Kagemusha Kagemusha
Mar
09
2007

300 Review

Posted by Peter Martin at 9:33pm.

Posted in Film & DVD Reviews , Cult, Action, USA & Canada.

3002.gif

Judging from the crowds swarming the 8:00 PM screening, this will be a big movie in the US this weekend and deserves debate. Check the review by Twitch’s Canfield—and the comments already posted. Mine are somewhat different.

Zack Snyder’s 300 is a big thumping roar of an action movie that aspires to something more only in its closing sequences. Until then it achieves the popcorn movie goal of depicting battles with honor but without humanity in an entertaining fashion.

Gallons of blood are spilt, thousands of limbs are severed, and numerous heads are lopped off, yet there is never the slightest bit of tension generated or concern expended in behalf of the soldiers involved. Director Snyder keeps the pace swift for the most part, though the multitude of extended slow motion footage makes it feel like an American football game broadcast—there’s even an announcer, er, narrator.

The plot description is elegant in its simplicity: 300 Spartans stand off an army of millions of Persians. What I thought about while watching one of the battles was John Woo’s Hard Boiled or any number of Hong Kong martial arts movies in which the fights seem to go on forever. That’s how they feel in 300, but the difference is that the action is so stylized—color tinted to make it difficult to make out facial expressions, the Spartans all boasting six-pack abs and looking identical, the blood escaping from bodies in small and large blobs rather than spurting—that it becomes difficult to be caught up in it.

The advantage of, say, the Woo picture is the action is so fast and furious that, subconsciously, it feels even more violent than it is, because your mind is filling in what the eye is not seeing. That’s also the secret to the best horror movies (my first thought is Psycho‘s shower scene), where the carnage may be bloody, but we tend to fill in the blanks with something even worse.

Here we have plenty of slow-motion slicing of heads and swords ramming through bodies, but it’s so slow that you simply admire the ability of the computer artist/make-up people.

The few actors we can recognize have trouble making much of an impression. Gerard Butler is a terrific snarler as King Leonidas, but I kept expecting him to burst into song, a la the Phantom of the Opera. Dominic West was a nasty, one-dimensional villain, and Lena Headey brought a degree of nuance as the Queen.

It would be easy enough to accept 300 as simple entertainment were it not for the inclusion of the Spartans’ motivation as a big part of the closing sequences. Until it reached this point, I had dismissed the concerns I’d heard about beforehand as desperately thin, but it becomes clear—at least to me—that the filmmakers want the Spartans to be held up as shining examples of goodness. (If they’d expressed even one iota of doubt about the Spartans, I might be persuaded that they want the audience to question their own feelings about whether the Spartans as a society were to be admired or condemned for their methods, but no such shadow of doubt is ever even hinted at.) That’s where the picture breaks down completely—it’s too shallow to hold up to close inspection, too thin to bear the weight of introspection.

The way that the Persians are repeatedly identified as Asians, and depicted as brutal nameless faceless hordes, is a standard movie convention. The Persian army may very well have been the most evil ever to walk the face of the earth. But we never see that—we just see that they number into the hundreds of thousands, that they are relentless, and that their King is very very tall, thinks he is a god, and likes facial jewelry. Sure, they kill and pillage, but isn’t that what the Spartans do? The Spartans insistence on breeding great warriors—illustrated by their disposal of infants who don’t fit their “perfect” criteria—seems just as wicked as anything the Persians do. But it is the Spartans that we are meant to root for.

For a big dumb night out, yes, 300 may fit the bill. But as an invitation to nuanced thought, or to imagine that it has anything on its mind besides presenting the Spartans as a great team of nationalist warriors worthy of imitation, it falls flat.

  • Digg This
  • Stumble It!
  • Reddit
 

Reader Comments

  1. cagliostro 03/10/2007 @ 7:18am

    There goes any hope I had for “Watchmen” being anything but a ridiculous attempt at cashing in. Thanks for the review.

