DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Movie Talk (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk-17/)
-   -   300 — Reviews thread (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/494769-300-%97-reviews-thread.html)

MoviePage 03-12-07 05:58 PM

Pretty crap is still crap.

This movie bored me to death. But hey, there needs to be some kind of interesting character or story development to hold my interest, instead of just, like, OMGawesomeness.

mytzplyx 03-12-07 07:41 PM

I'll tell you how character development would have made the movie a lot better:


As someone mentioned in a previous post, I too was also hoping for a "Gates of Fire"-like adaptation of the Battle of Thermopylae. The book focuses on one of the helots and one of the Spartans for whom he squires, Dienekes. Dienekes is also the Spartan that famously uttered the "then we will fight in the shade" phrase, not the no-name guy in the movie.

The book goes through that one helot's growth within Sparta, their training, etc . . . and we're introduced to a few of the other characters like perenial Olympic champion, Polynikes, King Leonidas, and a few characters in the same agoge.


Basically, I was hoping for a movie more like the book, but what we got in 300 was still a pretty good popcorn flick.

Hank1215 03-12-07 08:21 PM

mytzplyx stated:

"I too was also hoping for a "Gates of Fire"-like adaptation of the Battle of Thermopylae."

Maybe they will do that when they make an adpatation of that book. This, however, was an adapation of Frank Miller's graphic novel "300".

MartinBlank 03-12-07 09:11 PM


All-time March first place: 300 with $70 million. Second place was Ice Age 2 at $68 million.

So, what was it about 300? It had no stars, a fairly unknown director, was just another comic adaptation, and R-rated?

Sin City came from the same source material, starred Bruce Willis, Clive Owen, Josh Hartnett, Brittany Murphy, Elijah Wood, and Jessica Alba. It had a name director, and even boasted of scenes directed by Tarantino. And yet, 300 will pass Sin City’s total domestic take tomorrow.

Hopefully Hollywood is watching. 300 is successful for the very reason it’s being hammered by close-minded left-wing critics: It’s something new. It’s something refreshing. It’s about something.

It’s about heroes, honor, good versus evil, and fighting for something bigger than one’s self. It’s rousing and larger than life. It’s not just another one of those old-fashioned, ‘nuanced,’ nihilistic, anti-hero, thin-line-between-good-and-evil, tired, old cliched movies that have been around for decades.
http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com/libertas/?p=4598

Jray 03-12-07 09:24 PM

I hated this movie. I pretty much agree with every negative thing mentioned already in this thread. And it's funny... I found myself actually doing MST3K-style voiceovers in my head. This is slightly-pretty doodoo, but doodoo nonetheless. But even the look of the movie was "old" after 30 minutes. Bleh.

BTW, the guy on the right was Leonidas right?
http://www.badmovies.org/movies/80fl...ashgordon5.jpg

SPiRAL 03-12-07 09:45 PM


Originally Posted by Jray
I hated this movie. I pretty much agree with every negative thing mentioned already in this thread. And it's funny... I found myself actually doing MST3K-style voiceovers in my head. This is slightly-pretty doodoo, but doodoo nonetheless. But even the look of the movie was "old" after 30 minutes. Bleh.

BTW, the guy on the right was Leonidas right?
http://www.badmovies.org/movies/80fl...ashgordon5.jpg


I thought he looked like the guy who
Spoiler:
got his arm chopped off, when he came on behalf of Xerxes.

Spiderbite 03-12-07 11:04 PM

Saw it tonight with a 3/4 full theater. Pretty surprised for a 7:20 showing on a Monday night.

I used my 300 movie cash and they had a technical delay that started the movie 40 minutes late. Everyone was irritated but we all got free passes at the end. Free and free...gotta like that.

As far as the movie goes...I liked it but didn't love it. It was a nice hard "R" and had some beautiful scenes but as a whole, it didn't completely work for me.

I grew a little tired of the slow-mo battles and actually of the fighting itself. I guess I was wanting a little more emotion other than one guy screaming "Spartaaaaa!" at his men every 10 minutes. I never felt emotionally connected to the main guy or his men as I did with Braveheart or Gladiator.

