300
 

HOLY FUCKING SHIT.

I just watched the teaser for this badboy on iFilm, and it looks to be one of the most insanely amazing action movies ever. Words simply fail me to describe how incredible this looks, so I'll just link the trailer.

It's like having an orgasm in your eyes.

This movie needs to come out. NOW.

Wow. I ...don't really know exactly what's going on but I'm fucking pumped.

I've been ignoring all news on this movie for a LONG time and now I have no regrets. This got me more pumped up than I think I would had I known what 300 was.

Eh, I think they applied too much CG; it makes everything look unrealistic and overly stylized. Also, the modern soundtrack (NIN?) doesn't help. I've seen some clips where the actors were practicing formations and it was pretty cool, though. I guess I'll reserve my judgement until I actually see the movie.

But given the trailer, I wouldn't want the director anywhere near Alan Moore's Watchmen.

the visual style is somewhat impressive but overall I'm not interested in these kind of movies. I never liked the gladiator type films since they all feel the same in my opinion.
We all know the hero dies ^^

Didnt look too special too me. Kinda hard for me to watch to since Im a iranian lol.

Meh, looks like another King Arthur. I saw King Arthur, and i'll probably end up seeing this one too. It doesn't look fantastic, but whatever, there's been worse.

It seems to block IPs outside US, right?

Here's a YouTube link.

*watches trailer*

Good one, I remember saying a girlfriend that I was growing tired of this Braveheart-esque kind of movies (Alexander, Troy, King Arthur, etc) as they seem to follow the same formula: Epic battle with some notable deaths (a sword right trough the eye, for example) however this one looks good.

The way blood is spelled is soooo God Of War on its cut scenes, if the God Of War movie adaptation isn't like this (which is most likely) I'll be disappointed.

Fucking hell. Talk about overselling and undue enthusiasm.

Going in at a neutral interest level, I may have rated this trailer 4/10. But on the JasonTerminator Scale of Exaggerated Opinions it's probably something like -234/10.

Are you serious?

http://i9.tinypic.com/29nw41g.jpg

I've never used ifilm before so I don't know what it really is, and to tell you the truth, I couldn't care less :)

Are you kidding?

This movie is style incarnate.

I have to agree that the movie doesn't seem extremely mind-blowing, from that trailer at least. Not to say that it's bad, but not HOLY SHIT ORGASM WOW WOW.

The movie is about the Battle of Thermopylae (Greece vs Persia, Persians being the ancestors of the modern day Iranians).

This movie looks hot. *goes off to read his downloaded 300 comics*

Anyone have a working trailer?

edit: downloaded trailer off Demonoid, meh.

Worked for me.

Most of the trailer didn't look like anything special, but I may end up going to see it. I've always thought that the Battle of Thermopylae was one of the coolest points of Greek history, so the main point of the movie is quite appealing to me. As long as it's better than Troy it should be interesting.

It's not just one of the main points of Greek history, it's arguably the most important event in Western History. If the Persians had gone through the pass unimpeded there's a good chance that all our cultural development would have been set by Persia and not the City States. Maybe the Germanics.

I can't watch this trailer without being moved to tears. There's not a doubt in my mind that this will be the greatest film of the season. I never read 300, and I didn't even watch The 300 Spartans that I bought my grandparents last Christmas. This is going to be pure style, and probably one of the few movies to present a true sense of legend.

I've not seen the trailer let (IFILM and YouTube both fail to have it), but I've seen some behind the scenes stuff in the past and it certainly looked promising. I'll be keeping an eye out for this for sure.

They seem to still have it here.

Cheers Brady. Looks cool.

300
 

It's based on a Frank Miller novel.
It's 300 against 1,000,000
It's going to be epic.

trailers at.
http://300themovie.warnerbros.com/

it'll be rated R in all theatres.

And this video shows scenes from 300 and a bunch of other upcoming and recently released movies.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Jzd8647iNnA

I think the only way to describe this is epic......I got wet just watching the trailer. Somehow I believe this will make Gladiator look like Playhouse Disney.
Then again I love all of Frank Miller's work so I'm a tad bias :D
On cinematography alone it looks like a master piece, let alone the actors the music......trails off.....Seriously though, I haven't been this excited since they released Lord of the Rings. I love Greek mythology, this looks to put everything I enjoy on the topic into a film.

I don't think there's any possible way this can be a flop :)

Yeah. =/

http://www.gamingforce.com/forums/me...?highlight=300

Lol yeh i was about to ask how is there not a topic about this awesome movie!!??!!

god, what page is that on? My bad all the way.

Tacky photography, tacky wardrobe, tacky sets, tacky screenplay, tacky bronze g-string.

Yeah; epic.

what how the hell is it tacky!?!

The whole feel, and imagery screams quality! :boxing:

http://www.comingsoon.net/gallery/Action/300/30012.jpg

I think it looks pretty good. I'll have to check it out once it hits the theatres.

That's what I thought too, but I'm not a fan of green screen stuff. I'll still probably see it.

I saw previews over the weekend. I was pretty horrified. It's all campy and gay. I mean, I'd always thought the Battle at Thermopylae was this heroic sacrifice on the part of the Spartans to save Greece from the Persian horde. These same people are now going to be led by what appeared to be a greased up Orlando Bloom in a leather thong. I just can't reconcile the two.

Go watch Spartacus, and leave the campy bad ass movies to people who don't get misty during 8th grade world history.

I think the Cinematography looks pretty cool. Err the acting looks over dramatic though so I'm not sure. I hope it's good and it doesn't turn out like most of those movies that are cool to look at but once you get down to the acting and everything else, it falls flat.

I like how people are saying that this is going to be tacky when it has been rated as one of the best things about "The Grudge 2" (which is when the trailer first hit theaters)

I really love how people are saying that this is going to be tacky, yet it is shot in the same style as Sin City with color.

Award winning photography that was used in Sin City
Nearly historically accurate Spartan clothing for that era
Because pillars and mountain cliffs are tacky. Good Job nature, now do it right
Screenplay based off of an award winning graphic novel. Awards suck.
Because armor doesn't weigh anyone down and fighting is a fashion statement.

Main Entry: 2tacky
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): tacki·er; -est
Etymology: tacky a low-class person
1 a : characterized by lack of good breeding <couldn't run around downtown...in a bikini, which was tacky -- Cyra McFadden> b : SHABBY, SEEDY <a tacky town whose citrus groves were blighted by smoke -- Bryce Nelson>
2 : not having or exhibiting good taste: as a : marked by lack of style : DOWDY b : marked by cheap showiness : GAUDY <a tacky publicity stunt> <a tacky outfit>

Your post reminds me of this:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2006/20060905.jpg

Anyhow, looking forward to this movie :)

The Spartans were also known for having a culture of rampant homosexuality and the common practice of pederasty. Maybe they thought having nearly naked soldiers was hot.

Couldn't of put it any clearer man, bring on the 30th of March (UK)

It looks OK, but I really dislike the false colour effects; it's overdone and looks like it is trying too hard to be "cool". Something that looks so obviously manipulated takes away the impact that an appearance of reality would lend it.

The Spartans have also the sense of community.

At least I can fuck his wife if my wife cannot make children.

You people make life difficult. (: *merges threads*

What if you thought Sin City's style was a gimmick designed to coverup plot, character, and direction flaws in the movie? I certainly hope this movie will be good, but the trailer doesn't give me a whole lot of hope (though in its defense it doesn't seem like a very well thought out trailer, and that is not the fault of the movie itself).

You're thinking of the Athenians. Spartans performed wife swapping and female bisexuality.

I'm really looking forward to this one. I haven't read the comic book (maybe someday) but I'm sure that I'll go to the cinema and not download it from the net. Even if it means waiting 'extra' 3 months...

Bloody Plato; what a git *rolls eyes*. Just about everything i've seen on the Spartans (including supposedly well-researched documentaries) makes the claim that they would take young boys under their wing for a bit of slap and tickle, but that it was seen as perverse to screw around with them unless they were preteens. Ah well, wife-swapping sounds fun.

If you thought this, then you obviously know jack shit about Sin City in terms of the movie and the graphic novel.

That "gimmick" style is taken straight from the book. A black and white style with small bits of color to give it a gritty look. That's what Miller was going for.

Now your opinion on the characters is fine by me because I don't like some of them either.

Using the "gimmick" to cover up plot and directional flaws is moronic. The entire Sin City series is more then 7 books long. All they did was take three of the books and turned them into a movie. There was no directional flaws because you don't have to read the novels in order.


