|
|
Post by slapshot63 on Mar 11, 2007 18:03:27 GMT -5
 Let me get this out of the way right at the beginning, 300 is THE coolest fucking movie ever. That’s right. This movie oozes cool like no other. Besides being amazingly cool though, it’s also very good. It’s 116% a guy movie (not that women won’t like it) but who really cares? It doesn’t take long for this beast to get going and it is one that seems nigh impossible to stop. I’m sure most, if not all, of you have seen the trailers or TV spots for this film, and yes, they look amazingly awesome. But the fact is, the movie exceeds any preconceived notions you will have before seeing it. It’s one of those rare movies that exceeds expectations ten fold. So what makes 300 so great? I’ll tell you because that’s what I’m here for. Here’s a quick plot synopsis for you. Based on Frank Miller's graphic novel, "300" concerns the 480 B.C. Battle of Thermopylae, where the King of Sparta led his army against the advancing Persians; the battle is said to have inspired all of Greece to band together against the Persians, and helped usher in the world's first democracy. There’s a bit more to it than that but I won’t ruin anything for anyone. The only actor you’ll probably recognize in the film is Gerard Butler as our King Leonidas. Butler gives off so much energy as our lead character that it is impossible not to be in awe. He plays the character so well that you believe every word he says and you have hope, even though we all know the ending to this story (and if you don’t, you should’ve paid attention in History Class!) we are still on the edge of our seat and are “with” Leonidas. Everyone else in the movie is great as well. There aren’t any other “name” actors but it doesn’t matter. Having them be unknowns adds to the impact of the overall movie. Not much else to say here seeing as everyone was great and poured everything they had into it. The music is superb. This is how music should be in movies. The music takes every emotion you are feeling in a particular scene and multiplies it ten times! You get so damn pumped during the fight scenes and any other scene for that matter. I can't remember the last time I was moved by the music of a film and this had my heart stirring. The music is just phenomenal and works oh so well with the movie. I’m sure what you all are really wanting to know about is the epic fight scenes we’ve been seeing. Let me just say, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet! The fight scenes in 300 are simply stunning. The way the Spartans move, hack, slash and the way the blood goes flying makes them all a work of art to behold. Another thing that makes this movie visually stunning is the environment. Nearly the entire film was shot on soundstages with blue screen technology, rendering everything slightly unreal while remaining starkly earthbound, too. The night scenes are so metallic as to be almost black-and-white, while in the daytime scenes the spurts of blood and the Spartans' crimson robes are deeply seen. The film looks like reality, but with hell creeping in at the fringes. The environments are just great to look at and they make the battles that much more intense. Ah yes, the battles. They’re over the top, yes, but so amazing. Things go at normal speed and then slow down when a Spartan goes in for a kill (whichever Spartan we happen to be focusing on at that point). It may seem like overkill when first told about it, but trust me, it isn’t. It’s just amazing to watch. I cannot tell you the amount of times I wanted to jump out of my chair and yell and cheer. I was silently clapping the whole time too and my cheeks hurt from the huge smile that was across my face throughout the 117-minute running time. Think of everything that can make a picture or scene beautiful -- color, symmetry, fluidity of motion -- and you'll see it's been applied somehow to the Spartans and Persians killing each other. You're in awe at the loveliness of the picture before you realize what it is you're seeing. The effects were pretty damn good with only a couple rough spots, but nothing to get worked up about. Really though, the rough spots are hardly noticeable and I had to really look to notice them. The majority of…everything looked amazing. I do have to say though, that my biggest complaint was the blood. It was there and there was a lot of it (which is always nice), but you could tell it was all digitized. Not all the time, but sometimes it was glaringly obvious. Couple that with the fact that it didn’t appear on the ground made things seem less realistic. Hell, there was even one point where I actually saw it stay on the ground for about two seconds and then disappear right on screen! Come on, would it have really hurt to show the blood on the ground? But, that minor flaw didn’t take anything away from the glorious fight scenes. They were just amazing, as I’ve been saying. People have been complaining though about the monsters that appear in the movie and say how they are unneeded. I can see what