Jenksismyhero Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/....300/index.html By Tom Charity Special to CNN Adjust font size: (CNN) -- The fanboys are raring for this one. As of Wednesday, two days before "300" opened, the Internet Movie Database gave director Zack Snyder's historical epic a user rating of 8.6 out of 10, based on more than 7,000 votes. The breakdown reveals that 6,000 of the voters are males under the age of 29, and that more than 80 percent rated the film a perfect 10. (The figures weren't much changed as of Friday.) All this excitement for a historical epic set in ancient Greece, starring such actors as Gerard Butler, Dominic West and David Wenham. What gives? Seven years ago, "Gladiator" used CGI to paint in crowds and armies and even resurrect actor Oliver Reed after he died during the shoot. But "Gladiator" looks like an artifact from a bygone age beside "300," based on a Frank Miller's graphic novel about the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C. Ridley Scott dragged his crew to Italy, Malta, Morocco and Britain. Snyder recreated ancient Sparta and famed Thermoplyae -- where 300 Spartans held off an invasion force of more than 100,000 -- without leaving his virtual studio in Montreal. Photo-realism is dead, or at least on its way out. "300" morphs between live actors and a graphic animated world that is both cheaper and more malleable than the usual movie sets. Instead of the traditional cast of thousands, the credits list more than 200 visual effects artists. Along with "Sin City," the previous adaptation of a Miller work, "300" etches out the horizons of a new cinematic landscape. So one can see why there would be such enthusiasm for the project. But, having actually seen the flick in question -- unlike, perhaps, a number of its eager IMDb supporters -- I'm afraid I cannot share their enthusiasm, though I suspect it delivers exactly what they think it does: blood and thunder. Really stylized blood and thunder, too. Thermopylae doesn't look remotely like Greece; it looks more like the inside of a computer game. Reproducing Lynn Varley's double-page panels as if the comic book were their storyboard, Snyder and cinematographer Larry Fong bleed detail and color from the grainy, sepia visuals, save for the Spartans' swishing crimson cloaks, the bronze of their round shields and rippling torsos. Perhaps it's this remove from reality that allows the filmmakers to revel in an orgy of violence with impunity. The battle, which dominates the movie, is a nonstop slaughterhouse with the ferocious Spartans lopping and chopping their way through their innumerable foes (including rampaging rhinos and elephants, scuttled off the cliffs to their doom). War receives the kind of gloss you'd find in, well, a video game. (Indeed, the actors have little to do besides assume picturesque positions and chew the virtual scenery.) When the audience cheers one particularly aesthetic decapitation it's because it's not quite the same thing as watching an Iraqi execution video. And to be fair to Snyder (who also made the "Dawn of the Dead" remake), he does have a flair for dismemberment. Nevertheless, it's not so much the body count or even the blood lust that's disturbing. It's that the film, with its macho militarism, seems out of step in a war-weary time. Gerard Butler's glaring, glowering, bombastic Spartan king Leonidas is the Jim Jones of military strategists: never retreat, never surrender, death on the battlefield is the greatest glory. The rhetoric echoes sentiments expressed by Japanese imperial loyalists in Clint Eastwood's "Letters from Iwo Jima," but there's no criticism implied here. These are the good guys. They even couple their death wish with ahistorical sentiments about "defending freedom" from Persian slavery and mysticism, though this hardly jibes with the regime the movie itself reveals. It's noticeable, too, how Miller and his collaborators strain to disavow any whiff of homosexuality (well known throughout ancient Greece), even as they strip their buff warriors down to highly impractical leather briefs. Athenians are dismissed as "boy-lovers," but Spartans are real men. Meanwhile, Xerxes, the Persian king, is bedecked in jewelry and facial piercings, and has an effeminate, clean-shaven look. He's also distinctly dark-skinned and not at all Persian-looking. All of which may be beside the point, I know: the kids just want to have fun. Many of them will. But what does that say about another Greek contribution -- Western civilization? I haven't seen the movie yet (will do so tonight at the IMAX on Navy Pier), but this is exactly what's wrong with movies today. This tool bag gets his voice heard by the movie execs and the art of making movies suffers. There's a reason why the movies the last few years have been complete crap. They follow this douche-bags way of thinking. And to be fair, I might hate it. But I can guarantee I won't hate it because the director hasn't compared it to our time. Or that the director failed to appreciate that being in a war-weary time we shouldn't be celebrating death and destruction brought upon by war. And of course lets hate the movie because the directors forgot to include gays! Oh the tragedy! And of course, I love the little hit on Western civilization. We're so messed up, aren't we? This guy is everything that's wrong with our society. It's an f'n movie. It's supposed to be unrealistic. Some people enjoy the movies because it takes you to a different world. This is precisely why I'm excited about seeing this movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrle>Wood Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 