  2. Cinnamon Whirl 03/10/2007 @ 10:14am

    I guess my question for you is, “From the trailer, were you expecting Citizen Kane?”

    Look, it was a comic book, loosely based on a legend, garnished with a cherry-picked “facts” that historians pieced together from broken pottery, and turned into a movie.

    I for one will watch this film in the way it is meant to be watched: HD, 6.1 sound, brain in neutral. smile

  3. Peter Martin 03/10/2007 @ 10:32am

    Cinnamon Whirl: FWIW, 300 bears some resemblance to Citizen Kane, in that both are more interesting for their stylish visuals than for their thematic content.

    If the movie had stuck to its swords and sandals, I would have been fine with that. But when it tries to make a bigger statement—and fails, in my opinion—why shouldn’t I comment on my reaction to that?
    And I’m uncomfortable with the idea that movies based on comic books (or graphic novels) should be given a free pass bacause of their source material. I’m not trying to discourage anyone from seeing the movie—I think it’s one of this year’s benchmark movies that everyone will be talking about, good or bad.
    I paid my US$9.50 to see it, hoping it would amount to more than the trailer expanded to feature length, and kept my brain in neutral as long as I could. smile

  4. Justin McGowan 03/10/2007 @ 9:25pm

    Good review Peter. I just got back from watching the 300 myself and out of the six people I went with I was the only one that didn’t really enjoy it.
    As I sat there watching the movie all I kept thinking was “why?” why should I care what happens to any of these characters, win or lose, live or die, it just didn’t matter. I found myself so detached from the two-dimensional sketches of people that randomly shouted out emotionally charged appeals such as “Freedom!” “Liberty!” and “Justice!”. Just saying the words isn’t enough, the filmmakers needed to show these concepts in action, show what they meant to the characters and why the audience should even invest themselves in their struggles.

    Even given these limitations, as the film went along, I tried my hardest to just enjoy the cool action and visuals. However, even these were honestly not very compelling. As Peter wrote, the action is all style and no thrill. I wanted so badly to get caught up in the battle scenes, but again I just didn’t feel anything, it was just so repetitive and dull.
    Adding to this, the makeup and CG work is particularly bad. There are multiple scenes of various poorly rendered CG animals attacking the Spartans that defy any suspension of disbelief and are just plain bad. As for the makeup work, to sum it up, there is a deformed character named “Ephialtes” that looked about as good as “Sloth” from the “Goonies”, a movie that came out in 1985! After seeing all of the beautiful trailers for “300” I really expected to see an evolution of CG/FX in film and that just wasn’t the case.

    I truly wanted to like “300”, but without a story or characters to care about and with the action scenes feeling tired and repetitive I have to say that I’m very disappointed. A concept with a lot of potential, but little to no follow through.

  5. Cole 03/11/2007 @ 8:48am

    I’m a bit disappointed you didn’t call out moreso the racial and political undertones depicted in the West vs. East conflict here. It’s as if the filmmakers were living in a political-historical vacuum. It’s as if 9/11 and its aftermath never happened. I don’t think seeing it as “standard movie convention” will suffice.

    A good alternative review for the open-minded:
    http://www.reverseshot.com/article/three_hundred .
    Even if I do try seeing the movie from its point-of-view (its glorification of war and the rational West), it’s still cinematically unimpressive. Every single contemporary pop form recycled: rock videos (battles), perfume commercials (sex), fashion spreads (dramatic posing), unnecessary slow motion. Add to that narration that patronizes the audience and dramatic shortcuts (father and son, husband and wife), well, you just have something big, dumb, and lumbering, with nothing visually stimulating to make up the difference.

  6. Keza 03/11/2007 @ 12:20pm

    A lot of comments here made me chuckle, but none more than the reference to 9/11. It indeed is as if 9/11 and its aftermath had never happened, because when the comic book was first published in 1998, it never had. It’s a movie about a comic book that tells the tale of a few hundred Spartans who fought a good fight back in the day. Back in the day, by the way, Persian were not seen as good chaps by the Greeks. The Greeks tell the story, so you tell me, is it normal that Persians are evil in the story given the historical context? Yes it is, champ.