Ulysses, granted it looks falsely colored, they where trying to get close to Miller's book which is page after page of detailed but extremely heavily drawn with a lot of dark outlines and shadowing. I guess that's what they where trying to copy.

I really disliked Gladiator as well, but the ultra-stylized look in this movie, as well as crazy characters and pretty much over the top everything has me interested because it seems to be taking a fantasy approach to something that (at least supposedly) did happen.

In that same vein, I think attempting to apply a historical value to this movie is kind of pointless. It's so far removed that you're basically talking about two different Spartas.

On another note, because this has become legend, as Brady pointed out, I feel like something that is archetypal in nature would better fit the storytelling than something that tries to be historically accurate.

In 300's case, what you're going to see is a fairy tale or a myth. The costume, set, and character design reflect that somewhat in creating clearly defined good and bad guys, establishing heroic as well as tragic scenes. You're going to see spectacle, but it's pretty obvious you won't be surprised whatsoever if Whatshisface betrays Whoosit, or Bob Spartan takes an arrow in the back.

You mean individually celebrated elements, when bunged together, couldn't possibly NOT make a great composition? Really?

Looks gay from the trailer. And the makings-of.

I wished they made a movie based off of Steven Pressfield's "Gates of Fire". A great book and anyone interested in the Battle of Thermopylae should give it a good read. Has anyone else here read that book?

...what? I'm not comparing the movie to the comic. I don't even care about the comic that much; I just want to see a good and interesting movie. I'm acknowledging that the visual style is done to mimic the look and feel of the comics, and I don't think that's inherently a bad idea. But watching Sin City, all I saw was a visual style, with a lot of forgettable directing and absolutely terrible dialogue. It wasn't a "one or the other" sort of thing; you can have a good visual look and still have decent directing and acting and plot.

That is what I'm fearing with 300; that it has this look to it and nothing to back it up. Style over substance, I believe the term is. At the very least, it should be entertaining, which I can say of Sin City as well.

Well the directing was done by Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller taken straight from the novels. If you watch the extra stuff on the uncut edition of Sin City, they admit to having Miller direct it while they watched over the shoulder, as well as using the novels they needed the entire time to set up shots and get a directional feel on how the movie should look. As for dialogue, they where reading from the novel, not some dumb ass script that was written. Every last word came from the book or from Frank Miller telling them to say something different. When it comes to this movie, you have to compare to book because that's what they did when directing it.

Pay attention kids, this is called an opinion, everyone has them and they are killing off logical thought patterns in a timely manner. So please, hit yourself with a rock, it's better for everyone.


Well from the look of things, that is the kind of stuff that has made movies box office hits over the years. Weather you like it or not the fact that these where the box office hits doesn't matter because, well that's just how the movie industry goes.

Yeah, if the film is modeled directly after the source material, then el jacko is pretty much saying the comic is gay irregardless of his ignorance.

You're not really making much of a point here.

Wow, I gotta this movie looks incredible! They were showing the trailer during the previews before Ghost Rider. Really impressive visuals with the cgi environments. I'll definitely be checking this one out, if not opening night then for sure the weeknd of. Hell, I think I'll even look into grabbing the trade for it.

Love the NiN song they used in the trailer too, kicks ass!

Oh dear. =/

This film looks excellent, I cannot wait until its release. Finally something worth watching at the theatre.

TONIGHT WE DIE IN HELL!!!!

Yeah, I'm probably going to see this.. It would be the first movie I saw in theatres since Pirates of the Carribean 2, but it looks worth its 9.50.

Um.

That's "Tonight we DINE in Hell."

i am very excited for this movie and i know it will do very well!

You know, it's odd. This movie has all the things I hated about the Matrix sequels (except bad plot): over-used slow motion, over-used color correction, way too much unnatural choreography, and lots and lots of CGI; and yet I'm totally going to enjoy this movie! I don't even feel like this movie can disappoint (of coarse, that's how i felt about Matrix Reloaded). Maybe it's the fact that I already know and like the story (as opposed to weak plot), and maybe the cinematography is just way better than I'm used to. Maybe it's because the slo-mo, color correction, and CGI are used ARTFULLY rather than just thrown in there for cool points. Maybe it's the idea that the slow motion and choreography help illustrate the emotion, ferrocity, and skill of the 300 Spartans' final moments, and not just "Hey guyz, let's slow down this long kung-fu fight to show how cool it is!". Maybe its the idea that this movie is true to a very awesome source material, which in turn is based on a true story that is well known. I don't know what it is that makes this movie seem so much better despite it's Hollywoodness (MADNESS?), but I do know that I'm going to watch this movie and be extremely entertained by it.

300 Soundtrack

I thought some might be interested.

edit: if it says the file is unavailable, you might want to try back at a later time. if this persists, i'll do a re-upload

Holy crap! Nice find, gonna download that as soon as I get home!

What quality is the rip?

file only 88 meg, so its not going be super :(

You get what you pay for so I shouldnt complain.

It's in vbr. The file size is slightly small because the album's a little under an hour long. Here are the dirty details:

ENCODER : LAME v3.97 -V2 --vbr-new
QUALiTY : 189kbps avg / 44.1kHz / Joint Stereo

I re-uploaded it to SendSpace to help with the circulation, and incase megaupload isn't to your liking.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/m2uyrt

I just came out from the movie (which I saw in advance screening).

No spoilers ahead.

So here comes the main opinion: If you like blood, battle and special effects, this is full of it. You're going to get 2h00 of that and only that. The story is secondary to the visual effects and battles if you ask me. Expect to see lots of blood and gore.


The music of the movie isn't that bad considering it's the first time I ever hear about this composer.

So that's my opinion. If you want to see 2hours of intense battle, blood and gore. Go see this movie. If you're not in the mood for that. Don't go.

There is a story?

Thanks for the review; that's pretty much what I thought this film would contain after seeing the trailers. It looks like a CG version of an ancient-greece-based DBZ game.

Lol, nothing to spoil as far as story. Quite simply 300 Spartans fight to death against a million Persians. Simple, basic, all we need to know. Haha, I'd be surprised if people went into this expecting a story like Gladiator's. Hell, even the director said he's not even interested in doing an accurate retelling of history.

Intense battle, blood, and gore is exactly what I'm expecting and wanting to see. This'll be one kick ass movie!

I'm going to be seeing this at the local Omni-max on Friday. I'll be sure to post a review when I get back.

No shit it's not supposed to be a direct re-telling of history, it's based on a comic book. In terms of story, 300's plot was severely outpaced by its themes.

It seems that everything any character says in this movie is badass.
"The arrows will block out the sun"
"Then we'll fight in the shade."

"Spartans, lay down your weapons!"
"Persians, come and get them!"

Even if the story may be thin, I'd gladly take this type of style over substance any day.

It's because those lines are actually said in history, much to the delight of military history buffs. The first was said by Dienekes with the "shade" thing. The second line with the Persians is the English term for "Molon Labe!"

Having read the story of the war as well as the comic, I can't help but feel excited. Definitely watching it this Friday.

I have a question, for anyone that has seen the movie or knows quite a bit about it. Do the Spartans use the phalanx formation for most of the fighting?

Going to watch this movie on the weekend, not on friday like the early goers.
Even though the story is obvious the midway battles look worth going for.

From what I've read and seen in the graphic novel, they do use it at least twice (or three times, I think).

I just came back from a special showing at my university (thanks to a friend who secured a ticket for me woot), and I must say, I liked it a lot.

To answer TheXeno's question, yes, they do use phalanx in the movie, but I forgot to count how many times (more than once for sure though).

Like Mithrandir said, this movie is totally worth watching if you like gory war movies from ancient times. I will try to minimize spoilers here, and maybe it was just with the group I saw it with, but there were a lot of "funny" scenes. By that I mean we were laughing at a lot of the stuff that was going on. I don't know if it was intentional or not (usually just when someone's getting killed, but I guess the way they get killed), but it seemed almost appropiate.

There were a lot of cheers too whenever you see a Spartan jumping, and a lot of laughs as well (again, usually cause something funny happens). Kind of corny and over the top at times, but it doesn't detract from the movie at all, unless you like nitpicking every little flaw and detail in a movie.

Having read the graphic novel ahead of time (and liking it too), I like that they stayed relatively true to the source material. There were some changes here and there, but it was mostly minor stuff, and for the most part, probably stayed about 90% the way it happened in the book (certainly during the battle scenes).

