Does anyone else here feel like this?

[Halofan1]

That this is one of the best movies ever made.

One week later and I'm still blown away by it.

 

[Arshes13]

Same here. If I had the time and money, I'd see it again this weekend.

 

[Agentsands77]

That this is one of the best movies ever made.

You must not have seen many movies.

 

[Halofan1]

You must not have seen many movies.

Yeah, I guess watching Bullitt wasn't worth my time, nor was Stalag 17. Not to mention Dr. Strangelove. But yeah, you're probably right.

I've seen plenty of movies sonny, and this is one of the best I've seen.

 

[Agentsands77]

I've seen plenty of movies sonny, and this is one of the best I've seen.

Well, I guess I have a bit of a problem putting a movie with horrible dialogue, mediocre performances, lack of story, and an overdose of MTV-style editing would be put up there with films like VERTIGO and CITIZEN KANE. Heck, I think a lot of the films from last year would be far worthier of "best films of all time" titles (PAN'S LABYRINTH, or UNITED 93... even CASINO ROYALE and the so-so V FOR VENDETTA were superior to 300).

I just can't see it. Is it one of the more interesting visual films to be released? You bet. But SIN CITY and SKY CAPTAIN tread its territory beforehand, and while the CGI on 300 is better than it was on those films, it doesn't make it a masterpiece. And the fact that the script is pretty awful doesn't help much (yes, yes, I know it's the dialogue/narration from the graphic novel, but that doesn't excuse it - what works on the page might not work on film, and its arguable that Miller's dialogue/narration doesn't even work on the page).

But suit yourself.

 

[Crooklyn]

One of the most entertaining, definitely. But there's a difference between that and counting in all the qualities that make a masterpiece.

 

[Halofan1]

Well, I guess I have a bit of a problem putting a movie with horrible dialogue, mediocre performances, lack of story, and an overdose of MTV-style editing would be put up there with films like VERTIGO and CITIZEN KANE. Heck, I think a lot of the films from last year would be far worthier of "best films of all time" titles (PAN'S LABYRINTH, or UNITED 93... even CASINO ROYALE and the so-so V FOR VENDETTA were superior to 300).

I just can't see it. Is it one of the more interesting visual films to be released? You bet. But SIN CITY and SKY CAPTAIN tread its territory beforehand, and while the CGI on 300 is better than it was on those films, it doesn't make it a masterpiece. And the fact that the script is pretty awful doesn't help much (yes, yes, I know it's the dialogue/narration from the graphic novel, but that doesn't excuse it - what works on the page might not work on film, and its arguable that Miller's dialogue/narration doesn't even work on the page).

But suit yourself.

Firstly, I don't mean "OH IT'S BETTER THAN CITIZEN KANE or 2001" because it's not. I'd go as far as to put it in the top 100, but maybe not top 50 if I picked the best of all-time.

Yes, there is a story. Granted, it's not some "multi-layered blow your mind" plot but there's still a great story to be had here. For someone who absolutely hates the bullet-time effect, I thought here they used it not just because it would look cool, but to capture art on screen. The performances I thought were fine, especially Butler who for my money should get a Best Actor nomination for his performance.

Now, the only thing I do kind of agree with you on is the dialoge. As great as Miller is at telling a story, he can't write dialoge for spit. As a writer myself, I understand it's no easy task but sometimes it just seems Miller slaps whatever to put on the page. Some of it was ok but there was some of it I was cringing to. It didn't and hasn't hurt what I thought of the overall film however.

Some people would call Return of the King one of the best films ever made, and personally, I thought 300 ran circles around that film and thensome.

BTW, movies from 2006 that can be considered best of all-time:

Pan's Labyrinth
Miami Vice (an underrated gem)
The Departed
Children of Men

 

[Agentsands77]

Firstly, I don't mean "OH IT'S BETTER THAN CITIZEN KANE or 2001" because it's not.

Well, I'm glad. But personally, I don't even think it's better than a BRAVEHEART or a GLADIATOR or a KINGDOM OF HEAVEN (see the director's cut before you judge that film). And I don't think any of those are worthy of being named "greatest films of all time," good though they are.

For someone who absolutely hates the bullet-time effect, I thought here they used it not just because it would look cool, but to capture art on screen.

I would say that about some of the moments. Others, not so much. It was overused.

The performances I thought were fine, especially Butler who for my money should get a Best Actor nomination for his performance.

Butler's performance was okay, but nothing that special. It was a fun, campy performance. But it wasn't one that was particularly demanding or nuanced. But Dominic West? Lena Headey? David Wenham? They're all hamming it up to the hilt, sometimes to irritating degrees.

