If you've seen it, your reviews here

[dawhistleblower]

it doesnt have any meaning... they just throwing it in there to have a voice

 

[Batman2008]

Seen it three times now! Just simply a badass movie! I think people get a little carried away though when there is talk of a "masterpiece." Its not a masterpiece. Its just a kickass ride full of amazing visuals, graphic scenes and music that gets you all fired up!

 

[Xothermic]

Style over substance. Yes, it was a gorgeous movie but the story wasn't great at all. I wish it the movie added another hour or so to develop the story and characters. As it stands it was about a 5 or 6.

 

[Manhunter]

...
And even if Xerxes is just another in a cinematic legacy of sexually ambiguous villains what does that say about the state of homophobia within cinema? You can't just say "oh well, there's always been feminised villains in film" to excuse it, because homosexuality has always been used as a shorthand for evil and monstrosity in cinema, and 300 is indulging in that bigotry.

Rosie, first off I just want to say I love your show...

Secondly, if we can't demonize our villains who can we demonize? If you had your way, all our villains would be upstanding, well mannered citizens. You don't see straight ppl *****ing and moaning because the villian was excessively masculine, thus depicting breeders as serial killers and rabid cannibals.

 

[hitmanyr2k]

I thought 300 was decent...nothing special though. It had great visuals which I expected but the movie is really an amalgam of every sword & sandal movie that came before it. Too many parts made me think of identical scenes in LOTR, Gladiator, Troy, etc. And the constant slo-mo got to be grating after the first couple of battles.

 

[juarez]

man you are such an idiot, i read most of your posts and OMG, why cant a movie just be a movie, why do things always have to have some kind of special meaning...braveheart showed more male ass than this movie

Wait you're calling my intelligence into question when you're the one who doesn't comprehend that film-makers code their work with agendas and have a specific intention on how their films are "read" by audiences? Thanks for that bit of mentally challenged logic there.

Case in point, and to demolish your point completely, Mel Gibson is a notorious homophobe and his Braveheart reflects his bigotry. He included a scene in the film where the King of England throws his son's male lover out of a tower to his death ( and before anyone chimes in with "but we're supposed to hate the King" consider that this scene was met with loud cheers from audiences when it was shown in cinemas ). Ergo such a film does have a "special meaning", just as 300 reflects Miller and Snyder's homophobia.

 

[green]

How is this movie offensive to gays?

It's not. Juarez seems to think that Snyder and Miller are part of vast conspiracy and had nothing better to do with a 70 milion dollar movie than demonize homosexuals.
Its like claiming Depp is homophobic because his portrayal of Sparrow was feminized therefore making fun of homosexuals.

 

[juarez]

Rosie, first off I just want to say I love your show...

Secondly, if we can't demonize our villains who can we demonize? If you had your way, all our villains would be upstanding, well mannered citizens. You don't see straight ppl *****ing and moaning because the villian was excessively masculine, thus depicting breeders as serial killers and rabid cannibals.

Wow how clever! I totally see what you did there! You compared me to the only outspoken celebrity on gay rights and representation in the media! I would never have thought to do that! I mean, of course straight people would just like gay people to shut up, stop complaining and go away. And telling someone to shut up about calling out homophobia in the media in no way reflects the homophobia encouraged in society!

Regards to the representation of villains thing, you've missed my point entirely. In what way am I advocating that villains be portrayed as well-mannered citizens? To clarify, I don't see anything inherently wrong with presenting villains who just happen to be gay. However what I do take umbrage with is the wilful portrayal of a villain as sexually ambiguous in order to emphasise the villain's monstrosity. In other words, if a writer/director chooses to depict the villain as gay as a shorthand for perversion and evil, as Miller and Snyder have, then yes it is a homophobic characterisation. Of course this homophobia is exacerbated by the fact that the creators willingly erased the well-documented homosexual partnerships between the Spartans in order to make them conform to audiences' expectations of heterosexual heroes, thereby creating a wider contrast between the "unnatural perversion" of Xerxes and the "healthy heterosexuality" of the Spartans. Perhaps if the creators had opted to not erase gay relationships between the Spartans from the film then there would be no issue of homophobia within the film at all, as audiences would have gay heroes to cheer on at last.

