300

[akv89]

Has anyone else seen the movie? The cinematography was excellent, but the storyline is the same as many other movies about ancient war (I wont' spoil anything by saying what it is). It's enjoyable if you dont mind watching blood spilled continuously for a couple of hours.

[Ian McC]

It's been described as style over content which seems to be in keeping with what you say :)

[Quattroporte]

Is it the sequel to 299, or the prequel to 301?

[janneppi]

I read the basic storyline of it year ago and thought, oh my, Iranians are going to throw a fit over this, and it seems I was right. :D

[HarryBallsak1980]

I read the basic storyline of it year ago and thought, oh my, Iranians are going to throw a fit over this, and it seems I was right. :D


Whats new?! They threw a fit over 'Alexander' a few years back too. This one only happens to be a better film. Let them pine away.

[edv]

Historians seem to have a lot to grumble about with this film, besides the wacky depiction of the Persians. For one thing, the Spartans wore breastplates that covered their bellies and armoured skirts extended down beyond their knees.

Same guy that did Sin City? (Miller?)

[EuroTroll]

From what little I've seen of it (=trailers), it seems like incredibly rubbish rubbish. I mean, Alexander was poor, but what the hell is this?!

[luvracin]

Isn't it based on a comic book(sorry... Graphic Novel) of the events?

[Ian McC]

Miller did the graphic novel that the film is based on.

[A.F.F.]

From what little I've seen of it (=trailers), it seems like incredibly rubbish rubbish. I mean, Alexander was poor, but what the hell is this?!

I don't get how com folks here put Alexander in the same sentence with 300 ? These films are hardly in the same genre.

I take it 300 is brilliant movie for night shifts. More meat for meat eaters :D

[EuroTroll]

I don't get how com folks here put Alexander in the same sentence with 300 ? These films are hardly in the same genre.

You're right, of course. I was just referring to 300's reference to the battle of Thermopylae... 300 is a different genre than Alexander, but where they are similar is lame portrayal of ancient history.

[akv89]

You're right, of course. I was just referring to 300's reference to the battle of Thermopylae... 300 is a different genre than Alexander, but where they are similar is lame portrayal of ancient history.

Well you can't really expect it to be. It's meant to be a dramatic action movie not a documentary.

[Ian McC]

Just seen it and thoroughly enjoyed it, although there isn't much to the story it is amazing to see and worth the time.

[gadjo_dilo]

I've just read a review saying that if this movie was directed by Mel Gibson it would have been a masterpiece. Otherwise they say it was shot as if the director was on vacation. I've also read that the characters are caricaturesed and the actors play miserable and look as if they were recruited from a Mister Universe contest.
In these circumstances I don't think I want to see it.

[A.F.F.]

I've just read a review saying that if this movie was directed by Mel Gibson it would have been a masterpiece. Otherwise they say it was shot as if the director was on vacation. I've also read that the characters are caricaturesed and the actors play miserable and look as if they were recruited from a Mister Universe contest.
In these circumstances I don't think I want to see it.

Yep, considering movies it's always wise to listen the critics and not to make up your own mind :rolleyes:

[Erki]

Bah, I'm already waiting for 301. ;)

[gadjo_dilo]

Yep, considering movies it's always wise to listen the critics and not to make up your own mind :rolleyes:

Are you suggesting that I should waste time and money to see all the premiers of the week just to make an opinion ? Don't know your tastes but as far as I'm concerned I consider most of today movies are rude attacks to human intelligence. That's why I use to read the reviews. Maybe because unlike me, critics I use to read have a strong film culture, maybe because I persist to see cinema as art not as entertainment. I use to go anyway only if a great director and actors are involved but in this case I'm afraid I know only Gerard Butler who starred in Attila, another spinach with historical claims. :laugh:

[slinkster]

I liked it... but then I loved Sin City too. It's nice to finally watch a film that focuses on the art of film making and cinematography rather than churning out pointless, mindless tripe. A decent film will pull off even the simplest of storylines by making it visually stunning.

