I just saw "300." And my verdict? (Maybe some spoilers)

Blah. Meh. Either one works. The cinematography was freakin BEAUTIFUL, but the story sucked. I mean, I know the story of Thermopylae, and it's an awesome one. Yet, somehow, they managed to make it boring. Every Spartan is as a god; every line is read as if it were the most important in the movie; absolute SHREDDING of Spartan culture.

When they died I just didn't care. When the soldiers died in "Glory," or in "Band of Brothers," I felt real emotion. Not here. I didn't "know" any of the characters (well, there was one sort of exception).

Not to mention that there's a scene in the "senate" (which didn't exist) where a senator (who didn't exist) calls the queen a whore, and ISN'T immediately split from neck to crotch by guards. The Spartans were ruled by two kings, bottom line; that's all, over and done with. There was no "council," the Spartans just didn't want to waste their entire army in a delaying action. And the other Greeks are portrayed as essentially cowards, rather than allies who really fought and really died alongside the Spartans at Thermopylae.

The fighting was boring, even; locked into slow-mo half the time. As much as I disliked "Braveheart," I liked the chaos of their battles. Here, it was choreography, more martial arts than ancient slugfest. I know it's based on a "graphic novel," but it still didn't impress me. It's a fictionalization, and included some fantasty/magic elements, but that doesn't stop it from sucking, even when you consider that.

Oh, and the politics, while there, didn't really come out all that much. Irritating "rational people are wusses" stuff, but it wasn't as bad on that count as I thought it would be. Anyone else's thoughts?

edit: spelling

I always feel that the real stories from history are so good that they don't need embellishment. Like that movie "Flyboys" in which half of the German planes were painted red... really detracts from the mistique of the Red Baron, eh?

Stuff like this really turns me off.

I liked "Band of Brothers." Why? Because, for the most part, they were history with dialoge added. And I suppose the novel "Gates of Fire" ruined Thermopylae for me, in terms of other adaptations.

I knew it would suck, but I thought I would give it a try. Ah well. :shrug:

Is you seem to be expecting accuracy from a movie based on a comic book.

I thought the battles were badass.

I was expecting something that was cool. This wasn't cool, IMHO. Yeah, I'm a history geek, and like to nitpick, but even beyond that, I just wasn't entertained. I can suspend disbelief as long as the film keeps my interest.

I will admit, battle wise, the FIRST battle, where they actually fight like a phalanx, is pretty cool.

I'm a history geek. That's like telling a computer programmer to watch "Hackers" without exploding.

I guess I'm not the target audience. But I don't understand changing an awesome story when it was already awesome. Though, for that, I suppose I would look at the comic book, not the film :shrug:

Almost nothing made here.

And I had to laugh, because before I read the content of your message, I was going to mention "Nochnoy Dozor" ("Nightwatch"). A little older of course, but I loved it. But, of course, it's Russian :D

If you haven't yet. :thumbsup:

I felt like the movie as a whole was like a puzzle with several of the pieces missing - and I wanted it to be whole and perfect. In several respects there was simply no foundation (or a cursory, paper-thin foundation) laid for the important aspects of the story.

But that being said, I thought Gerry was phenomenal. Beyond being possibly the most beautiful man on the planet, he carried this movie. He handled some pretty feeble dialogue and made it sound like a king's words. His performance, and Lena's, were fully realized, powerful and just mesmerizing.

I'm still trying to decide what I think about it. Mostly I'm a little irked that all aspects of the movie were not fully "fleshed" out, so to speak, to support the stellar performances of Gerry and Lena. They deserved to have those performances showcased in the best possible way - I just hope they get the credit they deserve.

though i thought the sex scene was gratuitous

and then---there it is.

maybe as a "goodbye." Not, "welp, i feel like screwin'"

I really hate all the CG. Too phony. If you want to make an epic, make it the way David Lean did.

for CG, it wasn't bad. It was merged well, though it contributed to the overall cartoony effect, as you say

reinforced my disinterest in seeing it.

"“300” is about as violent as “Apocalypto” and twice as stupid. Adapted from a graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley, it offers up a bombastic spectacle of honor and betrayal, rendered in images that might have been airbrushed onto a customized van sometime in the late 1970s."

"The Persians, pioneers in the art of facial piercing, have vastly greater numbers — including ninjas, dervishes, elephants, a charging rhino and an angry bald giant — but the Spartans clearly have superior health clubs and electrolysis facilities."

"Another movie — Matt Stone and Trey Parker’s “Team America,” whose wooden puppets were more compelling actors than most of the cast of “300” — calculated the cost at $1.05. I would happily pay a nickel less, in quarters or arcade tokens, for a vigorous 10-minute session with the video game that “300” aspires to become. Its digitally tricked-up color scheme, while impressive at times, is hard to tolerate for nearly two hours (true masochists can seek out the Imax version), and the hectic battle scenes would be much more exciting in the first person. I want to chop up some Persians too!"

"In time, “300” may find its cultural niche as an object of camp derision, like the sword-and-sandals epics of an earlier, pre-computer-generated-imagery age. At present, though, its muscle-bound, grunting self-seriousness is more tiresome than entertaining. Go tell the Spartans, whoever they are, to stay home and watch wrestling."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/movies/09thre.html?_r=1&8dpc&oref=slogin

:spray: :rofl:

That was very clever...

I can see it in my mind's eye....:D

... but here is my problem with snarky/elitist reviews like this one: Don't send someone who doesn't like the genre of movie to review the fucking movie. Send someone that actually likes action/adventure movies to review an action/adventure movie. Don't send some film school douche bag that's only going to take oafish pot shots at it.

From what I understand of the movie the imagery is gorgeous and the fight scenes are very well done. So review that. Grade the movie on the reason people come to watch the movie (An easy to digest story with lots of action and cool images). Don't be some kind of smart ass and trash a movie that you had no interest in seeing in the first place.

Just my $0.02

to have on staff, but probably not enough of them to satisfy such a requirement. Personally, I'd rather have one informed and intelligent person tell me if a movie, regardless of genre, is just plain stupid, as this one appears to be.

I understand your point, because I'm a horror movie fan, and that has to be the most universally maligned genre this side of porn. However, I'd still rather know if the horror movie is filled with dumb dialogue, stupid characters, a weak story, or whatever. A bad movie is a bad movie, and few reputable news organs will employ a reviewer who can't see past his/her dislike or disinterest in a particular genre.

Although, he does look at films critically (as an art), a war epic is right up his alley. He said it was terrible, although the battle scenes were OK.

The film critics I respect take the film genre into account in their reviews. It's a form vs. content argument, really. There are films made about high brow, noble subjects that are awful and films with questionable subject matter that are great. The larger question is whether or not the film is well made, paced well, with good acting, writing and cinematography. There really is nothing elitist about it. (At $9.00 a ticket, who can afford to see a crappy movie?)

BTW, I happen to like highly stylized films, so I wish "Sin City" and "300" were better movies.

Really catty and funny as hell...

I do think if you make a movie based upon an actual historical event, you should not try to change the actual events that drastically - wasn't the Spartan success due a lot to their teamwork and ability to fight together? The promos make it look like a lot a bunch of WWE wrestlers with swords fighting a bunch of bad guys one-on-one. And, wasn't the success of the Spartans also due, in part, to the fact that the inferior Persian weapons had difficulty penetrating the stronger Greek armor? The promos make the Spartans out to be a bunch of buff bare-chested guys with superman capes and helmets.

And, wasn't Leonidas in his 50s?

You were apparently looking for too much out of it.

Glad to see this review. I was planning on seeing it, but I think I'll save my money now.

and be very suspicious of the warlike Spartans with their helots and their martial culture. The analogy was clear enough to any eight year old: the Athenians were the free world, and the Spartans were the communists. Today, we are supposed to admire the heroic martial culture of the Spartans as they serve as a minority bulwark against the encroaching, enslaving "Persians." Once again, the analogy is clear enough...

It was very interesting, how the Athenians & Spartans were able to put aside their differences to fight together. The show went into detail about the Spartans, their armor, their lifestyle, as well as the Persians & the Athenians. When I saw the stills of the movie, I knew they were "off," since they showed the Spartans essentially fighting naked, when in fact, they had highly developed (for the time) armor, weaponry, & battle tactics that allowed them to hold off the Persians (including the Persian elite forces) for 2 solid days.

Too bad about the movie. I had been interested in seeing it because of this show on the History Channel. I don't know if they're going to repeat it, though, but you might want to check it out.

dg

Very interesting!

But I could go see the movie just for the thought of Gerard Butler oiling himself and preparing his hair before death...cuz I could get pretty happy about that. :D

We are going with friends, to see it Monday.

:evilgrin:

dg

Of course, once we deconstruct the movie, it doesn't stand up very well in terms of plot, historical accuracy, etc. But that's not what the movie was about. It was a vehicle for gorgeous cinema, and quite frankly, I have no problem with that.

I was mesmerized the entire 2 hours. It was a gorgeous film.

I particularly liked the character design for the Persian king--simply stunning.

I wish people would stop looking for politics in movies like this, in ancient Sparta, from what I was taught, rational people were wusses.

I'd have never known that the Thebians stayed with the Spartans had I only seen the movie (which I haven't). Watch the History Channel's show. You'll learn a lot more.

Now, if you just want entertainment, maybe the movie will work for you.