they mean because pretty much everything else in the movie is realistic (to a point anyways) and they’re a bit jarring to see these crazy abominations after seeing things that are pretty much grounded in the real world but they are cool to look at. The film, just like the Frank Miller graphic novel that inspired it, uses history merely as the canvas, covering it with surreal images and stylized violence that could only exist in the imagination. Is it 100% historically accurate? No, and it wasn't meant to be. Of course there were more than 300 people who stood against Xerxes and the Persian army. There was an entire battle fought at sea by the Greek navy that was never mentioned in this film. Even in the final battle, there were 1,000 Greek men who held the pass, but at the forefront were the 300 Spartans doing what they did best. It was meant to entertain and it delivered in spades! It's not Shakespeare, I didn't go there looking for long, drawn out dialogue. I got exactly what I expected (some of the speeches were truly moving though). Hmm, actually I got more than that. Films like Braveheart and Gladiator are historical dramas with action in them, 300 is an ancient adventure action epic with drama in it. I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. We’ve seen the trailers and previews and only one question remains, did it live up to the hype? No, it surpassed it by 56,324 miles. March to the theater (or IMAX!) to see 300 because if you like action movies and/or “guy” movies, you NEED to see this one (even if you don’t you should see it for the imagery alone). This film has breathtaking action, wonderful scenery and effects, truly great characters, superb dialogue, a rousing score and a great story where even though you know the ending (if you know about the battle anyways. Familiarity with the story of the Battle of Thermopylae isn’t needed either), you are still on the edge of your seat the whole time. Not only is it an amazing ride, it’s also a really great movie. There are parallels to be found with the modern world, what with Sparta eschewing negotiations, defying its own laws, and going to war against Far Eastern religious fanatics who are bent on Sparta's destruction. I don't know if Miller intended this in his graphic novel when he penned it back in 1998 or if the parallels have been enhanced by Snyder, but it's not the message you would expect from Hollywood right now: Sparta's going to war against Persia is portrayed as a noble, brave, necessary thing, not a catastrophic error resulting in endless quagmire. Quite interesting to think about if I do say so myself, but a lot more fun to just watch. LinksIMDB Page |
|
captainofbeef
Cool KAt 
Beauty Hides in the Deep
You should have asked me for it, how could I say no...
Posts: 7,778
|
Post by captainofbeef on Mar 11, 2007 18:09:57 GMT -5
Glad you liked it, its looks like a blast.
|
|
dontdigonswine
Kubrick, Stan Kubrick
"All you need to make a movie is a girl and a gun"
Posts: 795
|
Post by dontdigonswine on Mar 11, 2007 19:09:03 GMT -5
My one complaint about the movie (rather to Frank Miller) is about the cheating queen sideplot. Didn't seem necessary to have another villain with ridiculously "purely evil" intentions. Seemed like some unnecessary distraction to where the film obviously shines the most: on the battleground. I did like all the symbolism of the creatures though. Miller's a genius for intertwining an historical event like the Battle of Thermopylae with his own mythology.
|
|
|
|
Post by slapshot63 on Mar 11, 2007 19:13:07 GMT -5
Yeah, I agree on that one. It seems like he threw that in just so he'd have something more than just battles.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordofdance on Mar 11, 2007 19:45:50 GMT -5
I agree that the business with the queen was a waste of screen time, as well. But my problem with 300 goes beyond that. What we have here is a film with absolutely nothing under the surface. Maybe I saw Braveheart too many times, but it just seemed like all the speeches about freedom and honor seemed half-assed and perfunctory. There aren't really any truly rousing moments in 300, because the story has been done before. Take away the style and visuals, which I believe get in the way of the film's impact, and this is a Gladiator/Braveheart clone. There were just a bunch of flashy battles and trash talk, without much deep emotional payoff. There were times when the machoness was inspring and amusing, but I don't think it was taken far enough. I was hoping for pure macho Fascistic madness, kind of like in Starship Troopers, but grittier. Sadly, 300 slips into convention. It doesn't rise to the occasion. Hell, if I was going to bring a bunch of ridiculously muscular half-naked actors and put them into a film about death-obsessed warriors, I would go to town with that sucker. Forget the throwaway sentimental moments, forget about the tired speeches, I would bring the greatest massacre of all-time to the screen that would define cinematic machismo FOREVER!
