Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
Slacker First Class
|
I don't think 300 will be remembered as the best of any category to be frank. This is due to its complete lack of plausible plot, incorrect recount of historic event and hopelessly stylised theatrics. The only thing this movie has going for it is the "cool" fight scenes. And even these scenes are too stylised to appeal to a diverse audience. I really liked this movie, but it’s a far cry from a masterpiece.
Xo
|
| |
| Posts: 20 | Location: Perth | Registered: 22 October 2007 | |
|
Slacker
|
Sadly, 300 was not even near the best movie this year, and definitely not of all time.
The action was kind of cool, but nothing that amazing, and action was the only thing going for it.
I doubt it'll even win an Academy Award for Special Effects, and definitely not Best Picture, Director or Actor.
|
| |
|
Enthusiast
|
quote: Originally posted by Danks:
If 300 wins an oscar I'll eat an entire shopful of hats. I thought the action sequences were quite enjoyable, but also strangely fake; I'll watch Braveheart if I want epic battle-scenes with good old bloody limb chopping and heavy bludgeoning. It's also quite odd to see so many men go wild over half-naked beardy muscular getting all sweaty. I found myself wondering if it was going to turn out to be a high-budget porn-flick with all the fighting descending into a massive orgy. Certainly the acting was on par with a porno and the screenwriter deserves a slap.
Despite the unnecessary imagery towards the end, I have to agree with this post. Good not great, and the acting noticeably surpasses the screenwriting at several points.
-------------------------------------------------------------
What about the voice of Geddy Lee? How did he get so high?
|
| |
| Posts: 91 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 18 December 2007 | |
|
Guru
|
quote: Originally posted by Danks:
If 300 wins an oscar I'll eat an entire shopful of hats. I thought the action sequences were quite enjoyable, but also strangely fake; I'll watch Braveheart if I want epic battle-scenes with good old bloody limb chopping and heavy bludgeoning. It's also quite odd to see so many men go wild over half-naked beardy muscular getting all sweaty. I found myself wondering if it was going to turn out to be a high-budget porn-flick with all the fighting descending into a massive orgy. Certainly the acting was on par with a porno and the screenwriter deserves a slap.
I really enjoyed 300 because when I started watching the movie I wasn't there to critique the acting or dialogue or anything like that. I was there to watch an ultimate man movie: sex and slaughtering. If you want an all-around movie than they're out there, but 300 isn't one of them.
------------
"28 days, 6 hours, 42 minutes, 12 seconds. That is when the world will end"
|
| |
| Posts: 832 | Location: I'm watching you... | Registered: 03 December 2007 | |
|
Slacker
|
This movie made to order for demolish IRAN in the world. plz watch this pic: http://i13.tinypic.com/72len37.jpg This movie didn't build on true.
happy for all
|
| |
| Posts: 2 | Location: IRAN-Tehran | Registered: 29 December 2007 | |
|
Slacker
|
Right, so the movie wasn't historically accurate, and the screen writing wasn't fantastic. Is this why any of us went to go see the movie? Personally I went to go see the flick for action only. Maybe that is why I wasn't disappointed when leaving the theaters. I'm not a lover of action films, I'm a fan of Hitchcock, Fellini, and Bergman. But I went to go see this movie for effects and that sensory overload, and that is all it delivered. I thought it lived up to the hype, because the hype didn't claim it was going to be the next great epic, it was written by Frank Miller (now Sin City had some awful screen writing), so maybe it'll win best special effects. Was it enjoyable...yes; was it visually amazing (especially in Imax)...yes; then it did its job.
|
| |
|
Guru
|
quote: troglodytes
Slacker
Posted 21 January 2008 03:46 PM Hide Post
Right, so the movie wasn't historically accurate, and the screen writing wasn't fantastic. Is this why any of us went to go see the movie? Personally I went to go see the flick for action only. Maybe that is why I wasn't disappointed when leaving the theaters. I'm not a lover of action films, I'm a fan of Hitchcock, Fellini, and Bergman. But I went to go see this movie for effects and that sensory overload, and that is all it delivered. I thought it lived up to the hype, because the hype didn't claim it was going to be the next great epic, it was written by Frank Miller (now Sin City had some awful screen writing), so maybe it'll win best special effects. Was it enjoyable...yes; was it visually amazing (especially in Imax)...yes; then it did its job.
You sort of avoided the thread's theme of "best movie in 2007, maybe ever!" in your commentary. |
| |
| Posts: 956 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005 | |
|
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
©2006 CNET Networks Inc. All rights reserved.
|