This is madness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobDylan Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 9, 2007 -> 04:50 PM) http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/....300/index.html I haven't seen the movie yet (will do so tonight at the IMAX on Navy Pier), but this is exactly what's wrong with movies today. This tool bag gets his voice heard by the movie execs and the art of making movies suffers. There's a reason why the movies the last few years have been complete crap. They follow this douche-bags way of thinking. And to be fair, I might hate it. But I can guarantee I won't hate it because the director hasn't compared it to our time. Or that the director failed to appreciate that being in a war-weary time we shouldn't be celebrating death and destruction brought upon by war. And of course lets hate the movie because the directors forgot to include gays! Oh the tragedy! And of course, I love the little hit on Western civilization. We're so messed up, aren't we? This guy is everything that's wrong with our society. It's an f'n movie. It's supposed to be unrealistic. Some people enjoy the movies because it takes you to a different world. This is precisely why I'm excited about seeing this movie. You've got it all wrong. You know what's wrong with the movies? People give them 10/10 ratings because they see a cool trailer where some guy yells (and is overracting quite extremely) "THIS IS SPARTA!" before they actually see the movie. You're bashing this guy for making comments about a movie he's seen. Yet, you, who has not seen it, is saying, "It's not going to do this, or this, or that," and praising the s*** out of it. Um, excuse me? Having not seen it, how exactly do you know there aren't parallels drawn to today's world? The guy who saw the movie seems to disagree with you. And, well, since he's actually seen the movie, I'm going to trust his insight more than yours. But, hey, you know what? Who says I have to listen to him. I can go see the movie and disagree with him after I see it myself, no? You know what's truly messed up in our society? When you basically tell this critic that his American freedoms are invalid because it's "an f'n" movie. Yet, you, who has nearly no knowledge on the movie, are allowed the rights he's not? Give me a break, man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Tizzle Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 9, 2007 -> 04:50 PM) http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/....300/index.html I haven't seen the movie yet (will do so tonight at the IMAX on Navy Pier), but this is exactly what's wrong with movies today. This tool bag gets his voice heard by the movie execs and the art of making movies suffers. There's a reason why the movies the last few years have been complete crap. They follow this douche-bags way of thinking. And to be fair, I might hate it. But I can guarantee I won't hate it because the director hasn't compared it to our time. Or that the director failed to appreciate that being in a war-weary time we shouldn't be celebrating death and destruction brought upon by war. And of course lets hate the movie because the directors forgot to include gays! Oh the tragedy! And of course, I love the little hit on Western civilization. We're so messed up, aren't we? This guy is everything that's wrong with our society. It's an f'n movie. It's supposed to be unrealistic. Some people enjoy the movies because it takes you to a different world. This is precisely why I'm excited about seeing this movie. So, I take it you're one of those people who added '300' to your list of myspace buddies for hopes of receiving a free ticket? All I have to say (if you're viewing the movie under this circumstances) is to basically leave now. You may not even get in. Edited March 9, 2007 by Flash Tizzle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 i just don't like comparing 300 to gladiator...i'm sick of telling people its not a historical epic about the battle of thermopylae, its a comic book movie. IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE GREECE! THERE WERE'NT ELEPHANTS AND RHINOS BACK THEN, WE KNOW! this was not supposed to be "oh my god that's what it really was like back then"...ugh...and then people bringing in the politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 The movie was alright, battle scenes were really cool but im not sure if it quite lived up to the hype. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T R U Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 I thought it was badass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3 BeWareTheNewSox 5 Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 Was a little nervous when Best Buy was giving away tickets with any dvd purchase, but have heard good reviews, probably'll check it out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 10, 2007 Author Share Posted March 10, 2007 QUOTE(BobDylan @ Mar 9, 2007 -> 05:16 PM) You've got it all wrong. You know what's wrong with the movies? People give them 10/10 ratings because they see a cool trailer where some guy yells (and is overracting quite extremely) "THIS IS SPARTA!" before they actually see the movie. You're bashing this guy for making comments about a movie he's seen. Yet, you, who has not seen it, is saying, "It's not going to do this, or this, or that," and praising the s*** out of it. Um, excuse me? Having not seen it, how exactly do you know there aren't parallels drawn to today's world? The guy who saw the movie seems to disagree with you. And, well, since he's actually