If you've seen it, your reviews here

I just don't get this "it was violent and made me want to break someone's face, therefore it can't possibly be gay" argument. Haven't you straight and narrows ever heard of bears?

And the people I live with can answer back just as fast.

i think the only thing that could make the movie gay is if you yourself are gay, because it really just hyped up my testosterone and made me drag my girlfriend home and have sex with her. i imagine it would have the same affect on a gay man, only compounded in that he would be very appreciative of the male bodies in the flick. in that case, it could be considered gay. :woot:
 
If you wanted Leonidas to annihilate the Persians, you're straight. If you wanted Leonidas to annihilate you, you could possibly be gay. :o
 
I like to watch the Spartans kill people, that means I'm sick, not gay.
 
I hate how people still keep looking for the racial, political, and gay messages in here.
 
300 was not as good as I heard it would be.

The hype on this film seems to solely be in that there is so heavy a pandering to the male-orientated audience. It was, to be frank, lacking. For one, the drama- the queen's plight was not worth mentioning. Gorgo never once felt like more than just a sex object outside of her initial spite towards the Persian messenger. Her sleeping with Leonidas and Theron could be seen from a mile away, as the story had no clue what to do with her outside of that. The 'offering of her body' was just a waste of time; in reality, it was just to lead up to one cool moment that tried to validate the subplot. If the tale was trying to attract a female audience or give an attempt at an actual storyline, it fell short.

The second would be Leonidas. I won't show shame- having not read the comic, I cannot say I have intimate knowledge of the characters or their names. With that said, the movie makes no attempt to aid me in this outside of remembering the title character and a few other people who seemlessly merge in with the sepia filter. Characterization doesn't seem to be the film's upper hand. It just puts masculine lines into the men's mouths in hopes that everyone who's not a testosterone junkie finds it just as cool.

Thirdly, the matter of the godly Spartans comes to mind. The beginning of the film gave me false hope. The fact that it addressed the harsh reality of Spartan life so well made me believe it would show the equal monstrosity of both sides to compensate for the obvious artistic license taken with the Persians. The film doesn't do this at all. It makes the Persians out to be stereotypes straight out of something like Heart of Darkness. I'm not talking about racism or anything like that- it's that the opposing side is simply a faceless evil. Xerxes is the only one with personality, and even then there were people laughing out loud at the appearance of him. The 300 Spartans (artistic license again in the numbers) are made out to be honorable warriors with a violent streak when the truth was that they were much more brutal. 300 portrays them with an almost antiseptic feel. The fact that the Persians have Unnamed Ogre Fellow and Fat Man with Hooks for Arms on their side doesn't help. And what about the Arcadians? Wall flowers used to beef up the Spartan's bloated greatness. And for all this, how do the Spartans go out? In the middle of a defensive position? With ease. Meh.

And when I say 'sepia filter', it's like that's the only thing this film feels comfortable using. This comes in glaringly when you see close-ups. I could literally still see grit left over in pixelation when Leonidas' face came up close in some shots. For a film placing such importance on the visual aspect some parts looked downright mediocre. The SFX is another issue- the elephant and wolf imagery is just...bland. The Hero copy-and-paste "rain of arrows" comes into play here as well. The lighting is novel until about halfway in the film, when you start seeing scenes that cleverly use the perception of natural light (though it's not) to illuminate the sequences. It just annoys me that they could use the lighting so well yet choose to drape everything in an attempt to further remind you that this is not set in current times. The slow motion shots were also sort of galling. The first time it's visually appealing, but by the time they're in the phalanx formation you've seen it once too often.

I know up until now one could claim I hate the film. I don't. I freely admit that I prefer films with more intellectual meat than this film offers. But for what it's worth, this is a comic book film geared towards action. I'm not a fan of films solely geared towards this, but for what it's worth 300 is a good movie. It takes a lot of guts for a film to embrace the comic book aspect to an adaption of a historical event. I liked the cartoony CG blood. The film didn't just throw the comic to the side nor did it overly delve in realism. While the Persians were romanticized and villified characteristically, their monstrosity wasn't overplayed to the point of personal revulsion. The action was solid and the hard attempt at making a movie worth watching present. The film leaves the story with a smidge of hope, which is a bit more poetic of the Spartan's plight than it had to be. The sense that there is victory to be had after the final defeat. That wasn't bad at all. Dilios was an unexpected survivor, though the narration hints at that for some time, and Ephialtes' outer reflection of his inner darkness was good in execution.

