it came out in the UK last night, so me an Qwazy just saw it

i'll reply with my thoughts after I find a bowl to collect my drool

300 trailer PG version

It's no Gladiator, but it's good.

Quote from: Uncle Yuan on March 13, 2007, 09:28:44 PM
Then there's the news story about the Iranians being upset over the portrayal of Persians in the movie.  They claim it is as an indication of America's hatred and intolerance for them.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_en_mo/iran300_movie

Yeah, but the guy who complained is responsible for all media the Iranians watch.  Essentially, he's the Joseph Goebbels of Iran.

As for this movie, it was probably one of the best I've seen in a long time.  I thoroughly enjoyed it and I doubt that many movies this year will top it.

Finally saw it, but I have to say, I didn't find it as enthralling as a lot of other people did. The visuals were stunning, of course, and the battle scenes were about as good as any we've seen in the fictionalized history sub-genre in the last decade or so, but the story fell a little flat for me. Still a good way to spend an afternoon, though.

As an interesting aside (and I just know I'm going to get some flak over this but whatever), a friend of mine remarked on what she thought of as a homoerotic subtext in the film... and the seeming auteur bias towards "sweaty bodybuilder frat-house manly man-love" homosexuality (the Spartans) as opposed to the effeminate homosexual stereotype (as typified by Xerxes). It's funny that she mentioned it because my friend has never read a comic book before as far as I know (much less one written by Frank Miller) but in retrospect (and a couple beer), it seems that the aggrandizement of masculinity is a common thread in a number of Miller's more prominent works. Even his strong female characters (notably Elektra, Martha Washington, and the police chief in Ronin) only become their fully realized "heroic" selves when not only do they embrace male-typical qualities, but they also subsume their more feminine attributes.

Anyways, I'm probably overthinking the whole thing, but yeah, good, but not great movie... and the excellent visuals will probably make it a worthy DVD purchase when it comes out.

This is one of the few films I've watched and just didn't give a crap about the story, or the in-depthiness with the characters.

It was the most awesome thing I've watched. ever. The way it moved was *perfect*, had me drooling all over the cinema floor and biting my knuckles out!

I don't think its worth reading in to it. The truth was, it is actually fun to watch.


Edit: I have no idea where the beige came from. Excuse that!

I have a pal who said she fell asleep through this movie.

Me and a couple other guys told her she was crazy. I did feel it got a bit rushed towards the end. I would have watched this even if it was one of those five hour long fests. It's not about story (which really just gets me pumped to fight people) it is about movement. I think of this movie like a ballet for men.

Although the council stuff wasn't that bad, and it's a good way to break up the fights. Still, you know where the meat is.

Exactly.

Let's say you are looking for the sort of movie where the reviews read

Charles Blatheringtonfordshire (Elliot Winthrope, Remains of the 700-Hour Day) enjoys a charming adventure, growing from an introspective boy into a sensitive young man. On the way, he overcomes his shyness and long-standing fear of house cats, all the while being true to his inner muse. This tale of self-discovery is a penetrating and poignant look at life, love, and the heart-rending quest for a nice walking shoe. A joyous romp!

Then, maybe 300 isn't where you want to be.

However, if you are in the mood for a movie whose reviews read more like:

One of history's classic battles told as a two-hour clash of blood, sweat, and cold steel! What it lacks in violence, it more than makes up for in action. Check your pace-maker at the door and hold on to your seat! (Viewer warning: Don't go to this film with someone you want to punch.)

Then you are probably at the right movie.

Yeah, no one wants to see John Cusack at the theater anymore.  The 90s man has come and gone, whimpering as he left.

Why do you think all these superhero movies have come out in the past 5 years or so?  It's because men want to see movies about men beating the snot out of the bad guys and not suffering some moral crisis in diplomacy.  This is really why 300 was a huge hit at the box office.  It features a story, based on true events, where men stood as men defending their women and children against an enemy that was going to kill them.  It showed how they were offered a chance to live, provided they bowed down to a tyrant, and how they turned down every offer of power and wealth they were given.

I remember some critic complained about the Spartans' method of diplomacy in the beginning of the movie.  I say they did exactly what they should have done to those messengers.  I mean, if someone comes to your door holding the head of your neighbor demanding "earth and water," I think I might do something extreme as well.

Good movie,not great

Awesome fighting, except one or two really dumb scenes
The poitical scenes were bad,but it doesnt ruin the movie
I will buy it on DvD when it comes out

its worth buying it on dvd :thumbup:

Quote from: OutsiderNo11 on April 02, 2007, 06:01:20 AM
Yeah, no one wants to see John Cusack at the theater anymore.  The 90s man has come and gone, whimpering as he left.

