? And what of the Oscars? Certainly, I take umbridge with them often, but they very seldom nominate something utterly unworthy.


I don't see why we should pay these people to write critic reviews (the ones that get paid obviously) when half of their reviews are half-assesed and feel like they didn't even try to watch the movie if it didn't star their favorite bootlicking actor.

I often disagree with Pauline Kael, but there's no denying that she loves the cinema and that her opinions have weight. There's a difference here.


Moore's works do need to be adapted.

He doesn't think so, and he wrote them. In fact, if DC had let him have the rights, he wouldn't have allowed it.


From Hell and V for Vendetta are down right masterpieces in both comic and movie formats, especially V. V for Vendetta was 2006's best movie of the year as there was nothing that could top it in storytelling and characterzation.

Pan's Labrynth, The Departed (the latter being flawed in many other ways) come to mind. The Queen, The Last King of Scotland, etc. There were plenty of other films that year, acclaimed by both critics and audiences. Not to take away from V, I just take umbridge with that statement.


It may not be a faithful adapation in story, but the spirit was 100%.

Not really. The whole dichotomy of V was anarchy vs. facism, not facism vs. democracy. The movie tends to lean more towards V and portray him as a hero and freedom fighter. V is Tomothy Mc Veigh (keep in mind that I'm also agreeing with other interpreations I've heard espoused). He's a terrorist and a murder in the comics. In the movies, he's sort of a quasi-superhero. Not to say that they got everything wrong. There were some brilliant sequences. The torture sequence in the film, for example, captured the comic superbly, and was a haunting piece of work. It's worth noting that Moore despised the film, even if I don't share his opinion. I think that the shift from a Thatcher Administration allegory to a Bush era one was a shaky line.


Even David Lloyd thinks the movie was perfect.

Let us not forget who's payroll he is on ;). He should absolutely be taken into consideration, no question, and his feeling should have just as strong a bearing on an adaptation as Moore's. I'm not disputing either statement. I'm just saying that I'm more inclined to agree with Moore; that's entirely my taste.


If you think V is a superhero film, then you really were not paying attention.

What say that you not insult me or make generalizations about me? Actually, V explored many of the ideas which he would later involve in his deconstruction of the superhero mythology in Watchmen. It's not a superhero movie by any means, but I think that there is a significant shift towards the superhero archetype in the film which was subtler in the original story.


The Watchmen will make a great movie.

Perhaps. I just don't want it in the hands of Hollywood studio who'll turn a character study into an action picture. If someone like Terry Gilliam or Guillermo del Toro rather than Joel Silver I would feel less uneasy.

[okendri]

I'm surprised that people are complaining so much about the historical accuracy of 300. oh well this sums up my thoughts on these types of movies.

http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF209-Now_Showing.jpg#197

[Comic Book Boy]

In regards to those that are worried about historical accuracies....

The movie is not meant to be accurate or real. Its an exageration of the events on every level. 300 men vs. thousands. Gallons of blood at every sword thrust. "Monsters" of undead in the army. Killing a rhino with one spear and not flenching. An 8 ft. tyrant king decorated in riches to no end.
This is the stuff of campfire stories......which is exactly how the movie is presented. And presented very, very well.

You are right. I thought 300 was great in every way (sound, editing, cinematography, story, development, etc.). A very well made piece of work.

[Juu-kuchi]

I eventually hope to get around to seeing it. (In U.K. right now) But... lol.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070313/wl_mideast_afp/afpentertainmentusiran_070313120951

[Beat]

Reminds me of how North Korea got angry about Die Another Day.

[Hanshotfirst113]

...which is why there is controversy about historical accuracy :D.

[Juu-kuchi]

Shouldn't they be mad at Greece though. They were the ones who popularized the Battle of Thermopylae and propagated the story. It wasn't some original creation by Frank Miller and Zack Snyder as means to slight the almighty Iranian nation.

[Hanshotfirst113]

Are they mad that Miller and Snyder played so loose with the facts or what? Exactly what is the crux of the issue?

[peacebyanymeans]

I didn't know Persian = Iranian, but whatever. Would've thought that it was more Asian than middle eastern...

[Mynd Hed]

On a lighter note, did Xerxes remind anyone else of the Almighty Tallest? You get the feeling he just woke up one day and realized, "Holy crap, I'm really, incredibly tall... I guess I must be a god!" (-:

[wonderfly]

Here's another article about Iran's outrage. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17599641/?GT1=9145)

Some people just need something to be angry about, I guess...

[Funkatron]

Here's another article about Iran's outrage. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17599641/?GT1=9145)

Some people just need something to be angry about, I guess...

Yes, cause Persia vs. Greece never happened [/sarcasm]

Jeez, people get mad over every little thing. Does England get pissed when Hollywood makes movies on the revolutionary war? O when we make Austin powers movies for that matter :p

[PeterFries]

Jeez, people get mad over every little thing. Does England get pissed when Hollywood makes movies on the revolutionary war? O when we make Austin powers movies for that matter :p

Actually, yes, and sort of. Six years ago, some British got pretty upset over the depiction of British war atrocities in The Patriot. There was also a minor controversy in England over the title "Spy Who Shagged Me" because 'shag' is more of a provocative term there. .. :D

[Lutochris]

And don't get the British started on Braveheart...

This movie may have had a paper thin plot, but that doesn't matter because it achieves exactly what it sets out to do. There is no pretense here - this movie is a comic book/popcorn movie and never tries to be anything else. Without trying to cram in a ton of contrived sentiment and false drama, it allows itself to have fun and be truly exciting. This is in stark contrast to, say, Troy or Gladiator, which were both also popcorn movies underneath, but tried so hard, on the surface, to be the next Braveheart that they drained most of the fun out of it, and just ended up being really bad tragedy.

[DarkAngel]

This is in stark contrast to, say, Troy or Gladiator, which were both also popcorn movies underneath, but tried so hard, on the surface, to be the next Braveheart that they drained most of the fun out of it, and just ended up being really bad tragedy.
Troy wasn't too good, but I enjoyed Gladiator. It wasn't on the level of Braveheart, but was a good movie.

And I don't really like using the word 'popcorn' to describe either 300 or Gladiator, because I think that ends up doing a disservice to both. Both movies are better than that.

[DarkAngel]

I don't get Braveheart. Maybe I just see it a Gibson's vanity project.
That's not truly a fair assessment. Both as the director and the star of the movie, he did really well. You can tell how serious he was by the quality of the end product. It's one of my all-time favorite films.

[Ben]

This film came out simultaneously in Korea so for once my newspaper review is timely to this thread. I hope it opens some eyes to what's really going on in this film. 300 is not bad because it's bloody and meant to entertain. It's bad because it promotes a skewed, destructive and historically very dangerous worldview.

My review:

Hitler’s hiding in your movie theater. The parts of Western culture that led to Nazi populism have returned to their pedestal in a surprising place: “300,” an action flick about a minor Greek battle almost 1,500 years ago.

“Fascist aesthetics,” wrote Susan Sontag, “endorse two seemingly opposite states, egomania and servitude.” Fascist art is a dance between a leader and a growing mass of identical, devoted subjects, shifting “between ceaseless motion and... ‘virile’ posing.” Fascist work “scorns realism in the name of ‘idealism.’” It “glorifies surrender, it exalts mindlessness, it glamorizes death.”

The subject of Sontag’s essay was Leni Riefenstahl, the notorious Nazi propagandist who constructed her twin propaganda masterpieces, “Triumph of the Will” and “Olympia,” for Adolf Hitler.

But Ms. Sontag’s words are also a perfect description of the special effects bloodbath that is “300.”

“300” follows the famed Battle of Thermopylae, where the Spartan leader Leonidas — this film’s “all-powerful, hypnotic leader-figure” — stood with 300 warriors against the Persian army in the year 480 B.C.

We are treated to the story of Leonidas’ birth and upbringing. He passes the Spartan test of physical fitness as a baby with no deformities, as the camera pans over the skulls of infants who were not so lucky. In his training and trial by blood, the agoge, he is beaten and sent into the wild with no armor to prove himself a warrior. Hitler himself cited these Spartan programs of eugenics and patriotic submission through suffering as inspirations for his Aryan master race.