Overall, it was a very good effort at A material. But, given the slew of flaws and the fact that the film revels a bit too much in simple violence and gore to be anything more than a forgetable popcorn flick I can't give it more than a B or 80%, and voice my disappointment that it wasn't the A+ movie most have claimed it to be.
 
300 was not as good as I heard it would be.

The hype on this film seems to solely be in that there is so heavy a pandering to the male-orientated audience. It was, to be frank, lacking. For one, the drama- the queen's plight was not worth mentioning. Gorgo never once felt like more than just a sex object outside of her initial spite towards the Persian messenger. Her sleeping with Leonidas and Theron could be seen from a mile away, as the story had no clue what to do with her outside of that. The 'offering of her body' was just a waste of time; in reality, it was just to lead up to one cool moment that tried to validate the subplot. If the tale was trying to attract a female audience or give an attempt at an actual storyline, it fell short.

The second would be Leonidas. I won't show shame- having not read the comic, I cannot say I have intimate knowledge of the characters or their names. With that said, the movie makes no attempt to aid me in this outside of remembering the title character and a few other people who seemlessly merge in with the sepia filter. Characterization doesn't seem to be the film's upper hand. It just puts masculine lines into the men's mouths in hopes that everyone who's not a testosterone junkie finds it just as cool.

Thirdly, the matter of the godly Spartans comes to mind. The beginning of the film gave me false hope. The fact that it addressed the harsh reality of Spartan life so well made me believe it would show the equal monstrosity of both sides to compensate for the obvious artistic license taken with the Persians. The film doesn't do this at all. It makes the Persians out to be stereotypes straight out of something like Heart of Darkness. I'm not talking about racism or anything like that- it's that the opposing side is simply a faceless evil. Xerxes is the only one with personality, and even then there were people laughing out loud at the appearance of him. The 300 Spartans (artistic license again in the numbers) are made out to be honorable warriors with a violent streak when the truth was that they were much more brutal. 300 portrays them with an almost antiseptic feel. The fact that the Persians have Unnamed Ogre Fellow and Fat Man with Hooks for Arms on their side doesn't help. And what about the Arcadians? Wall flowers used to beef up the Spartan's bloated greatness. And for all this, how do the Spartans go out? In the middle of a defensive position? With ease. Meh.

And when I say 'sepia filter', it's like that's the only thing this film feels comfortable using. This comes in glaringly when you see close-ups. I could literally still see grit left over in pixelation when Leonidas' face came up close in some shots. For a film placing such importance on the visual aspect some parts looked downright mediocre. The SFX is another issue- the elephant and wolf imagery is just...bland. The Hero copy-and-paste "rain of arrows" comes into play here as well. The lighting is novel until about halfway in the film, when you start seeing scenes that cleverly use the perception of natural light (though it's not) to illuminate the sequences. It just annoys me that they could use the lighting so well yet choose to drape everything in an attempt to further remind you that this is not set in current times. The slow motion shots were also sort of galling. The first time it's visually appealing, but by the time they're in the phalanx formation you've seen it once too often.

I know up until now one could claim I hate the film. I don't. I freely admit that I prefer films with more intellectual meat than this film offers. But for what it's worth, this is a comic book film geared towards action. I'm not a fan of films solely geared towards this, but for what it's worth 300 is a good movie. It takes a lot of guts for a film to embrace the comic book aspect to an adaption of a historical event. I liked the cartoony CG blood. The film didn't just throw the comic to the side nor did it overly delve in realism. While the Persians were romanticized and villified characteristically, their monstrosity wasn't overplayed to the point of personal revulsion. The action was solid and the hard attempt at making a movie worth watching present. The film leaves the story with a smidge of hope, which is a bit more poetic of the Spartan's plight than it had to be. The sense that there is victory to be had after the final defeat. That wasn't bad at all. Dilios was an unexpected survivor, though the narration hints at that for some time, and Ephialtes' outer reflection of his inner darkness was good in execution.