And don't worry if you think this movie won't have much action in it. Although it's a little slow to start, once the fighting starts, the movie hardly gives you too much time to "catch your breath". There are a few "slow" scenes in between the battles, but for the most part, blood spills, limbs fly, and bodies fall quite a bit.

In case you're wondering, here's some discrepancies from the graphic novel and the movie that I noticed:



So yeah, if you like those kinds of ancient war movies, you'll love 300. Some stuff seems almost fantasy-like, but again, this is a fictionalized account of it, so don't sweat it if every detail isn't right.

I thought this movie was absolute garbage. Which sucks, because I was really really looking forward to it :(

What this movie does right:

- Awesome visuals, though on some shots you can see some digital grain. Not a huge deal, but just something I nitpicked.
- Very good fights aside from how many fucking motion effects were applied. Will elaborate on that later... The fights were real good though.

What it did wrong-

- Everything else

Narrative is extremely trite and cliche. You can see pretty much everything that happens come from a mile away. Even cliches that don't belong end up happening. It was laughable and felt very un-Frank Miller. Some of the dialogue was good, but most of it didn't feel like it fit or belonged.

The visuals were fantastic, but ended up being marred by the EXTREME OVERABUNDANCE of slow and fast-motion. The movie would have been 45 minutes long if they had taken out all the slow motion. It was excessive, unmotivated, and made everything that happened seem of little importance.

The CG blood didn't bother me for the most part, but there were some CG shots that were so stupid. At one point, a Spartain is about to be hit with a whip, and the whip GOES RIGHT PAST THE CAMERA IN SLOW MOTION AND YOU SEE EVERY SINGLE STRAND OF FABRIC!!! Stupid.

Ugh... It was such a disappointment. Don't see it if you like originality in movies.

I for one loved! All action is what I wanted, and is exactly what I received and then some (like the graphic love scene, it was like soft-porn). I laugh at those who went in expecting story! I have to agree with sprouticus that there was an overabundance of the slow/fast-mo usage, but I actually enjoyed it. As it gave focus on some of the slashes and decapitations the Spartans made.

Like Gecko mentioned many of the shots in the movie, were just like the graphic novel, panel to panel. Much of the dialogue was straight from the GN too, with some great additions (heh, and them being memorable too). The Queen and the council at Sparta sequences, even though they never happend in the GN, were nice additions in attempt to give the movie a little story and the Queen a bit more of a role.

Oh and loved the soundtrack too. Great work by Tyler Bates.

My viewing also had great crowd response too. All very respectful, cheering and joking at the appropriate times (lol, like that big fat guy with claws for hands). Actually made the overall experience even more enjoyable.

I was surprised that this didn't get an NC-17 rating (well not here anyway) like Sin City did, where no minors were allowed even if accompanied by an adult. As this movie definitely was more gorey than Sin City, and had some really graphic sexuality (lol, it was almost like watching porno at times).

Definitely gotta go see this on the IMAX for my next viewing.

Oh and BTW they showed a new Spidey 3 trailer during the previews.

Yes, I've read it, and I agree that it would have made an excellent movie as well. There are some lines in the book that I would have liked to have seen, but as a different take on it, the 300 comic series was most excellently done, and this movie follows the comics to a tee.

Very beautiful in the layouts with intense action scenes (very intense action scenes) make this an excellent movie. I would have to say that this was one of the best and most faithful adaptions of comic to big screen taht I have seen.

As far as story, sure it didn't have much because everyone knows of the history of the occurance. It was how it was told that made this such a good comic/movie. I will definately be seeing it again when it comes to the Imax here and then buying it on DVD later. It gets my two thumbs up.

Everyone in the theatre clapped their hands and cheered at this one particular scene; me included:



Those past two hours were never boring. Sure, originality and all that is an issue here but I love the visual flair and all of that. Fight scenes were cool too.

It ain't groundbreaking, for sure. But I really enjoyed it and loved every minute of it.

Hahaha, yea everyone at our viewing too (me included), cheers an' all, that definitely deserved ovation.

There's a reason why you can see everything coming from a mile away. It's based on a comic book that's almost a decade old, which is loosely based on events that happened 2500 years ago. What the hell did you think was going to happen?

Take a look at the comic. You'll find a lot of the slo-mo shots emphasized poses or actions that were found in panels of the comic. It's part of the stylized feel of the movie.

I thought it would be a bit more original considering who penned the original work. I'm talking less about the plot and more about the tired Hollywood shit you always see in these kinds of movies. Examples-

1. Leonidis is on a balcony looking out into the night because his mind is torn. He goes to talk to his naked wife about it. After which, they have sex (with a few completely unneeded shots of him duking her from behind). Come on, that EXACT SCENE has been done NUMEROUS TIMES ALREADY (without the doggystyle fucking too).

2. The emphasis on the captain's son. Well, lookit that, he died. Real shocker!

3. The queen giving Leonidis her necklace for good luck!

I could go on forever. Everything I saw in this movie has been done already, and done better. All the emotional shit it tried to force into the film was just that - forced. It was so bad to the point that it completely took me out of the film. It just tried too hard to be something it wasn't. I'll bet it's conveyed better in Frank Miller's comic, but in this slow-motion 2-hour music video, it just came off as a joke.


That's all well and good, but this is still a film. That sort of shit may work in MODERATION, but only that. This is a 2-hour narrative-driven film, not a music video. The slow-mo was obscenely excessive for a film like this.

Okay everyone, I want you to name the last original movie you saw...one that totally did not use any cliche at all and had absolutely no plot devices that could be tied-in with another movie...I'll be impressed if anyone names something after 1980.

I have yet to see the film, but I'm gonna be one of those people that gets suckered in and likes the movie for it's style, and not care that it is unoriginal. If the acting is good and the action is great, then I'll come out of it happy.

P.S. The Matrix didn't invent bullet time...it's called slow motion.

Actually, "bullet time" isn't the same as slow motion. It's the filming process they used to get nearly 360-degree shots in live action slow motion, one that had never been used before. Watch the making of the Matrix sometime, you'll see the huge difference.

As for 300... it was extremely satisfying. Perfectly over-the-top where it was supposed to be. The thing that impressed me the most? How many of the HUGE battle sequences were filmed in one continuous shot ... the amount of choreography, special effects, and every other type of work that had to have gone into that... amazing. I realize a lot of it was CG-enhanced and whatnot, but even still, it's absolutely amazing. That was the one thing that stuck out to me above everything else. It made the fighting more believable, visceral, and intense.

I will sleep well knowing that I avoided another movie where characters give fairwell gifts, cos that doesnt happen in real life.

Seriously man, wtf is wrong with you!

Needless sex scenes is a good point though. But I wouldnt say that would ruin a movie for me.

At least the needless sex was at the start and over quickly so that the real business of making people dead was ready to go. I thought it was a little out of place (ie. long) sort of like the gratuitous sex in A History of Violence, but like in that movie, the sex in this one didn't ruin it for me. At least it wasn't as long as the Matrix sex scene...

Watching 300 was the same experience as playing some "smash hit" action game - namely God of War kept coming up in the back of my mind while watching certain scenes in this movie, in short, it satisfies the super manly testosterone blood driven glory that pushes the film forward, however as already expected from previews and trailers, isn't going to go all that deep - and neither is the dialogue. The battle scenes were fantastic, however. I thought the CGed armies featured in LOTR was overwhelming, the Persian forces, as I remembered it, looked as they could run over their forces.
What I liked about the battle scenes for this particular film, 300, is they would focus on Leonidus going toe to toe, displaying in full aplomb, of dispatching and killing of the Persian footsoldiers one by one, rather than rely on shaky camera movements and blury motion to convey a hectic environment.

I'm not saying ONLY THOSE THREE THINGS are what stopped me from enjoying the movie. I'm saying that those are just some examples of the countless cliches found in this movie.

Yes, I've heard the whole "there is no more originality in movies" argument dozens of times by dozens of people who like shitty movies like 300. The question I ask is, are the cliches handles well enough to where they don't take you out of the movie? In 300, they aren't and they completely take me out of the experience because I'm sitting there laughing at it's attempts to be some emotional rollercoaster, which it clearly isn't.

As I said, I wasn't completely displeased. The fighting was fantastic when slow motion wasn't gratuitously used. It was nice to actually SEE the fighting as opposed to the usual cut-aways and other tricks that directors do to avoid showing full-blown violence.

However, a bunch of buff guys slicing the shit out of a bunch of Persian douchebags is not enough for a movie. Many reviewers said this movie would be better as a game, and I agree. it doesn't carry the emotional weight a movie should.

