# Rate 300



## Krug (Mar 12, 2007)

0 for lowest, 10 for full.

PS: Please don't post spoilers on this thread


----------



## Nyaricus (Mar 12, 2007)

Man, it's a ten. Best epic warrior movie since Gladiator. I was watching and was thinking about how it's going to simply _tear apart_ next year's Oscars.

Awesome visuals, awesome score, awesome charaters and plots. I'm already waiting for the directors cut.

The only thing is that I felt they stuffed a 3 hour movie into 2 hours, but still - WOW!

cheers,
--N


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 12, 2007)

Nyaricus said:
			
		

> Man, it's a ten. Best epic warrior movie since Gladiator. I was watching and was thinking about how it's going to simply _tear apart_ next year's Oscars.
> 
> Awesome visuals, awesome score, awesome charaters and plots. I'm already waiting for the directors cut.
> 
> ...



Have some numbers of it here on how it compares to Troy & Gladiator:http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3393399&postcount=7


----------



## Sir Brennen (Mar 12, 2007)

Nyaricus said:
			
		

> Man, it's a ten. Best epic warrior movie since Gladiator. I was watching and was thinking about how it's going to simply _tear apart_ next year's Oscars.



Huh. I gave it a high rating, but not because I thought it was Oscar material.  I could see maybe some technical awards, but otherwise...? To me it was just sheer entertainment.


----------



## GlassJaw (Mar 12, 2007)

I would give it a solid 7.5 but since there are no fractions, and I don't think it was an 8, I gave it a 7.  Short on story but big on action and visuals.  Entertaining flick.  Definitely not as good as Gladiator.


----------



## Rykion (Mar 12, 2007)

I liked 300 quite a bit, so I gave it an 8.  It was a very good popcorn movie, but really didn't stand out a lot in the acting.  The visual effects were good.  The backdrops seemed surreal, but I would have liked more substance to some of the sets.  Sparta's outlying environment definitely seemed a little too spartan.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 12, 2007)

Rykion said:
			
		

> Sparta's outlying environment definitely seemed a little too spartan.



 amusing 

i thought it was right in line, considering that they gave the word its meaning.


----------



## Gunslinger (Mar 12, 2007)

I gave it a 6.  It was an entertaining popcorn movie, but the story and dialogue were lacking.  I also wasn't very impressed by the way the ending was handled, it didn't have any sort of emotional impact on me whatsoever.


----------



## sckeener (Mar 12, 2007)

Nyaricus said:
			
		

> Man, it's a ten. Best epic warrior movie since Gladiator.




I haven't seen it yet and now you've got me worried about seeing it.  I was greatly disappointed in Gladiator.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 12, 2007)

sckeener said:
			
		

> I haven't seen it yet and now you've got me worried about seeing it.  I was greatly disappointed in Gladiator.




Yeah those darn Academy Award Winning movies.  Best Picture, Best Actor in a Leading Role, and nominated in many main categories, and won several other categories.

I am not saying all academy award winning movies are widely appealing, but it is one indicator.  Sometimes if a movie is popular with people, like Star Wars, it's not popular with critical awards, and vice versa.  So, let's check the box office take:

Oh, almost half a Billion (with a B).  

Hmm, so the critics loved it, and the public at large loved it.

Now that does not mean YOU have to like it.  But when an individual you don't know says "Best epic warrior movie since Gladiator.", it doesn't make much sense to me that you would take that as a negative.  You would really have to work to make that a negative in fact.


----------



## Galethorn (Mar 12, 2007)

I gave it a 9 instead of a 10 for one reason: I didn't like all the rock music they stuffed in. I mean, would you have Metallica roaring in the background of Saving Private Ryan? Would you set the stage for Bladerunner's dystopian future with 18th century harpsichord? If you answered yes to either, please don't become movie directors.

Other than that, it was everything I could have wanted. The spartans were using the right kind of sword, for Hermes' sake! Etc. etc.


----------



## shilsen (Mar 13, 2007)

Galethorn said:
			
		

> I gave it a 9 instead of a 10 for one reason: I didn't like all the rock music they stuffed in. I mean, would you have Metallica roaring in the background of Saving Private Ryan? Would you set the stage for Bladerunner's dystopian future with 18th century harpsichord? If you answered yes to either, please don't become movie directors.




Why not? Using anachronistic music has been a long-running convention dramatic entertainment historically across the planet, and the primary reason most of us have issues with it now is that it's not as common as in Hollywood cinema. When Shakespeare's audience was watching Julius Caesar, Othello and Hamlet, they weren't hearing Roman, Moorish/Venetian or Danish music in the background, but Elizabethan tunes. It only causes a problem if your expectations are different. When I'm watching the movie, I'm already very aware that I'm watching something that isn't historical at all, so modern music in the background wouldn't bother me in the least.

YMMV, and apparently does.


----------



## GlassJaw (Mar 13, 2007)

sckeener said:
			
		

> I was greatly disappointed in Gladiator.




I've heard it all now.


----------



## trancejeremy (Mar 13, 2007)

Galethorn said:
			
		

> I gave it a 9 instead of a 10 for one reason: I didn't like all the rock music they stuffed in. I mean, would you have Metallica roaring in the background of Saving Private Ryan? Would you set the stage for Bladerunner's dystopian future with 18th century harpsichord? If you answered yes to either, please don't become movie directors.
> .




Eh - Vangelis, who did Blade Runner, also did the music for movies such as The Bounty (set in the 1600s, I think), Chariots of Fire (19th century), 1492, and Alexander (300 bc ish, IIRC).  Not all his stuff is as new-agey as Blade Runner, but it's in the same basic vein.

The era of the music doesn't matter, it has to fit the mood. And in this case, it seems like heavy metal does fit the mood of a stylistic war movie, as opposed to something more subtle or timely.


----------



## Felon (Mar 13, 2007)

Galethorn said:
			
		

> I gave it a 9 instead of a 10 for one reason: I didn't like all the rock music they stuffed in. I mean, would you have Metallica roaring in the background of Saving Private Ryan? Would you set the stage for Bladerunner's dystopian future with 18th century harpsichord? If you answered yes to either, please don't become movie directors.



I know a lot of folks who have this attitude, and IMO it's painfully lame. They saw Excalibur or something similiar when they were a kid, and now it's engrained in their brain that when you see a guy running around with a sword, you're supposed to be hearing a 100-piece orchestra with trumpets and kettle drums and bass violins. Can't use non-acoustic instruments because that's anachronistic. Never mind that 100-piece orchestras are pretty anachronistic as well....

A lot of classic rock has fantasy roots. I think the eighties really missed the mark by never producing a full-blown heavy-metal S&S film.


----------



## Felon (Mar 13, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> I've heard it all now.



Wait. I don't get many opportunities to vent like this...

Gladiator sucked the big one. Maximus could've handled his initial situation much more intelligently, and handling it as stupidly as he did required a ton of deux of machina to keep him alive for the rest of the movie. Commodus was a effete clown and that makes for a very poor arch-villain by any standards. An obtuse hero and a sissy villain add up to a very unsatisfying movie. I don't know why folks raved. Well, yes, I do, but I don't know why there wasn't a stronger anti-Gladiator reaction as a result of all the raving.

OK, now you've heard it all.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Mar 13, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Wait. I don't get many opportunities to vent like this...
> 
> Gladiator sucked the big one. Maximus could've handled his initial situation much more intelligently, and handling it as stupidly as he did required a ton of deux of machina to keep him alive for the rest of the movie. Commodus was a effete clown and that makes for a very poor arch-villain by any standards. An obtuse hero and a sissy villain add up to a very unsatisfying movie. I don't know why folks raved. Well, yes, I do, but I don't know why there wasn't a stronger anti-Gladiator reaction as a result of all the raving.



Having the physically inferior but politically/intellectually powerful villian is a common meme in Sword & _X_ (Sandal/Shield/Sorcery) type movies. Conan's trickiest foes were often wizards, not other warriors, for example.  To me, this is a good thing, because is makes the story something more than just a cage-match.  This is really exaggerated in _300_, as the Persian army is depicted as physically degenerate and corrupt, implying that they are spiritually and morally as well, in contrast to the idealized manly men of the Spartan army (another indicator of how the movie is more mythic that historical.)

As for Maximus being initially dense, I don't remember enough about the movie to address that point... Hopefully the popularity of 300 will get the cable channels to run _Gladiator_ and its ilk more in the coming weeks.


----------



## sckeener (Mar 13, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Wait. I don't get many opportunities to vent like this...
> 
> Gladiator sucked the big one. Maximus could've handled his initial situation much more intelligently, and handling it as stupidly as he did required a ton of deux of machina to keep him alive for the rest of the movie. Commodus was a effete clown and that makes for a very poor arch-villain by any standards. An obtuse hero and a sissy villain add up to a very unsatisfying movie. I don't know why folks raved. Well, yes, I do, but I don't know why there wasn't a stronger anti-Gladiator reaction as a result of all the raving.




agreed, but for me this sums it up

The problem is, not a single surprise awaits us along the hard road to the movie's perversely obvious wrap-up. We have been sharing an extravaganza of grand design, superb acting, and terrific sound and scoring (courtesy of ultrahip Hans Zimmer and Lisa Gerrard of Dead Can Dance), but the entire course of the movie has been apparent from the opening minutes. Thus, the soul of Gladiator is made sluggish by a maddening lack of suspense.​Dallas Observer.