When it becomes clear that the fight against the Persians is hopeless, Leonidas’ men, to the dismay of their less hardened Greek allies, look forward to a “beautiful death.” The Spartans themselves, in their small loincloths and red cloaks, are, physically, perfect warriors.

The Persians, on the other hand, are depicted alternately as physically monstrous, multiracial, unskilled, androgynous, decadent and homosexual. Their armies are populated by deformed giants, wizards and ninja-like warriors who hide their burned, twisted faces behind Asian-looking masks.

The film alternates between frenetic, and above all bloody, scenes of slaughter and long pans over the noble Spartans, or shots of them moving the dead, or standing atop cliffs — that is, between “ceaseless motion” and “virile posing.”

Occasionally one character or another cries out that they fight for “reason” — but this seems beyond patently ridiculous in the context of the rest of the film.

These will not be new accusations to anyone familiar with the Frank Miller comic book on which “300” is based, as the film is very faithful to its source.

What is the danger of filling our popular culture with the glorification of warriors, bred through eugenic selection and raised to crave war, death and undying loyalty to their king and to fight off the deformed and ignoble Persian hordes? It should be obvious.

Selective abortion and in vitro fertilization already allow the American elite to choose only the most physically appealing, genetically “perfect” embryo and discard the rest. Neoconservative leaders believe they can reshape the world through conquest by ignoring the law, which they see as corrupt — just as Leonidas does. The American military even fights insurgents linked with Iran — Persia — and seeks to openly justify bodily torture and abuse of its enemy.

Sometimes more is at stake at the movies than popcorn and cheap thrills. ben@joongang.co.kr


Lastly, those who whine about the movie being historically inaccurate need a life. Not everything based on real events has to be factual.

I agree, but in this case the stylization leads to the propagation of some truly toxic stereotypes and ideas.


I'm confused though. Some of you guys have said that Miller is helping on The Watchmen, but he didn't do The Watchmen. That is Moore. Anyway, I look forward to it, as it will make a great movie. I never got into the comic, too slow moving for my taste, but I would love to see it on the screen.

There's also no definite article in the title.


And my other point was that there are no intentional allegories to have muddled up. Or at least that's what Miller and Snyder claim.

That doesn't make this depiction automatically morally defensible. Saying your aim is simply to entertain does not (or at least should not) give you a free pass with an intelligent audience.


What does it matter? If I want realistic, I watch a documentary. As far as I'm concerned, a movie could turn WWII soldiers into bumbling idiots, but if the story is good, along with the music and visuals, then I can care less.

What do you mean by good, exactly? Are we talking actually good, or just good in that it helps you waste two hours in an air-conditioned room?


I don't see why we should pay these people to write critic reviews (the ones that get paid obviously) when half of their reviews are half-assesed and feel like they didn't even try to watch the movie if it didn't star their favorite bootlicking actor.

As a paid movie critic I've had to watch some real crap (this for example). And I don't know of any actors who lick boots. (Aside from Kevin Kline in A Fish Called Wanda of course.)


[quote]Moore's works do need to be adapted. From Hell and V for Vendetta are down right masterpieces in both comic and movie formats, especially V. V for Vendetta was 2006's best movie of the year as there was nothing that could top it in storytelling and characterzation. It may not be a faithful adapation in story, but the spirit was 100%. Even David Lloyd thinks the movie was perfect. The Watchmen will make a great movie. If you think V is a super hero film, then you really were not paying attention.

V was a superhero film, unlike the comic, which was a complex examination of a spectrum of political beliefs. Not saying V the movie wasn't a lot of fun, but it was nothing more than a superhero action film.


Tell that to Hannibal.

Hannibal didn't deliver elephants to the battlefield by sea either. He took a land route through Spain and over the Alps into Italy.


I didn't know Persian = Iranian, but whatever. Would've thought that it was more Asian than middle eastern...

Persians are Asian. Iran is in Asia. So is much of the Middle East. Go buy a map.


Here's another article about Iran's outrage. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17599641/?GT1=9145)

Some people just need something to be angry about, I guess...

It really depresses me to see Americans dismiss the concerns of real Persians with their depiction in this film when the majority of Americans are totally clueless about the history of the region. If a movie came out in, say, India depicting the American army in the 19th century as, say, a bunch of fat, bloated, cowardly, emasculated, physically repulsive amateurs who all owned slaves that they whipped right and left, would you let the Indians tell you to "just lighten up?"

Honestly, because a movie is an action movie doesn't mean it exists in a vacuum. And just because it looks and sounds cool doesn't mean you should turn off your brain while watching it.

[Classic Speedy]

I hated the movie. I know it was supposed to be just a high-octane action movie, but you at least have to care about the characters, or at the very least, their quests. I didn't. Every single moment in the movie where I SHOULD'VE felt something when a main character was killed, I didn't give a crap. Like the guy's son who is beheaded or when Leonidas's wife is raped . And that's not even counting the biggest, when Leonidas dies on the battlefield . Of course, it was hard to get into anything when the movie was full of gladiator epic cliches, like the main hero rallying his troops and the hero being perfect while the enemy is completely evil.

I didn't even think the special effects were that amazing, either. Yes, some of the shots were nice (like the colossal amount of boats in the sea!), but the battles themselves weren't anything special. Most of what they utilized was constant "speed up/slow down" movements during the fight scenes, and that got tiresome quickly. I know what they were going for by making the hue of the movie dark yellow/grayish, but it just made the film look murky, grainy, and dull. And did anyone else find it weird that, despite the massive amount of stabbings and such, we never saw any blood on the ground? If they're going to go so far with the violence, why not go all the way?

As for the social commentary, I actually took it as more spiritual than anything inherently political- I thought Xerxes was the embodiment of Satan, especially during the scene when he lures away one of Leonidas's men with temptations of money and women. That was one of the few parts of the film I liked, because it showed this guy's insecurity with how he was rejected and how he dealt with that- by turning to another army instead.

And sure, the film had its touches of dark humor; I did like Leonidas explaining why he can't kneel at Xerxes's feet, some of the quips between the two soldiers, the line "These are my 300 bodyguards", and the ridiculous height of the dead bodies that formed walls. And some of the narration was good.

But overall it was a joyless, soulless film that I have no desire to see again. If I want an epic battlefield film where I can actually get behind a character's quest and enjoy a different color hue, I'll watch Braveheart.

[FireWarrior]

Caught a 9:40 pm showing last night. Absolutely loved it. I knew fully that it was not historicall accurate, that it would be violent as hell, and that it will be entertaining. And that's why I got. Loved the visuals, the whole "last stand" theme of the battle. Fights scenes were fantastic as well. Only gripe is that they could have toned down the use of slow motion during the fights, it got a little repetitive. Still great though.

5/5

[DarkAngel]

Hitler himself cited these Spartan programs of eugenics and patriotic submission through suffering as inspirations for his Aryan master race.
Because Hitler cited these an inspirations doesn't mean 300 is meant to promote fascism or to support Hitler's views. There is much about the Spartan beliefs I would call disturbing. That doesn't mean we shouldn't see them or that we should pretend they never happened.


The Persians, on the other hand, are depicted alternately as physically monstrous, multiracial, unskilled, androgynous, decadent and homosexual. Their armies are populated by deformed giants, wizards and ninja-like warriors who hide their burned, twisted faces behind Asian-looking masks.
We saw that physically deformed Spartan Ephialtes, and knew from the beginning of the movie that there would have been others if they hadn't been discarded. We saw the diseased priests in Sparta. It wasn't just the Persians, but some of the other Greeks that joined the 300 that were also suggested to be less skilled in comparison.

I never had the impression or belief when watching that more than a few of the Persians were deformed in any way.

And I wouldn't say one side looked any better than the other. In 300, there is much that makes the Spartans look bad: the "Spartan programs" you referred to, the treatment of the women sent to be oracles, the killing of the messengers, the corruption of the Council and Priests.


That doesn't make this depiction automatically morally defensible.
Nor does it mean that it should be condemned or that it is, for a fact, bad or "crap".