300 Makes 27.7 Million Opening Day!

http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=5315
Wow that's insane, can't remember the last time a rated R movie made that much.

It's a war movie. It's not supposed to make you weep and cry and blubber like a pussybitch.

Also,


Anyway, I saw the movie last night and I thought it was absolutely fantastic. It was the one movie in a long time that I've gone to see where I couldn't find anything to complain about.

... Except for maybe the nipples on all the ladies. But that is perhaps a discussion better taken to the sewers.

Tell that to the people who get emotional when they watch Saving Private Ryan, Letters from Iwo Jima, and the countless other war movies that carry emotional depth.

Here's why I am apparently a soulless asshole:


I think that because I'm a film major, my bullshit-meter has become far too sensitive. Regardless, I don't see why I simply can't like the movie without you people calling me a soulless asshole and asking "wtf is wrong with me."

Brazil.


I really enjoyed the movie. It was better than I expected, though the slow motion was overused. Either way, it was well done.

I'll step up to the challenge. If self-plagiarism doesn't count, one only need look at last year's Three Times by Hou Hsiao-Hsien or the Dardenne Brother's The Child - both absent in "traditional cliche" and what one would call a "plot device". Other works that wholly retools cinematic narrative include Terrence Malick's works, most notably '05's The New World, or David Lynch's oeuvre, most notably Inland Empire and Mulholland Dr. One could even argue Richard Linklater's Before Sunset is "original"/"devoid of cliche". Then there's China's newcomer, Jia Zhang Ke, whose angsty films are expressed with cinematic minimalism, and definitely abandons any use of "devices" to drive his almost nonexistent narrative.

"Original" is a loaded word, but there are retoolings of narrative, visual, sound strategies in more abundance than you would think (mostly outside the USA but can be spotted within the Hollywood Machine if one looks close enough - Last year's Miami Vice and this year's Zodiac takes full advantage of HD's low-light capacity, and captures the idea of "night" never before seen in movies)

Sprouticus I wish I could defend you but alas I haven't watched 300 yet (at this point definitely more out of obligation than desire) - technically I could end up liking it, though I foresee that as less likely than not hearing my friends lament "THIS IS SPARTA!" at least once a day for the next few weeks.

I thought the movie was great, and did an outstanding job of bringing a comic book to life. It was really faithful to the source material, and I was glad that the action didn't disappoint. The movie is just a perfect pop-corn flick, where you can turn off your brain, and just enjoy the fireworks.

I can see how some people might complain how the movie is lacking characterization and all that good stuff that makes movies win Best Picture at the Oscars, but to those folks, I ask you this: how many of those were based on a comic book? I can't think of any, but I'm not a major film buff, so perhaps someone might enlighten me.

To add to that, I took a glimpse at the director's credentials, and apparently the only other experience the director has in actual film-making was Dawn of the Dead, the zombie movie... Big surprise that 300 isn't the next Gladiator eh?

I must've been the only one who didn't see that coming, then. Because when it did happen, I was pretty surprised and thoroughly heart-broken.


2. What did you expect? It's not as if the spartans or persians had GUNS or anything. You've pretty much got a limited amount of ways on how to kill a man given the time period this war takes place.

Also, I think the film trick was kind of neat.

You're free to like or dislike whatever you want, man. I'm not saying you can't hate the movie for what it is. Just you know, don't be surprised if the majority don't agree with you on it.

We're not ALL film majors, here :shrug:

Pretty damn good movie. The slow motion walking was awesome.

Slow motion bashing Persians in the face was awesome



also, if you say this movie sucks, fuck you, go to hell, die, and then die again. This includes you film majors, just because you like movies in more than a platonic way does not make you the Academy, it just makes you pompous(yay sundance).



This is still my favorite Frank Miller work to date

The movie was pretty good. Around 8/10 at the most.

Action scenes were flawless. In fact, I wish there had been more.
Any other story scenes and dialogue were clunky, trite, cliched.

Every time the movie went back to the queen, it sucked the life out of the pacing. The ending went on too long and was completely in slow motion (which was especially unnecessary when there was no action besides walking and looking). I found the messages of the film to be muddled. How can we believe these characters' rants about freedom, honor and justice when they are a brutal, slave-owning, baby-killing warrior nation?

However, every frame of this film was beautiful (visually speaking). You just have to ignore the immature mentality of the writing.

I saw it tonight, and I really couldn't agree more. The action scenes were beautiful and I thoroughly enjoyed them.

The Spartans were some badass dudes, man. I wish they had given us a little background on it before we were introduced to Xerxes and Leonidas - a little more on Spartan culture. I think it REALLY lends a lot to the story, but it wasn't a historical account, so.

Agree so hard.

I sat through it and I really enjoyed the style of the film. I just wish there was a lot more to it. At some points, I felt the drama was ramped up so bad to compensate for the lack of a strong plot. But I guess thats a part of what the film great - there's not a whole lot going on, but the beauty of it makes you interested and unable to take your eyes away.

And I have this REALLY bad habit of seeing Lord of the Rings in pretty much EVERYTHING these days. I saw SO MUCH of the trilogy that I was literally laughing at some points. Could be me, though.

As for the Captain's son, I didn't flinch when he was killed until I saw the father's response. Slow motion does that to a scene, I guess. I saw it coming though. The entire time he was bantering during battle, you could tell he was going to get it.

I have to say the the movie was so satisfying. History makes for interesting stories, all you have to do is know where and when to look. Combined with modern technology, this was a great movie. This is what Troy could have been, instead it was a commercial for pretty boys and lacked substance.

For what little plot 300 had to go with, they made it last a hell of a long time. Choreography was superb, the story telling was truly great, and the gore.. well obviously that was satisfying.

Only thing I really didn't like about the movie was the overall immaturity of theatergoers in general. Acting as though most had never seen a naked body before, fucking christ. wish I had a spear or two to be throwing in the theatre, but I digress. Good movie, 8/10

It may sound lazy, but I'm just going to say I agree with sprouticus 80%. Cliched, substance-less, etc.

HOWEVER, I didn't feel like I wasted money seeing it. It was more an experience than a movie. Watching this movie in DLP with great sound is a joy just for the beauty of it all. I was let down by the story, but the cinematography was wonderful. My friend said during one scene "I want that as a poster." I replied "This whole fucking movie is a series of great wallpapers."

This is such a huge part of the story. A reminder that before temerity, the integrity and accuracy of your ideals are something important to consider. The noble fight for the freedom of Greeks against an outside oppressor is, well, noble, but the condition of those at home should not be ignored.

It's a Frank Miller work. There are, of course, no easy moral answers.

That said, the action sequences were amazing and really lived up to Miller's distinct style and pacing. A shot early in the movie of the curled back muscles of an anonymous Spartan reminded me intensely of Miller's mastery of the human anatomy (and sometimes subtle distortions thereof).

One thing that bothered me was the muddied and inconsistent accents in the film. Sometimes characters had them, sometimes they did not, and they changed from character to character. It would have been nice for all of the Spartans to speak similarly, and likewise the Persians, Arcadians, and Greeks. The costuming was fantastic and helped establish the identities of each tribe (Something, I think, that was true in Greece -- your clothes were an important part of your identity. Clothes made the man, so to speak). It's too bad the dialog could not match.

The subplot with the Queen, while compelling, was poorly executed, IMO. It could have helped to complement the action and battle going on abroad ("meanwhile, the battle for the home front..."), but it only really served to distract. The betrayal of the councilman was not surprising at all (primarily because they showed him with a Persian bribing the mystics), and I think that sort of betrayal could have been really powerful had it been withheld. "Is he just misguided? Will he keep his word? I wonder if he was bought by the Persians too.." would have been an excellent mystery to have going on in the background. Alas, it was revealed far to early that he was just a plain old turncoat.

Good movie, but some poor execution in some spots. Not sure if it's worth a repeat viewing, though, which might hurt it's sales on DVD.

Yes, I am a film major. Yes, I enjoyed this movie.

Anything that was trite and cliche about this movie didn't really bother me in least (especially being based upon history). If the dialogue was really weak, it didn't really bother me due to the intensity of it's delivery. I really enjoyed the level of the audio in the movie and combined with the massive visual presentation, I couldn't imagine seeing it outside a theater; I don't think the experience would be the same.

The visuals really appealed to me (though perhaps more as an illustrator/artist than a filmmaker), the whole thing seemed like some sort of grand painting. Near the end when they reveal the arrowed/body filled field, the colors in the red capes were so rich and beautiful. It basically seemed like a living oil painting.

