Artistically, this has little emotional depth. There is not much natural conversation. Most of the
scenes are lifelessly structured. Characters shout slogans, mouth one platitude after another, and
telegraph the other guy's response like a locker room interview. The performances were decent,
especially Gerard Butler (Leonidas) and Lena Headey (Queen Gorgo).

Some of the visuals are astonishing but the endless CGI creates a rather frightening artificiality.
At one point, I was dying to see actual sunlight, a real bird, even a rock I could trust was really
there. Needless to say, they never came. And not surprisingly, after so many dull excesses, the
stylized battle scene proved rather anti-climatic. Only towards the end, nearing Leonida's final
moments, does some gravitas peek through.

As for the creative liberties Frank Miller took with the Herodotus original, I found myself wondering
more about him as an individual than him as an artist. Me, Mr. Freud, thought a few of his decisions,
especially the rendering of Xerxes, were a wee bit, uuh, strange (?). Lets leave it at that.

Ooh man, are you ever gonna hear it from monkeyboy...(I think 300 looks pretty dodgy myself)

Ishmael...We've known of each other for such a short time, & yet, you know me so well. ("DODGY"? TSK, TSK, TSK. Why I oughta... You & I will have words about that little comment in our usual spot outside of the Religous thread.)

GOOOOOOD GRRRRAAAVY! What movie were YOU watchin'?! "The stylized battle scene"? Which ONE? There were several & they were beautifully shot! These men faced impossible odds & they met them with spectacular bravery! The director stayed true to how the Spartans truly fought their adversaries. Their shields & armor really were as strong as the film portrayed! The fact that they fought in a canyon was their stategy! Gravitas only appeared at the end? Come on! EVERYONE was serious the ENTIRE film! Everytime King Leonidas spoke, it was with authority!

The golden hue the movie had was fantastic with the bright red of the Spartans' cloaks. In fact, it made them standout from the rest of the picture, just as they stood out as the toughest bastards of their time! What was truly wrong with the lighting that made you desire "actual sunlight"? So, I take it you must have hated "Sin City" as well? You do realize alot of movies are shot on a soundstage & the sunlight you see in those is artificial as well? Same with rocks. I know you didn't think all the jagged rocks surrounding Sam & Frodo were real, did ya? Really, a bird? Who cares?! Why are you lookin' for a flippin' bird? What? Were the seagulls, horses, elephants & the rhino not enough animals for ya? There's a battle going on!!!!

I don't understand your problem with Xerxes. "Uhh, strange?" The dude thought of himself as a GOD! I'm guessing that would make him a tad eccentric. Plus his appearance was that of what some kings do to themselves. Make-up, piercings, & all!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Monkey_Boy,

Since Monkey_Boy already answered some of that, I'll throw out my own comments now.

When you go to see 300, the first thing you need to understand is the fact that it is a Comic Book Adaption, not a historical film. It's based off of a graphic novel. It was never supposed to be 100%. It isn't supposed to be like Gladiator. (Which isn't even super accurate, but still a good movie.)

If you read some of the things Frank Miller has said, he changed a lot of things for the Comic to make it more mainstream and appeal to a wider audience. Zack Snyder did the same, with the approval of Miller.

Another important point to note is the fact that throughout the entire movie, it is narrated by Dilios. So therefore, we're subject to his opinions and points of the view on what happened. Practically the entire film was from his standpoint.

So naturally, he's going to embellish the tale. Again, those were his compatriots that were dying, so the tale needs to do justice to their memory and cause.

There are discrepencies, like the whole democracy thing, but if you're going to argue semantics like that, then you clearly missed the point of the film.

(And really, those points weren't directed at anyone in particular, but I've already seen a few forums go down the chute because of some of that stuff.)

quote:

Originally posted by Monkey_Boy:
The director stayed true to how the Spartans truly fought their adversaries. Their shields & armor really were as strong as the film portrayed! The fact that they fought in a canyon was their stategy! Gravitas only appeared at the end? Come on! EVERYONE was serious the ENTIRE film! Everytime King Leonidas spoke, it was with authority!