Great stuff.

[viper_man]

Saw it last night - IMMENSE

[A.F.F.]

Are you suggesting that I should waste time and money to see all the premiers of the week just to make an opinion ? Don't know your tastes but as far as I'm concerned I consider most of today movies are rude attacks to human intelligence. That's why I use to read the reviews. Maybe because unlike me, critics I use to read have a strong film culture, maybe because I persist to see cinema as art not as entertainment. I use to go anyway only if a great director and actors are involved but in this case I'm afraid I know only Gerard Butler who starred in Attila, another spinach with historical claims. :laugh:

Point taken gadjo and sorry for being too forward.

Your post just sounded like a judgement like I've heard many times already. I do agree that most of the films novadays are complete rubbish. I differ a bit of your view because I don't persist to see movies as an art only but also as entertaiment. Nothing makes me feel as good a very good movie. Nothing also makes me as angry as a very bad movie. But what I've learned myself is that my taste very much differs from the critics. I do read reviews about the movies but that usually doesn't affect my decision to see them. If the idea, plot, cast or a director is an interesting one, I'll choose to see it.

What pisses me off a bit here with 300 is how people compare it to other "historical" movies since it's very much not like it. As it's based on Frank Miller's graphig novel with the same title, it never meant to be historically accurate. Frank usually does stuff in the spirit of violence, last known if brilliant Sin City. I think Slinkster put it in a nice nutshell. 300 is simply an entertaiment and nothing more but succees in it brilliantly.

[oily oaf]

One of the criticisms I've heard levelled at this film is that the actor who plays the Spartan leader is Scottish and has a broad accent.

Personally I fail to see how this detracts from the films authenticity as it's perfectly feasable that he was over there on his holidays with the wife and kids when all the aggro kicked off and he couldn't resist the opportunity for a good old fashioned tear up.

:vader:

[Ian McC]

maybe because I persist to see cinema as art not as entertainment.

Well maybe this would work for you as it is more art than entertainment :D

[Ian McC]

One of the criticisms I've heard levelled at this film is that the actor who plays the Spartan leader is Scottish and has a broad accent.

Personally I fail to see how this detracts from the films authenticity as it's perfectly feasable that he was over there on his holidays with the wife and kids when all the aggro kicked off and he couldn't resist the opportunity for a good old fashioned tear up.

:vader:


Are you passing some sort of judgement against Scottish people? I wonder what Iain would have to say about that :D

[raphael123]

I watched it. Pretty good if your into that kind of thing. I mainly enjoyed it, but I doubt I would sit through and watch it again, even if it was for free - however that's not to say it's not good - it is good!

Saying that, I watched John Tucker Must Die the next day, and enjoyed that more. I think critics seem to ignore these kind of movies, plus 'The Girl Next Door' etc as poor, but forget for some of the audience it's hugely popular! 'Click' was the best film I have seen in months!! But had very average reviews!

[gadjo_dilo]

As it's based on Frank Miller's graphig novel with the same title, it never meant to be historically accurate.

I reckon it's difficult for any film to be historically accurate, sometimes even documentaries are a bit biased.
But from my point of view it's somehow annoying to make a tittle from a famous historical event and to make it suit the taste of ordinary public in order to offer them entertainment. OK, from what I've read the film excelled at the graphic chapter, it's a sort of movie dedicated to our visual delight ( can 't I get the such effects on my computer ?). But the rest is typical to any stupid american movie. It's ridiculous to present the persian army as monsters, a sort of Quasimodo as the traitor, a Xerxex as big as a house with thousands piercings, not to mention the arrows who manage to fly over the gulf.



Well maybe this would work for you as it is more art than entertainment
Don't think so because I don't believe in computer art and I can't be ar*ed with special effects ( that's why I think that destroying computer Hal in "2001 A space odissey " is one of the most meaningful movie scene that was ever shot :laugh :) . If the actors play miserable and the director isn't able to curdle the story the art is shining through its absence. :laugh: