Official 300 Critics Reviews Thread

Is blood and gore really something you absolutely need in a comic book film like X3? Strange.

Wolverine, man. I'd love to see him just being a blender against Ninjas, like in Millers graphic novel. PG-13 does hold that particuler character back. The guy heals from wounds, and has razor sharp one foot blades popping out his fists. R rated Wolverine, hardcore feral berserker, would bring everyone.

Hmm... if Zack can't do Watchmen right away...
 
Anyone seen the April Empire fim magazine they only gave 300 3 stars, apparenty the film is obvioulsy visually stunning but the characters have no depth and are too shallow and therefore you never care about them. BS I say.
 
Anyone seen the April Empire fim magazine they only gave 300 3 stars, apparenty the film is obvioulsy visually stunning but the characters have no depth and are too shallow and therefore you never care about them. BS I say.


Gee, maybe because thats how the characters are in the GN? Eh, it's Empire, maybe the produsers didn't shill out enough money in advertising in their magazine.
 
Well from the TV spots, critics have been saying it the most ground-breaking movie since THE MATRIX!!:wow: :up:
 
Of course the first negative review is from a female!!

Women shouldnt be allowed to see this film it belongs to men
 
3.gif
00 is defined by what it's not. It's a retelling of the 480 B.C. Battle of Thermopylae, in which King Leonidas's (Gerard Butler) 300 mighty Spartans fought off Xerxes's (Rodrigo Santoro) gargantuan Persian army for three days before succumbing to defeat, that isn't historically accurate. It's a war flick that isn't the least bit realistic. It's a series of images that, despite being projected 24 frames per second on a theater screen, is such a distinctly digital creation that it isn't really a film in any traditional sense of the term. And regardless of those cultural pundits who'll likely try to analyze it through skewed conservative/liberal filters, it's not a political allegory of any worth, the story's oft-mentioned keywords (freedom, liberty, and slavery) left so ill-defined that they—and any ensuing interpretations involving them—cease to have substantive meaning. King Leonidas isn't George W. Bush. Or Osama Bin Laden. He's just He-Man, leading his all-combat, no-emotion masters of the universe on a suicide mission to preserve every man's right to a society where feeble children are discarded into skull-lined ravines, and the healthy ones are ripped from the bosoms of their mothers so they might have the honor of training to become brutal, emotionless killing machines.

There's one more thing that 300 isn't, and it's the kick-ass piece of new-cinema pop art that its Frank Miller/Sin City pedigree and stunning trailer promised. Zack Snyder's big-screen iteration of Miller's acclaimed graphic novel is the latest hyper-stylized progeny of the blue screen, its blood, gore, and environments having been wholly created on computers, and with all due respect to Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, it may be the most wearisome one to date. Faithfully replicating its source material's story and many of its actual artwork panels, the film also reproduces its infatuation with manliness—specifically, a type of machismo-ad-absurdum where chiseled studs stand around in flowing capes, posing like hybrids of Michelangelo's David and WWE wrestlers, their bulging biceps and ripped abs shining in the sunlight while they talk and laugh about murder and death. Mushy displays of emotion are for the weak (or those boy-lovers, the Athenians!); punching each other senseless as a means of strengthening resolve and bringing purpose to life is for the strong. It's like Fight Club without the tongue-in-cheek satire, a celebration of fascistic war and violence as noble and heroic that cribs, without a shameful bat of the eyelash, from Gladiator, Braveheart, and—in its horrific monsters, hunchbacks, and "immortal" bad guys—every videogame that ever concluded a level with a giant boss battle.

Faced with the choice between bowing to the will of Xerxes—a baritone God-King who watches his military force's conquering cross-continent trek from a throne carried by slaves and adorned with matching horse-head sculptures—or opposing certain subjugation, Leonidas shrugs off his political foes (namely, Dominic West's Theron) and some fugly, perverted mutant mystics to mount a Greek resistance. This means luring Xerxes's forces into the Hot Gates, a narrow pass that will negate the enemies' numbers advantage, though it primarily involves more super-slow-motion than is reasonable. Snyder reduces and fiddles with camera speeds at such laughably alarming rates that the film comes to a virtual standstill, a compendium of bronzed and blackened tableaus of underwear model-ish men set against golden sunsets or splattered in crimson streaks. If 300 is a triumph, it's only one of superficial aesthetics—a shot of Leonidas literally shielding himself from driving rain while watching Persian ships destroyed by titanic waves is, as with many other compositions, nothing shy of breathtaking. Yet Snyder attaches no larger significance to his arresting visuals. He's only intent on eliciting "Whoa, dude!" reactions, of which there are fewer and fewer once it becomes clear that there's nothing sustaining the centerpiece razzle-dazzle sequences except awful dialogue and no-dimensional characters.