Now, the only thing I do kind of agree with you on is the dialoge. As great as Miller is at telling a story, he can't write dialoge for spit. As a writer myself, I understand it's no easy task but sometimes it just seems Miller slaps whatever to put on the page. Some of it was ok but there was some of it I was cringing to. It didn't and hasn't hurt what I thought of the overall film however.

Even if it doesn't hurt your enjoyment of the film, it should keep you from calling it one of the greatest film of all time, though. A masterpiece needs a great script. They go hand-in-hand. You can't have a truly great film without a good script.

But if dialogue were the film's only problem, but it's not. Part of it is that it undermines itself, attempting to uphold the Spartan society as glorious, but at the same time the Spartans have absolutely horrifying practices like killing their imperfect newborn. It would have been far more interesting to acknowledge that the Spartans are far from a perfect, ideal society, and that they may be something of monsters themselves.

Some people would call Return of the King one of the best films ever made, and personally, I thought 300 ran circles around that film and thensome.

Why? I think it was vastly superior to 300 in pretty much all respects (script, performances, direction), though it was far from perfect.

BTW, movies from 2006 that can be considered best of all-time:

Pan's Labyrinth
Miami Vice (an underrated gem)
The Departed
Children of Men

Well, I thought PAN'S LABYRINTH was brilliant, thought MIAMI VICE was an entertaining movie with some nice style but horrid performances and an even more horrid script, THE DEPARTED was one of Scorcese's weaker films, and I haven't yet seen CHILDREN OF MEN.

But I also draw the line between really fun or great movies and true cinematic masterpieces (sometimes there's overlap, but not always). There are certainly 100 or so great cinematic masterpieces ala VERTIGO and CITIZEN KANE or even a PAN'S LABYRINTH that are far worthier of being called one of the "greatest films of all time" than 300 is.

 

[the-rake]

Not the best movie ever made, but yes I was entertain.

 

[Parker]

DVD's as good as bought for me.

 

[Mr. Credible]

best movie ever?


wow... some people are way too hyped on this movie. it was good, sure, but really not as great as everyone here is making it out to be.

 

[Nivek]

It was entertaining, and definatly one of the best movies I've seen this year TO ME. Unlike Ghost Rider, which dissapointed me beyond my set exspectations, this movie met even my standards.

Now, I'm not like these other pretentious posters here who like to rain on people enthusiasm, but I think some people expectations here was matched and they are very happy, but others expecting that the same story from the graphic novel to suddenly be more enthralling or whatever their problems were are in a Huff.

 

[mrvlknight21]

I dont think it was one of the best movies ever made or best that I have seen. It is probably in my favorite 40.

 

[Infinity9999x]

No, it was not one of the best movies ever, and in ten years people will wonder why everyone thought 300 was so good to begin with. Why you ask? Simple: time and technology.

300 basically sold itself on looking cool, which was fine, but in ten years every movie will be able to have special effects just as good and better then 300, and besides having cool special effects, 300 really didn't have much else going for it.

It's the same as us looking at the first Star Wars movie (ever made) now. Yeah the special effects are okay, but nothing special. The thing that keeps star wars alive is that the old movies were much more epic and had more storyline then 300 did.

Ten years from now people will look at 300 and say, "Yeah, it's cool, but nothing great" because they'll have movies that will look even better. Had 300 had a better storyline it would be different, but in terms of writing, it's nowhere near a Gladiator or a LOTR.

 

[Secret_Riddle]

its not the best ever but its really awesom.

 

[Nivek]

No, it was not one of the best movies ever, and in ten years people will wonder why everyone thought 300 was so good to begin with. Why you ask? Simple: time and technology.

Um, starting off a little bitter sounding, but lets see where your gonna go with this...

300 basically sold itself on looking cool, which was fine, but in ten years every movie will be able to have special effects just as good and better then 300, and besides having cool special effects, 300 really didn't have much else going for it.

Except blood and adventure. Hey, I certainly hope to see better films than 300 in the future, but I'm not so quickly dismissive than some of you guys. You dont know how populer 300 will be in 10 years. Hell, 10 years ago how populer was something like Jurrasic Park? Or Braveheart?

It's the same as us looking at the first Star Wars movie (ever made) now. Yeah the special effects are okay, but nothing special. The thing that keeps star wars alive is that the old movies were much more epic and had more storyline then 300 did.

... and Toys. Not sure about an epic storyline, the idea of Star Wars was great when it was just 3 cool movies, now it's just a heartless franchise with Jar-Jar Binks and Emo Vader.

Ten years from now people will look at 300 and say, "Yeah, it's cool, but nothing great" because they'll have movies that will look even better. Had 300 had a better storyline it would be different, but in terms of writing, it's nowhere near a Gladiator or a LOTR.