And one does not hear of straight people complaining that the villain is heterosexual precisely because the heroes of all films are also heterosexual. In this respect there is no issue of sexuality that straight people can take offense to because heterosexuality is presented as the "norm" and "right" in all films. One expects the hero of any given film to be straight precisely because the film industry has never given people a gay hero to root for ( and I'm talking mainstream Hollywood here, not some no-budget gay indie that nobody has ever seen ). So until gay heroes are presented in films/tv as completely normal then depictions of villains who are defined as monstrous through their homosexuality will continue to be called out for what they are...homophobic.

 

[juarez]

It's not. Juarez seems to think that Snyder and Miller are part of vast conspiracy and had nothing better to do with a 70 milion dollar movie than demonize homosexuals.
Its like claiming Depp is homophobic because his portrayal of Sparrow was feminized therefore making fun of homosexuals.

Ah it's nice to know that the nuances of my argument are really being understood. Also, when have I ever suggested that there was a "vast conspiracy" to demonise gays in this film? Talk about hyperbolic. What I'm actually saying is that Miller and Snyder have purposefully created a villain as sexually ambiguous in order to emphasise his evil and to scare "young 20 year old men in the audience with the thought of him having his way with them" ( Snyder's words, not mine ). So, regardless of whether Miller and Snyder believe that the depiction of Xerxes is homophobic, it is evident that their intention was at least to inspire some level of homophobic disgust in the audience, likely as a result of the creator's casual homphobic bigotry, as in "yeah, we need to make the villain seem more villainous. I know let's make him look and act like a creepy transexual and have him come on to our mighty straight hero. Also, let's have a tent full of disfigured lesbians, because nothing sells homoerotica to homophobes better than some lesbians macking on each other."

And your Jack Sparrow analogy is pretty shoddy. When the first Pirates movie came out gay critics adored Depp's performance as it seemed he was playing the character as gay/bi. "At last! A gay/bi hero, finally!" they thought. It wasn't until Pirates 2 when Disney seemed to get cold feet and mandated that Sparrow be ushered back into the closet and written as exclusively hetero that the critics gave up all hope for a gay hero. ( See the scene where Sparrow believes the drunken Commodore guy is coming onto him and he reacts with disgust ). Of course Sparrow was most likely always intended as hetero, but it seems that with the inclusion of the scene I have just mentioned the makers felt that they needed to "heterosexualise" the character to put a stop to all the "gay" talk. In essence they put a stop to the very thought of their leading franchise character as gay, spoiling the fun of reading in between the lines. Make no mistake, gays would love it if Sparrow was gay/bi, it really has nothing to do with Depp playing him as limp-wristed and something of a pansy at all. We're all for an heroic gay pansy. Bring the heroic gay pansies on says I.

 

[dpbrave84]

Wait you're calling my intelligence into question when you're the one who doesn't comprehend that film-makers code their work with agendas and have a specific intention on how their films are "read" by audiences? Thanks for that bit of mentally challenged logic there.

Case in point, and to demolish your point completely, Mel Gibson is a notorious homophobe and his Braveheart reflects his bigotry. He included a scene in the film where the King of England throws his son's male lover out of a tower to his death ( and before anyone chimes in with "but we're supposed to hate the King" consider that this scene was met with loud cheers from audiences when it was shown in cinemas ). Ergo such a film does have a "special meaning", just as 300 reflects Miller and Snyder's homophobia.

r u kidding me...unlike u i dont waste my time disecting every angle of a movie, i try to enjoy the film, and not sit there and ponder on what the director ment by a specific scene...u need to learn to just appreciate a movie for what its worth...as much as ur bashing snyder u need to get ur act together because if snyder made the movie just like it was in the graphic novel, most of the spartans would have been completely naked.

 

[green]

Ah it's nice to know that the nuances of my argument are really being understood. Also, when have I ever suggested that there was a "vast conspiracy" to demonise gays in this film? Talk about hyperbolic. What I'm actually saying is that Miller and Snyder have purposefully created a villain as sexually ambiguous in order to emphasise his evil and to scare "young 20 year old men in the audience with the thought of him having his way with them" ( Snyder's words, not mine ). So, regardless of whether Miller and Snyder believe that the depiction of Xerxes is homophobic, it is evident that their intention was at least to inspire some level of homophobic disgust in the audience, likely as a result of the creator's casual homphobic bigotry, as in "yeah, we need to make the villain seem more villainous. I know let's make him look and act like a creepy transexual and have him come on to our mighty straight hero. Also, let's have a tent full of disfigured lesbians, because nothing sells homoerotica to homophobes better than some lesbians macking on each other."