I don't understand your problem with Xerxes. "Uhh, strange?" The dude thought of himself as a GOD! I'm guessing that would make him a tad eccentric. Plus his appearance was that of what some kings do to themselves. Make-up, piercings, & all!

you are too literal a definition of a 'fan-boi'.

you referred a number of times to the supposed historical authenticity of the film, which means, of all things, like a true fan-boi, you were the one who didn't get it.

the film is, at most, based on the premise of the herodotus original, but in fact, as you both know and love to forget, is lifted word-for-word from frank miller's graphic novel, which took a number of creative liberaties, some of which worked, most did not.

i did say that i found some of the visuals magnificent. i also found the depiction of xerses strange, something you critic as wrong-headed because the actual xerxes 'thought of himself as a god'. this would have been germane to your arguement but you forget again that zach snyder adapted miller's graphic movel and not the herodotus original. the problem is with the former and not the later.

quote:

Originally posted by ReinventedExit:
Since Monkey_Boy already answered some of that, I'll throw out my own comments now.

When you go to see 300, the first thing you need to understand is the fact that it is a Comic Book Adaption, not a historical film. It's based off of a graphic novel. It was never supposed to be 100%. It isn't supposed to be like Gladiator. (Which isn't even super accurate, but still a good movie.)

If you read some of the things Frank Miller has said, he changed a lot of things for the Comic to make it more mainstream and appeal to a wider audience. Zack Snyder did the same, with the approval of Miller.

Another important point to note is the fact that throughout the entire movie, it is narrated by Dilios. So therefore, we're subject to his opinions and points of the view on what happened. Practically the entire film was from his standpoint.

So naturally, he's going to embellish the tale. Again, those were his compatriots that were dying, so the tale needs to do justice to their memory and cause.

There are discrepencies, like the whole democracy thing, but if you're going to argue semantics like that, then you clearly missed the point of the film.

(And really, those points weren't directed at anyone in particular, but I've already seen a few forums go down the chute because of some of that stuff.)

i never once referred to the historical accuracy of the film. i'm not the one who needs to be reminded about that, only the fan-bois do, the ones who will worship anything scribbled by frank miller's pen.

and i'm not arguing semantics nor do i allude to any 'democracy thing'. again, i don't care for any of the pretensions to historical accuracy the creators might possess, its just that the film's artistic demerits outweigh its upside.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: syzygy,

quote:

Originally posted by syzygy:


you are too literal a definition of a 'fan-boi'.

you referred a number of times to the supposed historical authenticity of the film, which means, of all things, like a true fan-boi, you were the one who didn't get it.

the film is, at most, based on the premise of the herodotus original, but in fact, as you both know and love to forget, is lifted word-for-word from frank miller's graphic novel, which took a number of creative liberaties, some of which worked, most did not.

i did say that i found some of the visuals magnificent. i also found the depiction of xerses strange, something you critic as wrong-headed because the actual xerxes 'thought of himself as a god'. this would have been germane to your arguement but you forget again that zach snyder adapted miller's graphic movel and not the herodotus original. the problem is with the former and not the later.

I am a Fan Boy, in every sense of the word & I'm pretty sure I "got it" because I didn't have questions or complaints after I had seen the film. I wasn't saying the ACTUAL Xerxes thought of himself as a God, I was saying the one in the movie did. I Never forgot it was adapted from the comic of the same name, I was merely pointing out the way they fought was HOW they really fought. The only reason I knew anything about the real history of the battle was because I had seen a documentary on it the night before I went to see the movie. Apparently, Frank Miller knew a little about what actually happened himself. You may have been happy with the visuals, but you still felt the NEED to complain about it being mostly CG.

IF you are so familiar with the comic & obviously unhappy with the changes it made, why see the movie that is based on it? To me, that means YOU didn't "get it".

Also, your argument that the film CAN'T be from a character's point of view makes zero sense. MOST MOVIES ARE FROM A CERTAIN CHARACTER'S POINT OF VIEW. Are you saying that those movies are ridiculous? By your frame of thinking, then all movies apparently can't stand up to your standards. They are written by people other than those who are acting in them.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Monkey_Boy,

Syzygy, I see you changed the wording in your last post. Guess I shoulda quoted you. Oh well, I remember what you said. You mentioned that the movie couldn't have been from Dilios' point of view because the movie was actually from Frank Miller's. I'm guessing you changed your tune because you suddenly realized that statement made no sense. Of course, I can only guess, because instead of answering ME, you just changed the last paragragh in your post to say something else entirely.