It's still a good movie and an enjoyable popcorn flick. I know this will become a dvd & HD reference movie once it is released.

Good movie...but not a great one.

bhk 03-12-07 11:41 PM

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...k5MzlkZjJmYjA=


300 Shocker
Hollywood takes a detour to reality.

By David Kahane


Okay, this is weird.

Since about, oh, September 12, 2001, every writer, producer, director, and suit in this town has known one thing to be true: Don’t make fun of our so-called “enemies.”

Don’t stereotype them as bad guys. Don’t mock their beliefs. Don’t even mention their names. And for heaven’s sake, don’t make them mad.

Instead, try to understand them. Celebrate their diversity. And realize that, in a world (as the voice on the trailer intones) in which black is really white, up is really down, an attack is really self-defense and self-defense is really a provocation, we ourselves are actually the enemy.


This made things really easy. Out went any script that ascribed anything but the purest of motives to Arabs, Iranians, and Muslims. Back came everybody’s favorite villains: ex- and neo-Nazis (I haven’t met any, but I hear they’re everywhere) and crazed Christian fundamentalists, lurking out there in flyover country, itching to pull the triggers to establish a theocracy in a country we all know perfectly well was founded by unarmed vegetarian multicultural atheists.

Not even Jim Cameron could get a picture like 1994’s True Lies — in which the current governor of California slaughters hundreds of Arab terrorists single-handedly — made anymore, and he’s the King of the World. Instead, we got things like Kingdom of Heaven, in which the Christian ruler of Jerusalem becomes a hero by surrendering the Holy Land to the noble Saladin.

So now along comes a bunch of schmucks nobody’s ever heard of — graphic novelist Frank Miller, director Zack Snyder, and a couple of other writers — to pull in $70 million over the weekend with a movie about a handful of brave warriors who stand up against the limitless central-Asian hordes, iron men vs. effeminate oriental voluptuaries, and patriots against robotic slaves. How was this picture allowed to be made?

I’m talking, of course, about 300, a gory retelling of the Spartans’ defense at Thermopylae, which has got the whole town buzzing, and not just about its first-weekend grosses. Is it an ode to Riefensthalian fascist militarism? A thinly veiled attack on the Bush administration‘s insane war-mongering? Or is it something else?

Help me out here, because I’m having trouble wrapping my mind around a few things:
Spoiler:
When, early in the film, a sneering Persian emissary insults King Leonidas’s hot wife, threatens the kingdom, and rages about “blasphemy,” the king kicks him down a bottomless well. And yet nobody in Sparta asks, “Why do they hate us?” and seeks to find common ground with the Persians on their doorstep. Why not?


The Spartans mock the god-king Xerxes (whose traveling throne resembles a particularly louche Brazilian gay-pride carnival float), mow down his armored “immortal” holy warriors clad is nothing but red cloaks, loincloths, and sandals, and generally give their last full measure to defend Greek civilization against superstition and tyranny. Where are the liberal Spartan voices raised in protest against this blatant homophobia, xenophobia, and racism?

The only way this bunch of refugees from a Village People show can whup our heroes is by dangling some dubious hookers in front of a horny hunchback who makes Quasimodo look like Tom Cruise, and by bribing a corrupt legislator to tie up reinforcements with various legalistic maneuvers.
Spoiler:
When the queen finally kills the councilor, the others call him a “traitor.” Isn’t that both blaming the victim and questioning his patriotism?


You’d think 300 was a metaphor for something…

I heard the other day that one of the creators of this film is… yes, a closet conservative. And now he, whoever he is, is a rich closet conservative.

As screenwriter-god Bill Goldman says, it’s all about the next job. So that noise you hear this morning is the wind created by hundreds of writers from Playa del Rey to Santa Barbara, sticking their fingers in the air to see if the wind’s suddenly shifted, wondering if they can shelve their metrosexual Syriana and Babel knockoffs and conjure up some good old-fashioned “men of the West” material.