Oh they are being understood I just dont agree and think you are pushing too hard for something that wasnt intended. Filmmakers are artists and all art is subjective, make of it what you want. If what you want to take away from the experience of seeing 300 is hate, arguing about it is not going to change it. I havent seen one person in this thread or heard one person say anything along the lines of "oh that creepy gross homosexual Xerxes guy made gays look bad". Personally I thought it was a great movie. Visually it was unlike anything Id ever seen, the action was terrific, the story compelling and seeing it on IMAX was mind blowing.

And your Jack Sparrow analogy is pretty shoddy. When the first Pirates movie came out gay critics adored Depp's performance as it seemed he was playing the character as gay/bi. "At last! A gay/bi hero, finally!" they thought. It wasn't until Pirates 2 when Disney seemed to get cold feet and mandated that Sparrow be ushered back into the closet and written as exclusively hetero that the critics gave up all hope for a gay hero. ( See the scene where Sparrow believes the drunken Commodore guy is coming onto him and he reacts with disgust ). Of course Sparrow was most likely always intended as hetero, but it seems that with the inclusion of the scene I have just mentioned the makers felt that they needed to "heterosexualise" the character to put a stop to all the "gay" talk. In essence they put a stop to the very thought of their leading franchise character as gay, spoiling the fun of reading in between the lines. Make no mistake, gays would love it if Sparrow was gay/bi, it really has nothing to do with Depp playing him as limp-wristed and something of a pansy at all. We're all for an heroic gay pansy. Bring the heroic gay pansies on says I.

I will agree I am quite bothered by how Hollywood has portrayed homosexuals, it's pretty sad alot of the time. Really though I think you need to lighten up a little and have some fun. You're taking this way too seriously, it was just a movie.

 

[dpbrave84]

Oh they are being understood I just dont agree and think you are pushing too hard for something that wasnt intended. Filmmakers are artists and all art is subjective, make of it what you want. If what you want to take away from the experience of seeing 300 is hate, arguing about it is not going to change it. I havent seen one person in this thread or heard one person say anything along the lines of "oh that creepy gross homosexual Xerxes guy made gays look bad". Personally I thought it was a great movie. Visually it was unlike anything Id ever seen, the action was terrific, the story compelling and seeing it on IMAX was mind blowing.



I will agree I am quite bothered by how Hollywood has portrayed homosexuals, it's pretty sad alot of the time. Really though I think you need to lighten up a little and have some fun. You're taking this way too seriously, it was just a movie.

thank ou for saying excatky what i was thinking....u have a better way with words than i do

 

[Darthphere]

Style over substance. Yes, it was a gorgeous movie but the story wasn't great at all. I wish it the movie added another hour or so to develop the story and characters. As it stands it was about a 5 or 6.

You realize that would make it a 3 hour movie right?

And really, whats to develop? Its a pretty straightforward story, Persians invade, King and his men go and defend.

 

[Manhunter]

You realize that would make it a 3 hour movie right?

And really, whats to develop? Its a pretty straightforward story, Persians invade, King and his men go and defend.

Same reason there's no oscar for action movies or comedies, if the plot isn't primarily character driven, many view it as inferior.

 

[Manhunter]

To clarify, I don't see anything inherently wrong with presenting villains who just happen to be gay.

Well then WTF is your problem?

However what I do take umbrage with is the wilful portrayal of a villain as sexually ambiguous in order to emphasise the villain's monstrosity.

Miller emphasised Xerxes' feminine qualities in order to emphasise the villian's seductive nature, just like Disney did with this fellow;

http://www.aladdincentral.org/clipart/jafar2-Robyn.gif

You see a monster in Xerxes that I don't, I see a brilliant tactician who relies on charm and affection as much as brute force.

 

[Mr. Socko]

So until gay heroes are presented in films/tv as completely normal then depictions of villains who are defined as monstrous through their homosexuality will continue to be called out for what they are...homophobic.

Everybody loves Gandalf

Also, let's have a tent full of disfigured lesbians, because nothing sells homoerotica to homophobes better than some lesbians macking on each other."

That made me laugh.

 

[juarez]

Well then WTF is your problem?

Miller emphasised Xerxes' feminine qualities in order to emphasise the villian's seductive nature, just like Disney did with this fellow;

http://www.aladdincentral.org/clipart/jafar2-Robyn.gif

You see a monster in Xerxes that I don't, I see a brilliant tactician who relies on charm and affection as much as brute force.

