[Movie] 300

Originally Posted by sprouticus

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.

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

Also,

Spoiler:

if you weren't the slightest bit heart-broken when the generals son gets decapitated right in front of him, you are a souless asshole.

He might not have died in the most traditional tragic manner, but it was still something that would make the heart cringe.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by sprouticus

Here's why I am apparently a soulless asshole:
1.

Spoiler:

The death of his son was inevitable from the moment he was introduced. Therefore, I simply sat in the theater waiting for it to happen, and when it DID happen, it didn't feel like anything I hadn't seen before. Countless films have tried the "captain's son gets killed" trick to try and wring some emotion from audience memberrs. It worked on me before, but not this time.

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.

Spoiler:

Not because of how he died, but the fact that he died and his father had to watch. If I were expecting anything of that nature to happen, I would've thought of it happening the other way around. Father dies instead of son. Now THAT would've been a tired cliche' to me.

2.

Quote:

Spoiler:

The kill itself was glorified to the point where it wasn't a stand-out death. Maybe the fact that he was decapitated in such a grissly way, but considering the rest of the movie is in slow motion, the kill did nothing that the other kills didn't do.

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.

Spoiler:

I like that they treated his death like they did every other death in the movie. It pretty much goes to show that regardless of whomever, people die in wars and that there are pretty much no exceptions. It's like some weird double entandra--son of the commander dies, so it's important and heart wrenching, yet, there are thousands of other soldiers who have died the same grousom way and he goes down like the rest of them. I'D SAY IT WAS COMPELLING.

Quote:

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."

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.