Honestly, because a movie is an action movie doesn't mean it exists in a vacuum. And just because it looks and sounds cool doesn't mean you should turn off your brain while watching it.
Just because something looks and sounds cool also doesn't mean everyone is turning their brain off.

[Ben]

Because Hitler cited these an inspirations doesn't mean 300 is meant to promote fascism or to support Hitler's views. There is much about the Spartan beliefs I would call disturbing. That doesn't mean we shouldn't see them or that we should pretend they never happened.

Yes. But as so many people have pointed out this film is not a documentary. It completely idealizes the Spartan warrior culture, in opposition to the completely demonized Persians. Nowhere in the film does any "good guy" register an objection to the eugenics or to the agoge. In fact the queen, one of the two ideal pinnacles of the film, calls them difficult, but "necessary." If this film had been a documentary, or even remotely realistic fiction, you might have an argument. But "300" clearly casts the Spartan warrior as absolute good and his enemies as absolute evil.


We saw that physically deformed Spartan Ephialtes, and knew from the beginning of the movie that there would have been others if they hadn't been discarded.

Exactly. And thank God they were discarded! That Ephialtes turned out to be a real bad egg. This is the kicker. The king rejects him as a warrior when he's clearly at least as good as those free Greek bozos. EVEN THOUGH Ephialtes had Spartan warrior training, which you'd think would put him ABOVE the amateurs in the free Greek army, Leonidas rejects him outright because he is deformed. And then Ephialtes confirms the moral weakness of the genetic rejects by betraying his people to Xerxes.


We saw the diseased priests in Sparta. It wasn't just the Persians, but some of the other Greeks that joined the 300 that were also suggested to be less skilled in comparison.

The ideal of the film is specifically the 300 Spartan warriors. The diseased priests, corrupt politicians, etc. are just more foils to show how morally superior the Spartan military tradition is.


I never had the impression or belief when watching that more than a few of the Persians were deformed in any way.

Then you weren't paying attention. The Immortals were scarred and deformed under their masks, some of the transsexuals in Xerxes' harem had severe burns on their faces, there were countless body piercings and tatoos, and of course that grotesque giant and the bloated executioner with blades for hands.


And I wouldn't say one side looked any better than the other.

You're kidding me, right? You really think the 300 Spartan warriors came out looking as bad as their Persian counterparts? Did we see the same movie?

[BatKid]

The damn thing is based off the graphic novel. Pretty much the entire thing was lifted off the book, including visuals and dialogue. I suggest you guys criticize the COMIC BOOK (good luck with that btw) if it bothers you that much. Yes, that's right. Complain about a fictional book that was clearly intended to only briefly adapt certain moments of the actual battle, in favor of a more action-packed story. :shrug:

[wonderfly]

Yes. But as so many people have pointed out this film is not a documentary. It completely idealizes the Spartan warrior culture, in opposition to the completely demonized Persians. Nowhere in the film does any "good guy" register an objection to the eugenics or to the agoge. In fact the queen, one of the two ideal pinnacles of the film, calls them difficult, but "necessary." If this film had been a documentary, or even remotely realistic fiction, you might have an argument. But "300" clearly casts the Spartan warrior as absolute good and his enemies as absolute evil.

Not all movies need paint all sides in a conflict equally, (even those films based on history). Motion pictures require only that they entertain an audience, and more often than not, that entertainment can come from a "good guy vs. bad guy" scenario.


Exactly. And thank God they were discarded! That Ephialtes turned out to be a real bad egg. This is the kicker. The king rejects him as a warrior when he's clearly at least as good as those free Greek bozos. EVEN THOUGH Ephialtes had Spartan warrior training, which you'd think would put him ABOVE the amateurs in the free Greek army, Leonidas rejects him outright because he is deformed.

Wrong. Leonidus rejected Ephialtes because he couldn't lift his shield properly. It had nothing to do with Ephialtes appearance. In fact, Leonidus grants Ephialtes an audience when the other Spartan standing nearby wanted to shoo Ephialtes away.


V was a superhero film, unlike the comic, which was a complex examination of a spectrum of political beliefs. Not saying V the movie wasn't a lot of fun, but it was nothing more than a superhero action film.


Okay, so let's get this straight: You don't see left-wing propoganda in "V for Vendetta" yet you insist there's fascist indoctrination in "300"? :confused:

I for one can see some left-wing political jabs in "V for Vendetta" and I can see that there is glorification of the Spartan culture in "300", but I can enjoy both films without turning into an anarchist or a right-wing militant.


It really depresses me to see Americans dismiss the concerns of real Persians with their depiction in this film when the majority of Americans are totally clueless about the history of the region. If a movie came out in, say, India depicting the American army in the 19th century as, say, a bunch of fat, bloated, cowardly, emasculated, physically repulsive amateurs who all owned slaves that they whipped right and left, would you let the Indians tell you to "just lighten up?"

There is a huge difference between the events of 150 years ago, and something that occured 2,500 years ago. The culture of ancient Persia is vastly different than the Islamic state of Iran today. There's been plenty of films showing bad things about America, (and you don't have to look to other nations to make those films, just look to Hollywood) and I have no problem with such films showing a bad side of America, because I can watch those films in context, safe with the knowledge that what I see on the screen is someone's own take on America. Give the audience a little bit of credit.

[Spider-Man]

I think alot of people are seeing things that aren't really there. Of course war movies are going to have some political undertones but that does not mean they directly imply current day activities. But if someone is so convinced its in there then of course they'll see it. I thought it was a fun movie with some solid action scenes that was enjoyable even if it did get a bit tedious after awhile.

[Ben]

Not all movies need paint all sides in a conflict equally, (even those films based on history).

I want to be clear on this. 300 is not simply a little unbalanced. It completely and unquestionably elevates Leonidas and his followers as beautiful, skilled, and morally good and completely degrades their enemies as ugly and evil. It goes way beyond the typical villain twirling his mustache -- a character that at least has some exciting appeal -- and renders its antagonists as repulsive in every conceivable way.


Motion pictures require only that they entertain an audience, and more often than not, that entertainment can come from a "good guy vs. bad guy" scenario.

This attitude bothers me. "Entertainment" is not the only thing that matters, especially when a film provokes as serious a reaction as this one does. The difference between this movie and your usual mindless shoot-em-up is that this one spends a great deal of time on the ideological indoctrination of its heroes. Many people (as evidenced by this thread) are going to watch that and completely fail to notice that they've just had an ideology planted in their heads.


Wrong. Leonidus rejected Ephialtes because he couldn't lift his shield properly.

So he can't join the Spartan phalanx. Like I said, let him fight with those free Greek wusses. Leonidas probably only spoke to him in the first place because he thought he was going to be one of those cool cripples like Tiresias, not some reject. But the point is Ephialtes eventually proves he is not worthy of Sparta by betraying it. And if only they'd killed him as a baby that would never have happened.


Okay, so let's get this straight: You don't see left-wing propoganda in "V for Vendetta" yet you insist there's fascist indoctrination in "300"? :confused:

Where did I say V was apolitical? V is certainly an extremely political film. My point was that it was a simplistic cartoon compared to the relatively much more complex graphic novel.


I for one can see some left-wing political jabs in "V for Vendetta" and I can see that there is glorification of the Spartan culture in "300", but I can enjoy both films without turning into an anarchist or a right-wing militant.

Maybe not. But for you to "enjoy" a film either its content must strike a chord with you in some way or you must be completely devoid of critical faculties. And since 300 is so deeply ideological by action standards, you have to ask whether the part of yourself it appeals to is worth nurturing.

But imagine for a moment being outside American culture looking in. Someone in that position will ask: What do Americans cheer for? What do they pay to see? What do they revere in their popular culture? And the most convenient answer right now is -- the movie that made $70 million and ranked number 1 in the box office last weekend. The one that places the perfect, chiseled, rich, white warrior race against the ethnic demon slave hordes of the Middle East. That $70 million says, not only do Americans not care about the parallels, they even have the gall to say, "Lighten up," while their government botches invasions and tries to legalize torture. Just one more national embarrassment for the old country.


