300 (Pure movie pwnage!)

[KotO[REvan]]

I still say it was more of an eye-candy movie rather than anything totally serious or even factual (like some supposed-iranians whine about).

 

Now that I partially agree on.

The movie was more of war and violence (not to mention sex and nudity) than it was informational or historic. It's pretty amazing that it's a true event that took place though, pretty ding-dang amazing. But I still don't think that it was meant to be for teens/children, but more for the adults (and that's probably why they didn't give as much information, because they inferred that the adults already knew that this took place).

[Aash Li]

No, I think you guys are missing what Im saying here... I am not saying that I think it was intended for kids, just that is what I had heard on the radio. And when I heard it, I was like, Why would they want to market it to kids? Just by the previews I knew it wasnt a kids movie.

 

*shrugs*

[lukeiamyourdad]

The source material (Frank Miller's comic book) wasn't made for kids either. It's quite weird that someone would say that or perhaps the radio station was just wrong?

 

In a way, it seems to be for older teenagers young adults, but even then, it's under-estimating the age of the fans of such action classics as Conan the Barbarian and He-man and the Masters of the Universe.

[Aash Li]

And now you understand why I wondered why WB would say such a thing, or if they did... its quite possible the station just had misinformation. But if they did originally intend it for kids, Im glad it was stopped... I can just imagine the complaints and whining that would erupt... it would be like "Hot Coffee" again. xD

[Aristotélēsticus]

Didn't Alexander, Troy and other nameless "epic" movies tried the philosophical route and it turns out people just wanted blood?

 

I don't understand your reasoning. Were people back then inherently more serious? Didn't they make jokes? Couldn't they be sarcastic and arrogant?

 

yes, people used to make jokes, and they can be sarcastic and arrogant. but one should respect the historical time and the issues surrounding it. to make my point clear, in Gladiator, people made some jokes, and they were funny, but in this movie, i cant but remember Tomb Raider stupid jokes.

 

my words are, the script is so empty and small for a great story.

[igyman]

All you people who cry about the movie not being historical and philosophical and about the sexual content should remember that this movie was based on a comic book. The comic book was based on a historical event and that's that. The movie was never advertised as a story from a historical and philosophical point of view, it was clearly stated that it was based on Frank Miller's graphic novel and if you've seen Sin City (another great movie) you should have known what that means.

 

And the movie is very accurate when it comes to history. It portrayed the Spartans' way of battle very accurately, especially in that first encounter with the Persians. I agree though, that the appearance of Persian soldiers, emissaries and Xerxes himself is far from accurate. It is also historically accurate that the Spartans were betrayed by one of their own who lead the Persians down that hidden path (didn't I say this already?). I would probably know to name more accurate things, if I watched Discovery or History Channel a little more.

 

As for the nudity, to be honest, the only xxx scene for me was that one with Leonidas and Gorgo, the rest weren't erotic at all and I don't think they were meant to be, especially the one at Xerxes' camp, when Ephialtes comes there. And remember, there was nudity in both Troy and that piece of cr*p Alexander. Alexander also had those gay scenes which really made me sick, in addition to the movie being utterly boring. And the fact is people, that all those ancient people did have sex, they just didn't have condoms.

 

Now, the complaints about the text. I really don't get it, you are prepared to say the script is cr*p because of, let's see... two lines - ''Haven't you noticed we've been sharing our culture with you all morning?'' (which I think is very funny) and ''Slaughtering all those people left a nasty cramp in my leg, so kneeling would be difficult.'' (also pretty funny)? The dialogue was very good, in my opinion, as good as you can make it in a movie based on a comic book and maybe a little better.

In the end it all comes down to one question - what were you expecting from a movie based on a comic book? I for one got a lot more than what I expected from this movie, but I knew approximately what to expect, obviously some people don't and that's the real problem.

[The Seeker]

All you people who cry about the movie not being historical and philosophical and about the sexual content should remember that this movie was based on a comic book. The comic book was based on a historical event and that's that. The movie was never advertised as a story from a historical and philosophical point of view, it was clearly stated that it was based on Frank Miller's graphic novel and if you've seen Sin City (another great movie) you should have known what that means.

 

And the movie is very accurate when it comes to history. It portrayed the Spartans' way of battle very accurately, especially in that first encounter with the Persians. I agree though, that the appearance of Persian soldiers, emissaries and Xerxes himself is far from accurate. It is also historically accurate that the Spartans were betrayed by one of their own who lead the Persians down that hidden path (didn't I say this already?). I would probably know to name more accurate things, if I watched Discovery or History Channel a little more.