    It’s too bad some of you wanted to do such a ‘good job’ at criticizing the film you forgot to have fun watching it smile

  7. Cole 03/12/2007 @ 8:31am

    Keza, it doesn’t matter that the graphic novel was made pre-9/11. I am fully aware of that. I am not an idiot; I did my research.
    It’s the fact that the filmmakers chose to adapt the graphic novel for the screen at THIS point in time. They are either blissfully ignorant to everything that has happened in the past decade, or are just too stupid to realize that no product of culture, popular or not, exists in a socio-political vacuum.
    You might have gotten a chuckle from my comments, but I bet it wasn’t as big a chuckle as I got from this lame excuse for a movie. Even without resorting to criticizing its politics (or lack thereof), 300 looked like it was made by someone with a complete lack of knowledge in filmmaking. It’s the cinematic equivalent of vomit.

  8. Tallulah 03/12/2007 @ 9:09am

    If you just go ahead and enjoy this film in the same way you would enjoy reading the Gilgamesh, The Poetic Edda or The Illiad you will be fine. Try to impose conventional period film structure on it and you will fail to enjoy it. For me it was a series of paintings made in very broad strokes, hammering home simple truths with a lot of flare. As it bloody well should.
    This is how you make epic films. No compromise. No intellectualism. No bullshit.
    These are the reactions I predicted after seeing it (and this review and the comment section is not proving me wrong) a)Half-asses political readings - US vs. Iraq etc…
    b)Accusations of fascist leanings
    c)Complaints over historical accuracy
    d)Lack of traditional storytelling or “content”

  9. Travis Stevens 03/12/2007 @ 1:23pm

    What the hell is all this bickering about? There’s two hours of dudes hacking at freaking monsters with swords and spears!!! And a ton of nipples! I had a boner for the entire movie...hell, even my girlfriend had a boner for the entire movie.
    I’m not saying somebody can’t critique the politics in 300. But its a bit like a food critic writing a review of the Jack in the Box near my house. Its meat and cheese man, in all of its delicious glory.
    Wow. I am still drunk.

  10. Cole 03/12/2007 @ 3:09pm

    Tallulah, putting aside my, as you say, “half-assed political reading”, I still found the movie terrible. And I’m speaking visually. Story and plot is way down in my list of priorities. For me, a movie that doesn’t succeed visually does not succeed at all. The reason why Gilgamesh, the Edda, and Homer’s works are so enjoyable is because they succeed literarily.
    “This is how you make epic films. No compromise. No intellectualism. No bullshit.”
    That’s a pretty limited view of epic films, if you don’t mind my saying. I wonder why is it that whenever someone tries to find some meaning in something, pop culture artifact or not, his/her opinion is criticized and dismissed as “intellectualism” and “bullshit”. Is it wrong to try to see if there is anything beneath the surface?

    I can enjoy meat and cheese in all its glory as much as the next man. If it’s done well. This movie was just tiresome. I think it would have worked better if it were a videogame. Rather than a series of paintings, I saw it as a series of videogame battles.
    And if anyone should misread what I’ve said, I’m not criticizing videogames. What works in videogames does not necessarily work in movies, and vice versa.

  11. Cole 03/12/2007 @ 3:18pm

    “There’s two hours of dudes hacking at freaking monsters with swords and spears!!! And a ton of nipples! I had a boner for the entire movie...hell, even my girlfriend had a boner for the entire movie.”
    Travis, this was hilarious. I think you’d enjoy this review:

    http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0710,lee,75993,20.html

  12. Keza 03/12/2007 @ 9:34pm

    “It’s the fact that the filmmakers chose to adapt the graphic novel for the screen at THIS point in time.”
    You mean the point in time where Sin City, another Frank Miller comic book was a box office success, and just before Sin City 2 becomes another one?
    1) Sin City made money.
    2) Frank Miller made Sin City.