Why do you think all these superhero movies have come out in the past 5 years or so?  It's because men want to see movies about men beating the snot out of the bad guys and not suffering some moral crisis in diplomacy.  This is really why 300 was a huge hit at the box office.  It features a story, based on true events, where men stood as men defending their women and children against an enemy that was going to kill them.  It showed how they were offered a chance to live, provided they bowed down to a tyrant, and how they turned down every offer of power and wealth they were given.

I remember some critic complained about the Spartans' method of diplomacy in the beginning of the movie.  I say they did exactly what they should have done to those messengers.  I mean, if someone comes to your door holding the head of your neighbor demanding "earth and water," I think I might do something extreme as well.

In reality the Persians weren't exactly the villains the movie 300 makes them out to be. Technically the Athenians are to blame for the whole Persian War by sending troops to aid the Ionian Revolt. Before that I doubt the Persian King Darius(?) cared about an insignificant group of city states like Greece. Plus Darius and Xerse were hardly tyrants, if anything they were very enlightened in how they ruled their empire. They allowed countries/cities/territories that surrendered to them to maintain their way of life (religion and what not) as long as they pay taxes. Compared to their contemporaries that is a very revolutionary approach. Usually it's just "kill all the people who aren't like us!"

I saw it a couple days ago, it was good, but I was somewhat disappointed. My friends (who'd seen it a while ago) had made it out to be the greatest thing since fruit-by-the-foot, though they tend to be prone to bouts of rabid fanboyism.

Overall I enjoyed it, and I'd say it's probably worth buying. My main problem with it was that some of the sets and scenes looked a little... cheesey. For example, the wolf scene, to me, looked like styrofoam rocks and overly unrealistic snow. Also when the spartan king made his big leap while climbing the mountain the prophets lived on, it looked pretty bad IMO.
Overall, my gripes are minor and I think its a pretty kick-butt movie.

iuts crazy how 300 spartans gave the persians a hard time, but to think 10,000!!
i got to say  :o wow

I just got to see this last night. To me, it lived up to the hype.  :D

Received this flick for Xmas. Finally saw it a couple of days ago. Brilliant!

-MJB

I wasn't overly impressed with this movie ... it was pretty bombastic, lots of slo-mo, rock music, corny dialogue, etc. Plus, I found David Wenham's reedy voice annoying - his narration should have been more commanding.

BUT ... I'd read the graphic novel first and the film was a great adaptation of the source material.

You really can't fault anyone involved with the film for it not setting the world alight ... I just don't think Frank Miller's story translated quite as well onto celluloid as Sin City did. I think most fantasy novels / comics really rely on your imagination to complete the picture ... you can't do that so much with films.

Quote from: Jakew on January 16, 2008, 03:27:35 AM
You really can't fault anyone involved with the film for it not setting the world alight

I'm not sure what you mean. 300 was a big hit: $70 million opening weekend, $210 million domestic gross, #7 money-maker of the year.

Quote from: JKCarrier on January 16, 2008, 08:35:41 AM

Quote from: Jakew on January 16, 2008, 03:27:35 AM
You really can't fault anyone involved with the film for it not setting the world alight

I'm not sure what you mean. 300 was a big hit: $70 million opening weekend, $210 million domestic gross, #7 money-maker of the year.

Plus it started three separate internet memes that persist to this day, as much as we may want them to go far, far away.

Sorry, I meant critically ... in terms of reviews, awards, etc.

I consider those things to be just about meaningless.  Most critics and professionals have no idea what the average person enjoys anymore.

Wellllll .... Alvin & The Chipmunks is currently the fifth most popular movie at the US box office, and the second highest grossing movie in the top ten. I'm assuming that a lot of average people went to see it, yet it was critically panned. I'd rather put my faith in the critics than the people who are keeping Alvin in the top five, didn't realise "Grindhouse" was composed of two separate films, etc.

Jakew,

that kinda supports Cat's theory. Critics are alot...lot...lot...lotta...lot...alot...a whole lot more technical than the average person. Their job is to critique and break down a movie to find out what makes it great or horrible or average or w/e. They probably make notes while watching the film. The average person is just there for entertainment. Although, I wouldn't waste my time on alvin, it's a family movie featuring iconic figures, the kids are probably going wild.

On a whole, I will glance over a critic's opinion, but I keep in mind that they're going to be more harsh than a typical viewer. If I find too many cons than pros (on average viewer critique and professional), I'll bypass the movie until it's out on tv or something and then form an opinion on it.

Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on January 16, 2008, 07:12:33 PM
I consider those things to be just about meaningless.  Most critics and professionals have no idea what the average person enjoys anymore.

As a critic who reads criticism for fun I think it's the opposite, that critics have good taste and shouldent be pressured into pretending they love MacMovies devoid of any quality. For stuff like The Chipmunks they will say "For kids, one or two adult laughs but not worth the extra ticket to chaperone them". If some adult decides that jokes about flatulence are awesome, then good for them, they dont need a critic since every other movie is made for them. Now the reviews for 300 where actually good when it came out (just like Sin City) except for certain intellectual types who just cant get their mind around Millers hyper stylized machismo. On the other hand critics went nuts over how attractive the movie was and the real photography nerds loved the stylized vanishing blood and careful slow motion that was like reading a comic and stopping on one page to stare at it.

As for political content a source close to the movie said it was the opposite, the persians representing a huge empire building country comprised of a melting pot of minority 'slaves' that are ususally the first sent to war to spread it's ideals. Either way the plot is paper thin so you can put absolutely any interpretation on it...  That the persians or greeks are the natzis. That the persians or the greeks represent modernity vs antiquity. That the persians or the greeks are a huge gay pride parade. Heck, you could cast them as empire and rebels (star wars) or North and South... its a really open story.

Over here (Aus), 300 got average reviews. Over at Rotten Tomatoes, its 60% fresh "A simple-minded but visually exciting experience" ... which I agree with. You can say the same thing about the actual comic.

Anyway, my point is that I'd rather watch a film endorsed by a critic than the masses. I mean, how many times have you rolled your eyes and thought "I can't believe Alvin/Big Momma's House/any Eddie Murphy film is number one at the box office"? As Lugaru mentioned, rather than critics and professionals having no idea what the average person enjoys, critics shouldn't be pressured into pretending they enjoy some workman-like Hollywood pap churned out to coincide with major holidays.

Although, actually, no one here has said critics should be pressured into writing reviews of any particular kind, so that is kind of a non-issue.

I can see merits on both sides of the fence. If a critic's job is to give people an idea of whether they (the movie-going reader) will enjoy a movie, then I don't think they are doing a great job. But, that could be a crummy job to do. If their job is give other movie critics an idea if they will enjoy a movie, then they are probably doing okay. I'm not sure there is much of a living to be made doing that, but it's their option. I prefer when a review goes over the technical aspect of the film like the plot, the pacing, the acting, etc. and then comments on things like originality and so on. Not that that is the ranking of things I enjoy in a movie - not at all. But, in my experience, reviews tend to be a little more objective about the technical stuff and I don't have to worry that he's biased about it because of some extraneous factor like his take on current events.

I could sort of care less what the public likes and generally have moderate regard for critics evaluations. The reviews I like are the ones that work out to be a good predictor for how much I end up liking the movies. Learning which critics write reviews that help me decide on movies is my job. Sometimes, that will mean paying attention to their evaluations of the plotline, acting, etc., but ignoring parts of the movie they liked because of its ham-fisted political message, etc.

Quote from: lugaru on January 17, 2008, 03:58:26 AM

Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on January 16, 2008, 07:12:33 PM
I consider those things to be just about meaningless.  Most critics and professionals have no idea what the average person enjoys anymore.

Now the reviews for 300 where actually good when it came out (just like Sin City) except for certain intellectual types who just cant get their mind around Millers hyper stylized machismo. On the other hand critics went nuts over how attractive the movie was and the real photography nerds loved the stylized vanishing blood and careful slow motion that was like reading a comic and stopping on one page to stare at it.

Here's my take on the critics and their opinions.  Some critics are going to be naturally inclined to argue against anything that will be "popular" and anything they don't consider "highbrow enough".  I don't care what the filmmaker does, some critic will likely pan him somewhere.  There are critics who will give a bad review solely upon a name or two that was own it no matter what.  I am not naming any names here out of professional courtesy (and the fact that I will someday likely have a film reviewed by said critics).

The bottom line is that most filmmakers do not live or die by the critic.  Those that do are often foolish.  Nor do filmmakers solely live by what they feel the populace want.  That is equally foolish, as the popular tastes often change with the season. 

I find most critics have disdain for the genres I prefer and overlook what I consider cliche' things in "highbrow " movies so i tend to disagree with them most of the time. I can often tell if I'd like a movie though by what they like and dislike about. Usually  they like the things that fight the movie and hate the things I'd think were cool but depends on the critic.