|
This movie has raging hormone teen audience written all over it. 1/5
|
| # ? Sep 12, 2007 16:47 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 03:27 |
|
|
A near perfect adaptation of Frank Miller's work. 5/5
|
| # ? Oct 19, 2007 09:07 |
|
|
A "okay I guess" kind of movie that was pushed in to disliking territory for me due to the ridiculous over hyping of how great it was. As someone who invests a lot of time in two things, movies and manliness, when a movie is repeatedly stated by the people around you to be "The manliest movie ever" you kind of get your hopes up. Manliest movie ever this is not. Also, overuse of slow motion that literally gave me a headache. 2/5
|
| # ? Oct 22, 2007 06:30 |
|
|
300 is, as a number of other posters have tried to explain, what it is. The art direction is superb and the fighting is cool. It's a sensual feast, not a mental one. The plot is bad, but isn't as bad as everyone is making it out to be; it's simply there. The film certainly doesn't deserve a 1 or 2 based on the plot. I question how much attention people who are mortified by historical inaccuracy actually paid to the "dumb story"; I was under the impression that the whole movie was a sort of framing story wherein the bardic guy was relating the battle of the 300 to the rest of the Greek army on the eve of the larger battle referred to at the end. In that context, of course the movie is going to portray the Persians as demonic hordes and the Spartans as heroic demigods. What's wrong with homoeroticism in a movie about Greeks? They're kind of renowned for the concept. In the end, 300 is not what you think it is. It isn't the greatest or manliest movie ever made, nor is it unimaginative, boring, sexist drivel full of throbbing cocks and Republican campaign slogans. It's a piece of interesting visual art in a more mythic than historical tradition. 3/5
|
| # ? Oct 24, 2007 04:51 |
|
God I fucking love Diablo 3 gold, it even paid for this shitty title
|
In the past, I've seen a lot of movies that I hated. But mostly they just inspired apathy. Finally, I've found a movie that inspires pure contempt. That movie is 300. There are three main problems with this movie; I shall go over them. Problem #1: Frank Miller. The man is a hack, and cannot write dialogue worth a poo poo. He's good at visuals, which is all that he really has going for him. The terse plotting, innovative structure, and decent acting of the Sin City movie helped hide his glaring flaws. His other forays into the world of cinema have been rancid, like 300. Many of the most offensive parts of the movie--the devious negroid persians, the "ninja immortals", and worst of all, the hunchback--came from Frank's feverish brain. He is only part of the problem, however... Problem #2: Zack Snyder. I have a loathing for Robert Rodriguez, but I had to give it up for Sin City. He knew and understood how to shoot the source material. Zack Snyder is out of his depth (which doesn't bode well for Watchmen). He cannot wrest a good performance out of any of the actors (in his defense, it's pretty much milking a bull with that group). The battle sequences are clumsily shot, with cheesily blatant CGI. Worst of all, he pads the movie out with an ill-advised subplot that ultimately goes nowhere. The woman almost singlehandedly kills the movie. He also adds horrible, stilted narraration consisting of clumsy epigrams in bad english. Here's a challenge, pick out which of these lines belongs to 300, and which belongs to the immortal Beast of Yucca Flats: "The beasts were clumsy and the dead were slippery." "Find the Beast and kill him. Kill, or be killed. Man’s inhumanity to man." "Xerxes betrays a fatal flaw: Hubris. Easy to taunt, easy to trick." "Inbred swine, more creature than man." "When the boy was born, like all Spartans, he was inspected." "Always on the prowl. Looking for something, or somebody to kill. Quench the killer’s thirst." "Flag on the Moon. How did it get there? He bears the atlas-load of blame for this abomination, but he has company... Problem #3: The actors. Rarely have I seen a less charismatic group of thespians. Gerard Butler is the only one with any kind of presence, and he chews the CGI-generated scenery mercilessly. Most lines are delivered in an angry bellow, and I never got any indications as to why anyone would follow him into battle. His wife is a proto-feminist cardboard cutout, who generated much more annoyance than she did sympathy. Although, in their defence, they weren't working with a David Mamet script. In conclusion, I found this movie offensive on many levels--the undeniably racist/genetic-purity subtext, the hypocrisy, the bad acting and directing, the blatant historical inaccuracy despite quotes to the contrary ("90% of this movie is the truth!"--Zack Synder), the poor source material. I didn't even go into the fact that the historical Spartans were sadomasochistic woman-hating pederasts. This movie may not be the most incompetent movie I've ever seen, but I can't think of one I despised more. Rating: 1/5 Peter Venkman fucked around with this message at Oct 26, 2007 around 22:02 |
| # ? Oct 26, 2007 09:11 |
|
|
I enjoyed this movie as the campy cinema it is. The acting and plot are not exceptional by any means, but they also don't reach the point as to become cringeworthy and take the viewer out of the movie experience. Movies like these are meant to be enjoyed for their visual splendor and 300 not only does that incredibly well, showcasing off the state of the art in special effects, but it also doesn't try to be anything its not, that being a serious war movie. This is certainly a movie to be watched in a packed theater and I was glad to have that opportunity. Watching it in any other way wouldn't have showcased its strong special effects nearly as well and would have made it much more difficult to become immersed in the experience. 4.5 for the experience I had watching the film.