    3) What did Frank Miller also do?
    4) 300.
    5) Let’s make 300 a feature film.
    6) ???
    7) Profit*.
    * 70$M in its first week-end. 10$M profit already wink
    Here’s what didn’t happen:

    1) Sin City made money.
    2) Frank Miller made Sin City.
    3) What did Frank Miller also do?
    4) 300.
    5) The 300 comic book is a sensitive subject. Did you see in which light they cast the Persians? Due to 9/11, we refuse to make a feature film about this kind of material.
    6) ???
    7) No Profit.

    Sorry you find making money, if nothing else, a lame excuse for a movie. I’m sure they didn’t even think 1 second about 9/11 during the whole movie’s production. That’s how far-fetched your whole analysis was…
    But some persons are just far-fetched. Did you read the New York Post’s review of the movie? Their journalist declared that Nazi would have loved the movie and lined up to see it again.
    http://www.nypost.com/seven/03092007/entertainment/movies/persian_shrug_movies_kyle_smith.htm
    Crazy stuff smile

  13. Cole 03/14/2007 @ 11:23am

    Keza,
    “Sorry you find making money, if nothing else, a lame excuse for a movie.”
    Never said that, I’m afraid. I’m just saying it’s a lame excuse for a movie. I couldn’t care less about economics.
    My problem with the movie is one of representation, i.e. the “East” as “Other”, particularly Persia. That’s why I made the 9/11 comment. Oh, I am sure the filmmakers never thought about 9/11 for a nanosecond while making 300. I’ve already said what I thought in a previous post:

    “They are either blissfully ignorant to everything that has happened in the past decade, or are just too stupid to realize that no product of culture, popular or not, exists in a socio-political vacuum.”
    I am going with the latter. This movie is just too dumb to contain any malicious intentions.
    Regardless of intent, however, the filmmakers are responsible for whatever images they bring to the screen, deliberate or not. I interpreted what I saw, and that’s all there is to it. Sorry if you find my ideas “far-fetched (though I’m unsure how you arrived at that conclusion as I barely articulate them here). Nevertheless I still stand by them. But I think I see the racist undertones in this movie more clearly now: they are simply the natural byproduct of a largely mindless and short-sighted popular culture.

  14. matt 03/14/2007 @ 11:00pm

    I think if anyone takes offense at the historical accuracy of this movie or are offended by the lack of political correctness then hollywood movies dating back decades could be deemed offensive. Particulaly war films. If it’s fact you want then read a history book. I don’t think there will ever be a sword and sandal film as good as spartacus or ben-hur anyway.

  15. matt 03/14/2007 @ 11:07pm

    Sorry i should have said lack of historical accuracy

  16. Sean M 03/26/2007 @ 3:00pm

    Yawn. That’s what I thought. Don’t care about East vs. West or 9/11 or political correctness. Lots of boring slo-mo fight scenes seemed to be used as so much filler for a lack of character and substance. Yawn.

  17. Abject 03/26/2007 @ 5:27pm

    Elephants at the hot gates? Tamed and armored Rhino’s used in warfare?, Xerxes depicted as a fully-shaven and excessivly pierced S&M;slave? Spartan warriors wielding hoplite-spears (far too short).abandoning a phalanx for man to man sword fighting?, Xerxes emissaries, carried around on huge thrones, like some sort of end-level-bosses from some martial arts arcade-game?
    this isnt a historical movie, its a joke.
    Try reading Steven Pressfield, Gates of Fire instead. Mutch more balanced and historically accurate depiction of both the battle at Thermopylae and Spartan life; their Helot-slaves, the lack of any civil right if not from a Polis (town) and other unsavoury acts of humanity.

  18. Kevin 03/26/2007 @ 6:09pm

    I liked 300. For what it was. A right-on adaptation of a great graphic novel.
    I thought the slow-mo stuff was a welcome departure from the chaotic camera shaking battle sequences we usually get. I wanna SEE what is happening for a change. I wanna see some “bad guys” get owned on the battle field.