It never tried to be no more than an adaption of Frank millers Graphic Novel about the Legend of the 300. It never tried to be a mediocre Ridley Scott film with plank of wood Russell Crowe and Cleft-lip Boy, or an epic 3 part movie with a talented devoted cast based on time worn established novels from a noted fantasy writer.

 

[Agentsands77]

Except blood and adventure.

You can find plenty of that in many other films that won't be harmed by dated special effects.

It never tried to be no more than an adaption of Frank millers Graphic Novel about the Legend of the 300.

There's a double negative there, but I'll ignore it. Sure, the film never tried to be any more than that, but that was probably the film's problem. The film should have been aspired to be a great film as well as a great adaptation.

It never tried to be a mediocre Ridley Scott film with plank of wood Russell Crowe and Cleft-lip Boy, or an epic 3 part movie with a talented devoted cast based on time worn established novels from a noted fantasy writer.

Well, nobody's asking that it be GLADIATOR or LORD OF THE RINGS. Those films have different identities than what 300 was or should have been. But those films are going to last far longer in film history than 300 will.

And, IMO, Crowe's performance in GLADIATOR is stellar. Butler's performance in 300 pales in comparison, largely because it lacks the subtlety and humanity that Crowe invested in his performance. If you ask me, Crowe is one of the finest actors around.

 

[Nivek]

Okay, we get it, you didn't like it all that much. It failed to live up to expectations ... in your eyes.

Also in your Eyes, Russell Crowe is a great actor, so we differ in opinion and taste outside the realm of 300 as well.

 

[Agentsands77]

Deleted

 

[Agentsands77]

Okay, we get it, you didn't like it all that much. It failed to live up to expectations ... in your eyes.

I wouldn't say it so much failed to live up to expectations. 300 was exactly what I expected it to be - an entertaining film with some neat visuals that was intrinsically flawed. The problem with 300 is that it didn't exceed my expectations.

Also in your Eyes, Russell Crowe is a great actor, so we differ in opinion and taste outside the realm of 300 as well.

Well, I would have expected this. "In my eyes," it's abundantly clear that you have poor taste and that I have excellent taste.

 

[Jack Napier]

300 is a great movie, but it is nowhere near as good as Braveheart or even Gladiator. Personally though, I can't call something my favorite movie right after I see it. To be a favorite movie of mine, the repeat viewing factor has to be high. I've seen "Raiders of the Lost Ark" an uncountable amount of times, and I can still watch it and appreciate it. I've seen 300 twice, and while I enjoyed it, it's too soon to label it anything other than an entertaining movie.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Um, starting off a little bitter sounding, but lets see where your gonna go with this...

I'm slightly confused...what would I be bitter about? But then I suppose when we can only read typed responses everyone interprets them differently. I'm sorry for the confusion, but to be clear, I had no intention of any bitter comments.

Except blood and adventure. Hey, I certainly hope to see better films than 300 in the future, but I'm not so quickly dismissive than some of you guys. You dont know how populer 300 will be in 10 years. Hell, 10 years ago how populer was something like Jurrasic Park? Or Braveheart?

Oh, I wasn't adressing how popular it will be in ten years, I was addressing the special effects aspect of it. I was simply saying in ten years people won't think it was as groundbreaking as people now, just as many who watch the first Star Wars movie now don't really understand how amazing Star Wars was in the 70's because the special effects we have now are so superior.

... and Toys. Not sure about an epic storyline, the idea of Star Wars was great when it was just 3 cool movies, now it's just a heartless franchise with Jar-Jar Binks and Emo Vader.

No denying you there, that's why I only addressed the first three as being epic. I'm really not a fan of the new star wars movies.

It never tried to be no more than an adaption of Frank millers Graphic Novel about the Legend of the 300. It never tried to be a mediocre Ridley Scott film with plank of wood Russell Crowe and Cleft-lip Boy, or an epic 3 part movie with a talented devoted cast based on time worn established novels from a noted fantasy writer.

Oh I know that, and you obviously know that, my post was addressed to those that think 300 was as good, or better then the examples you mentioned and I mentioned. Hence the subject of this thread, asking if others think 300 is the best movie ever made. The movie itself has never claimed to be anything other then it is, a very entertaining action movie. Some people think it is otherwise, which of course is their opinion.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

I liked this movie's action but the character development was dumbed down to the point of liquid pouridge. There was good (Spartans) and there was evil (Persians).

Nobody tried to take their role past this, this was the only thing that I think limited the movie to me. Also the "hoo-ha" screaming was very cheesy.

 

[JonesytheManc]

Yes

cool

awesome

 

[I_Hate_U_All]

no

overrated

this is better

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE9_oEfkV_E&mode=related&search=