I crave plots I can't predict.  I could have slept through this movie and still have claimed to see it.  It was uninspiring.  It was beautiful, but it lacked a brain.

Did it get best picture and best actor?  I guess I can see why it didn't win it for script or directing.


----------



## John Crichton (Mar 13, 2007)

10 from me.

Why?

Cuz I would rate Braveheart and Gladiator 10's and this movie reminded me of those.  This is a man's movie and ultimate entertainment where you can just sit back and soak it in.  It's a man's movie that woman can love, as my GF can attest to and many others.  It does what it set out to do in spades and you can't ask for anything more.

Keep It Simple Stupid to the extreme.


----------



## John Crichton (Mar 13, 2007)

sckeener said:
			
		

> agreed, but for me this sums it up
> 
> The problem is, not a single surprise awaits us along the hard road to the movie's perversely obvious wrap-up. We have been sharing an extravaganza of grand design, superb acting, and terrific sound and scoring (courtesy of ultrahip Hans Zimmer and Lisa Gerrard of Dead Can Dance), but the entire course of the movie has been apparent from the opening minutes. Thus, the soul of Gladiator is made sluggish by a maddening lack of suspense.​Dallas Observer.
> 
> ...



That review screams, "I expected something else from this movie and didn't get it."  It's not the ending of the movie that matters, it's what happened on the journey.  And the journey was fun.  Gladiator is not a movie that is shooting for a surprise ending.  Heck, the title says it all: The main character is there solely to entertain the audience and die doing so.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Mar 13, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> I've heard it all now.




Gladiator was mediocre and it was a joke that it won best picture.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 13, 2007)

7.

Needed to get rid of some stuff and be shorter and more compact. The movie had epic written all over it, not nonsense drama that doesn't effect the plot anyway.


----------



## rom90125 (Mar 13, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Gladiator was mediocre and it was a joke that it won best picture.




QFT.  300 was mediocre as well;  An entertaining popcorn flick that is good for 2+ hours of diversion but ultimately a forgettable film.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Mar 14, 2007)

I won't be forget it...going to see the IMAX verison...hopefully. And seeing it, a second time. 

10 from me.


			
				rom90125 said:
			
		

> QFT.  300 was mediocre as well;  An entertaining popcorn flick that is good for 2+ hours of diversion but ultimately a forgettable film.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 14, 2007)

Galethorn said:
			
		

> I gave it a 9 instead of a 10 for one reason: I didn't like all the rock music they stuffed in. I mean, would you have Metallica roaring in the background of Saving Private Ryan? Would you set the stage for Bladerunner's dystopian future with 18th century harpsichord? If you answered yes to either, please don't become movie directors.
> 
> Other than that, it was everything I could have wanted. The spartans were using the right kind of sword, for Hermes' sake! Etc. etc.




Funny enough, I saw the movie 6 months ago, and then on opening night.  The only real difference I could detect between the two versions was that they added the rock music and took out some of the classical music.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 14, 2007)

Wow this is funny.  10% of people thought this film was less than a 7 on a scale of 1 to 10, yet roughly 25% or more of the posts are negative.  I think that ratio is actually present in a lot of threads lately  Sometimes a negative minority of people can shout loudly...


----------



## Insight (Mar 14, 2007)

I won't spoil the movie hopefully for anyone but... 

Is there anything they don't do *FOR SPARTAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!*

I could easily imagine them going behind a tree to pee *FOR SPARTAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!*

or washing their clothes in a nearby river *FOR SPARTAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!*

or taking the dog for a walk *FOR SPARTAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!*

You get the picture.

The horribly anachonistic view of Greeks as one people is another huge problem.  And since when did the ancient peoples care about freedom?  Concepts such as nationalism and universal freedom did not exist until well after the Renaissance.


----------



## sckeener (Mar 14, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Cuz I would rate Braveheart and Gladiator 10's and this movie reminded me of those.




_Braveheart _and _Gladiator_.  Ouch.  I am definitely seeing 300 as cheap as possible.

I did not like _Braveheart_.  _Rob Roy_ came out at the same time as _Braveheart_.  I prefer _Rob Roy_. 



			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> Gladiator is not a movie that is shooting for a surprise ending. Heck, the title says it all: The main character is there solely to entertain the audience and die doing so.




And how does that makes it a memorable film?  I think you are correct.  We are talking about the movie as if it was just another gladiator....how much it slew at the box office...how great the gladiator was (best actor) and how great it was when it was in the arena (best picture)...we aren't talking about the journey (the script.)    

I think this sums up Gladiator though it was about 300


			
				rom90125 said:
			
		

> An entertaining popcorn flick that is good for 2+ hours of diversion but ultimately a forgettable film.




I just got finished watching _Beowulf and Grendel_ last night.  Now that was fun.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 14, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Wow this is funny.  10% of people thought this film was less than a 7 on a scale of 1 to 10, yet roughly 25% or more of the posts are negative.  I think that ratio is actually present in a lot of threads lately  Sometimes a negative minority of people can shout loudly...




It's the Internet, baby: 80% porn, 20% bitching.


----------



## Shadeydm (Mar 14, 2007)

I gave it a 7 and that was generous. It was entertaining but they dragged a short tale out way too long.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Mar 14, 2007)

Insight said:
			
		

> The horribly anachonistic view of Greeks as one people is another huge problem.



 But several Greek peoples did unite to repel the Persian army. Otherwise, I *didn't* get the sense they were "one people". There were distinct references to the Athenians and Arcadians, presented as different cultures, though they were all probably lumped together as "the other greeks" if they weren't *SPARTAAAAAAHHHHHNNNSS!!!!!!*



> And since when did the ancient peoples care about freedom?  Concepts such as nationalism and universal freedom did not exist until well after the Renaissance.



A culture where all of the free men are soldiers seems pretty nationalistic to me. And who said anything about Universal Freedom? The Spartans simply refused to be ruled by someone else, and in that sense, they were fighting for _their_ freedom. But maybe not the capital "F" kind, especially since they themselves ruled over conquered peoples and held slaves.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 15, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> It's the Internet, baby: 80% porn, 20% bitching.



Actually, it's the other way around ... and that includes the _Gladiator_ bashers here.  

So, which one of you peace-loving hippies gave this movie a 1?


----------



## John Crichton (Mar 15, 2007)

sckeener said:
			
		

> _Braveheart _and _Gladiator_.  Ouch.  I am definitely seeing 300 as cheap as possible.



I'm, uh, glad I, uh, saved you some money.  ::shrugs::



			
				sckeener said:
			
		

> I did not like _Braveheart_.  _Rob Roy_ came out at the same time as _Braveheart_.  I prefer _Rob Roy_.



Rob Roy and Braveheart were both excellent.



			
				sckeener said:
			
		

> And how does that makes it a memorable film?  I think you are correct.  We are talking about the movie as if it was just another gladiator....how much it slew at the box office...how great the gladiator was (best actor) and how great it was when it was in the arena (best picture)...we aren't talking about the journey (the script.)



The journey was memorable for me for all 3 movies because they were visceral.  They were all different movies in their own right and I enjoyed them all on a different level.  You didn't like the Gladiator script and I'm fine with that.  You didn't like the movie as much as I did and I'm fine with that as well.

But for me, the fact remains that this is the first movie I've wanted to see again, in the theater, since Gladiator which I saw 6+ times before it hit DVD.  I'm really glad to see that so many people enjoyed the movie.  Without the internet, I would have a really hard time finding anyone that didn't have a blast experiencing it.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Mar 15, 2007)

I havent seen that many chiseled chests since the last time I was at a museum.

But overall, I enjoyed it greatly.  It had to have been one of the most artistically rendered takes on mass carnage I have ever seen.  The 'Slow then fast' cinematography was a bit overdone, but I liked it for the most part. I gave it a (Probably overgenerous as I'm still basking in the afterglow) 10.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 15, 2007)

BoxOfficeMojo's Grade is A- with 917 votes

GRADE BREAKDOWN 
A's:  756  82.6% 
B's:  73  8.0% 
C's:  25  2.7% 
D's:  17  1.9% 
F's:  44  4.8%


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Mar 15, 2007)

I enjoyed it. I went to see it with a friend and we are both gamer geeks. As such, we began naming the feats and skills we thought Leonides possessed, such as leadership, cleave, weapon focus and specialization (spear), etc.

We both liked the part where he was talking about being civil.

Xerxes made an interesting villian.

Frank Miller has issues with masculinity.


----------



## Ampolitor (Mar 15, 2007)

*300*

And since when did the ancient peoples care about freedom?

well actually since most people were slaves back then, being a free people meant a whole lot. Most armies were made up of slaves, so that meant they really didn't have that much heart behind it and would desert when possible.
Thats why they made such a huge issue when they keep mentioning that they were fighting a free people. Also as for the Persians a lot of them were slaves or conscripts. Greece was made up of city states but united when they were faced by a common enemy (except for the first battle when Athens went at it alone and won).
To me its amazing how many negative comment there are about the movies, I'm sure though it we went back on old posts if they have them the same people loved the movies....lol.
I gave it a 10, a good epic about an actual event in history with Hollywood flair.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Mar 15, 2007)

7/10...pretty good, worth seeing again in matinee form.