    Oh. Why the hell are people comparing this to Gladiator, and calling it “another gladiator movie”? That doesn’t make any sense. If it has to be like another “epic” movie, I guess it is slightly similar to Troy. SLIGHTLY. I can’t find a similarity to Gladiator...any one?

    I think it is funny that a bunch of people insist on throwing a political spin on it. Sure you can’t ignore that there are aspects of the movie that relate to current events, but the best part to me is that the main theme of the movie relates directly to the same weak-willed people who are writing bad reviews of this movie. To afraid to offend the PC. Ask my opinion, the PC movement is one of the most dangerous things that America has fallen into. People who would rather ignore a threat until it is too late than fight for their own freedoms, for fear of offending someone who hates them. This movie took place more than a thousand years before Islam, so we are now dealing with a completely different Persian culture than was depicted in the movie, but don’t think for a second that Iran wants to be our friend. According to the Qurran, their religious goal (keep in mind Iran is a theocracy)is to wipe out our way of life. So grab an M4, and fight for your own right to write bad movie reviews. Before it is to late.

    I can’t wait to see a left wing response to this…

  19. Lars 04/01/2007 @ 4:03pm

    Agreed, the whole time I listened to the “noble” spartan propaganda in this movie, I kept thinking “Wow, sounds like Eugenics to me...” In fact disposing imperfect babies and turning away cripples sounds alot like Nazi Germany.
    Everything was wrong with this movie in terms of historical accuracy and plot. These Spartans did not fight like the Greek Hoplites of history. The hoplites of 300 carried some weird 5 1/2 foot spear that they could throw like a Javelin, when traditional hoplite spears were about 12 feet long and could not be thrown...These fascist Spartans in 300 carried scimitars, what the hell is that about?? Traditional greek sowrds of the period were leaf shaped and were little bigger than daggers.

    This movie was a disaster except for the big-budget visuals.

  20. Kyle Joseph 04/01/2007 @ 6:01pm

    HA you people make me laugh! 300 is a film a story the guy who is narrating film is telling a story to the greeks which is why everything is surreal and more epic. Why is everyone lookin in to this film so much its a film based on a book written years ago where there was no islam america terrorism in the media (read the book before you start slating the film). The larger than you lot general public are to stupid to see the nazism and what not that you lot are seeing and if they are seeing it they are not stupid enough to take it to heart (which makes you smarty pants poltics that and this really stupid) all they see is a great film a great story and great art work. So what if every little detail is’nt a historically correct its not a documentry its fantasy myth! personally what made me laugh was the comparisen to braveheart (FREEEEDOM) the english (perssions) the scottish (greeks) oh look what happend to the islam america comparison there, you can compare every majour war in history to islam and america. basically my point is 300 is a great fantasy film (not propaganda becuase im not the smatest person in the world and it doesnt make me want to pick up an M4 and go off to kill a few terrorists) just because of whats happening in the world im supposed to miss out on this film because some hill billy might get to excited and start letting off a few rounds (haha i just pictured that) anyway ive talked long enough, 300 exelent film best that i’ve seen for ages!!!

  21. Stealth 04/02/2007 @ 11:29am

    “I think it is funny that a bunch of people insist on throwing a political spin on it.”
    Then this idiot, Kevin, goes on to make the longest political drivel so far.
    BTW, I’m not left wing but you certainly are an idiot.

    Anyway, back to the movie. Went to see this last night, saw the first 30 minutes and the cinema’s projector broke. But up to the first confrontation with the Persians all I could do was laugh. I’m all for no brainer movies but this was seriously sad crap. The script and direction must have been done by high school kids.
    And the special effects did nothing to impress me, I’ve seen better in 10 year old movies.
    Worth watching only for the hysterically cringeworthy script.

  22. Neville 04/04/2007 @ 8:26am

    Here’s what didn’t happen:

    1) Sin City made money.
    2) Frank Miller made Sin City.
    3) What did Frank Miller also do?
    4) 300.
    5) The 300 comic book is a sensitive subject. Did you see in which light they cast the Persians? Due to 9/11, we refuse to make a feature film about this kind of material.