There is a huge difference between the events of 150 years ago, and something that occured 2,500 years ago. The culture of ancient Persia is vastly different than the Islamic state of Iran today.

But this movie didn't come out 2,500 years ago. And as everyone keeps saying, it's not remotely faithful to history. So your point is essentially moot. The important thing is -- it degrades Persians, and Persians are pissed off.


There's been plenty of films showing bad things about America, (and you don't have to look to other nations to make those films, just look to Hollywood) and I have no problem with such films showing a bad side of America, because I can watch those films in context, safe with the knowledge that what I see on the screen is someone's own take on America.

So you don't allow yourself to be touched by the ideas in those films either? Do you in fact care about ideas at all or are movies just cool-looking or not cool-looking to you?


Give the audience a little bit of credit.

I try to, but the damn audience keeps going to movies like this one (and Final Destination 3) so it's getting hard.

[James]

I've not the seen the film - I'm here because I have to be, though I might comment on some of the more general ideological points here that are quite fascinating.


Persians are Asian. Iran is in Asia. So is much of the Middle East. Go buy a map.


Not many people equate all the populace in Asia as Asian bizarrely, despite it being factually correct. It's one of those distinctions camouflaged by the cultural legacy of the West that Asians are sort of 'Japanese, Chinese, Koreans.. maybe India, y'know, that region.' Educate people by all means, but don't do it by trying to make them feel dumb. It just simply ain't cricket and the thread vibe will inevitably suffer for it.


I doubt that the English care much for it, but I suppose one could just look at it from that perspective. I do, by the way, believe that Gibson has considerable talent.

I certainly side with any dislike for the hatred of revisionist history born into film - and Gibson is always at the hub of this ilk. Unfortunately, people get their history lessons from film, so I for one dislike revisionism to the point of fiction. The reason so many English people hate Braveheart is not because of the persective. Hell, the English have scored so many war victories over Scotland, Ireland, Wales, France etc that they aren't really bothered by a Scottish biased film. If anyone holds a grudge, it's the Scottish who had one paper for the last World Cup trying to rally Scots in an England Vs Argentina face off.. in favour of the Argentineans. Given Scotland is part of Britain, that's a fair bit of dislike. Given the English haven't exactly ever been the most moral or fair country in it's conquests throughout history, it's not something the English really blame the Scots for, but are occasionally surprised by the strength of the dislike aimed at them. Having Scottish and English blood, I tend to keep in the middle, somewhere under the nearest bunker.

I disgress, point is, Braveheart mish mashes and revises historical events to a point that - IMO - distorts fact so far they should have used fiction.



Maybe not. But for you to "enjoy" a film either its content must strike a chord with you in some way or you must be completely devoid of critical faculties. And since 300 is so deeply ideological by action standards, you have to ask whether the part of yourself it appeals to is worth nurturing.That is verging on insulting. To enjoy a film, you simply need to be stimulated by it. You don't necessarily have to agree with it's message or empathise with it's characters, just as you can listen to rock song by Courtney Love and enjoy it for the commercial rock song it is without agreeing with it's message or liking the artist. Film is a big enough collective of stimuli to offer an experience can be enjoyed for more than one thing.

I'm not denying that intentions or ideologies in films can't affect the audience adversely. I just don't think you can generalise that enjoyment must come from some sort of conscious or subconscious empathy or approval of the film's "message".

My concern on this stance has always been a far more reaching one - not as to whether some historical films play sympathy chords with the audience, but that the audience is indoctrinated by the film's "history lesson - in the same way that because "The Passion" played on some historical visual and atmospheric techniques - like language - there are people who accept that film as - pardon the pun - gospel, despite much of it being interpretation of source material (with a liberal amount of "not in there" added in).

Films can be a powerful medium, but I think one can see films for what they are and enjoy the art without being in touch with the message. I also think there are those who don't see the message and simply just get the "action".

Either way, I too share a similar dislike for the film going public, who often swallow what they are given without question. Whether this is the case here I - of course - cannot say.

[Lutochris]

Ben, you're coming dangerously close to being guilty of exactly what you accuse the filmmakers of. You're essentially saying, in your posts, that because the people here didn't take the same message away from the film that you did, that they are stupid, and you are smart for being able to see what they can't. Are you advocating that we create a "master race" of film critics that protects us from "dangerous" films that YOU think are immoral?

The fact is, people take away different things from films. You assume, since we don't see Nazi-esque propaganda, that we've been brainwashed. Let's do a poll of everyone who posted in this thread - who here, after seeing this film, now advocates eugenics and infanticide?

Ben, I'm not a professional film critic, but I can tell you what I took from the film after I saw it. Yes, I thought the Spartan warriors were pretty awesome and heroic, but I felt sympathy for them as well. The shot of the infant skulls and the scene where Leonidus is taken from his mother made me feel uneasy. As for the Persians, I actually felt as much sympathy for them. As Leonidus said, "you have many slaves, but few warriors". They were being forced to die for Xerxes because he believed in quantity over quality. I saw Xerxes as evil, but not his slaves. Ultimately, I saw the Spartan culture as sympathetic not because they were beautiful or perfect, but because they were conflicted. They want freedom, but in order for their people to stay free they have to suffer. That doesn't make their methods righteous, but if they don't then who will? It's the same moral dilemma we face today. To protect ourselves we have to do bad things, but in doing that doesn't it make us as bad as our enemies? I don't think it claims to have an answer. And I don't think it glorifies the Spartan culture, rather it just shows for them what the price of freedom was.

So there you go, Ben. I saw the movie, didn't see the same message as you, and yet, I don't have any new right-wing ideology in my head. I'd be willing to bet many people here who did like the movie came away with similar feelings. I know you like to think you have a keener eye for movies than the rest of us brainwashed masses, but please, give us some freaking credit.

[Funkatron]

Ben, you're coming dangerously close to being guilty of exactly what you accuse the filmmakers of. You're essentially saying, in your posts, that because the people here didn't take the same message away from the film that you did, that they are stupid, and you are smart for being able to see what they can't. Are you advocating that we create a "master race" of film critics that protects us from "dangerous" films that YOU think are immoral?

The fact is, people take away different things from films. You assume, since we don't see Nazi-esque propaganda, that we've been brainwashed. Let's do a poll of everyone who posted in this thread - who here, after seeing this film, now advocates eugenics and infanticide?

Ben, I'm not a professional film critic, but I can tell you what I took from the film after I saw it. Yes, I thought the Spartan warriors were pretty awesome and heroic, but I felt sympathy for them as well. The shot of the infant skulls and the scene where Leonidus is taken from his mother made me feel uneasy. As for the Persians, I actually felt as much sympathy for them. As Leonidus said, "you have many slaves, but few warriors". They were being forced to die for Xerxes because he believed in quantity over quality. I saw Xerxes as evil, but not his slaves. Ultimately, I saw the Spartan culture as sympathetic not because they were beautiful or perfect, but because they were conflicted. They want freedom, but in order for their people to stay free they have to suffer. That doesn't make their methods righteous, but if they don't then who will? It's the same moral dilemma we face today. To protect ourselves we have to do bad things, but in doing that doesn't it make us as bad as our enemies? I don't think it claims to have an answer. And I don't think it glorifies the Spartan culture, rather it just shows for them what the price of freedom was.

So there you go, Ben. I saw the movie, didn't see the same message as you, and yet, I don't have any new right-wing ideology in my head. I'd be willing to bet many people here who did like the movie came away with similar feelings. I know you like to think you have a keener eye for movies than the rest of us brainwashed masses, but please, give us some freaking credit.

And then again, others just saw and awesome action movie :p

[Noukon]

What do Americans cheer for?

Based on the people in my screening, they cheer for decapitation and acts of rape.

Pretty disgusting.

[Ben]

Ben, you're coming dangerously close to being guilty of exactly what you accuse the filmmakers of. You're essentially saying, in your posts, that because the people here didn't take the same message away from the film that you did, that they are stupid, and you are smart for being able to see what they can't. Are you advocating that we create a "master race" of film critics that protects us from "dangerous" films that YOU think are immoral?

Thanks, that's the best laugh I've had all day (seriously!). I know I was a bit too harsh in bringing my point across, but really and truly my intention was not to get people to stop watching movies or to call them stupid. What pissed me off was the dismissive attitude people in this thread showed toward the people who are justifiably offended by this film. I will grant that you don't necessarily have to let the parallels and the ideology ruin your experience of seeing the film. But to belittle the people who actually paid attention to them struck me as insensitive.


The fact is, people take away different things from films. You assume, since we don't see Nazi-esque propaganda, that we've been brainwashed. Let's do a poll of everyone who posted in this thread - who here, after seeing this film, now advocates eugenics and infanticide?

As I said before, that's not what I meant. Of course an action movie isn't going to brainwash you. People just let these ideas wash over them like waves at the beach.


Ben, I'm not a professional film critic, but I can tell you what I took from the film after I saw it. Yes, I thought the Spartan warriors were pretty awesome and heroic, but I felt sympathy for them as well. The shot of the infant skulls and the scene where Leonidus is taken from his mother made me feel uneasy.

Well, I'm not really a professional either. I just do it as a fun part of my job so I don't really deserve to be put on a pedestal. I only mentioned it because that guy's post made out critics to be some variety of moron.


As for the Persians, I actually felt as much sympathy for them. As Leonidus said, "you have many slaves, but few warriors". They were being forced to die for Xerxes because he believed in quantity over quality. I saw Xerxes as evil, but not his slaves.

What about the Immortals, who are clearly professional warriors like the Spartans (and as I said are coded as dark, deformed, other, etc.)? And the homo/transsexuals in Xerxes's harem? And the bloodthirsty executioner with blades for hands? And at the very least, aren't the slaves sinning by letting themselves be pushed around by a man who is clearly Satan incarnate?


Ultimately, I saw the Spartan culture as sympathetic not because they were beautiful or perfect, but because they were conflicted. They want freedom, but in order for their people to stay free they have to suffer. That doesn't make their methods righteous, but if they don't then who will? It's the same moral dilemma we face today. To protect ourselves we have to do bad things, but in doing that doesn't it make us as bad as our enemies?

Bingo. And this is why the Persians have a right to be pissed. The movie's answer seems to me to be, "No!" Leonidas kills a messenger for pissing him off and ignores the law, Gorgo assassinates a politician in the council chamber, and all of these actions are clearly presented as "cool" and as leading to what's ultimately best for Sparta. So no, it doesn't apparently make them as bad as their enemies.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Bush ignores the law to go to war in the Middle East, you have a mess of an occupation with accusations of abuse flying around every week, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and a U.S. president who has the gall to ask for torture to be legalized and demand "gratitude" from Iraq. So people are angry precisely because their answer to your question is "Yes."


And I don't think it glorifies the Spartan culture, rather it just shows for them what the price of freedom was.

Define "glorify," then.


So there you go, Ben. I saw the movie, didn't see the same message as you, and yet, I don't have any new right-wing ideology in my head. I'd be willing to bet many people here who did like the movie came away with similar feelings.

I realize that, but at least you made some of the same connections as me even if you are less concerned about them. I'm more worried about the people who don't even realize what they're doing by seeing the film.


Not many people equate all the populace in Asia as Asian bizarrely, despite it being factually correct. It's one of those distinctions camouflaged by the cultural legacy of the West that Asians are sort of 'Japanese, Chinese, Koreans.. maybe India, y'know, that region.' Educate people by all means, but don't do it by trying to make them feel dumb. It just simply ain't cricket and the thread vibe will inevitably suffer for it.

Sorry. But ask almost any Persian and they will identify themselves as Asian. Arabs may not, but Persians do.


That is verging on insulting. To enjoy a film, you simply need to be stimulated by it. You don't necessarily have to agree with it's message or empathise with it's characters, just as you can listen to rock song by Courtney Love and enjoy it for the commercial rock song it is without agreeing with it's message or liking the artist. Film is a big enough collective of stimuli to offer an experience can be enjoyed for more than one thing.

I tried to say that as delicately as I could, but I meant it. In rock music or a Bond movie I would agree with you, but this movie on a visceral level appeals to the same base human instincts that cause people to give their lives for dictators and tyrants. The obsession with physical perfection, the absolute submission to the leader, the absolute dehumanization of the enemy, the never-wavering righteousness of the hero. This kind of thing we should guard against, not applaud.


I'm not denying that intentions or ideologies in films can't affect the audience adversely. I just don't think you can generalise that enjoyment must come from some sort of conscious or subconscious empathy or approval of the film's "message".

In this film the medium is the message. The slow-motion shots of spear throws have almost exact counterparts in Riefenstahl. I think perhaps a look at the Sontag essay I quoted would help you understand where I'm coming from: http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/33dTexts/SontagFascinFascism75.htm .


Films can be a powerful medium, but I think one can see films for what they are and enjoy the art without being in touch with the message. I also think there are those who don't see the message and simply just get the "action".

Seeing the film for what it is would have to involve understanding the reactions it's trying to provoke. If you simply let yourself be manipulated you're not really seeing it for what it is.

Anyway, you're right that it's fine to have fun at the movies sometimes without giving a whit about the message. But then when some people DO respond to the message in a film, the right response is, "Oh, I guess I didn't see that," or "I was just enjoying the movie," not to dismiss them as people just "looking for a reason to be upset."


Based on the people in my screening, they cheer for decapitation and acts of rape.

Pretty disgusting.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds that kind of thing insane.

[Matt Hazuda]

This is also the talkback thread for "300" breaks IMAX records (http://news.toonzone.net/article.php?ID=15987).

I would love to see this movie in IMAX, but sadly it isn't showing in that format in my area (damn educational movies wasting screentime).

Also amazing is the fact that it is an R-rated movie and managed to do this.

I know they had to do it in the past, but do IMAX movies sitll have to be editted for time versus the theatrical version?

[Classic Speedy]

I don't suppose it matters that the filmmakers publicly announced that 300 doesn't contain any hidden political agendas or any racism/race superiority, does it? I mean, that's not to say that movie goers can't INTERPRET the movie's events as being a certain way (including those who are offended by this movie's portrayals), but that's just it: It's all a matter of interpretation. Nobody is factually correct that the movie hates a particular group of people and that those who don't see that let that "message" go over their heads because they were too focused on the visuals; it's just what they believe.

I almost always think about the themes of a film when I'm watching it. That helps gives myself a little more to chew on as opposed to just going in, being wowed by pretty graphics and leaving, forgetting most everything I saw immediately afterwards. IMO, the movie definitely had a stance: Good vs. evil. I thought it was fairly one-sided in that portrayal, like I mentioned earlier in my post (i.e. the good was nearly flawless and the evil was as bad as it gets, making it difficult to identify with either side). However, the race thing didn't even come to mind until I read this thread. Does that make me wrong, like I didn't "get" some subliminal message? No. It was a matter of interpretation by someone else, no more factually right or wrong than my interpretation, but something to think about nonetheless.

Re: The audience reaction stuff. When I went to see 300, I didn't quite have the same experience as Noukon did. There was no cheering, heck, very little laughter during even the brief comic relief moments. Now, it's hard to say whether the audience enjoyed themselves or whether they were horrified (I mean, it's a dark theater after all). But I just wanted to point out that his experience wasn't a universal one. It's not like all of America is going to theaters and fulfilling some subliminal need to scream out in joy when someone gets raped or a guy is brutally killed.

[wonderfly]

Bingo. And this is why the Persians have a right to be pissed. The movie's answer seems to me to be, "No!" Leonidas kills a messenger for pissing him off and ignores the law, Gorgo assassinates a politician in the council chamber, and all of these actions are clearly presented as "cool" and as leading to what's ultimately best for Sparta. So no, it doesn't apparently make them as bad as their enemies.


The message the movie is trying to convey is that sometimes the laws and the governing bodies who issue those laws are unjust and corrupt, and it's better to ignore them, if you are to be able to fight an evil that exists in the world. I'll let you try and figure out how that mirrors the real life politics you insist on continuing to bring up.