As far as the slow motion, I didn't see a problem with it per se. It seemed more fitting of a comic-adaptation movie. I also hate fast paced action movies where the editing is so quick you have no idea what the fuck is going on. The alternating slow/normal/fast motion of the movie gave it an interesting visual rhythm that I found quite enjoyable. And the score was pretty cool as well. Money well spent in my opinion.

Servilonus, check out the original comics. Or really, anything Frank Miller has done. He has the most amazing anatomy. Plus, he loves doing spreads and huge panels that are just gorgeous.

The film captured all of this beautifully.

I dont care if they have different tastes, thats fine because my whole family doesn't like the movie. They don't like the blood and gore of it. I don't care, they can go watch Wild Hogs, it is comments like this,
and the pointless over analyzing and nit picking of movies that make them pompous. "useless sex scene" in the movie, how about movie adapted from award winning graphic novel. More than 80% of that movie was spot on to the graphic novel.

I will admit to it being slow and stretched in parts of the movie, but over all, it was great. Sure it was gritty, but trying to capture the look of the novel and the feel of that era, gritty is good. The way the showed Xerxes as a "king of kings, god of gods" was more than amazing. A 10 foot tall black man with a digital voice over cover in and surrounded by gold, he truly looked like a god, a perfect way to resemble Frank Miller's idea. The slow motion was ideal and my favorite part of the whole movie. Watching the ends of the battles go down in that kind of speed sort of amplified the point that Spartan warriors fought strong and hard, with out letting up. Leonidas smashing the Persian warrior with his shield at the end of the first fight is what really caught me on to the use of slow motion. Just watching how a true hand to hand battle would go down and be able to see everything was just amazing.

To say it sucks because of the way it was shot, or the actors, or some actual factor is more appropriate than because it was gritty, or cliche (name a movie with out a single cliche in it, shouldn't be hard for a film major {not directed to you Servilonus} because you would know that in "war" movies leaders don't make speeches because their wifes are at home waiting for them to save everyone.

Cliches, they are in every god damned movie and that is the problem with film students/film majors. They cant see past the small cliches to notice the huge story in front of them. I heard law school pays more.

That's your opinion and I'm fine with it. Don't knock mine because you feel it's inferior to yours just because I have more knowledge about the medium. Grow up.

Again, your opinion. Which is fine, just stop preaching it to me like it's fact. Personally, I thought Xerces looked great, but I don't think a tall, gold-covered Prince lookalike like him would have been able to lead any armies, except for maybe an army of Persian cock into his tight ass.

I also thought the voice was so poorly handled at times that, like the clichés, it took me out of the movie. But that's just me.

Yeah, I thought the fighting was good too. Where did I say it wasn't? It's the slow motion that bothered me.

This is where your obvious case of down syndrome comes into play. Where in my posts did I say I didn't like it because it was "gritty?" I didn't say that anywhere. If anything, that was a positive aspect of the film.

The fact that you feel that "the way it was shot, or the actors" are actual factors as to why a movie sucks really shows just how much you don't know about movies. That's fine though. Not all people know about films like me and other majors do. You can go ahead and go see movies like 300 and enjoy them. You like your shitty movies, and I'll like my shitty movies. Different strokes, man.

More bullshit. If you ask me, it's not how many clichés there are in a movie, it's how they're handled. It's how they're different from all the other clichés. Yes, I know mr. wise film viewer, I know there aren't a TON of non-clichéd movies out there, but the thing that's important to ME is, how does a movie make the clichés feel different and unique, to where it DOESN'T take you out of the movie and ruin it for people like me and the 8 people I saw it with?

If you ask me, 300 handled its clichés extremely poorly. They detracted from the awesome fighting scenes and overall tried to force emotion down our throat instead of letting it build for us naturally, like most good movies do.

Oh boo fucking hoo. Did a film major kill your brother or something? Grow the fuck up you cuntrag. I have my opinions and you have yours.

That's probably my #1 complaint with the movie.

From CNN:

It seems most of you who loved it fit into this category...

I guess for visuals, it's great. But that's about it.

300... and 70 Million Dollars!

ComingSoon.net has posted the weekend box office estimates and Warner Bros. Pictures' 300 set a new March record!

Director Zack Snyder's adaptation of Frank Miller's epic graphic novel 300 set a new March record with an estimated opening of $70 million from 3,103 locations. Starring Gerard Butler as King Leonidas who leads the Spartans against the massive Persian army, the movie surpassed previous March record holder Ice Age: The Meltdown, which collected $68 million its first weekend last year. Budgeted in the mid-$60 million range, the Warner Bros. release also marks the third-highest debut ever for an R-rated movie, trailing just The Matrix Reloaded ($91.8 million) and The Passion of The Christ ($83.8 million). It is now also the top opening of 2007 so far, beating Ghost Rider's $45.4 million from February.
From http://www.superherohype.com

Late to the discussion.

Pretty cool movie, biggest gripe was probably the excessive use of the slow-down. I mean, did they really need it when the oracle was doing her ever-so-mystical-dancing. The sex scene reminded me of Team America - it was...unusually long. I was expecting her to eventually do a handstand and have him turn around and mount her from the top or something and fuck her backwards.

Quick question.

Good action movie and great visuals. That's about it. If pure action and gore is what you are into, this is your movie.

I thought this was a fairly good hyped up movie unlike the so called comedy of borat. 300 advertised itself on action and it delivered, if anybody thought of seeing the greatest story ever told from seeing the commercial should honestly just feel ashamed :/

I thought the slomo to fast forward action was pulled off very well, true that slo mo wasn't necessary in all the scenes but it just tried to make everything seem intense.

Audience applauded during two scenes

I wouldn't have minded the movie being a bit more extended for some story telling and more relations between the spartans, you honestly didn't care what happened to any one of them, not even leo.

If I may reiterate after seeing it:

It really disturbed me how many reviewers came out of the film talking about how distasteful and extravagant it was. The reason I ended up liking the film was because it didn't have to appeal to any preconceived notions of how things worked at the time.

In this film, it's like Miller found the best spoken word story in the world and wanted it to come across visually. And, as we collectively gasp, that means hyperbole and metaphor. Here's an example.

The executioner loomed over the failed captain, covered in a sheen of sweat, his gut hanging from him, but no less the fearsome man for it. As he raised the blade, it seemed to meld into his arm, becoming a part of it, and as it swung down, cleaving free the captain's head, no one spoke, knowing their words could bring them under the executioner's blade as well.

In my opinion it's a rather interesting use of storytelling devices in a visual sense. That's ultimately how I interpreted it. But given Miller's past record, it could also simply be that he wanted to take everything to the Nth level.

Skexis brings up a very good point, and that's exactly how it all came across to me - like a visual representation of both the illustrations and the narration in the graphic novel.

Also, the score is amazing, as many have said. So amazing that I decided to upload it for your listening pleasure. Get now. You can also find the link in my gurnal.

I agree. But I still enjoyed watching the movie. It did feel really short though, perhaps yet another artifact of the poor pacing and execution I'd mentioned earlier.

Anyway, it's good to see this movie (and Miller) having success. I really wish they would adapt Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns into a movie, though. Man, that stuff is awesome.

It was an excellent movie. Best money I've spent in the theatre in a long time. I like how convincingly they can pull off the freaks especially that baphomet looking thing. Creepy as heck.

Now you say you have more knowledge of this medium, but the problem is, that this is not just one medium. It is a merge of them, like all other comic based movies, but it is not one single medium. Weather you have more knowldge over me or any other person could be debated since it does not take much to obsessivly watch movies to the point where you can bitch about the kind of lens used to shoot it in. Don't flaunt that you know more about something than others, because that just makes you a douche, and I hate to say it, but there is always someone that will know more. Jumping to the conclusion that I don't know as much as you is the reason that you sir should grow up.


Well it is your opinon that you do not think he could lead an army. It is in Frank Miller's opinion that he could, seeing as he drew that character and agreed with the chracter design for the movie. I again hate to say it, but I do beleive in the natural world, the creator's opinion has a higher value than your's no matter how much schooling you have.