Because the dirty little secret is, we used to write these movies all the time. Impossible odds. Quixotic causes. Death before surrender. Real all-American stuff, in which our heroes stood up for God and country and defending Princess Leia and getting back home to see their wives and children, with their shields or on them.

And the dirtier little secret is: We loved writing them. Even a blacklisted commie like Carl Foreman came up with High Noon, in which a lone Gary Cooper defends a town full of ungrateful, carping yellowbellies and then throws away his badge in disgust at their cowardice. Sure, John Wayne hated it at the time, but today the Duke would be doing handstands to get his teeth into a part like that.

But then came psychiatrists and psychologists and Ritalin and global warming and racism and sexism and homophobia and the enlightened among us said the hell with John Wayne and Gary Cooper. Hollywood became one big Agatha Christie novel in the last chapter — you know, the one where the survivors of the homicidal maniac gather in the drawing room and realize: The killer must be one of us!

And then came September 11th and that was that. But now, I’m beginning to wonder.

Beginning to wonder if a $70-million opening weekend for a picture that was tracking at $40 million will get somebody’s attention. Beginning to wonder if a movie that has no stars, the look and feel of a video game, and the moral code of the U.S.M.C. might have something to say, even to audiences in New York and L.A.

But most of all, I’m beginning to wonder what it feels like to be the good guy.

— David Kahane is a nom de cyber for a writer in Hollywood. “David Kahane” is borrowed from a screenwriter character in The Player.
Like the blurb from libertyfilmfestival, possible reasons for the record breaking success of 300.

TimeandTide 03-12-07 11:51 PM

That editorial is laughably bad. Blows me away to think there might actually be people that are nodding their heads in agreement when reading that crap.

So many things wrong with it, including...


A thinly veiled attack on the Bush administration‘s insane war-mongering?
Impossible since 300 was written by Frank Miller in the mid- to late-90s.

No wonder that writer hides behind a pseudonym.

(You might want to spoiler tag the bit about the "councilor.")

bhk 03-12-07 11:54 PM


Originally Posted by TimeandTide
-ohbfrank-

Impossible since 300 was written by Frank Miller in the mid- to late-90s. No wonder that writer hides behind a pseudonym.

(You might want to spoiler tag the bit about the "councilor.")

Uh, others have suggested that it is. And it is about the movie which was made in 2006/7. Which is why that's in his article. I'll probably see it later this week.

Supermallet 03-13-07 01:53 AM

I'm a big history buff (clearly this film wasn't historically accurate), but the film certainly seemed to understand the Spartan culture of honor and war. Personally, I loved it. While it won't be a critical darling, I couldn't get enough of it. I'll catch it in IMAX next week.

The Antipodean 03-13-07 02:46 AM

I'm depressed this made so much more cash than Sin City which IMHO was a far better Frank Miller movie.

Superboy 03-13-07 02:59 AM

I thought it was okay. The movie takes some shots directly from the comic, which was cool. But the comic itself was extremely short and the movie endlessly padded itself out.

Setzer 03-13-07 04:02 AM


Originally Posted by Jam Master Jay
Damn 300 was badass! Haven't had that much fun at the movies in years!

QFT

Holysmoker 03-13-07 10:50 AM

I took my wife to see this last night. We loved it and had a great time watching it. But for a while there, I thought it was being narrated by "The Falconer".

MartinBlank 03-13-07 03:41 PM


Originally Posted by Setzer
QFT

huh?

RichC2 03-13-07 03:45 PM

Usually... QFT= Quoted For Truth

fumanstan 03-13-07 04:53 PM

I caught this last night on IMAX. The 10:30 PM ended up being sold out, with a huge line even 30 minutes early. Pretty crazy; I don't think i've ever seen a line that long waiting for an IMAX showing.

As for the movie... I think a B- or a B is a fair grade. It actually wasn't as bad ass I thought it would be... expecting the battles to "wow" me a little more then they did. I also thought the additions that weren't in the comic were a bit silly, and leaving them out to trim the movie 15 minutes would have been a plus.

Oh, and Leonidas' wife is a moron.