I really don't understand why you would insult the fans of Frank Miller. Why get upset about a comic or movie just because it exaggerates reality? That's what they do. If you didn't like the comic, you shouldn't have gone to see the movie. Honestly, what were you expecting the movie to be if it was BASED off of the comic of the same name? If it were truly historically accurate, then I'm guessing they wouldn't have called it Frank Miller's '300'.

Who cares about historical accuracy? Its lack of it isn't the reason why it was a bad movie.

What made the movie god-awful was its cringeworthy dialogue and emotional superficiality. I felt like I was watching Gladiator crossed with a cheesy high-school football movie. This movie is all balls no brain... made for adolescents hanging on to their glorified views of violence, power and "honor".

"Honor". The same men who speak of honor throw poor runt babies off cliffs. I literally laughed out loud.

There is so little dramatic tension I nearly fell asleep.

You do know that the whole discarding of "unfit babies" was historically accurate? They were men of war, if they couldn't fight in battle, they had no place among them.

I do agree with you, this movie is ALL BALLS. If you went in expecting more than glorified battles, oh yeah, you were going to be disappointed. What in the previews or commercials gave you the expectations of more than that? I never saw a table of intelligent men trying to figure out how this war can be ended in any preview. You guys went in expecting a completely different movie than what was shown. I went in expecting exactly what it was: A BAD @SS MOVIE WITH BAD @SS BATTLES & 300 BAD @SS SOLDIERS! I expected nothing more, nothing less.

It's been a loooong time sice I was refered to as an adolescent, but I don't take it as an insult. Give me a good violent action flick & I'll enjoy it, just as it's not "pointless violence", like "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" remake. Now there was a god-awful, brainless, cheesy, adolescent, NO BALLS movie with its glorified views of violence and cringeworthy dialogue & emotional superficiality that made ME literally laugh out loud!

Honest to God, I didn't go in expecting an intellectually stimulating movie. I knew what I was going to get. Does this make it a good movie? No. Your argument doesn't make sense.

A bad movie is a bad movie regardless of expectations.

I'm not trying to say all violent movies are bad, but wouldn't you say 300 would have been better if it spent a little more time developing mood/character/plot?

Personally I thought the script was really lame. Miller's words sound tend to sound cheesey when spoken aloud on film (this was somewhat of a problem - though to a lesser extent - in Sin City).
Visually the film is fantastic, but there is little depth behind what is being shown on screen, and there is no reason to care about what happens to any of the characters.

While you guys seem hellbent on pointing out the flaws in this most magnificent of "last stand" movies, I've only read complaints. I haven't heard any from the people around me. Really, the reviews from Metacritic members are nearly split down the middle with 7 liking it to the 6 of you that don't. As far as the Metascore, which counts at least 380 votes, the movie still rates at 7.1 outta 10. Pretty impressive for a movie that, & I quote: "...has little emotional depth", "...god-awful", "...cringeworthy dialogue", "...little dramatic tension", & "...the script was really lame." Seems you guys are in the minority on this one. In the end, one quote says it all...
"Well, I guess that's, like, your opinion, man." Wonderful words from The Dude.

ha ha ...go monkeyboy, sic those naysayers..ha ha...but wait till I weigh in on this whole controversy. hee hee

quote:

Originally posted by Monkey_Boy:
While you guys seem hellbent on pointing out the flaws in this most magnificent of "last stand" movies, I've only read complaints. I haven't heard any from the people around me. Really, the reviews from Metacritic members are nearly split down the middle with 7 liking it to the 6 of you that don't. As far as the Metascore, which counts at least 380 votes, the movie still rates at 7.1 outta 10. Pretty impressive for a movie that, & I quote: "...has little emotional depth", "...god-awful", "...cringeworthy dialogue", "...little dramatic tension", & "...the script was really lame." Seems you guys are in the minority on this one. In the end, one quote says it all...
"Well, I guess that's, like, your opinion, man." Wonderful words from The Dude.