 

As for the nudity, to be honest, the only xxx scene for me was that one with Leonidas and Gorgo, the rest weren't erotic at all and I don't think they were meant to be, especially the one at Xerxes' camp, when Ephialtes comes there. And remember, there was nudity in both Troy and that piece of cr*p Aexander. Alexander also had those gay scenes which really made me sick, in addition to the movie being utterly boring. And the fact is people, that all those ancient people did have sex, they just didn't have condoms.

 

Now, the complaints about the text. I really don't get it, you are prepared to say the script is cr*p because of, let's see... two lines - ''Haven't you noticed we've been sharing our culture with you all morning?'' (which I think is very funny) and ''Slaughtering all those people left a nasty cramp in my leg, so kneeling would be difficult.'' (also pretty funny)? The dialogue was very good, in my opinion, as good as you can make it in a movie based on a comic book and maybe a little better.

In the end it all comes down to one question - what were you expecting from a movie based on a comic book? I for one got a lot more than what I expected from this movie, but I knew approximately what to expect, obviously some people don't and that's the real problem.

 

QFT

 

I agree wholeheartedly. I read the novel 300 (which the movie pretty much follows scene for scene) as well as the more historically accurate "Gates of Fire" by Stephen Pressfield. While I would have liked to see a movie based off Gates of Fire, I took 300 for what it was and enjoyed the hell out of it. It is a highly mythicized, highly stylized version of one of the greatest battles in history. Nothing more.

 

The Spartan Warrior really wore half their weight in body armor, had at least two squires to look after their armor, weapons, and kit, to assist them in prepping for battle, cook their food, and (in the case of the battle of Thermopalae) serve as auxiliary soldiers.

 

Their fighting style was the phalanx formation (briefly shown in the first clash in 300) where they would stand shoulder to shoulder, each man protecting the man on his left, the ranks behind pressing their shields into the backs of the men in front. The spears were not thrown, but thrust overhanded by the front ranks. This compacted mass of soldiers and shields and spears all moving as a single unit basically had the effect of a bulldozer with teeth.

 

The spartans were seriously heavy infantry, brutaly and rigorously trained from age 7 till they turned 20. Their life was war and they were some of the best in the world at it.

 

The persian army was light infantry, designed to be used on an open field with room to maneuver and supplemented by cavalry. In the narrow pass at the Hot Gates, the persians literally broke like waves against a rock. Superior leadership, fighting skill, and using the terrain to their advantage was what kept the Spartans alive for the 6 days that they held.

 

With that being said, I am obviously a bit of a stickler for battle scenes being how they actually were, but once again, I found 300 to be a great movie.

 

I mean, the spartans didn't break apart to take on dozens singlehandedly (their strength was in the phalanx) but it looked amazing in the movie because with the overall look and feel of 300 the stylized version of a spartan warrior fit perfectly.

 

As igyman said, take it for what it is, rather than what you thought it should have been or wished it should have been, and you'll find one helluva good movie waiting to blow your mind.

[REDJOHNNYMIKE]

Was I the only one who saw the girl dancing in the previews? Unless you were shown something different beforehand there should have been no surprise for you there and you should have not attended the film. Personally, I thought she might have looked a little young (couldn't quite tell, what with the contorting and all, and given a few years to grow out, my baser instincts would've enjoyed the scene much more) but I did actually get the fact that she was supposed to be all tranced up and prophetisizzling, so if you thought she was just a stripper then that speaks loads about what goes through your mind.

I actually thought the sex scenes were more funny than erotic (there had been a lot of cheering during the opening of the movie, and when leonidas suddenly appeared naked on the screen everyone groaned as if the were being stabbed in the gut with rusty spears, but one of my friends shouted "Oh Yeah!" and the whole theater started cracking up, then they had the whole sex scene thing and everyone was like "ooooooh" "aaaaaaah" until she made that "that doesn't go there!" face and we all started cracking up again). But then again, I did go on the night-before-opening thing with all the hardcore fans who actually went to see an awesome movie, not some innacurate historical documentary to use as a chance to whine and debate about something.

 

So please, it's a freaking comic book movie, it's supposed to be awesome, if you really cared about historical "facts" you would've stayed home and watched the Boguscovery channel (seriously, aside from the technical stuff, does anyone give them any credibility, if so, I weep for you....but not really, because I'm busy watching awesome movies with spartans and blood).

Case closed, it needs to be as historically accurate as the Spiderman movies do, so there's no real point in trying to be all scholarly about it.

 

On a side note: I finally saw Man on Fire last night, and while I really don't like to buy movies I think I may start a collection of awesome Action/Tragedies with the theme of "the hero always dies"

[lukeiamyourdad]

I mean, the spartans didn't break apart to take on dozens singlehandedly (their strength was in the phalanx) but it looked amazing in the movie because with the overall look and feel of 300 the stylized version of a spartan warrior fit perfectly.