seen the movie, I'm going to trust his insight more than yours. But, hey, you know what? Who says I have to listen to him. I can go see the movie and disagree with him after I see it myself, no? You know what's truly messed up in our society? When you basically tell this critic that his American freedoms are invalid because it's "an f'n" movie. Yet, you, who has nearly no knowledge on the movie, are allowed the rights he's not? Give me a break, man. No, but there's a difference between not liking a movie because the acting blows, the plot makes no sense, or the story in general just isn't good enough entertainment to be big-screen worthy. It's another thing to not like a movie because it's not politically correct enough for the current time. This is what this guy said. The movie popularizes war and death and they were far too masculine so its a bad movie. This is the BS type of review that is ruining hollywood. It's this political correctness crap that continues to curb our freedom of speech. And I never said anything about this guy not having a right to say what he wants to about the film. All i'm asking for is some relevant criteria to judge the film on. Arguing that the directors didn't correlate the movie to modern times is ridiculous. It's an f'n movie. It's not supposed to be about modern times. And I saw the movie tonight and thought it was badass. It's not a film you go see to find the meaning of life, but it was an awesome visual representation of a mythological event that happened in the distant past. If you don't bring in the BS political crap of modern times you would see the brilliance of the film. If, however, you have a stick shoved up your arse like this reviewer did, you'd have a problem with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 http://thisisfartaaa.ytmnd.com/ http://chocosparta.ytmnd.com/ http://fatalitiesthreehundred.ytmnd.com/ http://whitehousehell.ytmnd.com/ http://nessparta.ytmnd.com/ http://spartacat.ytmnd.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shipps Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 I thought the movie was amazing.Great action,visually astounding,and the fact it was based on a real group of people and it wasnt some made up run of the mill, hostage killing,bomb disarming,terrorist decieving,Iam a ghost and didnt know it action thriller people will say, meh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 (edited) I thought this movie was awesome. This is a historically "accurate" film, and is one of the most brutal and gory ones you will ever see. Shot in an intriguing way, with speed-changes for slaying emphasis, this movie had the entire theater cringing, clapping, and roaring in uncomfortable "I can't believe that just happened" laughter. This doesn't mean it wasn't taken seriously, this was just one of the few ways you can react (aside from throwing the first "Slayer" sign to my buddy that I have thrown in about 3 years.) "300" is short (with a running time of just 1 hour, 57 minutes) but grips you from the opening. This is yet another Frank Miller brainchild ("Sin City") that is visually glorious, but I would have to say is better than the first feature based off of his work. I highly recommend this movie. 3.5/4 Edited March 10, 2007 by Steve9347 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobDylan Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 10, 2007 -> 03:11 AM) No, but there's a difference between not liking a movie because the acting blows, the plot makes no sense, or the story in general just isn't good enough entertainment to be big-screen worthy. It's another thing to not like a movie because it's not politically correct enough for the current time. This is what this guy said. The movie popularizes war and death and they were far too masculine so its a bad movie. This is the BS type of review that is ruining hollywood. It's this political correctness crap that continues to curb our freedom of speech. And I never said anything about this guy not having a right to say what he wants to about the film. All i'm asking for is some relevant criteria to judge the film on. Arguing that the directors didn't correlate the movie to modern times is ridiculous. It's an f'n movie. It's not supposed to be about modern times. And I saw the movie tonight and thought it was badass. It's not a film you go see to find the meaning of life, but it was an awesome visual representation of a mythological event that happened in the distant past. If you don't bring in the BS political crap of modern times you would see the brilliance of the film. If, however, you have a stick shoved up your arse like this reviewer did, you'd have a problem with it. I'd argue that Hollywood is already in ruins because the standards aren't high enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosMediasBlancas Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 Put me down for lowering the standard on this one. I'm not expecting '300' to change my life. I'll be happy with some cool eye candy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longshot7 Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 Saw it last night - fairly underwhelming. Looked beautiful for sure - but as for the story, there wasn't a whole lot to it. Small group fights bigger group, small group wins for a while, bad-looking creature sells them out, and then bigger group wins. There virtually no tension in this film, which is a bad thing. If Letters to Iwo Jima (a film that is plot-wise, pretty similar) can create tension with a suicide mission, why can't 300? I didn't hate it. It just left me cold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 And to think I was hoping I wouldnt hear a synopsis..