And again, they aren't Persians anymore. Call them Iranians. And modern day Iran is as far removed from Persia as America is from Ancient Rome/Greece. Though our system of laws is built upon the Greek/Roman model of democracy, should we get pissed when there is a film depicting Ancient Rome as corrupt, (which is surely were at times)?

[James Harvey]

This thread is veering too far into certain political discussion not allowed here at Toon Zone. If you wish to talk politics, check out the TZ Politics Board (http://tzpolitics.suddenlaunch3.com/). I want everyone to step back from the thread and take a deep breath. If this continues, as I see obvious flame-baiting and disregard for the forums rules, warnings will be handed out to users regardless of their status here at Toon Zone.


http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/MMPO/505398.jpg

[Spider-Man]

What blew me away the most about this movie was the great visuals it had. They were convincing and beyond what was used before. I know Sin City and the new Star Wars movies also used digital environments but I found them more convincing in this movie. I can't put my thumb on it but they just worked here. Sure they weren't perfect but the director did a great job achieving a pretty unique look for the film.

[Juu-kuchi]

Pretty interesting take on the movie, Ben. That's really all I have to say right now since I've yet to see 300.

Can anybody point me to a source that portrays the Persians in a more positive light? For some reason with the way they're portrayed in the film I can't help but correlate them to be the evil guys with their vast hordes while the Spartans are glorious moral crusaders of freedom.

It really doesn't help that it's an underdog movie at its core.

[Hanshotfirst113]

Pretty interesting take on the movie, Ben. That's really all I have to say right now since I've yet to see 300.

Can anybody point me to a source that portrays the Persians in a more positive light? For some reason with the way they're portrayed in the film I can't help but correlate them to be the evil guys with their vast hordes while the Spartans are glorious moral crusaders of freedom.

It really doesn't help that it's an underdog movie at its core.

Couldn't the same be said of John Ford's depiction of the Native Americans or Braveheart's depiction of the English? I mean, it's a bad thing, but it's not like it's something new?



What blew me away the most about this movie was the great visuals it had. They were convincing and beyond what was used before. I know Sin City and the new Star Wars movies also used digital environments but I found them more convincing in this movie. I can't put my thumb on it but they just worked here. Sure they weren't perfect but the director did a great job achieving a pretty unique look for the film.

This is not a trend I would encourage. Maybe I'm being unfair, and just equating the digital environments with laziness when I shoudn't, but lets consider The Road Warrior. There's a certain visceral thrill that one gets from smashing two cars together that CG just can't recreate. I suppose that my attitude would change if one of my favorite filmmaker would do it, so I must try not to be biased, I just think that so often, CGI is used to replace narrative cohesion. Then again, I'm a fan of the Lord of the Rings films, so I must not be hypocritical. I just miss the days when movies were actually filmed on sets; this just seems like another step in almost stripping film of what makes movies exciting. Maybe I'm just being unfair, I just see this as sort of trendy and tiresome. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it will take cinema in directions its never been before. I just doubt it.

[Beat]

It makes more sense for movies based on other visual mediums, like comic books.

You know why this movie was successful? I'm going to avoid all the political discussion, and say it was successful because it's the first pure action movie theaters have seen in a very long time. Most of the films qualified as action attempt to put some sort of epic plot (which more often than not is more plodding than heart pounding), but 300 was wall-to-wall battles and action sequences. Once the fights start, they don't stop, and that's what drew crowds.

[Hanshotfirst113]

It makes more sense for movies based on other visual mediums, like comic books.

You could argue that, I guess, I just think that people like Sam Raimi and Guillermo del Toro are far more creative with their adaptions sans CG due to their indie background. A big budget doesn't buy a good movie.


You know why this movie was successful? I'm going to avoid all the political discussion, and say it was successful because it's the first pure action movie theaters have seen in a very long time. Most of the films qualified as action attempt to put some sort of epic plot (which more often than not is more plodding than heart pounding), but 300 was wall-to-wall battles and action sequences. Once the fights start, they don't stop, and that's what drew crowds.

Even at the cost of narrative or characterization, in the case of some films, though that is often what draws crowds, sadly. I haven't seen 300, I'm just being general.

[BatKid]

Based on the people in my screening, they cheer for decapitation and acts of rape.

Pretty disgusting.
What theater were you in...absolutely NO ONE cheered when the Queen was "forced" to have sex. :shrug:



This is not a trend I would encourage. Maybe I'm being unfair, and just equating the digital environments with laziness when I shoudn't, but lets consider The Road Warrior. There's a certain visceral thrill that one gets from smashing two cars together that CG just can't recreate. I suppose that my attitude would change if one of my favorite filmmaker would do it, so I must try not to be biased, I just think that so often, CGI is used to replace narrative cohesion. Then again, I'm a fan of the Lord of the Rings films, so I must not be hypocritical. I just miss the days when movies were actually filmed on sets; this just seems like another step in almost stripping film of what makes movies exciting. Maybe I'm just being unfair, I just see this as sort of trendy and tiresome. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it will take cinema in directions its never been before. I just doubt it.
CGI is by no means a bad thing, it all depends on how it's being used. If it enhances the film in any way, then I'd see that as an improvement.

When it comes to 300, it's pretty obvious why they'd go with cg backgrounds, both of which were discussed by Snyder. One, is that the various locales depicted inside the book really couldn't be found in real-world locations. Second, even if they could find them, their measly 60 million dollar budget wouldn't be nearly enough to do the shoots. And while we're at it, the use of cgi completely translates Frank Miller's stylized look to film. I don't need to mention how beautiful this film looks, quite a many times I found some shots to resemble a painting. This couldn't have been achieved had they shot it differently.

[Noukon]

I know they had to do it in the past, but do IMAX movies sitll have to be editted for time versus the theatrical version?

Nope... they just show the film in 70mm on the IMAX screen now.


What theater were you in...absolutely NO ONE cheered when the Queen was "forced" to have sex. :shrug:

One full of teenagers. I heard a guy actually yell, "Yeah, rape her!" Some people just need a lesson in tact and basic morality. :sad:

[Beat]

One full of teenagers. I heard a guy actually yell, "Yeah, rape her!"

I don't think the person lost all tact in a matter of 90 minutes. There are people without manners that I wouldn't care to know personally because of that kind of behavior.

[Tapout]

I don't think the person lost all tact in a matter of 90 minutes. There are people without manners that I wouldn't care to know personally because of that kind of behavior.
That's what I was wondering when I read that. I figured there couldn't have been a collective cheer from the theater at that scene, but I wouldn't put it past a few ******bags trying to be edgy. When I saw it the only times I even heard people was the cheering when the queen killed that guy.

[DarkAngel]

Nowhere in the film does any "good guy" register an objection to the eugenics or to the agoge.
No character need raise an objection for me to feel a particular way. I didn't feel comfortable with the eugenics aspect, and that's a major negative that I saw with the Spartans.


EVEN THOUGH Ephialtes had Spartan warrior training, which you'd think would put him ABOVE the amateurs in the free Greek army, Leonidas rejects him outright because he is deformed.
Leonidas does not outright reject Ephialtes. When it's clear that he cannot raise his shield high enough for maintenance of the Spartan phalanx, then Leonidas turns him away.

And Ephialtes' deformity only reinforced for me why the Spartan 300 appeared so "perfect", bringing back some of the discomfort I felt about them. That whole aspect was more disturbing to me that anything I saw from the Persians physically.


Then you weren't paying attention. The Immortals were scarred and deformed under their masks, some of the transsexuals in Xerxes' harem had severe burns on their faces, there were countless body piercings and tatoos, and of course that grotesque giant and the bloated executioner with blades for hands.
It wasn't an issue of not paying attention. At minimum, there were several hundred thousand persians there. At most, maybe a million. Was I supposed to believe every single one of them was deformed or transsexual? Quite honestly, I didn't. Nor did I find myself passing judgment on any of them. It doesn't make any difference to me whether they had piercings or tattoos.