6/10 Better than Braveheart and Gladiator, but it could have been much more.
|
|
dontdigonswine
Kubrick, Stan Kubrick
"All you need to make a movie is a girl and a gun"
Posts: 795
|
Post by dontdigonswine on Mar 11, 2007 22:00:03 GMT -5
I guess I looked at the film differently.
*POSSIBLE SPOILER*
The whole Battle of Thermopylae in the film was told by Dilios like some Spartan warrior fairytale. There wasn't much "under the surface" because the story was supposed to be this awe-inspiring demonstration of the code of law for a Spartan warrior. The audience is told the story like the Spartan army was told the story. Dilios exaggerates the enemy to inspire. I guess it's just difference in opinion, but I felt the brutal "macho" elements in the movie sufficed. And the visuals are just... beautiful.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordofdance on Mar 11, 2007 22:08:00 GMT -5
I guess I looked at the film differently. *POSSIBLE SPOILER* The whole Battle of Thermopylae in the film was told by Dilios like some Spartan warrior fairytale. There wasn't much "under the surface" because the story was supposed to be this awe-inspiring demonstration of the code of law for a Spartan warrior. The audience is told the story like the Spartan army was told the story. Dilios exaggerates the enemy to inspire. I guess it's just difference in opinion, but I felt the brutal "macho" elements in the movie sufficed. And the visuals are just... beautiful. Like I said, I may just be burned out by Braveheart/Gladiator/Lord of the Rings type spectaculars. Even if what you say is true, it doesn't mean that it worked on a dramatic level. It was just a bunch of fighting, then speeches, then fighting, ect. The visuals were attractive, but that's all they were. I really started to dislike the stylized fighting, too. It would have been nice if more weapon thrusts weren't shown in choppy slow motion, or whatever the hell it was. |
|
ie
The Beatles
invadin yr spaec
Posts: 2,670
|
Post by ie on Mar 12, 2007 0:12:28 GMT -5
I agree that the business with the queen was a waste of screen time, as well. But my problem with 300 goes beyond that. What we have here is a film with absolutely nothing under the surface. Maybe I saw Braveheart too many times, but it just seemed like all the speeches about freedom and honor seemed half-assed and perfunctory. There aren't really any truly rousing moments in 300, because the story has been done before. Take away the style and visuals, which I believe get in the way of the film's impact, and this is a Gladiator/Braveheart clone. There were just a bunch of flashy battles and trash talk, without much deep emotional payoff. There were times when the machoness was inspring and amusing, but I don't think it was taken far enough. I was hoping for pure macho Fascistic madness, kind of like in Starship Troopers, but grittier. Sadly, 300 slips into convention. It doesn't rise to the occasion. Hell, if I was going to bring a bunch of ridiculously muscular half-naked actors and put them into a film about death-obsessed warriors, I would go to town with that sucker. Forget the throwaway sentimental moments, forget about the tired speeches, I would bring the greatest massacre of all-time to the screen that would define cinematic machismo FOREVER! 6/10 Better than Braveheart and Gladiator, but it could have been much more. lordofdance, you've made the most convincing and damning review I've ever read. Thanks. ;D Of course, now I'll have to go see it, but I don't expect much at all from the movie. |
|
ie
The Beatles
invadin yr spaec
Posts: 2,670
|
Post by ie on Mar 12, 2007 0:28:41 GMT -5
