[Movie] 300

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

I was speaking idiomatically.

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."

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

How can we believe these characters' rants about freedom, honor and justice when they are a brutal, slave-owning, baby-killing warrior nation?

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.

FELIPE NO

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

God forbid people have different movie tastes. I can see why people might not like 300 even though I do. Doesn't make them stupid or "pompous".

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,

Quote:

I think that because I'm a film major, my bullshit-meter has become far too sensitive.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by IdentikitOfEyes

I will admit to it being slow and stretched in parts of the movie, but over all, it was great.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

words

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

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

(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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by sprouticus

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.

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

Spoiler:

I didn't feel anything when the captain's son died.
I didn't feel anything when Leonidas died.
I didn't feel anything when his men were dying.
I didn't feel anything when the wife got the pendant back.

And yet, the movie slowed the fuck down and tried to MAKE me feel something by laying on the sad music and slow motion, etc...

Problem is, it hadn't developed anything significant beforehand. That's why I was bored throughout the ending (from Leonidas' last stand until the final speech).

In this movie, its strongest emotion it can hope to muster is some kind of blood-thirst from its audience. I mean, even though the Queen subplot was boring, its conclusion was exciting. This movie can make you shout, "KILL HIM, SLICE HIS THROAT, YEAH!", but it can't make you cry.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

From CNN:

Quote:

The fanboys are raring for this one. As of Wednesday, two days before "300" opened, the Internet Movie Database gave director Zack Snyder's historical epic a user rating of 8.6 out of 10, based on more than 7,000 votes. The breakdown reveals that 6,000 of the voters are males under the age of 29, and that more than 80 percent rated the film a perfect 10. (The figures weren't much changed as of Friday.)

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

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

I was speaking idiomatically.

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

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

Spoiler:

Were the 'immortals' (who I believe were the samurai looking guys) the same people who were high up on the mountain with the oracle? I remember one of them got their helmet knocked off, and I thought that they looked awfully alike. If they were the same people...then what the fuck.

Most amazing jew boots

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

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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

Spoiler:

that immortal ogre getting his head chopped and the other one someone mentioned with the surprise stab and kill.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

If I may reiterate after seeing it:

Originally Posted by Skexis

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.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by JazzFlight

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

Spoiler:

I didn't feel anything when the captain's son died.
I didn't feel anything when Leonidas died.
I didn't feel anything when his men were dying.
I didn't feel anything when the wife got the pendant back.

And yet, the movie slowed the fuck down and tried to MAKE me feel something by laying on the sad music and slow motion, etc...

Problem is, it hadn't developed anything significant beforehand. That's why I was bored throughout the ending (from Leonidas' last stand until the final speech).

In this movie, its strongest emotion it can hope to muster is some kind of blood-thirst from its audience. I mean, even though the Queen subplot was boring, its conclusion was exciting. This movie can make you shout, "KILL HIM, SLICE HIS THROAT, YEAH!", but it can't make you cry.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by sprouticus

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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.

- Awesome visuals, though on some shots you can see some digital grain. Not a huge deal, but just something I nitpicked.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by IdentikitOfEyes

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Vestin

Do you know how retarded it sounds trying to compare 300 to a Steven Spielberg movie?

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

Quote:

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.

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

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.