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobDylan Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 QUOTE(longshot7 @ Mar 10, 2007 -> 02:25 PM) Saw it last night - fairly underwhelming. Looked beautiful for sure - but as for the story, there wasn't a whole lot to it. Small group fights bigger group, small group wins for a while, bad-looking creature sells them out, and then bigger group wins. There virtually no tension in this film, which is a bad thing. If Letters to Iwo Jima (a film that is plot-wise, pretty similar) can create tension with a suicide mission, why can't 300? I didn't hate it. It just left me cold. Clint Eastwood is a master story teller. Hollywood lacks these guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonik22 Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 It wasn't the greatest movie i've ever seen, but those 2 hours seemed to fly by because i was really into it! Highly recommend seeing it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shipps Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 I dont know why,but it bothers me to hear anyone say they didnt like it.What do you expect from this movie?Would you have rather had the Spartans to win the war?Should they have had guns?Should the queen have been Beyonce? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 i absolutely thought sin city was one of the biggest pieces of garbage ever and I just hope I won't end up thinking the same thing about 300. It looks like it may be overdone but I'll finally see it next weekend cause I've heard too many good things about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Gleason Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 QUOTE(shipps @ Mar 11, 2007 -> 02:34 AM) I dont know why,but it bothers me to hear anyone say they didnt like it.What do you expect from this movie?Would you have rather had the Spartans to win the war?Should they have had guns?Should the queen have been Beyonce? I feel the same way about Sin City, and it is what is helping me from caring about this movie. That and all the slow motion in the trailers. It looks annoying as all heck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnB Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 I thought it was alright. I was kinda dragged into seeing it and wasn't exactly extermely happy that i saw it. It kept my attention for 2 hours, but that's really it. I dunno, wasn't all that impressed. and tony SPOILERS i believe it wasn't the spartans that left at the end, but it was the acheans (sp?) (the ones that weren't "warriors") Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonik22 Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 QUOTE(SnB @ Mar 11, 2007 -> 02:44 PM) I thought it was alright. I was kinda dragged into seeing it and wasn't exactly extermely happy that i saw it. It kept my attention for 2 hours, but that's really it. I dunno, wasn't all that impressed. and tony SPOILERS i believe it wasn't the spartans that left at the end, but it was the acheans (sp?) (the ones that weren't "warriors") SPOILERS You're right, i don't think any spartans were sent home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 spoiler Yeah, basicly once it was found out that the Persions found the goat path it was fact they would be slaughtered. So the army that joined them that werent Spartans rode out of there while Leonidas sent the 1 guy home to send the msg. The Spartan army couldnt go back because in Sparta if you went back home from war without winning, you would either be killed or an outcast/banned from the city. And being banned from the city back in that time is the same as being put to death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juddling Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Well....guess who is 'offended' by the movie...... Tehran- Iran on Monday strongly condemned the US film company Warner Bros. over the allegedly "anti-Iranian" blockbuster film 300. Javad Shamqadri, art advisor to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told Fars news agency that the film was an insult to Persian culture and in line with the American "psychological war" against Iran. Zack Snyder's film, based on a comic book by Frank Miller, tells the story of the battle of Thermopylae in Greek history in which 300 Spartan warriors led by King Leonidas heroically fought a massive Persian army attack, delaying an invasion by King Xerxes' forces and giving Greeks time for a counterattack. Iran's has called foul over what it calls "deviation of history" but also because the Persians in the film were shown as "ugly and violent creatures rather than human beings." The news network Khabar organised a special programme in which the film was evaluated from several angles by film critics who argued that the film's alleged efforts to expose Persians as violent was a US political plot implemented through Hollywood and the Warner Bros. company. The state-run network also linked the film to ongoing political differences between Washington and Tehran such as the nuclear dispute. The film critics further said that after Germans, Japanese, Russians and Arabs, Iranians seem to become the new "villian" in Hollywood productions. A large number of Iranians abroad have already started a worldwide email campaign to send protest missives to Warner Bros. for having insulted Persian culture and history. The film reportedly made 70 million dollars over its opening weekend, making it the first official blockbuster of the year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.