    6) ???
    7) No Profit.

    Then why not make a movie out of his 1994 four-issue comic book Give Me Liberty as well?
    I know why-because its subject matter is all about how America is a right-wing warmongering rouge state, and the soldier who wakes up and has to defeat it (and she does in the other books).

    But shit like 300 and Sin City? All systems go!

  23. Natalie 04/05/2007 @ 3:40pm

    WELL, I’M GREEK AND HERE IS MY POINT OF VIEW.. I’VE WATCHED “300” AND I UNDOUPTEDLY ENJOYED IT! ALL OF US (MEANING THE GREEK AUDIENCE) FELT THE SHIVER ON OUR SPINES WHILE WATCHING THAT MOVIE. PATRIOTISM WAS THE RULER.
    OF COURSE THERE ARE MANY HISTORICAL INACCURACIES (LIKE EFIALTIS WASN’T A SPARTAN BUT A MALIAN, A LOCAL AND LEONIDAS DIDN’T DIE THE WAY THAT WAS SHOWN IN THE MOVIE AND DID NOT REMAIN THE LAST ONE TO DIE e.t.c). BUT THE MAIN FACTS REMAIN THE SAME: KING LEONIDAS AND HIS 300 WARRIORS FOUGHT AGAINST XERXES’ DOMINANCE IN 480 B.C.  SOUL AND NERVE. THAT’S WHAT SPARTANS GOT. THEY FOUGHT UNTIL THE VERY END.

    TOO MUCH “HOLLYWOOD STYLE” INSIDE THE PLOT BUT STILL THAT WASN’T ENOUGH TO STOP THE GREEK AUDIENCE FROM CLAPPING AT THE END OF THE MOVIE. YOU SEE, EMOTIONAL MATTERS GOT IN THE WAY.
    I DON’T BLAME YOU FOR A N Y REASON THAT YOU DIDN’T LIKE THE MOVIE, I WOULD PROBABLY FEEL THE SAME IF I WASN’T GREEK! BUT I AM, SO THERE WAS ALL I HAD TO SHARE.

  24. Peter Martin 04/05/2007 @ 4:11pm

    Just checking back in to thank everybody who has commented. The more the merrier, we always say (at least, that’s what the voices in my head keep saying).

    Clearly 300 has struck a nerve, even as it has divided audiences worldwide. (Thanks for the report from Greece, Natalie.) I’m always fascinated by movies that provoke such strong feelings, and appreciate the debate from so many different viewpoints. Hope to hear from more of you.

  25. Ben 04/06/2007 @ 2:12pm

    Well I loved the movie. I wanted to give it a standing ovation.
    I really do not give a crap about the historical accuracy or political and sociological representations. It’s a damn good adaption of an already classic graphic novel, and I loved every bit. It stayed so true to the source material, that was of course not entirely bathed in fact due to the presence of added DRAMA. Remember, this is DRAMA not a DOCUMENTARY. Leonidas was a fantastic character and is now one of my favourites. He stands for so much that I value in people: bravery, honour, family values, never giving up. Both Leonidus and Gorgo (his wife) were played exceptionally well.
    I plan on seeing the film again, to say the least.

  26. Lane 04/10/2007 @ 3:31pm

    Xerxes the Great: “I want a piece of your Manor, Son”
    King Leonidas: “B*llocks you c*nt… come have a go if you think you’re hard enough !”
    That sums up the plot.

    so ask no questions, tell no lies, just sit back with your popcorn and watch this visual treat for what it is, one of the best films in cinematic history (see the imax version if you can).