Double post for my thoughts: I have my reservations. Oh, do I have my reservations. If you genuinely like 300, please ignore this post. If you haven't seen it, please ignore this post. I will also take back everything I said here, and thoroughly apologize for my cynicism if I even remotely enjoy 300, and possibly even do something to make up for it. I'm going in with reservations, but I would like to leave having seen an enjoyable movie. That said, here are my thoughts, for interested parties: I have no respect for Zack Snyder as a movie director. I saw his remake of Dawn of the Dead a little while ago, and didn't think it was bad, and actually kind of liked it. It wasn't great, but it sure wasn't a failure of a horror movie. It had some decent moments, it had some scary moments that weren't just FLASH/BANG/POP bullshit. However, I went and watched the original tonight, and, damn. The remake is complete and utter shit compared to the original. Now, I haven't seen a lot of the crappy new American horror, but I see now that the remake was bad. I'm not sure how these reviewers at the newspaper and popular opinion came to favor the remake, which I still read about even now, but what ever. If you liked it, that's good, we don't always find movies that are truly enjoyable, so don't worry about that, I just have very little respect for it and so I used negative terms against it. We'll see about 300, though. I should make some effort in watching it, in part because I'm already disappointed with it and I haven't even seen it yet. But it's not unreasonable, as I've heard mixed things about 300. Plenty of positive reviews - it made it as high as #208 or so on the IMDB Top 250 - but I've been hearing negative reviews as well. This was written at another forum, but basically, lordofdance, I'm referring specifically to your post. I should have asked you to use it, but you were The Man of the moment, so I figured you wouldn't mind. All and all, I'll probably end up seeing it soon. I might be eating my words, but if so, I'm fine with that. |
|
criterionmaster
Cool KAt
Bitches all love me 'cause I'm fuckin' Casper! The dopest ghost around.
Posts: 6,870
|
Post by criterionmaster on Mar 12, 2007 8:35:11 GMT -5
Here Come The Spartans! R-Rated '300' Stampeding Towards $60 Mil Weekend; On Track For Biggest March Opening Ever  SATURDAY AM: Here come The Spartans! I'm told Warner Bros.' much-buzzed 300 about the ancient Battle of Thermopylae (even though most of target audience fell asleep in school during that history lesson) looks set to shatter the record for biggest March opening ever. This "Gladiator Lite" raked in $27.7 million Friday night for what is likely to be a $60+ million weekend in its 3,103 theaters. (I said back on Tuesday that 300 was tracking huge -- at least $40+ mil -- and I was right!) The studio organized some Thursday midnight sneaks, likely $3.5 mil worth, but those shouldn't be included in the figures for Fri-Sat-Sun when comparing film weekend earnings. That said, I understand that all 57 IMAX theaters that showed 300 at midnight on Thursday also sold out. Given that this gory movie from the creator of Sin City was cheap to make and shot in only 60 days and cast with no stars, it it could end up as one of Warner's most profitable films. That'll be a shot in the arm to studio managers who had expensive disappointment after disappointment at the box office in 2006 (Poseidon, Superman, The Lake House, Lady In The Water, etc.) with the notable exception of Oscar winner Happy Feet from director George Miller. Especially with a per screen average of $8,927 Friday, it's not even an issue whether 300 can overtake the current record-holder for March: 2002's Ice Age and its $46.3 mil take. Because that will be accomplished by tonight! But 300's haul is amazing considering its R rating (Ice Age was PG). Though not a record. (The biggest R-rated pics are Matrix Reloaded at $91.7 mil in May 2003 and The Passion of the Christ at $83.8 mil in February 2004.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ $70,030,000 in 3 days
|
|
|
|
Post by malicious32dll on Mar 12, 2007 10:31:52 GMT -5
I thought this movie was very good...