 

 

Seeing a phalanx fight isn't the most exciting thing either. Having soldiers stand around, stabbing with their spears behind a shield wall doesn't make for a good action movie. Rome: Total War does show phalanx formations fighting and in such tight quarters, it's more of a tug of war then something spectacular. I loved the Greeks though, because a phalanx, when properly used, could stop pretty much everything, as long as you don't get flanked.

 

 

Was I the only one who saw the girl dancing in the previews?

 

There were also hints of the Leonidas/Gorgo sex scene and some looks at the harem.

[Davinq]

Bormir is called Sean Bean! Geeze!

 

Beat me to it.

 

Pfft, movie looks friggin awesome.

 

Much more actionish looking than most slash-n-clash medieval warfare movies. Lovin' the leader dude's accent as well.

 

Seeing a phalanx fight isn't the most exciting thing either. Having soldiers stand around, stabbing with their spears behind a shield wall doesn't make for a good action movie. Rome: Total War does show phalanx formations fighting and in such tight quarters, it's more of a tug of war then something spectacular. I loved the Greeks though, because a phalanx, when properly used, could stop pretty much everything, as long as you don't get flanked.

AoE anyone?

[lukeiamyourdad]

AoE anyone?

 

Because we all know how realistic AoE was...

[Davinq]

Hence

 

Itz trickzy to portrayz zarcazmz on ze intranetz.

[Vaelastraz]

Watched the movie yesterday, and it was exactly what I expected it to be.

After reading this thread I can just second everything igyman said.

 

This movie has 2 strengths:

 

-the optical style

-the melee combat

 

And if you were looking for anything else, you shouldn't have watched the movie. It's as simple as that, this is not a historical movie, and it is absolutely irrelevant if civilisations and characters are portrayed accurately or not. This is not based on the historcial battle but on Frank Miller's comic.

 

The movie is very violent, and IMO that is necessary and contributes heavily to the style of the movie. Because of quite some slowmotion action involving cut of heads, I'd say it's not appropriate for teens

The sex scenes on the other hand can be watched by 14 year olds, I can't understand how that little nudity can be a problem for anyone.

 

I thought the movie was great, and the optical style of it was just awesome, just like Sin city.

[lukeiamyourdad]

The sex scenes on the other hand can be watched by 14 year olds, I can't understand how that little nudity can be a problem for anyone.

 

 

*cough*Religious people*cough*

 

Walk along, not trying to start a debate...

[Pho3nix]

It premieres in Finland today ! so I'm seeing it in a couple of hours.

 

I'll write a review later on...

[Jason Skywalker]

It premieres in Portugal today as well.

 

Unfortunately, i'm not seeing it today. -.-

[Sabretooth]

I still say it was more of an eye-candy movie rather than anything totally serious or even factual (like some supposed-iranians whine about).

 

It was never supposed to be anyways. it is an artistic depiction of the Battle of Thermopylae. It's not supposed to portray reality, or civilization or anything. A lot of things in the movie were symbolical, like the way Xerxes and his men dressed, his ridiculous mobile throne, his fearsome executioner and so on. The essence of the movie is its storyline and the conflict of Leonidas and his 300 against a million.

 

The graphic novel was similarly artistic, and a lot of the lines in the movie (including SPARTA, dine in hell and leg cramps) are taken from the novel word-to-word. Miller made his artistic version based of The 300 Spartans, which is supposed to be a realistic film, or something. Regardless, I found the movie great, but the trailer was much, much greater.

[relaxcheeze44]

In response to all the b**ching about how the pearsians were depicted: the reason why the persians were so grostiquly was because the viewpoint of a spartan soldier was that he was getting the army "pumped up" to fight the persians again, and he illustrates that by demonizing the persians so it looks like leonidas is fighting agains all the evil in the world.

[montnoir]

It's a movie for a modern audience that uses all the things that are "cool" right now and at the moment. It's worth will be measured by how it stands the test of time. If it is still as cool and slick in 10 and 20 years then it has succeded, otherwise it has failed.

 

 

 

I liked 300. It didn't contain any of the pretentious pseudo-socio-political babble that infested all the other big-money historical fiction movies of the last 10 years. 300 was a straight action movie filled with testosterone and manly emotions like; camaraderie, honor, duty, loyalty, etc.

[Jediphile]

I went to see 300, and I was actually better than I feared. Any comic book by Frank Miller is pretty much a seal of approval in the "buy sight unseen"-mould, so I'm always skeptical when watching comics-to-movies.

 

Frank Miller seems to get better treatment than most, though. Just look at the movie versions of some of Alan Moore's stories. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was a very average movie and had absolutely nothing to do with the original - why bother making it into a film if you hate the original so much you insist on changing it? The treatment of V for Vendetta was better and resulted in a decent film, yet still missed the genius of the original story completely. I suppose it was just so good a story that there was a limit to how much they could foul it up...

 

Miller's stuff gets better treatment on screen so far. Sin City was brilliant, but then he was heavily involved with the project himself. 300 was... okay. Better than okay, in fact. Gerard Butler did a better job as Leonidas than I would have expected, and he certainly exhibits a frightful and yet enticing attitude when he commands his troops. He added more than I would have expected.

 

As for the much-talked about sex scenes, where are they? Honestly, you can open pretty much any tv channel and see stuff just as "bad" as this... or by simply playing GTA:SA I was not offended in the least, and given the level of violence in this film, I don't think there's much basis for complaint there.

 

As for the portrayal of the persians... Yes, it's historically incorrect. And so what? Do the germans complain every time the nazis are portrayed as eye-patch-wearing and limping bad guys? No. Nor do I hear the scandinavians complain about all the rubbish interpretations of the vikings Hollywood has dished out over the years, or the English about the interpretations of the Arthurian legends for that matter. Or the italians about the Roman Empire... It's a movie. It's not real, and it's not supposed to be. It's supposed to be entertaining and an emotional rollercoaster-ride, which is exactly what it is. If you don't like that, then build a bridge and get over it. It's not a big deal, and it's scarcely as if the persians have been singled out. Historical inaccuracy has become almost the hallmark of action movies, which is what this is, so I don't see the problem.

 

I'm not sure why they added all the scenes between Gorgo and Theron, however. Those were not in the original comic book, and they don't add that much to the plot, if you ask me. If I were to venture a guess, it's to attract more of a female audience, although I don't see many women going for two hours of all-out testosterone fights on overdrive with the finger firmly pressed on the afterburner all the way through. It just seemed to slow the plot and the pace down for me and could have been cut without too much trouble. After all, it just added complexity to a plot that is otherwise a marvel of overly simplistic and superficial storytelling, and in a good way, I mean.

 

And the fight scenes... of course. I have to get into those. Well, they're over the top and unrealistic in the extreme - don't try this at home!

 

But they do establish the tone of the film. Without those, 300 would not have been a particularly special experience. People who go just to watch those scenes will not be disappointed. They can't quite save the movie from being mediocre, though. Matrix Revolutions had nice visuals, too. It's only by adding the acting of Butler to the mix, than the movie rises above average. That makes for a decent experience, but only insofar as appealing 1000% to pathos, and not one bit to ethos or logos. If you don't get into the spirit of things in this movie, then you've missed the point and won't like the movie. If you're not into that sort of thing, you might as well save your money, since this movie is not for you. It's an intense and enticing exprience, but reality it has nothing to do with.

[REDJOHNNYMIKE]

Gerard Butler did a better job as Leonidas than I would have expected, and he certainly exhibits a frightful and yet enticing attitude when he commands his troops.

Huh? Wait? What? Enticing????

For the love of all that is good, do not look at the man-meat! Focus on the weapons....oooh shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiny weapons! Shiny weapons making blood fly like migrating flocks of plasma, not glistening abs dancing in the sunlight.....

[Astrotoy7]

lolz, I finally saw this. Its more a superhero movie than a historical movie. It was sorta ridiculous how everything makes super loud noises - eg. dropping a spear was like firing a freakin cannon. Me and my friend were making ridiculous loud booming noises to trivial movements as a joke for the rest of a night. eg. opening a beer

 

So with the abs, the noises, the monsters, the unnatural abilities - yep - superhero movie based on a comic. Battle of Thermopylae ?? Whats that you ask ?? I know some uber fans wont like it but IMO Troy was better.... and thats sayin something

 

mtfbwya

[lukeiamyourdad]

Focus on the weapons....oooh shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiny weapons!

 

 

I think this was the most homo erotic part of the post...

[montnoir]

It was sorta ridiculous how everything makes super loud noises...

Audiovisual psych-sentimental enhancement for the audience to emotionally follow/connect to a scene. Could they have used a different technique? Yes, but they didn't and they chose to go with the enhanced sounds.

 

 

 

 

...and that comment about Troy, I know for a fact you didn't mean it and you only used it to provoke a response. You're better than that Astro.

[playloud]

Too many cool movies. They are starting to merge into one in my head!

 

All hail Darth Maximus Leonidas!