Did you even read my post? I clarified that I have nothing against villain characters who just happen to be gay. What I said was that I think it is bigotry on the part of the creators when the antagonist's villainy is emphasised by his sexual orientation, in other words when homosexuality is used as short-hand for evil, as in the case of 300. Miller and Snyder purposefully constructed Xerxes as pervy and sexually ambiguous to freak out straight audiences. That isn't the same thing as mentioning his sexuality in passing as an unrelated characteristic. I also said that this homophobia is all the more apparent because of the "heterosexualising" of the Spartans, constructing a clear binary between the "good" sexuality of the Spartans and the "bad" sexuality of Xerxes.

As for your example: Has someone from Disney ever spoken out about how they purposefully made Jafar feminine is order to freak out straight men with the thought he might rape them? No, didn't think. Don't think your analogy relates to what we're talking about here, as Jafar wasn't made to look like a transvestite-hooker with a tent full of disfigured lesbians was he now. And don't you think that Hollywood's incessant characterising of male villains as feminine proves my point anyway, that such villains are constructed as feminine to underline their evil? This wouldn't be so much of an issue if there were an equal amount of gay/more feminine male heroes for these antagonists to play off, but I'm not holding my breath for Hollywood to wise up anytime soon.

 

[GSFOR]

Wait you're calling my intelligence into question when you're the one who doesn't comprehend that film-makers code their work with agendas and have a specific intention on how their films are "read" by audiences? Thanks for that bit of mentally challenged logic there.

Case in point, and to demolish your point completely, Mel Gibson is a notorious homophobe and his Braveheart reflects his bigotry. He included a scene in the film where the King of England throws his son's male lover out of a tower to his death ( and before anyone chimes in with "but we're supposed to hate the King" consider that this scene was met with loud cheers from audiences when it was shown in cinemas ). Ergo such a film does have a "special meaning", just as 300 reflects Miller and Snyder's homophobia.

Hey I'm not trying to gang up on you with the rest of the folks. I am just trying to give my 2 cents since you gave yours. We did have a gay hero, his name was ALEXANDER...remember it, the problem was not enough people saw it. Maybe it was because alot of people were afraid of being labeled. Whatever the reason, the company lost alot of money. Maybe everyone gay should of went and supported that movie. And maybe if it had made enough money, maybe then hollywood would consider making another gay hero movie . I see it as simple math, you don't wanna lose on your investment.It's always better to get back more on an investment than you put in.It seems like hetero go to movies more than gay...because 300 is killin right now.
Since voicing your opinion on how xerxes was made to look, I have a question for you. Have you ever seen dragon ball z? yeah I know it's an anime,Humor me for just one sec. Do you remember Frieza? when you fisrt see him, you think it's a chick. The color, his nail, all feminine looking. I have a another question for you, do you remember what he looked like in his ultimate form? Well if you don't a here's a brief history on frieza. He has three stage.His first stage he looks regular his define, his second stage, he is bulky almost like the hulk, his third and final stage. He is very slim, his look is cleaner and almost feminine like. Now why do you think they made him like that? what was the hidden message there? I'm just trying to understand how I can maybe one day understand the messages behind what I see.
It also seem to me like you disect everything about a movie... you must watch your movies very carefully. If you saw ghosrider tell me what the message was in that, Coz as bad as it was, I must have missed something.

 

[juarez]

Everybody loves Gandalf

.

Yeah, but Gandalf isn't a gay character (despite what all those naughty Lord of the Rings slash fiction writers might hope) I think Gandalf is more of an asexual angel type being thing, unless his love of "pipeweed" is some euphemism for something. It's true that Sir Ian Mckellen is a real life gay hero, but even in portraying Magneto with a gay sensibility he's allowed to get away with it precisely because Magneto is the villain.

 

[GSFOR]

I am just glad my bedtime stories didn't go * john and prince charming live happilly ever after*

 

[juarez]

Oh they are being understood I just dont agree and think you are pushing too hard for something that wasnt intended. Filmmakers are artists and all art is subjective, make of it what you want. If what you want to take away from the experience of seeing 300 is hate, arguing about it is not going to change it. I havent seen one person in this thread or heard one person say anything along the lines of "oh that creepy gross homosexual Xerxes guy made gays look bad". Personally I thought it was a great movie. Visually it was unlike anything Id ever seen, the action was terrific, the story compelling and seeing it on IMAX was mind blowing.
I will agree I am quite bothered by how Hollywood has portrayed homosexuals, it's pretty sad alot of the time. Really though I think you need to lighten up a little and have some fun. You're taking this way too seriously, it was just a movie.