Like everyone else, I really liked the scope that the movie brought to the forefront and the visual effects along with the gritty color overtone that pervades throughout the movie. I did, however, have a couple complaints with the CG in some areas *cough* the wolf in the begining *cough*. All in all it doesnt really detract from the movie too much. Yes, the battles were amazing and the fighting choreography was FUCKING AMAZING. Unlike Slapshots review I didnt really mind the blood effects, nor did I notice any dissapearing blood.
The story was straightforward enough and the voiceover work was pretty good. I was suprised that they actually incorporated some humor into the film with was pretty refreshing. Be aware that its by no means historically accurate, but then again its based off a graphic novel... I just thought I'd throw that in because I'm sick of uninformed poeple going off on huge tangents about how its unaccurate. So, all in all, despite the poor seat I had in the theather (Tinseltown is fucking terrible) It was still very good 9.25/10
|
|
criterionmaster
Cool KAt
Bitches all love me 'cause I'm fuckin' Casper! The dopest ghost around.
Posts: 6,870
|
Post by criterionmaster on Mar 12, 2007 12:03:14 GMT -5
Glad you liked it, its looks like a blast. I doubt you would like it, it is historically inacurrate, yet is based on something that really happened. And I know how much you hate that.  |
|
captainofbeef
Cool KAt
Beauty Hides in the Deep
You should have asked me for it, how could I say no...
Posts: 7,778
|
Post by captainofbeef on Mar 12, 2007 12:19:20 GMT -5
It is based on a historically inaccurate comic book and it doesn't pretend to be an actual epic piece like Antoinette did.
|
|
ie
The Beatles
invadin yr spaec
Posts: 2,670
|
Post by ie on Mar 12, 2007 12:22:26 GMT -5
Be aware that its by no means historically accurate, but then again its based off a comic book... I just thought I'd throw that in because I'm sick of uninformed poeple going off on huge tangents about how its unaccurate. Correction, graphic novel. There is a difference. Also, if Snyder went at all with Frank Miller's plot, it should be reasonable. Sure, it may not be 100% historically accurate, but whereas Snyder wouldn't mind fucking up things in order to make a cooool loooking scene, duuude, Miller probably wouldn't. That said, haven't finished reading the graphic novel, but what I have read was very well done. |
|
|
|
Post by malicious32dll on Mar 12, 2007 15:54:35 GMT -5
Be aware that its by no means historically accurate, but then again its based off a comic book... I just thought I'd throw that in because I'm sick of uninformed poeple going off on huge tangents about how its unaccurate. Correction, graphic novel. There is a difference. Also, if Snyder went at all with Frank Miller's plot, it should be reasonable. Sure, it may not be 100% historically accurate, but whereas Snyder wouldn't mind fucking up things in order to make a cooool loooking scene, duuude, Miller probably wouldn't. That said, haven't finished reading the graphic novel, but what I have read was very well done. I fikst it.  |
|
|
|
Post by slapshot63 on Mar 12, 2007 18:38:29 GMT -5
Be aware that its by no means historically accurate, but then again its based off a comic book... I just thought I'd throw that in because I'm sick of uninformed poeple going off on huge tangents about how its unaccurate. Correction, graphic novel. There is a difference. Also, if Snyder went at all with Frank Miller's plot, it should be reasonable. Sure, it may not be 100% historically accurate, but whereas Snyder wouldn't mind fucking up things in order to make a cooool loooking scene, duuude, Miller probably wouldn't. That said, haven't finished reading the graphic novel, but what I have read was very well done. I haven't read the graphic novel yet but from what most everyone is saying, this is almost a shot-by-shot translation of the graphic novel. Some people have said moreso than Sin City was. I dunno seeing as I haven't read it yet (as I said). |
