Re: 300
 

If you haven;t seen the movie yet, do yourself a favor and don't do any reserach into Sparta or the battle itself before you go. The film is very good (not excellent, missing an epic quality seen in films like Braveheart and Troy) but its historical quality is skaky at best.

***Historical Spoiler***









Throughout the movie, Leonidas (who was a serious badass in reality) keeps talking about an age of freedom and even the ending suggests that Spartans and Greeks in general created the idea of freedom. The problem is that Sparta was a slave state. They had LOTS of slaves, and in fact they were the only Greek city-state that enslaved other greeks (Messenia), and thats why other city-states disliked the Spartans so much. That and Spartan rutinely kicked their collective asses and subjugated them for hundreds of years until they finally fell to Thebes, victims of the groudbreaking Echelon formation.

So when they talked about Freedom, it really took me out of the movie. Too much suspension of disbelief.







***end historical spoiler***

Re: 300
 

If you want to read a really hilarious review of the movie, check out CHUD's. He spends some seven or eight paragraphs talking about how the movie is a right wing screed about why we need to go to war. Now don't get the wrong idea, he's not criticizing the movie for that reason. He's not one of those people complaining that the movie is a propaganda piece engineered to get us all behind the Iraq war or something. But, well...he thinks the movie supports the war in Iraq. Seriously, do you think the moviemakers and Frank Miller were really trying to be that deep?

As for me, the movie was all right. It had a fairly realistic depiction of phalanx tactics and then ruined the effect by having everybody break formation and go running off on their own. I don't even think the graphic novel had very much of that going on.

What also wasn't in the graphic novel were a lot of scenes at home. I understand and appreciate why they were there, but they tended to slow the proceedings down a bit.

Acting? What acting? Don't get me wrong, the actors were fine in their roles. But there wasn't really much "acting" required of them. The best thing I could say for Gerard Butler (Leonidas) is that he avoided going so far over the top as to be cartoonish. And that's worthy of praise. But please, let's not start giving the man acting awards just yet.

Re: 300
 

I saw this on opening night and was somewhat displeased. Not that I was expecting anything groundbreaking in the plot or acting category, I just thought that Sin City was a better movie both visually and action-wise than this movie was. Still worth the price of admission, but not as great as I thought it could have been.

Re: 300
 

I thought Gerard Butler was absolutely fantastic as Leonidas. Over the top? Of course. He was playing a legendary character; a mythic character. He actually lent some humanity to the character that most history books describe as a cold, calculating, ruthless and brilliant man. But he still had to be MORE than just a man in his portrayal. You also have to think about the true quotes that come from history and not just the pen of Frank Miller. "fight on the shade"? A real quote. "Eat well because tonight we dine in Hell"? A real quote. "Come home with this shield or upon it"? A real quote. Butler didn't overact... Spartans did.

As for the phalanx breaking, that was going to happen in a movie like this. Phalanx fighting, while brutally effective in its day, was short of visually exhilirating. My biggest complaint is with the depiction of Spartan marriage in the film. Its so far off its hilarious. Spartan marriage involved the "wife" being raped late at night in a tent. True, she was expecting the rape, but it was still forced intercourse nontheless. The men and women almost never met socially, but instead only to procreate.

This was a culture run like a colony of ants. No pleasure other than that of the pride in your people. Life as a cog in a very powerful and brutal machine.

Re: 300
 

Re: 300
 

Yes, he was, but maybe I didn't make my point clear. Butler was called on to be iconic and larger than life without going so far over the top that we lost sight of him. In that role, he did very well. But there was no range demanded of him. He had two modes: intense and roaring. And there's nothing wrong with that because that's exactly what the movie needed from him, and he did it well. I just don't think that really counts as great acting. So when I ask, "Where's the acting?" I don't mean to say the acting was bad. I just mean that for the most part there literally isn't much acting going on there because 300 isn't that kind of movie.

Besides, I'm not even sure why you're arguing with me. I said he avoided going cartoonishly over the top. You know, the opposite of actually going over the top?

Also, you missed a quote. The historical Leonidas really did say, "Come get them" when asked to throw down his weapons. ;)

Re: 300
 

I heard that there weren't any golem/crab mutants and ghost warriors back then. Does that mean 300 is historically innacurate? Can anyone confirm this? I think I might not like this movie anymore if I knew some of it wasn't real...

Re: 300
 

So how violent is it! Dawn of the Deadish?

Re: 300
 

I just saw. It was...pretty. Ended with Enya so I'm satisfied.


For a movie about a war, I didn't find it too violent...if by violent you mean gory...since a lot of people are bound to die in such a movie. A few slow motion decapitations at its goriest I think.

Re: 300
 

Yeah I mean gory. Thanks.

Re: 300
 

Hardy har har... Once again, I enjoyed the movie, but I'm also a history enthusiast and the story of 300 doesn't need much embellishment. In fact, this story is my favorite historical moment of all time and what inspired me to want to be a teacher, so I could relate such amazing moments in human history.

Thats where a movie such as this frustrates me. Most people don;t take the time to educate themselves on the historical portions of historical fiction... so they believe the fiction is the truth. My nightmare is people thinking that Xerxes' Immortals really had boar tusks and scales...

I think a historially accurate potrayal of this battle and story would not only be just as entertaining, but enlightening and show Spartans for both their strengths and their weaknesses, which makes them more human and therefore more relatable to us all.

And Xantar, I never "argue" with you. We simply have very passionate discussions.

Re: 300
 

I havent seen it, but I dont know why people would take it literally. I mean...give the general populace a little more credit than that.


I look at the movie from a point of a word of mouth story just passed on through generations, and things become skewed. A "And it was as if they had tusks" could be changed to "they had tusks" to make it more entertaining.

Then again, I dont know, I havent seen it. But that's just my opinion.

Re: 300
 

[quote=Typhoid;207946]I havent seen it, but I dont know why people would take it literally. I mean...give the general populace a little more credit than that.[quote]

Are we both talking about the same general populace? The one I'm talking about have proven themselves to be knee-jerk, naive, giant tongued mongoloids who believe anything they see on a movie screen. "An Inconvenient Truth" being a perfect example. "New York City under 20 feet of water" and "warriors with scales and tusks" both have about the same amount of scientific backing and believability, so why would I think anything else about the general populace?

*best segway to a political conversation EVER*

Re: 300
 

Or for that matter, "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction."

*runs away*

:D

Re: 300
 

Hey, Xantar posts!