Well here now I can question if you even watched the movie. See the slow motion and fighting a fused together in this movie. The fighting is good, I agree, but with out the slow motion, you would not have seen as much fighting. Take Saving Private Ryan for example. Alot of fast paced action to keep you attacted to what the war was like. The problem, all of that action at that speed left alot of the battles with week content. Had more left to be desired. The slow motion in 300 gave all veiwers the chance to actually see the battle instead of just swords, shields, and blood flashing around. Showing the battles with out slow motion would have just left us with watching a bunch of guys swinging at each other with no real way to tell what was actually going on within the fight. As well as mentioned before, the use of it also allowed to show some of the more iconic stances that Leonidas made with in the comic itself, with out having to take away from the movie.


Nit picking the digital grain that they wanted in the film in the first place (just watch ICONs: Frank Miller and they make the same statement) seems very close to saying you didnt like it because it was gritty.

Now I like the end of this where you state that we both can like different movies and think they are equally as shitty. Now, the fact that I feel actors and the way a movie is shot does not mean I do not know as much as you and other film majors. It just states that I prefer watching a visually beautiful movie with great dialogue, that I would like good actors playing the parts and directors that know that they are doing to go with it. A cleverly scripted 70's porn might get it for you, but I am a little past Deepthroat. Again as I said before, don't automatically think that your film major gives your comments and opions more weight, it just gives you a title to throw around.

On a similar note, Miller himself loves how the movie turned out. If there is anyone that has the right to complain about this movie, it would be him, not us.

Also, if you dont like it that much, dont talk about it, dont watch it, and make a better version. Till then, step off the film major high horse, because it does nothing for you.

One of the best films I've seen in a very long time.
If you're looking for emotion and drama, don't see it. The movie was cliche, but were you really going to that movie expecting to have some kind of life-changing revelation? Yes, they drew it out and made it cheesy, but come on... they're portraying comics. What do you expect?
If you want to have some fun watching a movie for once, go see it. NOW.

Loved the movie. Sex scene was a little unnecessarily long, everyone was laughing in the theatre. They deviated from the original comic a little but none the less i loved the movie.

Okay, what I gathered is this - You said that 300 is a combination of mediums, and that it is a faithful translation of the comic, because Frank Miller said so. Here are the problems with that statement-

A film is a film. The end. No matter what it is based off of, be it a comic, a novel, real events, whatever, in the end it is still just a film. You don't need to be a film major to figure that out. Of course Frank Miller is happy with it - It's a near-flawless rendition of HIS comic. This is problematic because if somebody made a near-flawless rendition of my life, I too would be happy with it. Does that make it a good film? NO.

300 is a film, and only a film. Therefore, it should follow the guidelines of what make a good film good. It shouldn't have limited itself strictly to the source material, because quite frankly, stuff that works well in other mediums may not work as well in a film. Look at The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy if you want a stunning example of how NOT to translate a book to film. What worked in the book did not work in the film at all.

300 may very well be faithful to the source material, but you could write a book on a piece of dog shit and make a film that is faithful to it. You'll still be left with dog shit in the end.

Can we end this nonsense? Can we just both agree that I know more about how films work than you do? It may make me sound like a douche to you, but when you say you wish you could have seen more violence in Saving Private Ryan because it doesn't have slow motion like 300 makes you sound like the meathead jock that 300 was clearly aimed at.

I know nothing of the movie beyond from what I've seen from the trailers & from what I hoarded from /wg/ - I'm psyched to see it; a group of us made plans to see 300 at an iMax theater this week...Aye, anything smaller just wouldn't be right. Now, rarely do I visit a theater, the last time I actually went was to see what the deal was with Borat & after that, Netflix city...I'll make the exception for 300 though - visually, it looks too good to pass by.

Haha, I like how sprouticus bases his opinion on a movie and trys to use his "knowledge of how a film works," to validate it.

Douchebags like this are what's taking the fun out of movies.

300 was a rush. It wasn't meant to be provocative, it wasn't meant to be revolutionary nor was it meant to set a precedent for future films... it was just meant to be fun. Do you know how retarded it sounds trying to compare 300 to a Steven Spielberg movie?

God, I swear some people are blind to the world outside of them.

No I don't, feel free to ask IdentikitofEyes though. Here, I'll even link you to his post.

You people are overreacting to the fact that I don't like this movie that you all did. Grow up, people have different opinions. You think my opinion is jaded because I know more about film? Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? I'm not trying to validate anything. I'm trying to make my point clear to retards like you who think my feelings towards the film are baseless, and that I'm saying all this simply to "take the fun out of films." Fuck off. If I'm truly ruining your fun, then, well, I don't think there's much hope left for you. Why can't you assholes just accept the fact that some people see things differently than you? You people are such fucking cowards when it comes to opinions that don't match yours.

I'm done with this thread. It's been de-railed enough thanks to you cunts. I don't like the movie, and you do. I'm fine with it, but for whatever reson, you aren't. End of discussion. Stuck-up twats like you remove all the fun of posting here. Remind me never to disagree with the majority again :rolleyes:

You didn't state simply that you didn't like it. You went into a rant about how it doesn't compare to a fucking Steven Spielburg movie. Go play in traffic. Leave more air for the rest of us who aren't stuck up cunts about movies because we think we're educated. What a joke.

Your inital response to what I said was an image of an emo kid cutting himself, is it that hard to accept that someone can actually disagree with you and give decent reasons why?

See I don't think you grasped the fact that if something is based off of another, then it is not just one medium. Like I said before, when it comes to something like this, the two merge. Yes, they are two different mediums, but why do you think people compair them to each other. Because they, like the film makers are trying to bring one medium to life with another. This would make it two different mediums, especially since those who made the movie, used the comic as a storyboard. As for Frank Miller saying it is good, well it boils down to this. It was his comic, and he thinks the director and producers didn't fuck it up and make it look like shit (Batman & Robin anyone) so there for, he would be the final say in weather the movie is perfect or not. Guess what, he thinks it is. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it a bad movie.


Correction 300 is a comic that was turned into a film, completely different set of guidelines. If you don't limit yourself to the source matrerial then you might throw in something that is nothing like the source in the first place. On the note of Hitchhickers Guide, they did a pretty damned good job, but you don't seem to remeber that the book has ALOT of stuff that was not put into the movie. Your nitpicking that is the same as nitpicking 300. Also, what works in a book, is imagination, which someone had to bring it to light as a movie, weather or not it was exact to the soucre.

Now you are just fishing, catch me something good.

Well I cant agree with you on this one seeing as I was a move theater projectionist for the last two years of my life. See you read, and watched, and sat on your ass studing movies to say that you know how they work. I learned how to thread a projection head from platter to platter, change out the lens from flat to scope or back, fix a brain wrap on a film when it happens. I know how to install Xenon bulbs ( they can melt off your eyelids, but you know that dont you film major) with out them going off in my face. I can fix framing and sound problems on the spot. I also know how to build up and tare down movies when they come to the theaters and when it is time for them to leave. I know how splicing frames work, and I know how to put together a trailor pack. Sir, you think you know how movies work, I have worked with movies.

Like I said, you dont like it, stick it in your ass and make something better, till then, keep your butter knife, you might need later in life.

Using your janitorial experience doesn't validate your opinion either. Stop trying to prove who's opinion is right. I thought it was a kick ass movie. I'm not saying that the movie was kick ass because I've been a mechanic for thirty-five years and I am far more cultured than the both of you. I'm just simply stating that I thought it was cool. End of discussion, thank you.

I am not saying my opinion is right because of my experiance, in every post from sprouticus, he keeps saying that he is right because he is a film major. He even stated that he knows how movies work and that is why he "know more" All I was doing with that part was showing that I too have worked with movies in the point that I know how to actually play a movie through a projector. I was just defending myself against someone that keeps throwing their film major title around.

I invented the motion picture by accident while travelling through time once when I was 14. Based on that, I'd say that 300 has a lot of hot dudes running around almost naked, and what sounds like a fairly sexy sex scene. That, plus slow-motion gore equals the movie equivalent of a roller coaster -- one that is being ridden by a bunch of almost naked dudes. I'll probably rent this one.

Are you trying to use your ability to do a task, one that thousands of teenagers throughout the nation can also do as well, to justify any opinion on presentation on creativity? I'm not here to say your opinion is wrong, but it's an entirely foolish stance to think that using "experience" involving the avoidance of burning out your retinas will somehow make you more credible.

the movie was visually captivating and story was enough to keep you hoping that the Spartans would gain victory. Not groundbreaking though, Sin City definitely better since it gave an attachment to the characters.

No, its not like that. I was using it to justify the fact that I know how movies work just as well as sprouticus. Granted it is a task that can be learned by anyone. I was just trying to make the point that throwing around a film major title doesn't automatically make you all knowing in movies. I am a game designer and I don't act like I have played every game ever made.Thats generally what sprouticus has been doing this entire thread. " I am a film major, I know more than you." Yay, that just means you watch alot of movies and will be line to become a film critic, which not alot of people like.

Posted in AA's journal, but it works for a post here, too.

I haven't seen the movie yet but I think its pretty funny that Iran is protesting the movie because its degrading to the Persian army by getting their asses kicked or something like that and that it is "Modern Day Propoganda" to help the war against Iran...

Knowing the outcome or not, you can still be instilled with hope.
Kind of like when you watch a movie for a second time and you know what happens, but still wish that so-and-so did the OTHER thing, ya know? uh... :eagletear:

Anyway, I just got back from a late showing and was impressed. It was no Gladiator but it was definitely a good movie.
The speed variation techniques made it feel more like a video game. In my mind I kept trying to draw parallels to the movie and the games Prince of Persia and God of War.

I was actually impressed by the speed changes, even if it was kind of gimmicky or whatever. It was the movie's "style", and I dug it. It made it feel more and more like an action-packed graphic novel: There's action on the pages, but there's so much visual detail that you have to pause and ogle it a little more in certain parts.

best story about 300 everrr.


http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b3...pix/SPARTA.jpg


I would totally hurl a spear at some people.

Based on how dissapointed I was by Sin City, I can't see myself going to see this. IMO, CGI is the scourge of modern cinema.

That's funny and fucked up all at the same time.

Well it's suppose to be pretty on top of the comic but it's never meant to be accurate, I'm really dissappointed in people talking about how history that and history this. It really doesn't matter on an entertainment base. If you want history go watch a special on the history channel. I wanted to see Gerard Butler half naked (or completely naked) kick some ass, and I did.

What 300 is a whole bunch of "well built" men running around hacking legs and head off and stabbing people with spears screaming "SPARTA!" in complete CG enviroment. If you're going in there expecting anything else in there you might as well go into a family film expecting a boob-age. Other then that I really want to kick someone in the chest.

LOL, that's hilarious, would have loved to have seen that! But man, after seeing the movie, you do kinda build up the testosterone. Haha, even my buddies said, as we exited the theatre, that they had an urge to start pushing people out of the way.

EDIT:

Oh and picked up the figures by NECA. Wish they gave Leonidas an angry roaring helmetless head instead, as it would haved looked so much better.

http://i15.tinypic.com/43hypon.jpg
http://i15.tinypic.com/404p0fn.jpg
http://i19.tinypic.com/2wdd74j.jpg
http://i15.tinypic.com/42ibtk2.jpg
http://i16.tinypic.com/2akbhjt.jpg

Man... I was expecting to see a popcorn, testosterone-fueled rage fest with VERY pretty pictures and lots of blood, kind of like the comic... My expectations were met tenfold. VERY GOOD MOVIE, if you're not there expecting an Academy Award winner. (lol)

I didn't recognize Gerard Butler though. I remember him when he was in that Tomb Raider: Cradle of Life and he just looks and acts the fucking part of Leonidas; in other words, the polar opposite of Sheridan in CoL. The man walks around the set like earth fucking BELONGS to him and yeah... he may not own the earth but he does own this film.

That story is from 4chan (or one of its heathen brethren) and is most likely "copypasta". Stories like that are very rarely real, especially when originating from sites like 4chan.

Did make me laugh though.

Damn I was really hoping it was real.

huh?
well anyway, kick ass fucking movie. I went with my friends last night expecting some testosterone filled action and I got exactly what I wanted and more. Awsome movie, awsome camara work and just a great sense of style. One of my friends said he thought the movie sucked so I told him that if he is a man and he doesn't like that movie that he is gayer than gay. then I made him watch this flash video: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/2006/06/celebgay.html

I was just watching all the clips and trailers on my 360 and my roomate mention that movie builds testosterone, and he bought the figures lie right after he saw the movie. lol I swear I thought you were my room mate lol.

lol, what a coincidence. Though, I'm sure the majority of viewers felt the same way, and went out to purchase the movie's merchandising as well.

One thing I noticed, upon my second viewing tonight, for only one time in the movie that it really seemed like there were 300 spartans (which was pretty much just the first battle). After the first day's battle, it just seemed like there only 30 or so for the rest of it (clear example would be the immortals battle). Heh, that really kinda bugged me as I thought there'd be a least half or so left after sustaining casualties.

LOL, if this really did happen, I would've loved to have seen that, as bad as it sounds.


This is unfortunately a side-effect of telling large battles, whether on film or in images (aka comics). The numbers tend to fluctuate a lot (unless it really is a small force, like less than 10 guys), and my guess is that they cut down the number of soldiers you see because to be honest, the only one that you could really tell who it was is Leonidas (and even then, only because the camera focuses almost solely on him in most fights).

I would've loved to seen more Spartans getting hurt/killed throughout all the fighting, but if they threw all 300 of them (assuming none were killed or badly wounded yet), the fighting scenes would get pretty confusing after a while, and it'd be like watching a battle take place in a Total War game from far away.

Other war movies usually do stuff like this as well. For example, in Gladiator, the first battle focuses almost solely on Maximus (but you do get to see other soldiers fighting from time to time, and when you do, it gets kind of confusing as to what's going on exactly).

And in Saving Private Ryan, I don't remember how many soldiers the Americans had, but guys die left and right, including main characters, and more just seem to keep popping out of the woodwork, at least until the very end of the battle. And this is particularly true of the German soldiers. It seems like for every one that's killed, 3 more guys show up out of nowhere to take his place (almost like a WW2 shooter lol).

This is slightly less related, but really funny when you notice it. Watch action movies (particularly Jackie Chan ones) where the hero and maybe his sidekick approach some bad guys, or get approached by bad guys, and once the fighting starts, more bad guys just start spawning out of nowhere (sorry, video game reference again lol). In some cases, it makes you wonder where the heck those other guys were at the whole time lol. If you do a body count of how many guys get taken down, and then how many more guys show up, you'll notice some pretty funny stuff.

Hot Shots: Part Deux makes fun of this too. In one scene, the movie starts to keep track of how many bad guys the hero's killed, and then starts to compare the body count to other movies. And no matter how many bad guys he kills, more just come out of nowhere (of course, since this is a spoof movie, the "deaths" are pretty funny, and nothing really serious:



Oh, and...

"This is Sparta!"

hmm well it looks like theres more if you pay attention to the back, but the 30 or so you see on screen must be the actual 30 that they casted as soldiers. I mean with those pecks training more then 30 might get hard. As you can see on the spartan training clips on the 360, or youtube by now.

I saw the movie a bit ago...I left the theatre speechless. It was the most brilliant movie I had seen in a very long time.

I enjoyed the movie very much when I saw it a couple of weeks ago. I thought it was one of the best movies I saw this year. I thought Xerxes was a bit funny though they way he talked and the way he stand/walk, but other than that a great film. :) Not historical accuring but great piece of work.

Everything in this movie was epic. If you took all the slow motion shots and put them in real time the movie would probably be little more than an hour. There is a limit of how much epic you can put into a movie before it turns silly. This was a very silly movie. Also very homo-erotic. But I went to the theater expecting that, and I enjoyed it for the non thinking trash it was. But I couldn't stop laughing at all the epic-ness.
There should be a drinking game where whenever something obviously epic occurs, you take a shot. At least the plot would make sense nearing the end of the game.

Way ahead of you, chief. We took a bottle of Goldschlager into the theater last time we went to see this and had my friends and I taking shots every time someone got impaled by a Spartan spear or every time Leonidas was screaming at the top of his lungs for seemingly no reason.

:beer:

I don't even want to imagine how badly we reeked of stale syrup liquor when we walked out.

I can predict this now, a LOT of people are going to be Spartans for Halloween.
Also the trannies in SF here, will probably be dressed up as Xerxes :confused:

BTW, I barely recognized Rodrigo Santoro as Xerxes. He plays Paulo the new Lostie on Lost.

Lol, I would love to see people dressing up as Spartans and looking ridiculous. I mean, all they really wore throughout the whole movie was some underwear and a cape. Kinda like Superman but without the Spandex.

I saw this movie last weekend, and while it was awesome, I actually thought it would be a little more action-oriented than it actually was.

There really weren't that many battles throughout the entire film (maybe what, about 4 or 5 in total), and a lot of the non-battle stuff (especially the stuff back in the city with the Queen) really dragged down the film. So in the end, it's not that the film wasn't good, it's just that I overhyped it in my mind as being this action epic that it didn't turn out to be.

