[Movie] 300

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:

Spoiler:

In the beginning, they develop Leonidas a lot more. You get to see stuff he had to do growing up. In the graphic novel, the only flashback you get to see is him facing off with the wolf. However, the scene where he kills the wolf happened almost exactly the same way, where you only see the shadow of the spear gutting the wolf.

The deformed guy, I forget his name, who wanted to fight for Leonidas jumps off the cliff in despair in the graphic novel. Much to his dismay, he also survives the fall, and then defects over to Xerxes's side. In the movie, he just drops the shield down the cliff, but the message is still essentially the same.

Maybe I glanced over it in the graphic novel, but the sub-plot involving Leonida's wife going to the Senate in the movie never happens. Again, it might've, but I don't have the book on me atm, as I loaned it out to a friend so he can read it. If I'm wrong on this, go ahead and correct me. Btw, these are the "slow" scenes I mentioned when the fighting starts. And no doubt this scene was added to give her more development, and to tie the Greeks to the Spartans more closely together at the end of the story. In the graphic novel, I only remember Leonidas sending his messenger, who spins up a tale to rile up the Greeks into fighting after they die at Thermopylae.

And the ending part showing the large Greek army charging towards the Persian army didn't happen the same way, but it was still a cool ending nonetheless.

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.

Spoiler:

A funny thing I noticed was another friend of mine watching it, and when that one Greek ally leaves Leonidas near the end, he says "godspeed". My friend then starts going off on a "WTF" rant, saying it's referring to the Christian God, who shouldn't "exist" during this time period. I then told him it was fictionalized, and then asked him why he's worried about that one line, but has no trouble accepting giant animals, deformed but powerful superhumans, and other fantastical stuff, and he more or less shut up lol.

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

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

Spoiler:

Haha, anyone else notice that weird goat guy. LOL, it was like he was all high. Oh and I loved Theron's end (though predictable), I just couldn't help but at that with the crowd! Man, he had it coming.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by TheXeno

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?

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.

FELIPE NO

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

Spoiler:

Queen Gorgo killed that motherfucker by surprise. Talk about massive ownage.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Terminus

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

Spoiler:

Queen Gorgo killed that motherfucker by surprise. Talk about massive ownage.

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

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by sprouticus

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.

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?

Quote:

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.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by NES Oldskooler

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?

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

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

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 was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by sprouticus

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

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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...

FELIPE NO

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.

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

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

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

Originally Posted by Seris

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

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.

Quote:

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.

Here's why I am apparently a soulless asshole:

Spoiler:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. Combine those two and all you're left with is a tired cliche that is simply more violent than the ones that preceeded it. It carried no emotional weight for me because I saw it coming.

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."

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

Originally Posted by Grail

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.

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 was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Grail

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'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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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?

Most amazing jew boots

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

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

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

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Capo

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

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

Originally Posted by JazzFlight

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.

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

Quote:

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?

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.

Quote:

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

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