You're kidding me, right? You really think the 300 Spartan warriors came out looking as bad as their Persian counterparts? Did we see the same movie?
Why not? Like I said, I wasn't comfortable with the eugenics aspect, nor with the killing of Xerxes' messengers. Can't say that using the Persian dead as mortar for that wall they built was a positive either. And while I don't think Xerxes had any right to subject any nation that was unwilling to come under his rule, and therefore felt the Spartans and Greeks were right to fight, I certainly didn't cast any judgment over Xerxes and his army beyond that. The word "evil" never came to mind, nor anything close to that.

[Hanshotfirst113]

Well, Zack Snyder has just made history. I was actually read to walk out of a film. I was in a bad mood when I went in, so perhaps I just need to see it again, but never have I felt more inclined to get up and leave than after that soulless CGI, mysogny, and racism. By the way, I didn't get the big hulking things. Were they just supposed to be superdeformed Persians, or mythological monsters of some sort?

[Ben]

Well, I think I've pretty much made my point, and people are free to agree with me or not. But I do want to note that...


And again, they aren't Persians anymore. Call them Iranians.

Iran is the country, but the ethnic group is still called Persians. And Iranians do see themselves as the direct cultural descendants of ancient Persia.

Now I'm going to eat my waffle and watch the Simpsons.

[Bakasama]

Iran is the country, but the ethnic group is still called Persians. And Iranians do see themselves as the direct cultural descendants of ancient Persia.

Iranians are proud of their long cultural history as are the Greeks. A lot of Iranians today refer themselves as "Persian".

If you look up the root word for "Iran", I think one might find the result very interesting.

[PeterFries]

Can anybody point me to a source that portrays the Persians in a more positive light? For some reason with the way they're portrayed in the film I can't help but correlate them to be the evil guys with their vast hordes while the Spartans are glorious moral crusaders of freedom.

Well, you haven't seen the movie, but the point is that it's a stirring legend, a jingoistic, embellished bit of propaganda being told by a general (Dilios) to motivate his troops as they are about to fight in the Battle of Plataea. Dilios' version of events and characters are skewed and fictionalized, like the Golden Age comics that were read by teenage GIs on the battlefields of Europe about Captain America punching out Hitler (or, conversely, the films of Leni Riefenstahl about the triumph of the Aryan Ubermensch under Hitler)...

Check out the poster for 300:

http://www.peterfries.com/junk/300poster.jpg

alongside propaganda posters from:

http://www.peterfries.com/junk/sovietprop.jpg
Russia


http://www.peterfries.com/junk/vietnamprop.jpg
Vietnam

[DeathscytheVII]

Perfect movie, i give an automatic 5 out of 5. It is quite refreshing to have a war movie like this amid the anti-war "war" movies out there. The choreography and music was just pumped up. I can imagine taking a hockey, football, or basketball team to see this movie before a big game hehe...

Historical accuracy? I've read about the persian wars, leonidas and the battle of thermopylae since i was in grade school, I didn't give a crap that they had trolls, elephants and rhinos. It made it even better! After all, its a comic book, and ive always wanted to see spartans fight rhinos :D kinda like a hypothetical match up you always wanted to see, like....batman vs. deathstroke.

Also, remember that the battle is basically a narrative from the perspective of that one eyed soldier who survives the battle, when you retell a tale like that, you're bound to have exaggerations.

The one thing they did get right historically however, is the warrior code of sparta, especially the 'fighting in the shade line' and them showing the queen telling leonidas to come home 'with his shield or upon it' very well done.

[TheMecca]

Saw it today.
Thought the nudity was a little much, but the story and the use of Miller style in places (IE the men being pushed off the cliff in complete black) was great.
4/5.

[Young Justice]

It was released last friday here in Brazil and I saw it yesterday.

It was a great movie. 4.5/5. I didn't give it 5 because:

1-I think I had too much expectations for this movie. When you aim too high you feel somewhat disappointed.

2-I think it's too much similar to LOTR. The Frank Miller comic book was not like that. I think they changed that to make the movie with a more commercial appealing, which I didn't like that much. When I saw the critics saying that the movie was too much fantastic I've re-read the Frank Miller story and I was wondered: "It's not that fantastic. It's exaggerated, of course, it's not a documentary, but too fantastic?". But when I saw the movie I could understand why the critics said that.

3-There was some subplots and aspects of the comic that were not present on the movie like the Stumblios guy and the one who told stories. Yes, he appears in the movie, but he is much important in the comic.

4-The pace is a little off. The movie only starts to flow properly by the middle to end when the battle starts.

5-Some of the chroma keys were not as perfect as Sin City's.

The things that I did like it:

- The visuals. Astonishing

- The actors. Gerard Butler played Leonidas very well.

- The Queen subplot. In the Frank Miller comic she has somewhat of 3 lines only. They gave much more impotance in the movie and it was cool.

- The battle scenes. Amazing.

- The credits. That animation that resembles Frank Millers art is so much cool. I didn't believe when a lot of people were leaving the theather without seeing it.

Bottom line: 300 was cool, but Sin City was better.

[Hanshotfirst113]

I must be missing something with the battle scenes here. I though that the film would include a giant battle with the Persians rather than a few little set pieces; I can think of dozens of action sequences and at least half a dozen action films off the top of my head which were infinitly more exciting. The Lord of the Rings, Aliens, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Face/Off, and the Matrix, to name a few come to mind, far more exciting and far, far more intelligent and/or well constructed. I just can't get why I found the movie so boring.

[Young Justice]

I must be missing something with the battle scenes here. I though that the film would include a giant battle with the Persians rather than a few little set pieces; I can think of dozens of action sequences and at least half a dozen action films off the top of my head which were infinitly more exciting. The Lord of the Rings, Aliens, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Face/Off, and the Matrix, to name a few come to mind, far more exciting and far, far more intelligent and/or well constructed. I just can't get why I found the movie so boring.

I agree with you. The fight scenes were great but not exceptional and better that other movies that we've already seen. LOTR for instance has much better fight scenes.

But this was understandable since in the comics the battle happens in a few waves. That was the concept of the Hot gates. To force the Persinal army to throw few units instead of their whole army. But this concept the fights worked ok.

[Ed Liu]

There's a story that says that Phillip of Macedon surrounded the Spartan district of Lakonia and sent in a message saying, "If I enter Lakonia, I will burn Sparta to the ground." A one-word reply came back: "If." Historically, the Spartans were known for having lean, mean, no-nonsense sensibilities that skipped niceties and embellishment in favor of directness. Even today, saying someone lives a "Spartan" existence means that they've consciously decided to dispense with nearly everything but what is essential for existence.

All of which is a long way of saying I really wish that 300, a movie that clearly worships Spartan ideals, had absorbed the lessons of the Spartans a bit more thoroughly (something I'm about to violate horribly, given how long I manage to ramble about a movie I didn't totally love...). My wife and I saw it on Sunday, and while we enjoyed ourselves (sometimes at the movie's better qualities, but more often at its expense), we also agreed that it was pretty flawed and needlessly messy, and we're not just talking about the buckets of blood and decapitations throughout. At heart, 300 is a one-trick-pony B-movie, not high art, and there are peeks of a really great B-movie peeking out now and then. However, more often than not I think the movie gets bogged down with its own higher pretensions rather than just focusing on doing its one-trick really well.

I talked about the original graphic novel (http://forums.toonzone.net/showpost.php?p=2483642&postcount=5) over on the Comic Book Culture forum (hey, why not head over there (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=185503) and contribute if you've read it too, he suggested in a helpful and totally not-plugging-the-forum-I-mod kind of way ;)), and all of the problems I had with the OGN are faithfully and meticulously translated on-screen in the movie. The same aggressive simple-mindedness and moral that's undermined by gross historical inaccuracies are all there. I can't really get that worked up about either one, though. Yes, this may fall into the definition of "fascist" art, but if you want to get technical about it, most superhero comic books do, too, and Carl Barks' Scrooge McDuck comics are often held up as capitalist propaganda by Communist/Socialist causes. The fact that all of them are usually rather juvenile (300 included) makes it harder to accept them as effective propaganda.