Overall, it was a very good effort at A material. But, given the slew of flaws and the fact that the film revels a bit too much in simple violence and gore to be anything more than a forgetable popcorn flick I can't give it more than a B or 80%, and voice my disappointment that it wasn't the A+ movie most have claimed it to be.

I do not agree with you,but I respect your opinion.
 
For one, the drama- the queen's plight was not worth mentioning. Gorgo never once felt like more than just a sex object outside of her initial spite towards the Persian messenger. Her sleeping with Leonidas and Theron could be seen from a mile away, as the story had no clue what to do with her outside of that. The 'offering of her body' was just a waste of time; in reality, it was just to lead up to one cool moment that tried to validate the subplot. If the tale was trying to attract a female audience or give an attempt at an actual storyline, it fell short.
Entirely agreed. Maybe if the character had been worthwhile, or the dramatic moments had been handled with more nuance (i.e. better dialogue), it would have clicked.

Characterization doesn't seem to be the film's upper hand. It just puts masculine lines into the men's mouths in hopes that everyone who's not a testosterone junkie finds it just as cool.
Excellently said. There was a bit more memorable stuff in the graphic novel (the "Stumblios" substory, which was interestingly dropped), but for the most part, the Spartans are rather faceless. I wish they were a bit more distinct from one another.

The beginning of the film gave me false hope. The fact that it addressed the harsh reality of Spartan life so well made me believe it would show the equal monstrosity of both sides to compensate for the obvious artistic license taken with the Persians.
One would hope so, but it glorifies the Spartans to an obscene degree, which is intensely problematic, even in the context of the own film. It's hard for me to love a society where they get rid of their "imperfect" young (hell, one of the first shots of the film is a graveyard full of baby skeletons... absolutely horrifying). In many ways, their society is just as barbaric and misguided as the one they're fighting against - it's a shame that the film couldn't have acknowledged this in one way or another.

The fact that the Persians have Unnamed Ogre Fellow and Fat Man with Hooks for Arms on their side doesn't help.
Nevermind that the Immortals, when unmasked, look like orcs.

And what about the Arcadians? Wall flowers used to beef up the Spartan's bloated greatness. And for all this, how do the Spartans go out? In the middle of a defensive position? With ease. Meh.
Quite right.

For a film placing such importance on the visual aspect some parts looked downright mediocre. The SFX is another issue- the elephant and wolf imagery is just...bland. The Hero copy-and-paste "rain of arrows" comes into play here as well.
Agreed. This film did have a few awesome images, though - most notably the oracle's dance, which was jaw-droppingly beautiful.

The slow motion shots were also sort of galling. The first time it's visually appealing, but by the time they're in the phalanx formation you've seen it once too often.
It gets quite exhausting, and ultimately cheapens both the effect and the film itself.

While the Persians were romanticized and villified characteristically, their monstrosity wasn't overplayed to the point of personal revulsion.
Personally, I found it somewhat offensive. They're unabashedly villified, to the point of physical monstrosity, and to boot, Xerxes is made out to be a weird sexual deviant with a tent full of transsexuals. Interesting that neither is really drawn out in Miller's graphic novel, where there are no monsters nor does Xerxes' contain transsexuals/deformed women/an anthropomorphic goat playing the flute.
 
I hate how people still keep looking for the racial, political, and gay messages in here.

looking for, or just seeing? :whatever:

overtly sexualized violence along with some homosexual underpinnings are pretty much at the surface of the film. dont miss the trees for the forest.
 
That is a good point. Some people were trying to compare 300 to Gladiator, and I was astounded at that. 300's storyline left much to be desired, it really was more a movie of cool moments then an actual story.

Still, it was better then Ghost Rider. 300 was what I expected Ghost Rider to be, a movie that had a "Meh" storyline with kickass visuals. It's too bad Ghost Rider didn't deliver, I probably would have liked that better had it had more spectacular fights.
300 made me want to rip out my eyes because I doubt I will ever see something so gorgeous again...Ghost Rider made me want to gouge out my eyes so I would never have to see it again.
 
looking for, or just seeing? :whatever:

overtly sexualized violence along with some homosexual underpinnings are pretty much at the surface of the film. dont miss the trees for the forest.

I bet you avoid Gym's because all those guys working out is "gay" too, same with working in sports teams, and working in fire and police deparments, working in the military, ect. A bunch of guys working side by side is gay, especially if they are hot looking and make you question what you think is attractive. :whatever:

Gimme a break, there is really no Homosexual underpinnings or no "gay" scenes in 300. Whats lame is people jumping on this shallow critism bandwagon. I know I'm dissapointed at the number of people complaining about it or coming up with explanations on why they think it's gay, to them.

"Overtly Sexualized Violence" ...yeah...
 
300 was not as good as I heard it would be.

The hype on this film seems to solely be in that there is so heavy a pandering to the male-orientated audience. It was, to be frank, lacking. For one, the drama- the queen's plight was not worth mentioning. Gorgo never once felt like more than just a sex object outside of her initial spite towards the Persian messenger. Her sleeping with Leonidas and Theron could be seen from a mile away, as the story had no clue what to do with her outside of that. The 'offering of her body' was just a waste of time; in reality, it was just to lead up to one cool moment that tried to validate the subplot. If the tale was trying to attract a female audience or give an attempt at an actual storyline, it fell short.

The second would be Leonidas. I won't show shame- having not read the comic, I cannot say I have intimate knowledge of the characters or their names. With that said, the movie makes no attempt to aid me in this outside of remembering the title character and a few other people who seemlessly merge in with the sepia filter. Characterization doesn't seem to be the film's upper hand. It just puts masculine lines into the men's mouths in hopes that everyone who's not a testosterone junkie finds it just as cool.

Thirdly, the matter of the godly Spartans comes to mind. The beginning of the film gave me false hope. The fact that it addressed the harsh reality of Spartan life so well made me believe it would show the equal monstrosity of both sides to compensate for the obvious artistic license taken with the Persians. The film doesn't do this at all. It makes the Persians out to be stereotypes straight out of something like Heart of Darkness. I'm not talking about racism or anything like that- it's that the opposing side is simply a faceless evil. Xerxes is the only one with personality, and even then there were people laughing out loud at the appearance of him. The 300 Spartans (artistic license again in the numbers) are made out to be honorable warriors with a violent streak when the truth was that they were much more brutal. 300 portrays them with an almost antiseptic feel. The fact that the Persians have Unnamed Ogre Fellow and Fat Man with Hooks for Arms on their side doesn't help. And what about the Arcadians? Wall flowers used to beef up the Spartan's bloated greatness. And for all this, how do the Spartans go out? In the middle of a defensive position? With ease. Meh.

And when I say 'sepia filter', it's like that's the only thing this film feels comfortable using. This comes in glaringly when you see close-ups. I could literally still see grit left over in pixelation when Leonidas' face came up close in some shots. For a film placing such importance on the visual aspect some parts looked downright mediocre. The SFX is another issue- the elephant and wolf imagery is just...bland. The Hero copy-and-paste "rain of arrows" comes into play here as well. The lighting is novel until about halfway in the film, when you start seeing scenes that cleverly use the perception of natural light (though it's not) to illuminate the sequences. It just annoys me that they could use the lighting so well yet choose to drape everything in an attempt to further remind you that this is not set in current times. The slow motion shots were also sort of galling. The first time it's visually appealing, but by the time they're in the phalanx formation you've seen it once too often.

I know up until now one could claim I hate the film. I don't. I freely admit that I prefer films with more intellectual meat than this film offers. But for what it's worth, this is a comic book film geared towards action. I'm not a fan of films solely geared towards this, but for what it's worth 300 is a good movie. It takes a lot of guts for a film to embrace the comic book aspect to an adaption of a historical event. I liked the cartoony CG blood. The film didn't just throw the comic to the side nor did it overly delve in realism. While the Persians were romanticized and villified characteristically, their monstrosity wasn't overplayed to the point of personal revulsion. The action was solid and the hard attempt at making a movie worth watching present. The film leaves the story with a smidge of hope, which is a bit more poetic of the Spartan's plight than it had to be. The sense that there is victory to be had after the final defeat. That wasn't bad at all. Dilios was an unexpected survivor, though the narration hints at that for some time, and Ephialtes' outer reflection of his inner darkness was good in execution.