|
ie
The Beatles
invadin yr spaec
Posts: 2,670
|
Post by ie on Mar 13, 2007 11:47:58 GMT -5
I "got" the graphic novel a while ago, and have been reading it on and off when I remember to, and it's quite good. There's one point where the king asks another army's men "what's your profession?" Then they go through some professions. Then the king asks his men: "what's your profession?" And there's just a small image of spears being held up high, and seriously, you can hear them cheer out. It's that good. I saw the trailer for 300 a few days ago, and I know I'm probably really off-base here, but it looked like it could be some sort of comedy. "TONIGHT, WE DINE IN HELL!" ...could easily become Leatherface's best quote... "TONIGHT, WE DINE ON TURTLE SOUP!" "THIS IS ATHENS!" ...could possibly become... "THIS IS COOLSVILLE!" |
|
|
|
Post by Clark Nova on Mar 13, 2007 21:56:23 GMT -5
just saw it.  well, it's not gonna win a screenplay Oscar any time soon, with every other word being "Spartans!" or "freedom," but by god, those fight scenes? all i have to say is . |
|
|
|
Post by malicious32dll on Mar 22, 2007 8:54:03 GMT -5
forums.tweakguides.com/showthread.php?p=65050#post65050I think the man overanalyzed the movie a little... I mean... nobody would write an article like this for a less popular less known of film... Its almost like he's trying to detest something that you know that he really wouldnt care about.
|
|
wkw
Homer
Posts: 562
|
Post by wkw on Mar 22, 2007 14:48:40 GMT -5
I've read Herodotus's The Histories. It's considered the first work of history in western literature. While it does have many detailed descriptions of the geography and culture of Persians and Greeks, calling it a accurate historical account is a stretch. He frequently wanders into unbelievable and entertaining digressions such as gold-searching ants and whatnot. Thus many events in the book maybe just legends or exaggerations. Since Frank Miller adapted his comic from a inaccurate account of history (history is rarely if ever completely accurate anyway), calling 300 historically inaccurate is a moot point. I see this movie in the same light as Troy.
|
|
ie
The Beatles
invadin yr spaec
Posts: 2,670
|
Post by ie on Mar 23, 2007 4:04:21 GMT -5
wkw, you're actually about the second or third person I've heard with that same argument. Although you went for certainly the more "I'm a credible source" than just "you know what, Miller didn't have an accurate record to go off of, he did the best he could, and so an adaptation of an adaptation from a hopefully accurate source is bound to have some inconsistencies." The generally remembered review format for this movie will probably go something like this: "AWESOME MOVIE MAN, but because I am also a serious history buff, I must also point out the inaccuracies of this AWESOME MOVIE, MAN!" Sucks doesn't it when people just don't read shit at all? Also...  I feel this image is lacking something...  Skateboards and 80s-meets-00s slang! |
|
criterionmaster
Cool KAt
Bitches all love me 'cause I'm fuckin' Casper! The dopest ghost around.
Posts: 6,870
|
Post by criterionmaster on Mar 23, 2007 12:55:02 GMT -5
I looked at your bottom picture, then looked back at the regular one and can't help but picture him skateboarding. haha, classic.
|
|
kiddo
Hitchcock
"I live now in a world of ghosts, a prisoner in my dreams."
Posts: 1,440
|
Post by kiddo on Mar 23, 2007 12:55:41 GMT -5
I'm going to the theater to see this tonight. My expectations are mixed. Thoughts will come...