Nickelback also sells millions of records...

quote:

Originally posted by Fitz:
Nickelback also sells millions of records...

Very true. As do other awful artists I have no respect for. However, I don't waste time buying their albums, listening to their music, going to their concerts, or even trashing them in multiple posts up against those who DO enjoy it. For a movie you hated so much, you sure are spending alot of YOUR time discussing it. If you look at any posts I've left on flicks (or artists) I've hated, you'll notice I left one post & that was that. You'll also notice I haven't left very many. I see no point in trying to come up with a hundred ways to say "I HATED IT ". Still, I can ALWAYS come up with multiple ways to say "I LOVED IT ". I keep posting here because I can't stand idly by while people trash such a sensational work of art!

quote:

Originally posted by Monkey_Boy:

quote:

Originally posted by Fitz:
Nickelback also sells millions of records...

Very true. As do other awful artists I have no respect for. However, I don't waste time buying their albums, listening to their music, going to their concerts, or even trashing them in multiple posts up against those who DO enjoy it. For a movie you hated so much, you sure are spending alot of YOUR time discussing it. If you look at any posts I've left on flicks (or artists) I've hated, you'll notice I left one post & that was that. You'll also notice I haven't left very many. I see no point in trying to come up with a hundred ways to say "I HATED IT ". Still, I can ALWAYS come up with multiple ways to say "I LOVED IT ". I keep posting here because I can't stand idly by while people trash such a sensational work of art!

haha, seriously, don't think this is personal or anything. they're called "discussion forums" so we can discuss. i can't figure out why you wouldn't want to argue for something you feel so passionately about.

so basically, since when does the public know shit all about the quality of film? "Armageddon" was a bad movie, but that didn't stop it from grossing a shitload at the box office.

I have no problem arguing FOR something. I just don't see a point in arguing against it when it doesn't really affect me unless I'm forced to sit through it. I understand why you didn't like it. Alot of people have the same gripes you do, yet, more than half were willing to forgive the dialogue or other problems they had, for whatever else they had seen in the film. I didn't go to this movie for dialogue. I didn't even go for the story. It was the action. 300 Spartans VS untold millions of Persians! I got what I went for. Period.

As for what the public enjoys, sometimes they get it right ("Pulp Fiction" made Tarantino a household name), other times they get it wrong ("The Shawshank Redemption" tanked at the box office) & sometimes it's just confusing ("Titanic", WTF?). I don't actually follow the crowd, but this time, I happen to be apart of it.

I haven't seen the film yet monkeymagic, but why do you set such low expectations for a movie??
You say you went for the action, not dialogue or story.
Don't you see by passively allowing filmmakers to give us rubbish dialogue or plot or acting, because they think people will settle for action alone, that we (the audience) get what we deserve?

Every time I walk into a theatre or put on a DVD, I expect art, not a partly well-done dogs dinner which settles for some decent action and "screw the rest of the film".

Arguing against a popular film is mostly to express anger at one more lazy bunch of filmmakers who do a half-arsed job.
Every part of any film shld be honed!
We get mindless blockbusters and cheap horror knock-offs, because we don't boycott lazy, half-done films.

Expect the best.
Would you hand in a finished film in which only the action sequences had been worked on...

It's lazy filmmaking, and we must beware we don't become lazy viewers.....

quote:

Originally posted by Ishmaelscoffin:
I haven't seen the film yet monkeymagic, but why do you set such low expectations for a movie??
You say you went for the action, not dialogue or story.
Don't you see by passively allowing filmmakers to give us rubbish dialogue or plot or acting, because they think people will settle for action alone, that we (the audience) get what we deserve?

I agree with this. A good film can't make it on one aspect alone. You can't have a film with just good action, or acting, or cinematography and expect people to enjoy it. What makes a film great is the whole package. Personally, I can't think of any scenario where I'd say story doesn't matter in a film (maybe Porn ). The whole point of films are to tell a story. Any genre of film can be made much, much better with a good script.