  27. misterjonez 04/11/2007 @ 6:40am

    Regardless of whatever political messages exist in this movie, it is clearly a landmark piece of cinematic history. This film will undoubtedly redefine the genre of war/action films in general, and sword & sandal films specifically.
    The artistic nature of the cinematography was absolutely breathtaking, and the fact that the whole two hours felt extremely epic is a testament to the directing style. I’ve seen some people here say it was boring, I don’t doubt you at your word, but I will say that I think you’re in the tiny minority, because this thing just passed $370 million worldwide with no signs of slowing down due to the increased circulation in foreign markets. At this point I’d be stunned if it didn’t break $500 million, and wouldn’t be at all surprised to see it break $600 million. At that kind of money, it has essentially carved out its own genre.

    As Peter said, it’s struck a nerve and that much is clear even in this small thread. Will be interesting to see the hind-sight on this movie.

  28. Kevin 04/11/2007 @ 12:54pm

    Sorry if I was unclear and came off like an “idiot”.
    My comments relating to the “political spin” where about people “MISSING THE POINT”. The rest was about what kind of people are missing the point, and how they could learn a lesson about courage from the storyline of this movie. The rest, obviously, was me “going off” about Islam.

    Also, I whole-heartedly agree that this was story being told to inpire. (Delios narrating before a big battle a year later)

  29. James 05/15/2007 @ 4:53pm

    I thought the movie was top. I know it wasn’t accurate, I know it wasn’t giving us all the facts. That’s why I read history books, to find out what really happened. But come on, as a film, what a f*cking film it was. I watched it, I wanted to see it again. It is undoubtably “cool”. Yea you don’t have to think about it, but then you were never meant to. It depicts very graphically and comically a historical event and glorifies all the bits that were meant to be glorified. If you read all the classics from Homer, read quotes from Xenophon, Cicero (all within 500 odd years of the event) then its all the same. It’s drama and fanciful story telling.

    Reading the article on at http://www.nypost.com/seven/03092007/entertainment/movies/persian_shrug_movies_kyle_smith.htm really, really made me laugh. How can the journalist/reporter even compare the things?! He says that Leonidas’ troops are “like al Qaeda in adult diapers.” I mean what the f*ck? HOW?! Back in the day, the Persians were a huge empire, they committed atrocities like everybody else, they conquered, they schemed, etc. It’s how those empires worked back then. Greece, Rome, Sparta, Carthage, all the same. Yes, Spartans weren’t perfect, they tossed away disabled babies, “Like Nazi’s” - what?! That is slightly different and besides, Hitler was a bit of a nutter wasn’t he? (For want of better words). But anyway, the Spartans in the film stood for all things free and good, honour, brotherhood, freedom. And why not? It is the same in every single other bloody historical war movie, Gladiator, Braveheart, whatever. They all put their basis on an injustice that has been/being done and then the characters struggle to set it right. It’s the same as in 300. Only the director Snyder has put an infinitely cool spin on it. How can you not be effected by the music, the visuals and whatnot? It looked and sounded amazing and just like Frank Millers novels they had freaks in them!

    The deformed guy (I forget his name) that betrayed the Spartans by giving the secret path was ridiculous, but then so was the yellow guy from Sin City but that just adds to the fact that the movie definately isn’t accurate.
    Anywho, rant over, imo the movie was bloody fantastic. It was cool, decend length, and certainly memorable.
    James

  30. James 05/15/2007 @ 5:00pm

    Oh and also, could the majorly effeminate Xerxes not have been so in contrast to the exceptionally masculine Spartans? Afterall the Persians were renowned for revelling in the pleasures of the senses (hence Xerxes giving the deformed man all the wealth and women he desires) and the Spartans were all manly and stuff. So the contrast is put there for a reason, no?
    -----

Post Your Comments

You must be a registered member to post comments.

If you have a Twitch account, click here to sign in.

If you don't have a Twitch account, click here to register. Don't worry, it's free!

Launch The Twitch Video Player

Stuff We Like

Shop at our affiliated sites and support Twitch while feeding your pop-culture addiction.

Our Latest Film & DVD Reviews

More Film & DVD Reviews...

Our Latest Interviews

More Interviews...

Recent Contests & Featured Content

Recent Comments