In some ways, the faithful adaptation makes the movie worse, because Hollywood seems to have this serious infatuation with Frank Miller's overly hard-boiled prose. Sin City may have been a fabulous adaptation, but it was a terrible movie because it refused to recognize that Miller's prose works in print but not necessarily on screen. The same thing happens in 300 -- the movie is about as subtle as a Mack truck covered in naked women and beer taps, but having the voice-overs simply repeating everything that we get to see acted out on screen just adds airhorns and sledgehammers to that truck. READING is different from WATCHING, and there are lots of ways the movie could have communicated Miller's spirit without copying his text. And what kind of world do we live in when adaptations of Miller's work are done with slavish devotion, while people like Nathaniel Hawthorne and William Shakespeare get their works mauled beyond recognition?

I also don't think the movie did anybody any favors with the extra stuff that was added. I understand why it's there, but its totally unnecessary. The pre-war love scene between Leonidas and Gorgo was pointless and about as sexy as watching animals mate on PBS nature programs. The added subplot between Queen Gorgo and Councilman Jerkboy is even worse, because I think it undermines both characters. In an attempt to give both of them more depth, the movie turns both of them into FREAKIN' IDIOTS. Gorgo agrees to submit to Jerkboy without any kind of insurance that Jerkboy won't screw her again figuratively in the council chamber. Luckily, Jerkboy is so astonishingly stupid that he carries a gigantic bag of Persian money into the council chambers so it can spill out after he's skewered, neatly proving him to be a traitor. Dumb.

Also, "I never got to tell my son I loved him?" Weak, lame, and un-Spartan. "I'm proud my son died in battle and just wish he had a shot at the cheesehead coward who killed him from behind," would have been more like it. Ditto for the moment when King Leonidas is so deeply moved by the adorable Greek child who dies artfully in his arms.

The earlier battle sequences had a real, visceral charge to them, but after a while, they just got kind of dull. The Uruk-Hai giant pale Persian and that weird thing with axes for hands were both idiotic and unnecessary. And my wife and I cracked up at the heavy-metal guitar wailing when the Spartans charged, which was probably not their intent. The movie just didn't know when to stop.

However, despite everything above, I did really enjoy the movie, even if I laughed at it as often as I laughed with it. From the moment he first showed up, Gerard Butler as Leonidas reminded me a lot of Toshiro Mifune, with the same raw, magnetic, masculine screen presence and ever-present samurai scowl. The scene when he says goodbye to the Queen and his son was tremendously effective filmmaking (even if it's nearly wrecked with the silly, "Only the hard...only the strong" voiceover). And there are some really great macho moments as the Spartans show off what badasses they are. The "Spartans! What is your profession?" moment is hilarious and extremely telling, both in print and on film. I also really liked the moment when the Spartans all start laughing while huddled under their shields during a Persian arrowstorm. It really rang true to me as something that's been known to happen in combat throughout the ages. I think if they had stripped away more of the art and artifice and just stuck to the battle and the macho camaraderie, 300 would have been a much more enjoyable movie because that's the stuff that really worked.

Still, we also got plenty of laughs at the movie's expense (not helped by looking at this (http://www.wtfsrsly.com/sparta.php) before watching the movie). My wife and I tended to howl at each other in overly dramatic fashion for the rest of the day, and at least once managed to use, "This will not be quick! You will not enjoy this!" entirely out of context for pure comedy gold.

We'll probably pick up the DVD if it hits the $10 bin at Target so we can skip the stupid bits and see the "making of" stuff, which seems even more interesting than the movie in some spots. It's a glorious, big, dumb mess of a film that's pure popcorn cheese and really best interpreted as "what you see is what you get" rather than trying to hook whatever political message you want to try to put there. Doing that will just make the whole movie collapse under the weight.

-- Ed

[wonderfly]

And what kind of world do we live in when adaptations of Miller's work are done with slavish devotion, while people like Nathaniel Hawthorne and William Shakespeare get their works mauled beyond recognition?


That is SO true! Though Shakespeare gets better treatment than a lot of other adaptations, (those type of films often have the actors sticking to the original scripts from the plays...I theorize it's because most Shakespeare adaptations are pretensious, as the actors really want to convey how "good" of an actor they are).

[Lutochris]

I didn't find the movie pretentious. At no point did I think they were trying to do anything other than what they set out to do - have an over-the-top, ultra-stylish gorefest. Again, this is why I didn't like Gladiator. Too many scenes attempting (and failing) to have real drama.

[PeterFries]

And what kind of world do we live in when adaptations of Miller's work are done with slavish devotion, while people like Nathaniel Hawthorne and William Shakespeare get their works mauled beyond recognition?

I know this is taking your question too literally, but it probably has something to do with the "plots" of Sin City and 300 each being less complex than the plotline of the average postage stamp, and with less subtext or depth.

[sarita]

Did anybody watch Jay Leno last night? Gerard Butler was on. And while I haven't yet seen "300," I may have to now, if only because that man is hot.

I'm not shallow, I swear...

[Tapout]

I know this is taking your question too literally, but it probably has something to do with the "plots" of Sin City and 300 each being less complex than the plotline of the average postage stamp, and with less subtext or depth.
That, and Shakespeare doesn't have rabid fanboys over-analyzing every potential aspect of the movie months before its released.

[Hanshotfirst113]

That, and Shakespeare doesn't have rabid fanboys over-analyzing every potential aspect of the movie months before its released.

Yes he does; they're called scholars :D.


I'm not shallow, I swear...

I don't think that you are; you get to see him an many other buff men without shirts in 300. Mucho beefcake.


And what kind of world do we live in when adaptations of Miller's work are done with slavish devotion, while people like Nathaniel Hawthorne and William Shakespeare get their works mauled beyond recognition?

Uh, there have been a number of excellent Shakespear adaptations. Anyway, the simple truth is that Miller's works can easily be transformed into the mindless action films which sell well. I really can't see Hamlet working as a slam-bang picture.


I didn't find the movie pretentious. At no point did I think they were trying to do anything other than what they set out to do - have an over-the-top, ultra-stylish gorefest. Again, this is why I didn't like Gladiator. Too many scenes attempting (and failing) to have real drama.

Failing is in the eye of the beholer. Gladiator set out to be something other than mindless trash. Whatever flaws I felt that it had, at least it strived for something in the hands of an artist like Ridley Scott. He tried to actually make it something worthwhile. Seven Samurai it was not, but at least there was actually effort at making something with dramatic depth and character development up on the screen. A for effort.


In some ways, the faithful adaptation makes the movie worse, because Hollywood seems to have this serious infatuation with Frank Miller's overly hard-boiled prose. Sin City may have been a fabulous adaptation, but it was a terrible movie because it refused to recognize that Miller's prose works in print but not necessarily on screen.

EXCELLENT revew Ed. Agreed. I've already read the comics.

WHY CAN'T I TURN THE ITALICS OFF?!

[Ed Liu]

Did anybody watch Jay Leno last night? Gerard Butler was on. And while I haven't yet seen "300," I may have to now, if only because that man is hot.

I'm not shallow, I swear...

http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/wp-content/2007/03/gerard_butler_04.jpg.w300h413.jpg

You're welcome :D.

The scary bit is that he's toned down from what he looks like in the movie (http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/wp-content/2007/02/gbutlersabs.jpg), even if he says "I will never look like this again. (http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/03/19/gerry-i-will-never-look-like-this-again/)"

See also this music video rehash titled, "It's Raining 300 Men" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi2t58CRmbU) on YouTube. Bwah-hah-hah-hah-hah!!


Yes he does; they're called scholars :D.

Good one!

-- Ed

[Riku]

Did anybody watch Jay Leno last night? Gerard Butler was on. And while I haven't yet seen "300," I may have to now, if only because that man is hot.

I'm not shallow, I swear...

I am carrying around the EW that has that hot, sexy man on the cover, half naked, abs bulging, face wrought with maniac determination... Yes, Riku is a girl, so you don't need to worry. Not that you would. :)

Anyway, the movie is great. Really loved it and it did look like an extended PS2 cutscene. *rimshot*

[sdp]

One of the most memorable movies I've seen, its just so much fun to watch. Historically accurate? who cares either way everyone always takes their liberties anyway this movie is just for fun and it does that very well.


I forgot were we are dining tonight.