To get an 8, it would've needed more electric guitars and less airy vocals.

To get a 9, Xerxes 



Spoiler



should have flashed his eyes.



To get a 10, include the above, and give Leonidas a halberd and a musou bar*.

Brad


* - I got over my ahistorical issues by deciding it was _Dynasty Warriors_, the movie.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Mar 16, 2007)

Ampolitor said:
			
		

> To me its amazing how many negative comment there are about the movies.



Most of the complaints I've seen about 300 fall into one of two camps.  The first is the 'reading to much into it' camp, where they claim they're pushing a political message about Iraq/Iran. (Although who's playing WHICH side depends on who you ask, I've seen it both ways) 

The other camp tends to be the 'That's not realistic!' camp, which tends to be based around the idea that a movie based around a historic event should be made to look/follow that event as close as possible. I see this one more around the historians, armchair or otherwise.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 16, 2007)

Note: The History Channel has been running a show on the events, try to check it out, it is rather interesting.


----------



## John Crichton (Mar 16, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> Most of the complaints I've seen about 300 fall into one of two camps.  The first is the 'reading to much into it' camp, where they claim they're pushing a political message about Iraq/Iran. (Although who's playing WHICH side depends on who you ask, I've seen it both ways)
> 
> The other camp tends to be the 'That's not realistic!' camp, which tends to be based around the idea that a movie based around a historic event should be made to look/follow that event as close as possible. I see this one more around the historians, armchair or otherwise.



 And both fall into the "Just didn't get it" camp.


----------



## TracerBullet42 (Mar 16, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> And both fall into the "Just didn't get it" camp.



Well, I gave it a 2.  I really was just sort of bored throughout it.  It was gloriously violent, and that pretty much bores me.

If that means that I "didn't get it," so be it.  I was still bored.


----------



## John Crichton (Mar 17, 2007)

TracerBullet42 said:
			
		

> Well, I gave it a 2.  I really was just sort of bored throughout it.  It was gloriously violent, and that pretty much bores me.
> 
> If that means that I "didn't get it," so be it.  I was still bored.



 If the movie wasn't for you, it wasn't for you.

Bummer that you didn't dig it.  Great entertainment.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Mar 17, 2007)

TracerBullet42 said:
			
		

> Well, I gave it a 2.  I really was just sort of bored throughout it.  It was gloriously violent, and that pretty much bores me.



Tracer, I have to wonder what you were expecting when you went to see it. All the trailers and hype pretty much emphasized that it was gloriously violent... :\


----------



## TracerBullet42 (Mar 17, 2007)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Tracer, I have to wonder what you were expecting when you went to see it. All the trailers and hype pretty much emphasized that it was gloriously violent... :\



I really wasn't expecting much of anything.  Perhaps a more engaging story would've helped.  It just never "grabbed" me.

Although I thought the elephant-monsters falling over the cliff looked pretty awesome.  

I'm not trying to argue with anyone.  That's great that so many people loved it.  I'm just trying to help the poll reflect that it's not for everyone.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 17, 2007)

I'll give it an 8 because Frank Miller forgot one of the rules of literature and cinema.... "It's better to show then it is to tell."   The narrator killed several scenes which would have been amazing if not narratorated.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 17, 2007)

Now that I've seen it a third time, I wish I could drop my rating from 8 to 7. 

The Queen Gorgo subplot seems increasingly superfluous and distracting with repeated viewing. 

(and it was the only part of the film that my wife really had a problem with)


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Mar 18, 2007)

Insight said:
			
		

> The horribly anachonistic view of Greeks as one people is another huge problem.  And since when did the ancient peoples care about freedom?  Concepts such as nationalism and universal freedom did not exist until well after the Renaissance.



 I have mentioned this elsewhere, but you can bring that complaint up with the writers of the era (a not-so-Renaissance 2,500 years ago) who specifically wrote about about Greek people's freedom against Persian tyranny. A professor of ancient greece wrote of the movie _300_:

"_If critics think that 300 reduces and simplifies the meaning of Thermopylae into freedom versus tyranny, they should reread carefully ancient accounts and then blame Herodotus, Plutarch, and Diodorus -- who long ago boasted that Greek freedom was on trial against Persian autocracy, free men in superior fashion dying for their liberty, their enslaved enemies being whipped to enslave others._"


----------



## Mallus (Mar 18, 2007)

I gave it a "4".

It was amusing, or at least as amusing as an action movie shot in relentless slow-motion can can be... I wanted to like it more, but I'm afraid I didn't really start to enjoy the film until I viewed it as a Soul Calibur  match... one of the Spartans so had the classic Sophitia/Lizardman move, and I'm sure I saw a cameo by Voldo...

I found a lot of it dull. Too much shouting and nonsense dressed up as a defense  of virtue. Note to self: the Athenians and the Persians weren't the only ones who liked teh gay... I'm sorry to say the film's unwavering determination to portray the Spartan's as totally _straight_ kinda bothered me... why did they need to stress this? It's okay that they're baby killers, but God help them if they like it up the a...

This was the _gayest_ homophobic movie I've ever seen.

Eh... I expected more...


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Mar 18, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> This was the _gayest_ homophobic movie I've ever seen.



I've rarely seen anti-pederasty equated with anti-homosexuality, except by, well, anti-homosexuals.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 18, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> This was the _gayest_ homophobic movie I've ever seen.
> 
> Eh... I expected more...




I didn't see this as being homophobic, instead I saw this movie as being an act of denial of the movie's homosexality by it acting as if it were overly masculine.  If Freud wasn't dead and burried (or completely full of it) he would have had a field day with this film..


----------



## Mallus (Mar 18, 2007)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> I've rarely seen anti-pederasty equated with anti-homosexuality, except by, well, anti-homosexuals.



I'm not sure what you mean by this...

The movie made it a point to portray Xerxes as a hyper-effeminate Goa'uld, and mention that other Greeks were "boy-lovers", unlike, say, the proud men of Sparta, who were like a well-oiled, mostly naked branch of the Promise Keepers...

The script didn't have to go there... but it did... and I can't help but find that telling.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 18, 2007)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> I didn't see this as being homophobic, instead I saw this movie as being an act of denial of the movie's homosexality by it acting as if it were overly masculine.



What about the portrayal of the villain as a gay freak, and the ultimately unworthy gay-ish "allies" of the Spartans did you find un-homophobic?

Mind you, none of this really bothered me. My problem with the film was that it was far too dull for an action film. Stop with the slo-mo, I say.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Mar 18, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you mean by this...
> 
> The movie made it a point to portray Xerxes as a hyper-effeminate Goa'uld...



Androgenous is not the same as hyper-effeminate. I saw it as the movie showing him as androgenous.







			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> ..., and mention that other Greeks were "boy-lovers"...



Which is pederasty.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 18, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> What about the portrayal of the villain as a gay freak, and the ultimately unworthy gay-ish "allies" of the Spartans did you find un-homophobic?




I didn't see him as being gay, I only saw him as being a freak with a deformity fetish.  The fact that Xerxes' harem consisted of deformed women instead entirely of deformed men, saids that he at least not sexually repulsed by the female form.  

Honestly, what made him gay?  Was it the eyeliner he wore like a eqyptian pharoh? Was it the leather thong he wore like the Spartans who opposed him?  Or was it the jewelery he wore to show his godly and kingly status?  Was it the combination of his  catlike grace and his seductive command of language* which he used to twist the hearts of men to coerse them to join his cause?  

If anything, I think he was ment to give off an "exotic and eccentric feel"  which unfortunately often wrongly equates to one being effemminate (or gay) by most people's standards.


*Of course, like any ruler (who views himself a diety) when his words fail, then he uses fear, bribes and or violence to get his way.


----------



## Felon (Mar 18, 2007)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> Having the physically inferior but politically/intellectually powerful villian is a common meme in Sword & _X_ (Sandal/Shield/Sorcery) type movies. Conan's trickiest foes were often wizards, not other warriors, for example.



See, Commodus didn't display a great deal of brains. Many opportunities to do so were passed up. Remember this exchange:

Commodus: "I love the people and I shall embrace them."

Senator: "Tell me, my king, have you ever embraced someone with the plague?"

Commodus: "OK, I can't think of a good comeback, so I'm just going to threaten to have you killed if you give me any more back-talk."


OK, I paraphrased, but that was the gyst of it, was it not? Then later on, how does uncover the plot against him? He stumbles across his nephew playing Maximus. He was selfish and ambitious, but no mastermind was he.


----------



## Seonaid (Mar 18, 2007)

I gave _300_ a 10. It was the best movie I have ever seen. Granted, I have a horrendous memory, so that's possibly not saying much. However, I am a sucker for battle scenes. I found myself wishing for more mass combat in LotR every time they "strayed" to the plot (and I thought LotR, in book and movie form, was fantastic). I was very disappointed with LW&W (though I should have expected to be, seeing as it was billed as a kids' movie). I am easily amused and placated by large-scale battles, and _300_ did it for me. Within the first, oh, 10 minutes or so, I knew I had to see it again. IMAX, here I come!

I was surprised, however, to discover that the plot didn't bother me as much as I thought it would. I went into it thinking, "I hope there isn't too much talking and sex!" and came out thinking, "Huh. The talking was fairly well done. It nicely split up the battle scenes." The sex, on the other hand, I am conflicted about. It was well done, and I understand the need, but I still felt it was unnecessary. Yes, that's conflicting, but it's the truth.

Was it a perfect film? Of course not. But it was damn good and deserves every centimeter of the 10 I gave it.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Mar 18, 2007)

*300!*

I gave it a 10 as well.

It was a living comic book ... glorious, campy, and just plain fun.

-Samir


----------



## Sir Brennen (Mar 18, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> OK, I paraphrased, but that was the gyst of it, was it not? Then later on, how does uncover the plot against him? He stumbles across his nephew playing Maximus. He was selfish and ambitious, but no mastermind was he.



Read the slash in my statement as "and/or" and my point still stands. Commodus may not have been a genius, but he was politically powerful. Gladiator was a little more subtle,  but  300 basically uses the same devices, but brings to it the comic book/mythological sensibilities which  tend to exaggerate the perfection/virtuousness of the heroes and the "otherness" of the villains.


----------



## Particle_Man (Mar 18, 2007)

I gave it a 7.  I thought the comments by the Spartans that could be interpreted as homophobic (I won't go into whether they were or not at this point) were unnecessary to the point of the film, which was to see them kill a lot of enemies in entertainingly visceral ways.  I also thought the senate sub-plot could have been cut entirely, as that also took screen time away from the point of the film.  Frankly, cut out the Oracle scene too.  The ephors saying "the gods don't want war on holy days" followed by a bribe is about all we need on why only 300 Spartans are marching off.

I wanted less needless talk, less needless sub-plots, more ACTION!  "FOR SPARTA!" and the various ancient quips like "We will fight in the shade" is about all I want to hear these guys say.

For what it is worth, Miller's comic did have the oracle scene (but not the visual of the Oracle being licked), but did not have a Gorgo-Theron Subplot (Gorgo is there to say "Spartan! Come back with your shield or on it!" but that's about it).  And while Miller did have the "boy-loving Athenians" line, that was it for the comments that could be interpreted as homophobic.  So the rest comes from the movie.

The graphic novel also had a great "Spartan training via pushups" scene that the movie could have included instead of that other stuff I wanted them to cut.  Sigh.

That said, it was still a fun movie.  It just could have been better, in my eyes.


----------



## Brogarn (Mar 19, 2007)

I loved it. The rousing speech at the end left me with way too much testosterone and I needed a bad guy to kill, but other than that, loved it.

Someone above mentioned the narration, but I rather liked it. It kept reminding you that this was a version of the story laid out by the storyteller rather than a factual recount of the fight. Turning Xerxes into an effeminate freak of nature to make him into a wuss and ratchet down the fear of the guy. Turning the traitor into a mishapen, deformed, spiritually corrupt wannabe. It was all part of the manipulation to get the Greeks off their ass to fight back the Persians. And the narration reminded you of this manipulation. What we saw was the visualization of the storyteller's version of the "facts". Good stuff in my opinion.


----------



## werk (Mar 19, 2007)

I gave it an 8. High 8.

Great, fun movie, and an amazing piece of art.

I mark it down for the melodrama, too much cheese for me...very breaveheart at some points.  It was a little too simple, and by the end began to be repetitious.  My wife and friends agree that the movie could have actually been helped by a little less story and more action...because the action was so amazing, so inspiring and riveting, why give it anything to completely overshadow?

As for the music critique, I thought the music was spot on.  There was the typical operatic choirs and classical orchestrations that made your hair stand up and only cha-gung cha-gung metal chords in two places that I noticed and both fit really well IMNSHO.


The sepia filter towards the end, when they were close up on Leonidas' eyes, was a little watery and squirmy and a couple of his echo-y proclamations were a little too echo-y and over-produced in IMAX...other than that I really liked the feel and production of this film very much.  Much better than Sin City.  

The IMAX was sold out (preorder online) when we went and we got great seats because we got in line 45 mins before start.  I would hate to spend that much money and sit in the first row in the corner.


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 19, 2007)

Insight said:
			
		

> The horribly anachonistic view of Greeks as one people is another huge problem.  And since when did the ancient peoples care about freedom?  Concepts such as nationalism and universal freedom did not exist until well after the Renaissance.




Point 1: Regarding, "FOR SPARTA!" etc, etc . . . they were patriotic!  I've seen similar outbursts amongst some of my patriotic peers here in the US.

Point 2: Uh, the movie DIDN'T portray the Greeks as a single united people.  In fact, part of the whole point that Sparta was alone in the battle, with a few Acadians along for the ride . . . and they were portrayed quite differently from the Spartans.

Point 3: This is a adventure movie based on a comic book based on a myth based on a distant historical event, and was portrayed in high mythic style.  And you're complaining about historical inaccuracy??  Give me a break!


----------



## Particle_Man (Mar 19, 2007)

Dire Bare said:
			
		

> Point 3: This is a adventure movie based on a comic book *based on another movie* based on a myth based on a distant historical event, and was portrayed in high mythic style.  And you're complaining about historical inaccuracy??  Give me a break!




Fixed it for you.


----------



## sckeener (Mar 19, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> The movie made it a point to portray Xerxes as a hyper-effeminate Goa'uld, and mention that other Greeks were "boy-lovers", unlike, say, the proud men of Sparta, who were like a well-oiled, mostly naked branch of the Promise Keepers...
> 
> The script didn't have to go there... but it did... and I can't help but find that telling.




(I still haven't seen it.)

that is very depressing.  

I remember my western civ class with Professor Holt at the University of Houston talking about Sparta.   Some of the more sensational bits were the men and women were separated.  Wives on their wedding night had their hair cut in a boyish fashion and put on boyish clothes so as to make the wedding night easier.  Husbands weren't supposed to spend time with their wives.  They had to sneak away to do it and if they were caught they were beaten (for getting caught.)  Sex with other men in your group was ok because it was a bonding team building exercise .

That said women had more rights under sparta than elsewhere in the greek cities.  Equal rights in divorce and the right to have other lovers besides their husbands.  The women's goal was to produce tons of kids.  If their husband was producing duds, then they could take other lovers.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 19, 2007)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Which is pederasty.



Which is something the _Spartans_ institutionalized in their military training program for young boys...


----------



## Rystil Arden (Mar 19, 2007)

sckeener said:
			
		

> (I still haven't seen it.)
> 
> that is very depressing.
> 
> ...



 This is more-or-less correct and I was going to post something to the same effect when I got the chance.  Women masquerading as boys so the men would have an easier time doing them?  True.  Seeing wives made difficult and usually illegal to give it that element of danger and make it seem more appealing?  Also true.  My only quibble would be that the Spartiate did not want to mass-produce _too_ many babies because they relied on the fact that the size of the Spartiate maintained more-or-less constant when it came to the fact that each member was given a land-grant that was equiportioned, almost communist actually (and also reminiscent of communism, they ate their meals communally with their meal-buddies, and getting extra food was illegal, though there was never enough, which encouraged them to learn how to sneak the rest of it) so if they kept expanding in number, everyone's land grant would shrink to an untenably small amount.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 19, 2007)

sckeener said:
			
		

> that is very depressing.



Like I said before, it was annoying. I'll wager that if the film treated Spartan sexual mores just a little more honestly, the film's box office numbers would be _much_ lower...

It's fine to paint the bad guys (and weak allies) as pederasts and un-masculine deviants, because, you know, they're _bad_. But the good guys have to be straight men with hot wives. Despite their tendency to strut into battle half-naked and hold each others hands when they died.

I'll reiterate, the filmmakers didn't have to go there, and the fact that they did introduced a little ugly prejudice into what otherwise would have a been a kinda-fine, ahistorical gore-fest.


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 20, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> What about the portrayal of the villain as a gay freak, and the ultimately unworthy gay-ish "allies" of the Spartans did you find un-homophobic?




Hmmm, while watching the movie, and afterwards, I never thought that the filmmakers added a homophobic element to the movie.

The bad-guy Persians were very effeminate and debauched, but were not actually portrayed as gay, for good or bad.  I think too many people in our society equate effeminate traits with gay men, but it doesn't hold up to reality.

I have a pal who is VERY effeminate, and VERY straight . . . but everyone DOES assume he is gay after meeting him the first time.  His brother is this EXTREMELY macho, buff cowboy who IS gay . . . and noone who doesn't know him well believes that.  These two guys I know aren't alone in not conforming to gay stereotypes.

I strongly believe that American gay stereotypes are just that, false stereotypes.  And I think a lot of folks are reading these stereotypes into the movie when they just aren't there.  I have a gay pal going to see the movie next weekend, I'll have to ask his opinion after he sees the film.

Also, as pointed out before, the Spartans tease their Athenian rivals for being PEDERASTS and do not tease them for being GAY.  Very big difference.

While in historically it may be true that both Athenians and Spartans condoned homosexuality and pederasty, the movie doesn't go there.  And the movie doesn't go there simply because American audiences, as a whole, are not ready for that level of candor.

It IS historically inaccurate for the Spartans to deride the Athenians for being "boy-lovers" when that was also a part of their own culture.  But this is not, and was never intended to be, a historically accurate movie.

When people see anti-gay or homophobic themes in this movie, I just think they are looking for something to be offended about that really isn't even there.

I will have to ask some of my gay friends what they think of all of this, but most of them are going simply to see all the half-naked ripped Spartans!!!


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 20, 2007)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Fixed it for you.




Heh, thanks for the fix!  I didn't know Frank Miller's comic was based on an earlier film.  Heck, I haven't even had a chance to read the comic yet!  What film is it based on?

Although, really, this just further proves my point.  It's a movie based on a comic based on a movie based on a myth based on history.  Quite a bit removed from a "historical drama" type of film!


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Mar 20, 2007)

Dire Bare said:
			
		

> While in historically it may be true that both Athenians and Spartans condoned homosexuality and pederasty, the movie doesn't go there.  And the movie doesn't go there simply because American audiences, as a whole, are not ready for that level of candor.



There was a distinct difference between Spartan pederasty from how the rest of ancient Greece practiced it. Most accounts from the period describe the Spartan method it as a chaste sort, no sexual contact involved. Of course Athenians joked that the relatively stuck-up Spartans weren't really that chaste at all, and in fact did all sorts of debauched things in private. Most historians today chalk that up as trash talk from their rivalry.

And to the matter of Spartan wives being teh hawtness, well, there is a particularly famous story about one Spartan woman so beautiful she set off a major war.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Mar 20, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you mean by this...
> 
> The movie made it a point to portray Xerxes as a hyper-effeminate Goa'uld, and mention that other Greeks were "boy-lovers", unlike, say, the proud men of Sparta, who were like a well-oiled, mostly naked branch of the Promise Keepers...
> 
> The script didn't have to go there... but it did... and I can't help but find that telling.




LOL, they made one joke about greeks being boy-lovers, and you think they whole film was about gay bashing?


----------



## Particle_Man (Mar 20, 2007)

Dire Bare said:
			
		

> Heh, thanks for the fix!  I didn't know Frank Miller's comic was based on an earlier film.  Heck, I haven't even had a chance to read the comic yet!  What film is it based on?




The 300 Spartans (1962), which Miller remembered seeing as a kid, apparently.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055719/


----------



## Sir Brennen (Mar 20, 2007)

Dire Bare said:
			
		

> Heh, thanks for the fix!  I didn't know Frank Miller's comic was based on an earlier film.  Heck, I haven't even had a chance to read the comic yet!  What film is it based on?
> 
> Although, really, this just further proves my point.  It's a movie based on a comic based on a movie based on a myth based on history.  Quite a bit removed from a "historical drama" type of film!



Yeah, but I think Miller's comic was inspired by him seeing that movie, it wasn't neccessarily based on the movie. I think he also went back to the source material for his stylized retelling of the tale.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Mar 20, 2007)

A solid 8.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> Which is something the Spartans institutionalized in their military training program for young boys...




Because _300_ was all about historical accuracy?


----------



## sckeener (Mar 20, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> This is more-or-less correct and I was going to post something to the same effect when I got the chance.




Dang...I took that class back in 1995, so I'm just glad I remembered all I did.  Professor Holt was a blast though....he was the kind of teacher that you wanted to sit in on even when you weren't in his classes.  

It was in his class that I came to admire Alcibiades.  I wish I had Alcibiades' diplomacy knack.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 20, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Because _300_ was all about historical accuracy?



Of course not. That was never my point.

Someone (Eric?) was claiming that the Spartans were depicted as being anti-pederast, not anti-gay. I merely brought up the fact that this is slightly ironical.

Imagine a WWII film set in a Europe in which the German government was the only one which wasn't anti-Semitic... wouldn't that seem a little, you know, strange?

(Note my canny avoidance of Godwin's Law...)


----------



## Mallus (Mar 20, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> LOL, they made one joke about greeks being boy-lovers, and you think they whole film was about gay bashing?



LOL back at you... I mention that one small element of the film stood out like a sore --insert roughly cylindrical appendage of your choice here-- and you somehow read that as 'it's all about gay bashing', a term I don't recall using...

I thought the whole film was about slow-motion CGI action scenes, which was my central complaint.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 20, 2007)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Most accounts from the period describe the Spartan method it as a chaste sort, no sexual contact involved.



That's debatable. Check out these other articles...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agoge

The consensus seems pretty clear that a sexual element was present. Enough of one to land any would-be modern day practitioner in jail...


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Mar 20, 2007)

It is actually not debatable. _*Most*_ (not all) accounts _of the era_ do depict it as a chaste sort. How _most_ historians _today_ seek to interpret it is another issue.

*Most* (not all) accounts _of the era_ do agree there was an erotic or emotional element, as to whether there was commonly encouraged sexual contact *most* (not all) accounts _of the era_ assert that it was strongly looked down on and discouraged... unlike the rest of Greece. Which puts some context to the derisive comment by Leonidas on the pederasty of Athens.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 20, 2007)

Dire Bare said:
			
		

> Also, as pointed out before, the Spartans tease their Athenian rivals for being PEDERASTS and do not tease them for being GAY.  Very big difference.



And yet even more ironic...



> While in historically it may be true that both Athenians and Spartans condoned homosexuality and pederasty, the movie doesn't go there.




The movie doesn't 'go there' with regards to our heroes, the hot-wife-banging Spartans (there's a epithet Homer missed). But it does for their boy-loving allies and Xerxes Stardust...



> And the movie doesn't go there simply because American audiences, as a whole, are not ready for that level of candor.



The filmmakers obviously felt that American audiences where ready for protagonists that practiced infanticide. But homosexual practices, or God-help us, body-piercing and androgyny, that's the mark of villainy.

See why this sticks in my craw just a bit? And I'm a happily-married straight man... 



> When people see anti-gay or homophobic themes in this movie, I just think they are looking for something to be offended about that really isn't even there.




Normally, I'd agree with that, but not in this case. 



> ...but most of them are going simply to see all the half-naked ripped Spartans!!!



That's part of what makes the movie so baffling... it's got a streak of homoeroticism as wide as the Mississippi if it were gay, yet also contains these small yet unmistakable homophobic gestures.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 20, 2007)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> It is actually not debatable.



The wikipedia articles, including the one *you* linked to, suggest otherwise. Note that one reads 'most' ancient sources and another 'some'.

And if you don't think wikipedia is accurate enough, I'd suggest not citing it yourself...



> _*Most*_ (not all) accounts _of the era_ do depict it as a chaste sort. How _most_ historians _today_ seek to interpret it is another issue.



You'll have to lend me your time machine someday. I bet it'd clear this disagreement up in a flash...



> *Most* (not all) accounts _of the era_ do agree there was an erotic or emotional element



And how do you think that would play with modern American audiences?

I'll say it again: the film didn't need to make any reference to the sexual proclivities of any of the ancient civilizations peoples... but it did, just not the protagonists. Wait, except for the banging their hots wives part...


----------



## Rystil Arden (Mar 20, 2007)

sckeener said:
			
		

> Dang...I took that class back in 1995, so I'm just glad I remembered all I did.  Professor Holt was a blast though....he was the kind of teacher that you wanted to sit in on even when you weren't in his classes.
> 
> It was in his class that I came to admire Alcibiades.  I wish I had Alcibiades' diplomacy knack.



 Sounds like we took a very similar class then--I came out of mine with much admiration for Alcibiades and is crazy diplomacy skills as well!


----------



## The Human Target (Mar 21, 2007)

4 out of 10.

I got antsy 45 minutes in and keep looking at my watch.

Comic books are not movie scripts, and shouldn't be treated a such.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Mar 21, 2007)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> It is actually not debatable. _*Most*_ (not all) accounts _of the era_ do depict it as a chaste sort. How _most_ historians _today_ seek to interpret it is another issue.
> 
> *Most* (not all) accounts _of the era_ do agree there was an erotic or emotional element, as to whether there was commonly encouraged sexual contact *most* (not all) accounts _of the era_ assert that it was strongly looked down on and discouraged... unlike the rest of Greece. Which puts some context to the derisive comment by Leonidas on the pederasty of Athens.



 I think you'll find that when it comes to ancient cultures for which we have few primary sources, the beliefs of most modern historians have a one-to-one correlation with the primary sources and direct evidence from archaeology, since that's the only way that we have of understanding those cultures.  Having read the primary sources myself and spoken with historians who have done so in the original Greek, I find your opinion that it is 'not debatable' perplexing.  It is quite debatable, as you've proved by debating it!


----------



## Brogarn (Mar 21, 2007)

I think some people are WAY overanalyzing this movie. I guess it passes the time, but I just don't see the point. I took it at face value and enjoyed the hell out of it.


----------



## John Crichton (Mar 21, 2007)

Brogarn said:
			
		

> I think some people are WAY overanalyzing this movie. I guess it passes the time, but I just don't see the point. I took it at face value and enjoyed the hell out of it.



 Spot on, man.

Saw it again last night in IMAX.  Still rocked.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 21, 2007)

The Human Target said:
			
		

> 4 out of 10.
> 
> I got antsy 45 minutes in and keep looking at my watch.
> 
> Comic books are not movie scripts, and shouldn't be treated a such.




Yeah because it sure fell flat with the public...oh wait!


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Mar 21, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Someone (Eric?) was claiming that the Spartans were depicted as being anti-pederast, not anti-gay. I merely brought up the fact that this is slightly ironical.




Meh.  I personally don't believe the film were saying anything about pederasty, homosexuality, or ancient Greek culture.

I think it was saying, "Hi, I'm a film with lots of shield-bashing.  Enjoy me!"


----------



## Sir Brennen (Mar 21, 2007)

Just a movie? *JUST* a movie?!?

All of you obviously don't realize that beneath the surface, _300_ is really a model *entreprenurial business strategy*.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Mar 21, 2007)

Brogarn said:
			
		

> I think some people are WAY overanalyzing this movie. I guess it passes the time, but I just don't see the point. I took it at face value and enjoyed the hell out of it.



 I've tried to be careful not to analyse the movie at all, since I haven't seen it--I'm only responding to support valid historical information about Sparta and criticise faulty information.  

That said, if the movie really does have the Spartans making fun of their Greek allies for homosexuality _or_ pederasty it really would be ridiculous--like if a movie showed Joseph Stalin talking to Churchill and Roosevelt during World War II and laughing at them "You pansies!  You still have Communist Parties in your countries--Communism is evil and you should just wipe them out!  Be more like the Soviet Union" and then he goes home to his completely capitalistic Soviet Union.  If the movie was mostly about Soviets killing Germans, it probably wouldn't matter to enjoyment of the movie for most, but it would be a serious WTF moment.  The same is true here.


----------



## IcyCool (Mar 21, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> That said, if the movie really does have the Spartans making fun of their Greek allies for homosexuality _or_ pederasty it really would be ridiculous--like if a movie showed Joseph Stalin talking to Churchill and Roosevelt during World War II and laughing at them "You pansies!  You still have Communist Parties in your countries--Communism is evil and you should just wipe them out!  Be more like the Soviet Union" and then he goes home to his completely capitalistic Soviet Union.  If the movie was mostly about Soviets killing Germans, it probably wouldn't matter to enjoyment of the movie for most, but it would be a serious WTF moment.  The same is true here.




The movie is 99.999999999% about the battle.  There is ONE LINE, where Leonidas refers to the Athenians as "boy-loving" in his retort to the Persian emissary:



			
				300 said:
			
		

> *Persian messenger:* All the God-King Xerxes requires is this: a simple offering of earth and water. A token of Sparta's submission to the will of Xerxes.
> 
> *Leonidas:* Submission...Well that's a bit of a problem. See rumor has it that the ATHENIANS have already turned you down. And if those artists and boy-lovers have that kind of nerve...
> 
> ...




If that one line will destroy your suspension of disbelief, you shouldn't waste your cash on the movie (that line and the "war rhino" were the worst offenders, to me.  But the "war rhino" scene was plenty cool ).

However, it doesn't grate on me at all, as I went to the movie to see a bunch of "spartans" slaughtering "persians" in various neat battle sequences.  And, barring a couple of things, the history was "close enough" for me to maintain my suspension of disbelief.  If I want a healthy dose of history, I'll research it, read it, or watch a reputable show about it.

I, for one, liked the movie quite a bit, and will probably be seeing it again this weekend.


----------



## Felon (Mar 21, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> The movie made it a point to portray Xerxes as a hyper-effeminate Goa'uld.





			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> What about the portrayal of the villain as a gay freak, and the ultimately unworthy gay-ish "allies" of the Spartans did you find un-homophobic?



How were the villain and these allies portrayed as "gay-ish"?

You keep claiming this without delivering the particulars.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 22, 2007)

Enjoyable film, entirely forgettable.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Mar 22, 2007)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> The movie is 99.999999999% about the battle.  There is ONE LINE, where Leonidas refers to the Athenians as "boy-loving" in his retort to the Persian emissary:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 I think it would probably make me scratch my head if they had one scene in a movie about the Third Reich where Hitler goes to his friend Chaim's son's Bar Mitzvah and makes a snide comment about how anti-semitic the Allies were, to continue the analogy made by someone else earlier.  

But I think the better analogy would be a movie about World War II where the Nazi bad guys were Jews (or a Civil War movie where the southerners were Blacks)--the point is that it is weird that the movie went out of its way to flip-flop what was actually true of the period so that the heroes weren't gay and everyone else was.  

Remove that line and keep the Spartans hetero and I see no problem at all, just like if you made a World War II movie and removed all references to Jews, or a Civil War movie without reference to race.  Actually, I don't really have a problem with keeping the line in there either, since I don't have a problem with the fact that the movie was being homophobic (if it was).  I just saw people here who were arguing correctly that the movie went out of its way to do something weird and ahistorical in a move that seems almost-certainly intentionally-homophobic, so I'm lending them the support of my historical study of the period against the "Spartans were totally hetero in real life" crowd.


----------



## The Human Target (Mar 22, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Yeah because it sure fell flat with the public...oh wait!




Being good and being popular have never and will never be exactly the same thing. 

300 is as good a movie as The Fast and the Furious.

As in, not at all.


----------



## shilsen (Mar 22, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I've tried to be careful not to analyse the movie at all, since I haven't seen it--I'm only responding to support valid historical information about Sparta and criticise faulty information.
> 
> That said, if the movie really does have the Spartans making fun of their Greek allies for homosexuality _or_ pederasty it really would be ridiculous--like if a movie showed Joseph Stalin talking to Churchill and Roosevelt during World War II and laughing at them "You pansies!  You still have Communist Parties in your countries--Communism is evil and you should just wipe them out!  Be more like the Soviet Union" and then he goes home to his completely capitalistic Soviet Union.  If the movie was mostly about Soviets killing Germans, it probably wouldn't matter to enjoyment of the movie for most, but it would be a serious WTF moment.  The same is true here.



 The funny thing is that it would be historically accurate (for what that's worth, which, in this case, isn't much), unlike your example or Mallus'. IIRC, during the Peloponnesian Wars, both Athens and Sparta used accusations of homosexuality and pederasty to criticize the other city-state, even though they practiced it themselves.


----------



## Lewis526 (Mar 22, 2007)

I have a way to predict whether you'll like this movie.  Ask yourself the following question: "Do I read history books or comic books?"

If you read history books, you'll go home disappointed and angry that the movie failed you in so many ways.  The movie was all about the battle, but almost everything about the actual fighting is historically inaccurate, starting with the Spartans' glaring lack of armor on their bodies, and ending with the total lack of phalanx tactics.  The first ten seconds of the battle are accurate, the rest is utter hogwash.  To add insult to injury, Leonidas lectures another character about how Spartan hoplites "fight as one" only moments (in the movie) before their formation completely breaks down into a chaotic free-for-all of one-on-one duelling.  300 Greeks could never have held that position fighting the way the movie shows them fighting.

If you read comic books, you'll be pleased as punch.  There's more eye-candy in it than I've seen in a long time.

Finally, to those who say it had "homophobic" overtones: how do you explain the way the camera dallied so lovingly on all the sweaty male body-builders' torsos?  I kept hoping to see some sexy shots of Spartan women, but all I got were sexy shots of Spartan men.  Even in the love scene between Leonidas and his queen, you saw more of his body than of hers.

I'm more the history type, so I gave it a 2/10.  Not bad enough to walk out of, but I want my $8 back.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Mar 22, 2007)

shilsen said:
			
		

> The funny thing is that it would be historically accurate (for what that's worth, which, in this case, isn't much), unlike your example or Mallus'. IIRC, during the Peloponnesian Wars, both Athens and Sparta used accusations of homosexuality and pederasty to criticize the other city-state, even though they practiced it themselves.



 From memory, it was only the Athenians saying that about the Spartans (since the Spartans through their rather unusual and idiosyncratic society wound up practising institutional homosexuality and pederasty far more often than the Athenians--to 'do it Spartan style' was a euphemism for homosexuality in the Greek world).  The Spartans had hosts of other insults they would make about the Athenians and other Greeks, but I don't recall Spartan sources calling out Athenians on that count.  

And even if so, the inherent hypocrisy would be an interesting point if it weren't for the fact that they made the Spartan heroes completely heterosexual.


----------



## The Human Target (Mar 22, 2007)

Lewis526 said:
			
		

> I have a way to predict whether you'll like this movie.  Ask yourself the following question: "Do I read history books or comic books?"
> 
> If you read history books, you'll go home disappointed and angry that the movie failed you in so many ways.  The movie was all about the battle, but almost everything about the actual fighting is historically inaccurate, starting with the Spartans' glaring lack of armor on their bodies, and ending with the total lack of phalanx tactics.  The first ten seconds of the battle are accurate, the rest is utter hogwash.  To add insult to injury, Leonidas lectures another character about how Spartan hoplites "fight as one" only moments (in the movie) before their formation completely breaks down into a chaotic free-for-all of one-on-one duelling.  300 Greeks could never have held that position fighting the way the movie shows them fighting.
> 
> ...




I actually read comics and still didn't like it.


----------



## shilsen (Mar 22, 2007)

Lewis526 said:
			
		

> I have a way to predict whether you'll like this movie.  Ask yourself the following question: "Do I read history books or comic books?"




I read history books and have probably read ten comics in the last ten years, but I quite enjoyed it. A better predictor, IMO, is whether one can go into the movie with no expectation of historical accuracy or not.


----------



## danzig138 (Mar 22, 2007)

shilsen said:
			
		

> I read history books and have probably read ten comics in the last ten years, but I quite enjoyed it. A better predictor, IMO, is whether one can go into the movie with no expectation of historical accuracy or not.




That's probably a better predictor, yes. I like comics, and I had no expetations of historical accuracy. I still found the movie incredibly dull, and was bored out of my skull by the time it was over. I'm pretty sure my eyes are still trying to recover from the use of the sloooooowwww mooooottttioooooonnnn. . . . 

It reminded me of Gladiator. I didn't care for that one either. The only thing this movie had going for it was a couple of pretty good comic book splash page shots. 

I worry that the same guy is apparently the guy making Watchmen.

In terms of Frank Miller projects, Sin City was so much better, I can't even describe how much better it was. Marv coming in and kicking the crap out of Persian and Spartan alike would've been way cool.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Mar 22, 2007)

Lewis526 said:
			
		

> I have a way to predict whether you'll like this movie.  Ask yourself the following question: "Do I read history books or comic books?"



Because everyone knows those two are mutually exclusive   

As shilsen said, it's more a matter of expectations. Given all the hype, the look, the feel, the degreee of stylized imagery abundantly apparent in the advertising, I'm surprised that anyone  walks in thinking 300 is going to be a realistic, let alone accurate, depiction of historical events.


----------



## shilsen (Mar 22, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> From memory, it was only the Athenians saying that about the Spartans (since the Spartans through their rather unusual and idiosyncratic society wound up practising institutional homosexuality and pederasty far more often than the Athenians--to 'do it Spartan style' was a euphemism for homosexuality in the Greek world).  The Spartans had hosts of other insults they would make about the Athenians and other Greeks, but I don't recall Spartan sources calling out Athenians on that count.




I'm pretty sure you're right. I was misremembering it. Thanks for the correction.


----------



## David Howery (Mar 22, 2007)

Finally saw this a couple nights ago.  Enjoyable popcorn flick.  But...

with the state of American education these days, I have to wonder how many people in the audience saw that last scene and went "What?  Plataea?  Where? Huh?  What's that all about?".....


----------



## shilsen (Mar 22, 2007)

David Howery said:
			
		

> with the state of American education these days, I have to wonder how many people in the audience saw that last scene and went "What?  Plataea?  Where? Huh?  What's that all about?".....




I don't think knowing about Plataea is relevant to understanding the last scene. It was quite clearly narrated that a large Greek army led by the Spartans was facing the Persians. That's all one needs to understand what's going on.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 22, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> How were the villain and these allies portrayed as "gay-ish"?



Xerxes was a androgynous fetish giant, wearing plenty of makeup, in stark contract to the bearded, oh-so-manly Spartans, and the Spartans deride a group of their allies as boy-lovers at one point.



> You keep claiming this without delivering the particulars.



I have, there just isn't _much_ of it in the film. But what is there really stood out, particularly given the context. It's a pretty undeniably homoerotic film --which both is and isn't odd for male-targeted entertainment-- which also distances itself from any overt recognition of its protagonists more, umm, _bent_ activities.

Let me sink to analogy: imagine a film about a group of happy mixed-raced friends, in which the Caucasian main character uses the n-word a few times, and not in the positive brothers-in-hip-hop way. Would that make the film 'racist'? Probably not in and of itself. But it would make some people in the audience ask what was going on...


----------



## Dykstrav (Mar 24, 2007)

sckeener said:
			
		

> I haven't seen it yet and now you've got me worried about seeing it.  I was greatly disappointed in Gladiator.




Don't waste your time or money on this flop. It was terrible.

The characters were very one-dimensional, wherein the complex sociopolitical nature of the Greco-Persian wars was reduced to sexual drive. All the villains were either terribly deformed cowards that couldn't get laid or androgynous borderline transvestites. They are supposed to stand in stark contrast to the "masculine" Spartans, who are all hairless, oily men running around in nothing but their red cloaks and leather codpieces. If you dig the idea of seeing oily Greek meen fighting transvestites, this movie is for you. Otherwise, pass it over.

I glossed over the glaring historical innacuracies (especially the omission of the entire Athenian navy and their involvement) because I went in with the idea that it's historical fantasy. But compound this with the mediocre acting, the almost monochrome backgrounds, video-game-style violence, bleep-bloopy soundtrack, and blatant sexualization of the characters and plot and the result is a movie that makes me want the two hours of my life back.

Some people really dig the visual style. I didn't. I don't think that the Persian Immortals should look like samurai, or that spending hundreds of man hours and millions of dollars to desaturate color images is all that "stunning."

Therefore, 300 has earned a solid, irredeemable zero in my opinion.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Mar 24, 2007)

Anyone going to see this movie with the expecting historical accuracy is going to woefully disappointed, much like anyone expecting intellectual stimulation from a lowbrow comedy.

300 is an over-the-top popcorn flick, essentially a myth thrown up on the big screen.  It's not pretending to be anything else.  There's a bit of historical accuracy, but that's more of a happy accident than intended.

I gave it a 7.


----------



## John Crichton (Mar 24, 2007)

Dykstrav said:
			
		

> Some people really dig the visual style. I didn't. I don't think that the Persian Immortals should look like samurai, or that spending hundreds of man hours and millions of dollars to desaturate color images is all that "stunning."



You thought those were real backgrounds that had to be desaturated?  Silly wabbit.  

99% of them were never there to begin with.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Mar 24, 2007)

Dykstrav said:
			
		

> Don't waste your time or money on this flop. It was terrible.



A "flop" is normally a description of a film which does horribly at the box office monetarily. Though you obviously have your reasons to consider the movie to be without merit, a "flop" it definitely was not. Quite the opposite, in fact, breaking box office records for March releases (any March, not just this one), and being the 3rd highest opening weekend for any R-rated movie, period.

Perhaps you meant to say "trash" or the like?


----------



## Wereserpent (Mar 25, 2007)

I liked it, I am not going to touch the whole homosexuality/Homiphobia arguement.  It was a fun film that was a mythical/fantasyish interpretation of the battle.  

Lawl, I thought Xerxes was a Gou'ald when I first saw him and heard him speak too!


----------



## BadMojo (Mar 25, 2007)

Lewis526 said:
			
		

> I have a way to predict whether you'll like this movie.  Ask yourself the following question: "Do I read history books or comic books?"




I read both.  In fact, I was a history major in college.

It's worth considering that the Greeks themselves in their art depicted battle scenes that were very idealized.  The human form was idealized and I've seen pottery depicting warriors wearing barely more than a helmet.

I also think it would have been really boring to watch the Spartans methodically fighting behind a shield wall in a phalanx for the whole movie.  Effective, yes.  Exciting to watch, I don't think so.

It's a very "over the top" story.  I actually enjoyed the film quite a bit and thought the visual style fit the source material (Frank Miller's graphic novel) perfectly.  I also think Frank is one twisted dude, but in an entertaining way.


----------



## Seonaid (Mar 25, 2007)

Dykstrav said:
			
		

> But compound this with the mediocre acting, the almost monochrome backgrounds, video-game-style violence, bleep-bloopy soundtrack, and blatant sexualization of the characters and plot and the result is a movie that makes me want the two hours of my life back.



When you went to see it, did you go in with the understanding that it was based on a graphic novel?


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 25, 2007)

Seonaid said:
			
		

> When you went to see it, did you go in with the understanding that it was based on a graphic novel?




How does the fact that it is based on a graphic novel excuse lousy acting, boring action scenes, an obnoxious soundtrack, and bad backgrounds?


----------



## John Crichton (Mar 25, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> How does the fact that it is based on a graphic novel excuse lousy acting, boring action scenes, an obnoxious soundtrack, and bad backgrounds?



 Being based on a graphic novel had nothing to do with your opinion being different from the people who liked it a ton.  Everything you just said, in my opinion is incorrect.

It was jolly fun.  I'm sorry you were not entertained nearly as much as others were.


----------



## Wereserpent (Mar 26, 2007)

I admit the acting was a little silly at times, but for me that just added to the movie for some reason.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Mar 26, 2007)

I'd be very hesitant to call this an A-list movie, despite the budget.

A solid B-movie, on the other hand, would be a perfect categorical fit for 300.

Especially given the over-acting by the guy that played Leonidas. (I'm thinking this guy had eaten far too much red meat before doing several of his scenes.)


----------



## John Crichton (Mar 26, 2007)

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> I'd be very hesitant to call this an A-list movie, despite the budget.
> 
> A solid B-movie, on the other hand, would be a perfect categorical fit for 300.



Call it whatever you want, but B-movies don't get the kind of attention or make the kind of money that 300 is still doing.  Especially ones rated R.


----------



## Storm Raven (Mar 26, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Being based on a graphic novel had nothing to do with your opinion being different from the people who liked it a ton.  Everything you just said, in my opinion is incorrect.




Right, but my question went to the nature of the response. It was asserted that, for one poster, the movie suffered from disabilities such as bad acting, monochrome backgrounds, a lousy soundtrack and so on. The response was "did you go in understanding it was a graphic novel".

Which brings us to my question - what does being made from a graphic novel have to do with those things?


----------



## John Crichton (Mar 26, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Which brings us to my question - what does being made from a graphic novel have to do with those things?



It really only relates to the backgrounds, now that I look at it again.  But I guess for some folks it could explain the odd nature of the acting & soundtrack since comic book movies still carry an unfair stigma of being cheezy and bad.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Mar 27, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Which brings us to my question - what does being made from a graphic novel have to do with those things?



Becuase with rare exceptions (namely Spider-Man, the recent Batman movie, and the first Superman movie), Hollywood tends to view comic-book based movies as less than deserving of serious treatment, which in turn makes them less than stellar flicks.  Execs seem to think they can toss crap up on a screen and the comic geeks will flock to it.  Cases in point being Catwoman and the horror that was Batman or Robin (aka Joel Schumacher's Homoerotic Fantasy on Ice).  Of course, some of these flicks end being a lot better than they should, but not many.  Right now, comic book films are becoming one of Hollywood's cash cows, based largely upon the popular response to the past two Spidey films.

For some folks, saying it's based on a comic book/graphic novel is a way to say "you shouldn't be expecting Shakespeare," or that you shouldn't go see these things with high expectations of quality, either acting, action, background or story.

I agree that's not an excuse for a bad movie (cases in point again, Catwoman and B&R), because some really good stuff has come from comic books (Spidey, Batman Begins, 1st Superman flick).  Could "300" have been a better flick?  I certainly think so, but others think it was perfect as is.  It just seems you have different tastes that a lot of us when it comes to movies.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Mar 27, 2007)

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> ...(aka Joel Schumacher's Homoerotic Fantasy on Ice).




Dude! Every time you utter those names, Dread Cthulu stirs in watery tomb!

But you're right. Even though, in terms of content any number of comedies and rom-coms that come out every year are worse, they are more aptly made by Hollywood. Cheep digital effects may help curb this in the future, as in the past it cost a lot more money to make a man fly than it does today.

That said, why are people taking _300 _so seriously as to be deeply angered by its flaws?


----------



## John Crichton (Mar 27, 2007)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> Dude! Every time you utter those names, Dread Cthulu stirs in watery tomb!
> 
> But you're right. Even though, in terms of content any number of comedies and rom-coms that come out every year are worse, they are more aptly made by Hollywood. Cheep digital effects may help curb this in the future, as in the past it cost a lot more money to make a man fly than it does today.
> 
> That said, why are people taking _300 _so seriously as to be deeply angered by its flaws?



Cuz they see how well it's doing and it angers them.  That and they just don't get why it's entertaining or can't get past their own knowledge of history.


----------



## Arnwyn (Mar 27, 2007)

Just saw it last night - I thought it was okay, and gave it a 6 (above average).

I did find it one-trick-ponyish D), and ended up yawning and shifting in my seat a lot about three quarters of the way through. I found Xerxes to be damn cool, though.

And it was really... brown.


----------



## Lewis526 (Apr 2, 2007)

BadMojo said:
			
		

> I read both.  In fact, I was a history major in college.
> 
> It's worth considering that the Greeks themselves in their art depicted battle scenes that were very idealized.  The human form was idealized and I've seen pottery depicting warriors wearing barely more than a helmet.
> 
> I also think it would have been really boring to watch the Spartans methodically fighting behind a shield wall in a phalanx for the whole movie.  Effective, yes.  Exciting to watch, I don't think so.




You and Hanson seem to agree about the similarity between this movie and pottery: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/300_fact_or_fiction.html

Sure, it was eye-candy, and I loved Leonidas' beard.  But I was bored by the fighting I _did_ see in this movie.  Even with all the special effects and pageantry, it wasn't very interesting.  In a movie about Thermopylae, I figured the combat itself would be somewhat different from the same old stuff you see every time you go to the theater these days.  Besides that, this movie needed _more_ fight scenes.  All the standing around stabbing half-dead Persians after the fighting that we really didn't get to see much of, and all the standing around Hoo-rahing while waiting for the next wave of Persian freaks, left me hungry for more combat.  The fight scenes, which were why I went to the movie in the first place, were too few and of low quality.  Any Hollywood producer can chop off a manequin's head and send it spinning slow-mo through the air.  Any Hollywood producer can choreograph a chaotic free-for-all melee for a few minutes out of a two hour movie.  The blood and guts, which were supposed to set this movie apart, didn't have much original in them at all.


----------



## Nyaricus (Apr 2, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Gladiator is not a movie that is shooting for a surprise ending.  Heck, the title says it all: The main character is there solely to entertain the audience and die doing so.



Wow, that is actually an interesting meta-level concept you've pointed out. Very interesing, indeed.

cheers,
--N


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 2, 2007)

Nyaricus said:
			
		

> Wow, that is actually an interesting meta-level concept you've pointed out. Very interesing, indeed.
> 
> cheers,
> --N



 Ooo!  I'm all quote-y.  Observations rule.


----------



## Nyaricus (Apr 3, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Ooo!  I'm all quote-y.  Observations rule.



Well, it was, in my opinion, a brilliant observation. And since the majority of EN World (myself included, truth be told) doesn't visit the Media Lounge often, I might as well spread the good word 

cheers,
--N


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Apr 4, 2007)

There was a NPR call-in program a few weeks ago about 300. It can be heard here... tonight we dine in Gehenna! To his credit, the historian who participates in the discussion knows his history and is not troubled by the movies inaccuracies.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Apr 5, 2007)

Finally got to see it this past Saturday.  Having had a week to chew it over I gave it a 7.  It's good, it's entertaining. It's far from the greatest thing since sliced bread.  The "look" was darker, more shadowy than I would have really preferred, but not enough to be a genuine detriment.  Not at all as quotable as I was, I think, expecting.  If anything I think I may have fallen prey to a bit of hype.  I've known this one was coming for a long time, and while I looked forward to it from the start I think I started to be influenced further by the endless parade of "Oh, this is going to be SO GREAT!" comments I kept seeing and hearing.

It's good, but not THAT good, and certainly not exceeding "good" into "greatness" territory.  A year from now, or from when the DVD is released it will be just one more movie.  One of the better ones of the year, but not even remotely one of the best ever.


----------



## death tribble (Apr 20, 2007)

I saw it and I liked it. The film is better than the book in my not so humble opinion.


----------



## Welverin (Apr 20, 2007)

death tribble said:
			
		

> I saw it and I liked it. The film is better than the book in my not so humble opinion.




Well, yeah.

It doesn't have any crappy Frank Miller art dragging it down.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 20, 2007)

Welverin said:
			
		

> Well, yeah.
> 
> It doesn't have any crappy Frank Miller art dragging it down.





Heathen! Blashphemer! Heretic!

I say this in all seriousness: Frank Miller is one of the greatest living comics artists. He is right up there with Neil Adams.


----------



## Welverin (Apr 22, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Heathen! Blashphemer! Heretic!
> 
> I say this in all seriousness: Frank Miller is one of the greatest living comics artists. He is right up there with Neil Adams.




Well call me a heathen (again) then, because there's something about his style that completely turns me off.

Now some of his earlier stuff I have nothing against, but the way his style has progressed over the last ten years or so has completely turned me off.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 22, 2007)

Saw it, gave it an 8.


----------



## TheLe (Sep 13, 2007)

~Le


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Sep 13, 2007)

Now that is how you bump a thread!


----------



## zen_hydra (Sep 13, 2007)

I do hope that is intended to be a leg...


----------



## Mark Chance (Sep 15, 2007)

Lots of flash, very little substance. The initial fight scenes were kewl, but then they just became redundantly boring. Never before I have heard so much hoopla about such a little movie.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 15, 2007)

I rated it an 8. Wish I could've seen it in the big screen, with ear-splitting sound.

Very stylish, and very true to the graphic novel.

And Spartans calling Athenians "boy-lovers"? That's ironic, to say the least.


----------



## Samiko The Bard (Sep 22, 2007)

THIS is my idea of the true chick flick:

Kick-ass battle scenes, beautiful love story, awesome cinematography, and 300 mostly naked perfect specimens of the male body.  Oh yeah, this movie is a 10.


----------



## megamania (Sep 23, 2007)

Not Gladiator but still very solid.  I enjoy nearly anything Frank Miller does.   How long until Ronin is done?


----------



## megamania (Sep 23, 2007)

TheLe said:
			
		

> ~Le





LOL!


----------



## Klaus (Sep 23, 2007)

megamania said:
			
		

> Not Gladiator but still very solid.  I enjoy nearly anything Frank Miller does.   How long until Ronin is done?



 After DK2, I'm very wary of anything Frank Miller does.

That being said, Ronin was kickass and I hope it gets done quickly.


----------



## Villano (Sep 23, 2007)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> Lots of flash, very little substance. The initial fight scenes were kewl, but then they just became redundantly boring. Never before I have heard so much hoopla about such a little movie.




Totally agree with this.  I thought the comic was okay, nothing incredible, but the movie just felt flat.  :\


----------