Performances are given by pectoral muscles, Matrix-y fight scenes deliver sparse thrills, and femininity is shoehorned into this (often homoerotic) testosterone-a-thon via a half-nude oracle writhing about in willowy garments, fleeting soft-core love scenes, and a time-filler subplot (not found in Miller's original) in which Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) clashes with corrupt politicos at home. All the while, not a second of it makes the least bit of lasting impact. For all its technical dexterity, blurring effects pop up whenever the director's camera pans too quickly, an inconsistency that's in tune with Snyder's flip-flopping between Tyler Bates's bombastic score and chugging heavy metal tunes, as well as narrative and thematic contradictions such as the reason-guided Leonidas slandering religion as backward and worthless, and then striking his best Jesus Christ pose for his deathbed portrait. Snyder attempts to offset these failings with endless snapshots of meticulously drawn CG splendor. Yet whereas in Sin City, such extreme cinematic artificiality instinctively mated with—and amplified—noir's exaggerated passions, here it has the polar opposite effect, transforming familiar war movie moments into leaden, empty, fetishistic panoramas of action-figure gallantry and sacrifice. A cold synthetic invention, 300 catches the eye but leaves the heart indifferent—devoid of meaning, to be sure, but, more detrimentally, devoid of feeling.

http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=2819

I haven't seen the film, but this guy didn't seem to get it.
 
I'll be doing the same around 2:30 AM Friday morning.
 
http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=2819

I haven't seen the film, but this guy didn't seem to get it.


No kidding, right? Hmmm... starting to see a trend here...

Oh, a good review from Joblo.com here... http://www.joblo.com/arrow/reviews.php?id=1156

heres the sum up...

300 did it all and with panache, bold style and a big set of “couillons” too boot! It touched me and inspired me with its themes. It wowed me and gave inimitable goodies via its novel settings and totally out there eye candy. Finally, it got my blood pumping in overdrive with its aggressive demeanor, its furious battle scenes and its eager reveling in ample bloodshed. What else can one want! Sure, I could’ve done without the “Cantina”” rejects that stepped in here and there; but no big deal, I was able to get past them. So you in the mood for an outrageous and distinctive “man film” with heart, balls, thrills and, spills? Join this army and fight alongside these 300 crazy bastards! You won’t regret it. Well maybe you will…I’m not you…but I SURE DIDN’T! 300 ROCKED!
 
The movies at 60% now. Most critics don't know what a "Fictional book based on real events" mean. They are seriously giving the film negatives for not being accurate.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/300/
You also have gems like this:
"Fills a much-needed gap between gay porn and recruitment film."
 
WTF is wrong with the guy from the Village Voice?
He saying it's bad because it stays too close to it's source material. What a 'tard.:whatever:
 
Damn I was hoping critics would embrace the movie for being artistically ambitious and for taking risk but I guess they'd rather watch routine Hollywood movies like Dreamgirls and Charlette's Web.

*yawn*
 
There's only 17 reviews up so far. Wait til friday when most people have released their reviews.
Look at the user score on all of the websites, they're all pretty high. It doesn't matter what the critics think, only what the audience thinks.
 
Just a tidbit for you and I'll try not to turn this into a tirade.

I like the system on RT. I think a percentage is a lot better than one or two telling whether something is good or not. But I also figured out that if a movie gets a 40% and above rating then it usually may be worth seeing.

You see, you can discount 25% of the critics right off the bat on a movie of this type because the violence and/or sex(nudity) will turn them off.

Another 25% will either not understand the source material, not care, or have an opinion based purely on an initial gut reaction i.e. the several "gay porn" comments that have already surfaced. (Seems like some guys can't look at a muscular male physique and not be a bit insecure)

If you really want to be amused wait till the political claptrap begins on the east vs. west venue. It's inevitable. Critics have to prove their superiority and wit by trying to read between the lines and telling you what a movie really means and what the director is really trying to see. Wow, I thought I was watching Talladega Nights.

I remember when the first POTC movie came out and how many critics were saying Jack Sparrow was gay and how brave Johnny Depp was to play him that way. They saw gay, I saw a druken fop. It's funny that no one said Tim Roth's character in Rob Roy was gay yet he played it, for the most part, much more effeminate.

But that all leads to perception. Belief is 90% perception. Same goes for a movie.

Now I saw Little Miss Sunshine. Cute film. Academy award winning film? Yeah, okay. Not in my book though. Nothing I would go out and purchase. But I own a copy of Chronicles Of Riddick. Which means what?

Preference. Nothing more, nothing less.

I used to get mad at some of these critics, but I found out I wasn't mad at their opinion. I was mad cause they got paid to give it and it didn't match mine. Remember how many here discounted Casino Royale simply because Craig wasn't their choice? Hmmmm...top rated film of 2006. Night at the Musuem poorly rated yet third highest grossing film of 2006. The people have spoken.

Bottom line. It's a movie. They're meant to be enjoyed. Not analyzed. If someone is too busy ripping apart every little scene to enjoy the over all flick and can't give me a simple "I like it, hated it, loved it, etc." Then frankly who cares. And if I like it and someone else doesn't???????????

Oh well.:cwink:
 
There probably was just a flux of many bad reviews at once, till friday the number still can change a lot.
 
^^^

Agreed, I remember the times when The Prestige had only 20%, and now it's 74%.

I guess 300 will have something between 75% and 85% :up:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"