Originally Posted by The Question
I wouldn't call 300 great. It's entertaining, and very visually stimulating, but I think it's also pretty dumb (and a little racist). Why do you think it is, I'm curious?
I'll agree that Snyder is pretty uninhibited, but I don't think I'd call what he has "vision." Please excuse the use of this cliche, but I think he's a lot of style and no substance. He's very "go big or go home," but the stuff he goes big with seems to me to boil down to stuff he thinks looks cool. I don't see a lot of deep thought behind it.
I think 300 is basically a masterpiece of its kind. I think it is the one film in Snyder's canon where all the stars aligned, right from the script, to visuals, to the actors, to the performances, everything came through an delivered. It is not the deepest film out there sure, but I believe in the auteur theory. I believe in form over content, and form does not mean style, it means the mis-en-scene and the composition and how the film is staged. And that to me is an absolute triumph in 300. It kinda reminded me of Sergei Eisenstein.
And the imagery is so bold, so subversively macho. And the central performance by Gerard Butler is one for the ages. I think everything works in 300, a superb achievement and Snyder's fully realized film.