|
|
ie
The Beatles
invadin yr spaec
Posts: 2,670
|
Post by ie on Mar 23, 2007 13:54:13 GMT -5
I'm going to see 300 with two of my friends this Tuesday. Until then, I'll just be very amused by the skateboarding Persian, which I think was the start of this whole conflict. For the sake of argument, let's say the Persians invented the skateboard, okay. One day a couple years ago, the Greeks saw the Persians shredding the local parks and the Greeks, being the burly punk gang that they were, were like "dudes, that thing is awesome. Can we get some of those?" But the Persians were like "No!" So then the Greeks went to war with the Persians over their skateboards. Many emo songs were played in the background, the Persians shredded on the Greeks, but the Greeks shredded up the Persians clothes. It was a confusing mess of little kids attempting to hurt each other, but then the Zombies came in and made everything better.  |
|
|
|
Post by slapshot63 on Mar 23, 2007 22:04:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by PTAhole on Mar 24, 2007 4:39:30 GMT -5
I love Frank Miller. I hate 300 (the graphic novel). In fact, I think its his worst work. So why choose to adapt this, rather than say Ronin? 300 IS all style/no substance, no mater what people may try to tell you. That's fine for some things, but this book just irritated me.
That said, I have no desire to see the movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by slapshot63 on Mar 24, 2007 20:41:01 GMT -5
As I said, I saw this today in IMAX. Whoa! It isn't as good as the first time around but it was still fucking awesome!
|
|
ie
The Beatles
invadin yr spaec
Posts: 2,670
|
Post by ie on Mar 27, 2007 22:24:30 GMT -5
I wasn't that impressed with 300. I need to sleep on my thoughts before coming out with something more formal, but it just didn't strike me on an emotional level.
|
|
criterionmaster
Cool KAt
Bitches all love me 'cause I'm fuckin' Casper! The dopest ghost around.
Posts: 6,870
|
Post by criterionmaster on May 16, 2007 19:52:30 GMT -5
300 DVD Covers and Specs Source: Warner Home Video May 16, 2007 Warner Home Video has announced that director Zack Snyder's 300 will hit DVD, Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD on July 31st. The DVD will be available as a single disc edition (both Widescreen and Full Screen) as well as a Widescreen two-disc Special Edition. The single disc version include commentary by Snyder, screenwriter Kurt Johnstad and director of photography Larry Fong. The two-disc version will include the same commentary plus additional scenes of the traitorous hunchback and never-before-seen giant warriors, "Frank Miller's Vision Realized on Film," "300 Spartans - Face or Fiction?: The Shocking Life of a Spartan Revealed," "Who Were the Spartans?: How the Actors Built Their Characters Based on Spartan Customs," Webisodes and a photo gallery.     End of Article.
|
|
|
|
Post by InfamousHugo on Jun 15, 2007 7:09:37 GMT -5
300 ***
First of all lets not get cheesy and go with the war in Iraq allegory, this legend was there way before that war. Okay. Now, its easy to compare 300 with Sin City, cause both are based on Frank Miller's graphic novels and both were shot entierly in front of a green (or blue) screen. Although, 300 isnt as good as Sin City.
Gerard Butler is quite intense as the main character here, he is especially good with his eyes, but he also is uneven in his performance like the rest of the film. The story switched from incredible music video-like battle scenes to boring almost laughable dialogues, giving the film bad rythm. The narrator is also the reason of the film moving slowly.
The plot is thin and any try at giving it any depth fails. Most of the inspiring monologues fail at being effective as well. The psychology of the characters arent really explored, everything that happens is quite predictable and there's too much politics. The sets look way too fake and the camera work isnt as cool as it could have been (except for battle sequences), there are also lots of useless shots.
That being said 300 isnt that bad, the battle scenes are some of the coolest since Lord of the Rings, its bloody and violent and on the edge of exploitation but its just the amount we could expect from a film with so much testosterone. It doesnt have the historical mistakes of Troy, cause it doesnt try to have any historical accuracy, and it doesnt have the over-the-top ambitions of Alexander. It too often reminds us of Gladiator or Braveheart but its definately not meant to be the same kinda film. It sure is an epic film but also a comic book adaptation and the visual style always delivers in terms of cool shots looking like paintings and refering to the original graphic novel.
The film is definately entertaining and fun to watch but the message about patriotism and honor fails. I wanted more from this than just a music video but in the other hand thats what I expected it to be like. Not great but okay.
|
|