Overall, it was a very good effort at A material. But, given the slew of flaws and the fact that the film revels a bit too much in simple violence and gore to be anything more than a forgetable popcorn flick I can't give it more than a B or 80%, and voice my disappointment that it wasn't the A+ movie most have claimed it to be.

****

She was raped by Theron, you heartless ass hole.
 
I hope you edit your post, Gunblade. Dont let some shmuck get you banned because of his insensitivite Sepia-toned sexist post. "She wanted it" types, gotta love 'em.
 
I do somewhat feel that the rape scene along with her vindication was added to appeal to the women. It wasn't that prominent or present in the book, was it?
 
I do somewhat feel that the rape scene along with her vindication was added to appeal to the women. It wasn't that prominent or present in the book, was it?

It was not even in it.
 
Regarding the Gorgo/Theron scene, I dont think it was rape at all. I did not like the "Theron" storyline at all, it as not in the graphic novel and it left a bad taste in my mouth when it was added to the film. I was a little disappointed with the movie, but if I had not read the book, I may have enjoyed it more. I agree w/ Agentsands77 that the "Stumblios" subplot would have been nice to see as well. All in all it was still good, but maybe not as good as some on these boards have suggested.
 
I do somewhat feel that the rape scene along with her vindication was added to appeal to the women. It wasn't that prominent or present in the book, was it?
I feel it was necessary though. In the book, the Queen was nothing more than an after-thought. In the movie, she actually does have a role. Not to mention Leonidas' dying words hold much more weight because we see how strong his wife is.
 
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20014479,00.html
According to Snyder, Warner had given up on trying to appeal to a female audience. Then a pair of test screenings changed all that. ''We got, like, a 100 percent recommend from women under 25,'' says the director. ''They don't even get that kind of score on a romantic comedy.'' Why did women respond? In Miller's original graphic novel, Leonidas' wife, Queen Gorgo, appears only in passing. In the movie, Queen Gorgo (Brit Lena Headey) is a front-and-center partner to Leonidas, calming his nerves in bed (while both are very, very naked) and getting her own new subplot about political corruption as Leonidas marches off to war.

''At first I very much disagreed with it,'' Miller says. ''My main comment was 'This is a boys' movie. Let it be that.''' But the Snyders felt strongly that Leonidas needed something specific to fight for, and that female ticket buyers needed someone to identify with. The preview scores vindicated them. ''Those numbers came back, and Warner said, Wow, we need to rethink this a bit,'' says Snyder. Instead of spending big on one 30-second Super Bowl TV spot, Warner sprinkled previews into more female-friendly TV shows, including Grey's Anatomy, Heroes, Lost, and American Idol.
 
I feel it was necessary though. In the book, the Queen was nothing more than an after-thought. In the movie, she actually does have a role. Not to mention Leonidas' dying words hold much more weight because we see how strong his wife is.

Couldn't agree more, in fact I felt that Gorgo's subplot rounded out the story, improving on Miller's original.
 
Yeah anyone notice the hidden messages and parallels in Ghostrider between Mephistoles and George Bush?

And the gay lesbian undertone with the Roxanne character

:whatever:
 
Regarding the Gorgo/Theron scene, I dont think it was rape at all. I did not like the "Theron" storyline at all, it as not in the graphic novel and it left a bad taste in my mouth when it was added to the film. I was a little disappointed with the movie, but if I had not read the book, I may have enjoyed it more. I agree w/ Agentsands77 that the "Stumblios" subplot would have been nice to see as well. All in all it was still good, but maybe not as good as some on these boards have suggested.


The movie was almost note for note faithful to the GN (without being as ham fisted as Sin City), and if the Gorgo addition and the Stumblios ommission turned you off, sheesh man... sounds like you are reaching for stuff to not like. To eash their own.
 
I bet he hated Batman Begins because Ra's taught Bruce and hated Spider-Man because the web was organic too.

OMG UNNECESSARY ADITIONS LOLZ!!!11!!!1!!!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"