I agree with you, Rock.

As funny as it sounds, I think they should have just left out pretty much ALL the story. It was annoying and generic and brought down the movie. They shouldn't have even bothered developing the Father and Son team they had going - I didn't think that had any place in the movie.

Also, the wife = slut.

AND

I didn't like the ending.

Really enjoyed it. Why people seem to expect a deep movie with substance is cimpletely beyond me. It's an action film for Christs sake...

I was mostly comparing it to Apocalypto in that it's a really bloody film that doesn't make you think too much. It does exactly that. There are a few flaws in the film (the bits with the Queen really slowed the pace down and she was a bit meh) . However, the action scenes were superb. Apocalypto's the better film in terms of enjoyment, but 300 is the better made film. I certainly recommend it to anyone who likes a bit of blood and liked Apocalypto.

8.5/10

Not sure how old this is, but I thought some of you might enjoy this: http://poststuff5.entensity.net/0323...?media=300.wmv

You people are overreacting to the fact that I don't like this movie that you all did. Grow up, people have different opinions. You think my opinion is jaded because I know more about film? Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? I'm not trying to validate anything. I'm trying to make my point clear to retards like you who think my feelings towards the film are baseless, and that I'm saying all this simply to "take the fun out of films." Fuck off. If I'm truly ruining your fun, then, well, I don't think there's much hope left for you. Why can't you assholes just accept the fact that some people see things differently than you? You people are such fucking cowards when it comes to opinions that don't match yours.[/QUOTE]

"Grow up, people have different opinions."

Why can't you assholes just accept the fact that some people see things differently than you? You people are such fucking cowards when it comes to opinions that don't match yours.

The irony.

I don't really care whether you did or did not like 300, but it's really kind of funny when all you can do is flame at somebody ;)

Anywho, I actually kept thinking about the political motivations and the hidden themes throughout the entire movie. I think the detraction to home compared to the battlefield is extremely relevant, even if the scene seemed somewhat "cheesy." Miller defines the different political boundaries--what constitutes necessary and unnecessary--in the different places. I'm especially intrigued by the somewhat allegorical element to the entire move. I've heard critics claim that the king is equal to bush, and I pretty much agree with the sentiment. I've heard people saying that this is the opposite (with Bush being the Persian God), but seriously, the comparison the stubbornness of the King to Bush, and the "tricks" of the terrorists have more parallels. That being said, I especially like the stark contrast between the victories and defeats held in battle, that battle is never a good thing but sometimes inevitable.

By the way, I did feel a certain degree of disbelief with the death of the son, more so because I spent the next 3 seconds staring at the bottom of that head trying to see if they did the guts properly ;)

I saw this and got kinda offended by it... It was a cool movie but at the end I didnt like how they made the Persians. Also releasing it on the persian new year is no way a coincident and leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

This was easily one of the greatest movies of all time IMHO.

I had read Frank Miller's book about a year before they announced production on the film and I knew once I started seeing the production stills and trailers that they were going to do as good a job if not better than Sin City.

It did seem that the added a few bits in, but as one could read the Graphic Novel in less time than a movie would be, it was necessary. Queen Gorgo's speech to the Spartan council should be used by the Republican party to justify the War On Terror and even recruit more troops for OIF. Faramir, oh beg your pardon, Dilios' speech at the end would not have been out of place in a Shakesperian battle scene, it was that well written and inspiring and actually a superior ending to the source material.

I pray the powers at Hollywood don't have some daft idea about making some sort of sequel: "301":rolleyes:

Funnily enough Frank Miller is already ahead of them as he's working on a sequel to the book.

Those look so good. I've been trying to get my hands on Leonidas and Gorgo but they're practically sold out everywhere I go so I decided to just go ahead and order the whole set which should arrive Thursday. :)

Oh wow, lol, I'm actually surprised about the Gorgo being a little hard to find, but yea, Leonidas is definitely the hardest to find. I picked up my set at my local comic shop and they had Leonidas priced at 7 bucks more than the rest (heh, though cause I picked up a set i only had to pay the same price as the rest for him).

Hopefully NECA makes another set, and perhaps will make another Leonidas with a roaring head.

Oh and I checked out the movie again yesterday, but this time on the IMAX. Though, I didn't really experience any 3D effects, it's probably cause I was sitting in the back row (theatre was pretty much full up by the time we got there)... I imagine the effects would be when the blood was splattering out towards the screen. Did anyone else happen to watch this on the IMAX? Were there any sequences that had the 3D visual effect?

Leonidas and Gorgo are always sold out unless you get the set so that's what I did. :p I can't see NECA expanding the line but there is room to do so if they go for figures of Xerxes, the Spartan captain and yes perhaps another version of Leonidas.

As for IMAX, 300 isn't an IMAX 3D show so no scenes are in 3D. IMAX just gives you the benefit of a bigger screen and a teeth-shattering sound system hence why I'd recommend an IMAX showing for 300 to everybody. :D

Just saw the movie, extremely pleased with it. None stop entertainment, wasnt bored and didnt look at my watch once!

The style and tone of the movie really reminds me of Fist of the North Star, they should remake that movie, it would be awesome.

LOL did anyone notice the TB jabs marks left on the shoulders. On some scenes it was really clear.

I caught this a few days ago and I don't remember having this much fun in a theater since perhaps, well, Sin City! It's a shallow movie. It definitely does not require thinking, but for the sake of the movie I think that's the point. It's brutal and fun and people should drop the "It's commentary on the Bush administration/war in Iraq" crap. I also have to wonder how many times "Sparta" is said.

I actually had picked up NECA's Queen Gorgo before seeing this. Whatever comic/game/movie shop I head to, it seems King Leonidas is sold out.

Was just listening to the soundtrack, but I can't seem to find the song they used in trailer 2, anyone know which one?

Are you perhaps refering to the NiN song they used for the trailers? "Just Like You Imagined"

I was disapointed in 300. Despite it being horribly misrepresentive of the real events. It was repetive and predictable. And it's representation of Sparta was so of base that instead of King Leonidas yelling "This is Sparta!" He could of easily of said "This is the United States! In Lioncloths!" And still of been accurate. Freedom, Liberty, Justice? That is almost laughable when talking about Sparta. Miller had to of done very little studing or cared about the real events in Sparta. It was just an average action movie that was horribly overhyped.

I watched 300 last week. It was okay, despite how much I wanted to watch it for Gerard Butler. The plot was very weak and script very shitty. There were moments where I just had to laugh out loud (that flute playing wolf/goat thing, anyone? the slo-mo rotating decapitated head? Xerxes crying over a facial scratch? floating - and very fake looking - blood globules with every stab? mask wearing ninjas?)

But the pros can outweigh the cons. Butler's body was simply fantastic to behold. Aside from that, the artistry was great and the action was pretty good, especially when slowed down.

Overall, I felt no connection with the film. The ending hardly spurred sadness within me, although my roommate was tearing up. It is still a good movie for laughs.

you will all(hopefully not all:) get mad at me... IMO(i've said IMO!:) this movie is boring... sure effects are nice... but i've got tired of slow'up/speed'up convention, also im tired of movies that shows nothing more than flying head/legs/arms... sorry:P

PS. check 300 parody in new southpark :] "This is LES BOS!" x D

Hmm.

Well.

So I watched this movie the other night and while it had its moments, overall, it was pretty disappointing. This might be because I want movies to have a good plot and good acting much more than having spectacular effects and stuff like that. No discussion, this movie is breathtaking as far as latter is concerned, but the rest was just a little bit above average.

I liked Sin City much more.

It wasn't supposed to be representative of the actual battle of thermopylae. It's based on a comic book (or graphic novel, whatever) so things are going to be exaggerated. It's a movie, not a video for history class.


Also, no one is going to take you seriously if you keep saying "of" instead of "have." I'm sorry to point this out, but I absolutely hate that.

That should be: He could have easily said

That should be: Miller had to have done very little

Okay, that's the end of my lame grammar-policing.


I agree that it wasn't accurate since Spartan men were believed to have killed slaves to instill fear in their slave population, but how would that fit into the movie? While I agree that it's not too accurate, it was meant to be an action film and I believe it achieved what it set out to do: entertain.

this movie was freakin crazy!!!!
the plot might have sucked but it was still the greatest thing i've ever seen

Sorry to bump such an old thread, but does anyone have the lyrics to the "chanting" track that plays during the coronation scene.

I agree. The slow motion fight scenes had me floored.