TimeandTide 03-13-07 05:01 PM


Originally Posted by Superboy
I thought it was okay. The movie takes some shots directly from the comic, which was cool. But the comic itself was extremely short and the movie endlessly padded itself out.

Padded with...action? Because the scenes in Sparta amounted to only a fraction of the film's length.

B.A. 03-13-07 08:22 PM


Originally Posted by movielib
Read Steven Pressfield's Gates of Fire. You can thank me later.

Thanks. A state employee that I work w/ told me to read Persian Fire (?) the other day, so I will try and check both of them out.

whoopdido 03-13-07 11:28 PM

I'm curious if anybody out there felt different about the actual movie than they did about the previews. By that I mean did anybody like the previews but didn't like the movie or vice versa? On another board I saw some people talking about how they loved the previews but ended up hating the actual movie. Honestly I don't see how that's even possible. After the first teaser I saw for 300 I knew exactly what kind of movie it was going to be and after the subsequent trailers I became even more convinced. I could tell right away that it was going to be eye-candy with a bunch of special effects and very cool looking, stylized fight scenes and the whole movie was going to be WAY over the top. More than likely it wasn't going to win a best picture oscar but it was going to look cool. In my opinion nobody that saw a preview to 300 should have gone into the movie expecting anything other than eye-candy. For the record I liked the previews and liked the movie as well.

FinkPish 03-14-07 12:23 AM


Originally Posted by whoopdido
I'm curious if anybody out there felt different about the actual movie than they did about the previews. By that I mean did anybody like the previews but didn't like the movie or vice versa? On another board I saw some people talking about how they loved the previews but ended up hating the actual movie. Honestly I don't see how that's even possible. After the first teaser I saw for 300 I knew exactly what kind of movie it was going to be and after the subsequent trailers I became even more convinced. I could tell right away that it was going to be eye-candy with a bunch of special effects and very cool looking, stylized fight scenes and the whole movie was going to be WAY over the top. More than likely it wasn't going to win a best picture oscar but it was going to look cool. In my opinion nobody that saw a preview to 300 should have gone into the movie expecting anything other than eye-candy. For the record I liked the previews and liked the movie as well.

I get the impression, from the comments here and elsewhere, that a lot of people who ended up not liking the movie went in with overblown expectations and just ended up disappointed (this is aside from the history buffs who went in expecting the History Channel). I see a lot of people not judging the film for what it was, and instead talking about what they wish it would have or should have been. There's nothing wrong with that, but like you, I see it as an interesting trend, especially with movies with massive amounts of hype.

matrixrok9 03-14-07 12:36 AM


Originally Posted by whoopdido
I'm curious if anybody out there felt different about the actual movie than they did about the previews. By that I mean did anybody like the previews but didn't like the movie or vice versa? On another board I saw some people talking about how they loved the previews but ended up hating the actual movie. Honestly I don't see how that's even possible. After the first teaser I saw for 300 I knew exactly what kind of movie it was going to be and after the subsequent trailers I became even more convinced. I could tell right away that it was going to be eye-candy with a bunch of special effects and very cool looking, stylized fight scenes and the whole movie was going to be WAY over the top. More than likely it wasn't going to win a best picture oscar but it was going to look cool. In my opinion nobody that saw a preview to 300 should have gone into the movie expecting anything other than eye-candy. For the record I liked the previews and liked the movie as well.

Well the movie didn't live up to the hype for me. I liked the trailers better because it was more badass but I still enjoyed the movie.

duckhouse 03-14-07 12:41 AM

Well I thought it was awesome. Just a great straight up action movie. I'd definitely put it in the B+ range. I think I might even be able to forgive Zack Snyder for the atrocity that was the Dawn of the Dead remake.

fumanstan 03-14-07 12:58 AM


Originally Posted by matrixrok9
Well the movie didn't live up to the hype for me. I liked the trailers better because it was more badass but I still enjoyed the movie.

Same here. The trailers made it feel a bit more epic and I thought the battles would be a bit more crazy, but I was a bit let down. I still enjoyed the movie too.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:11 AM.


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.