|
| # ? Nov 13, 2007 05:14 |
|
|
This film was infuriatingly stupid on a surprising number of levels. 1) The extra enemies. What the gently caress. This is a film about one of the greatest stands in history, 300 men holding off an army one million strong. But apparently that's not impressive enough. So we have to have seven-foot crab monsters and battle rhinos (which would obviously have flattened foot soldiers if they actually existed, so we have to believe that Xerxes can only manage only one of them so it can be shot down). We have to have evil old men and nasty traitors plotting against Leonidas at home, instead of the real story, which would add a lot more emotional tension - that it was blasphemy against everything the Spartans (including Leonidas) held dear for them to go to war in the middle of their most sacred festival. And Xerxes has to be some kind of freak-pervert-giant, because it's not enough he ruled most of Asia and commanded the hugest army ever known, he has to look like a monster too. I wouldn't care about diverging from history to make a more exciting film, but all this assing about actually took away from the excitement for me, by turning it into a fighting-fantasy movie instead of a believable story. 2) The racism/homophobia. Yay for the Spartan eugenicist programme, because cripples are weak and morally corrupt! Boo for the weirdo pervert Xerxes and his lesbian floorshow! Boo for non-Western people, particularly Arabs and the Japanese! 3) The inconsistency. Leonidas tells the hunchback, apparently sincerely, that he can't fight because he can't be in the shield wall. But about 75% of the fighting we see is hand to hand stuff. Why, in that case, wouldn't he say, 'Well, you obviously can't join the shield wall, but wait behind us and join the fighting as soon as we break the line, which we are going to do in minutes'? And come to that, why do all the Spartans look approvingly at the soldier who wails and grieves and goes berserk over his dead son, when that stands against everything the Spartan code was about? 4) The relentless cries of 'freedom', to which the only possible response is  . Historically speaking, the Spartans were basically Nazis, who viciously enslaved and subjugated their neighbours, culling any intelligent or charismatic people among their slaves who might become rebels. And let's not even go near the modern parallels this movie is trying to draw in a totally ham-handed way. Basically, this film looks good, it takes a great story, it has fabulous effects and individual scenes, and it wastes everything by being shatteringly conceptually stupid. I really wanted to enjoy it, I am normally capable of suspending my disbelief so high it gets altitude sickness, but this was just too drat dumb. 1.5/5 because the battle rhinos at least looked cool.
|
| # ? Nov 22, 2007 14:51 |
|
|
Fun movie to see about one time around, but it sacrifices substance for style a bit too much. I was hoping for something up to par with Sin City, but it forgets about character development and you're left not caring much about anyone by the time credits roll. 3/5
|
| # ? Nov 23, 2007 06:51 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 03:27 |
|
|
ehh not a great movie, action was cool, but story wasn't good enough to keep my attention.. 2/5
|
| # ? Dec 1, 2007 02:20 |
|