If this was any other film we were discussing I would agree with you that it is debateable the level of intention that goes into depicting a villain with seemingly gay qualities. I think most of the time such examples are the result of lazy formulaic writing and/or subconscious casual homophobia. However in this specific example of 300 it is evident from Snyder's words that Xerxes was intended to provoke gay panic in the straight male audience with his sexual ambiguity. It's not just me reading my own subjective view of the film, it's what was intended. So I find that offensive and am calling the film out on its bigotry.

You may not see anyone else on this board commenting on the homophobia of Xerxes characterisation, but take a look around and you'll find plenty of critics and commentators who have noted the depiction in their reviews. Devin's review on Chud.com for example.

You might think I'm taking this too seriously but positive representations of gay people in the media is vastly important to the well-being, safety and rights of gays everywhere. Visibility matters, but when that visibility includes homophobic and stereotypical portrayals that dehumanise us it only encourages bigots to demonise us in real life. No movie is just a movie when a large proportion of people obtain their information and opinions from the media, and so might see in something like 300 a vindication of their homophobia. No movie is just a movie with lives on the line. I don't imagine many people will see 300 and come out with a new-found hatred of gays, but I do believe that the film will serve to reinforce the bigotry of a great many.

 

[juarez]

I am just glad my bedtime stories didn't go * john and prince charming live happilly ever after*

Why, because you find gay relationships disgusting and think that they shouldn't be depicted in the media and literature? Real progressive of you. Welcome to the 21st Century.

 

[juarez]

Hey I'm not trying to gang up on you with the rest of the folks. I am just trying to give my 2 cents since you gave yours. We did have a gay hero, his name was ALEXANDER...remember it, the problem was not enough people saw it. Maybe it was because alot of people were afraid of being labeled. Whatever the reason, the company lost alot of money. Maybe everyone gay should of went and supported that movie. And maybe if it had made enough money, maybe then hollywood would consider making another gay hero movie . I see it as simple math, you don't wanna lose on your investment.It's always better to get back more on an investment than you put in.It seems like hetero go to movies more than gay...because 300 is killin right now.
Since voicing your opinion on how xerxes was made to look, I have a question for you. Have you ever seen dragon ball z? yeah I know it's an anime,Humor me for just one sec. Do you remember Frieza? when you fisrt see him, you think it's a chick. The color, his nail, all feminine looking. I have a another question for you, do you remember what he looked like in his ultimate form? Well if you don't a here's a brief history on frieza. He has three stage.His first stage he looks regular his define, his second stage, he is bulky almost like the hulk, his third and final stage. He is very slim, his look is cleaner and almost feminine like. Now why do you think they made him like that? what was the hidden message there? I'm just trying to understand how I can maybe one day understand the messages behind what I see.
It also seem to me like you disect everything about a movie... you must watch your movies very carefully. If you saw ghosrider tell me what the message was in that, Coz as bad as it was, I must have missed something.

The problem with Alexander was that is was an atrocious film, and I believe it was that fact and bad word of mouth that killed it at the box office, rather than audiences staying away because it featured a bi-sexual hero like the media claimed at the time. It also doesn't help that the creators went out of their way to downplay any homosexual activity in the film and emphasised crazy animal heterosexual sex instead. In the end the relationship between Alexander and his male lover became nothing more than a series of lingering suggestive looks.

You imply that 300 is making a killing because its only heterosexual audiences going to see it, when obviously the vast majority of gays are in fact seeing and enjoying it too.

I am not familiar with Dragon Ball Z but Japanese anime has always been more progressive when it comes to portraying feminine looking male heroes.

And the underlying message of Ghost Rider was that you wasted two hours of your life watching it. That and kung-fu fighting chimps are supposedly hilarious.

 

[GSFOR]

Why, because you find gay relationships disgusting and think that they shouldn't be depicted in the media and literature? Real progressive of you. Welcome to the 21st Century.

No It's not my thing..I was raised in the 20th century so all this is new to me. It will take some time to get use to. everyone is entitled to feel how they wanna feel.

 

[juarez]

No It's not my thing..I was raised in the 20th century so all this is new to me. It will take some time to get use to. everyone is entitled to feel how they wanna feel.

You do know that there were gay couples in the 20th century right, and that gay relationships have been depicted in the media and literature since the 1970s if not earlier? .....just checking.