This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Rant: 300 [The Movie]

edited March 2007 in Everything Else
If you have not seen 300, consider yourself lucky. It was a god-awful movie. If you're not already aware of what it's about, you can research that yourself.

Wikipedia: 300 (film)

I'll admit that the effects were well-done, but that's just about where it ends. If you're interested in action, you only need to see about 5 minutes of the movie. The fighting scenes are boring and repetitive.

For those interested in history, look elsewhere--300 isn't even meant to be educational. Historians have confirmed that the portrayal of the events and people in this movie are bizarre.

Why is there a bottomless pit just sitting there waiting for an innocent messenger to be thrown down it? What the hell is up with this creepy Gollum guy? Why do the Persians have these huge troll-monsters?

Please, don't see this movie. It's not worth your time and money to go see in the theater (the best way to see it) and it's certainly not worth the time to download via BitTorrent.

Any thoughts?
«1

Comments

  • Most of the movie is meant to seem exaggerated. Here is how I looked into it. Most of the story was narrated by the one-eyed man and like most myths and stories they become embellished. I thought of the movie as how someone would imagine it if it were being told to them around a campfire. Must of ancient history depended upon oral tradition and stories past down from one man to another. Have you ever played the game telephone? You whisper a sentence around a group of people and see how different it is after the last person hears it.

    Also, the film was based upon a comic book, much of it takes exactly from how Frank Miller drew the panels. Here is a good example of how the director took Miller's angles and translated them directly into the movie.

    It's not a documentary so don't look at it to be the pinnacle of historical accuracy, even Gladiator was an abomination of historical accuracy.

    Other than that, it's entertaining. As a music freak I have to admit that the soundtrack is wonderful and Tyler Bates did a wonderful job. Try not to take films like this one too seriously. The visuals are indeed awe inspiring and the cinematography is top notch.
  • edited March 2007
    Why is there a bottomless pit just sitting there waiting for an innocent messenger to be thrown down it? What the hell is up with this creepy Gollum guy? Why do the Persians have these huge troll-monsters?
    All these things are generally based on fact. The Spartans, according to legend, did throw the Persian messengers into a well, and they were betrayed by a farmer(? I think? Been awhile) who wasn't a hunchback or a wannabe soldier, but you know, artistic license.

    300 is a movie designed to make your penis hard with violence. It's pretty disingenuous to take it any other way.
    Post edited by Dave on
  • I understand and sympathize with your rant, but there is something to be said for artistic license. Whenever I see a movie like that and I wonder whether things really happened that way, I do at least a modicum of reading to check. Of course, most of the time the real events were not so dramatic. The licenses taken by the movie can enrich the mundane, make it more memorable, and contribute a meta-context for the history.

    It looks like "300" is mostly eye-candy. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, if the viewer keeps it in mind and has no higher expectations.
  • [obligatory]
    image
    [/obligatory]
  • But it's NOT entertaining goddammit! The violence was lame and repetitive. If a movie's violence is that lame, I'm forced to look at the historical accuracy and plot quality, which both completely sucked.
  • Was it at least pretty?
  • If a work doesn't claim to be a non-fiction, then how can historical accuracy be considered a factor? Would you say that Akira is a bad anime because it is historically inaccurate?
  • Was it at least pretty?
    My good sir, it is pretty. If you consider to be pretty to see a bunch of semi-naked guys killing each other with scenes of decapitation, slow/fast motion fighting and interesting use of shadows.

    It has his flaws like the Queen's story line and the creepy sex starved women. But, the actions scenes are pretty cool and the cinematography is awesome so I would at least rent it if you do not have time to watch it on the theaters.
  • 300 is a guy's movie and is meant to get your blood pumping with the over the top violence. I rented Samurai and Dynasty Warriors afterwards just because I was in the mood for stabbing many many things. What other type of fighting were you expecting from the movie, Chinese wire-fu?
  • Chinese wire-fu
    ::gags:: Sorry, but I just don't get wire-fu. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon was just stupid. Who the fuck can stand on a twig 80 feet off the ground?!
  • edited March 2007
    It has been a part of Chinese literature and entertainment for thousands of years and isn't meant to be realistic. It is just like ancient mythology or modern day superheros, no one can wield a hammer that throws lightening bolts or fight crime in spandex and fly around the world in seconds either -__-
    Post edited by Kite on
  • All I know is I really wanna see this film having read Frank Miller's 300 graphic novel. I don't thing it'll be anything intellectually stimulating, all I want is entertainment and have the uncontrollable urge to scream SPARTAAAAAAAAAA every time the guy on screen does.
  • Were the fight scenes bad in the sense that MI2 had horrible fight scenes because the director was trying to copy the Matrix and have Tom Cruise do too many back flips?

    Or was it bad in the way Brad Pitt did all of the "Zelda Four Swords" power jump/downward thrust attacks when he played Achilles?
  • I really liked the movie, beyond the beautifulness of it. I did enjoy the plot, granted there wasn't a lot to it, but it was more then enough I think. I think what people don't like is that the story is trying to imitate the storytelling of a Greek Epic poem, like the Oresteia, not just in style but in substance. Its told as if someone is telling it to you so there isn't a lot of subtlety, only things that are important are said. So you have to read between the lines on a lot of the non verbal cues.

    Also what I liked about it was the sort of two sided nature to the story, it wasn't all crazy action. There was really no story/plot development in the battles, but when they cut back to Sparta they had the political plot with the Queen as the main character there. It was interesting to see how both King and Queen were fighting to protect their city in the best ways they could.
  • Were the fight scenes bad in the sense that MI2 had horrible fight scenes because the director was trying to copy the Matrix and have Tom Cruise do too many back flips?

    Or was it bad in the way Brad Pitt did all of the "Zelda Four Swords" power jump/downward thrust attacks when he played Achilles?
    well MI:2 was directed by John Woo, who is essentially the pioneer of blood operas, akimbo style dual gun weilding and diving gun battles, so if anything the Wachowski Bros kind of copied John Woo first...
  • How dare you tell me what I can and can't watch.

    The movie was artistic, entertaining, and visually impressive. It doesn't have to be more. I don't go to the theater to be educated. Do you? You really shouldn't. It's a movie that had a point, and made it. You don't have to agree with it.

    I hate, absolutely fucking hate amateur movie critics. The only possible value of a movie critic is entertainment. I sometimes read the reviews of the most eloquent and experienced critics, who are able to put into words (usually humorous) the feelings I already had about a movie. Or, perhaps, they have a different opinion.

    I would never, ever consider avoiding a movie on trust from some amateur critic. Why?

    In order to know if someone will or won't like a movie, you have to know that person well. Any conceivable movie might be entertaining to somebody, therefore all movies are 100% a matter of personal taste. Some movies have broader appeal than others. To make a blanket statement such as "this is a bad movie" is erroneous; it can only be bad in the eyes of a certain individual or group of individuals.

    Perhaps you are trying to imply that it is, on average, bad, because most people think so. This might be the case with movies like Manos: The Hands of Fate, but that would really only be an obvious statement about popularity, not quality. If you are trying to say it isn't popular, well, you may want to check those sales figures.

    I despise the practice of the concept that movies, and other forms of art, have an absolute, intrinsic value which can be boiled down to "bad" or "good". What would aliens think of our art? Cats? The sun? There is no such thing as absolute value in art.

    We can talk about the ups and downs of any movie all night long. "This movie was/wasn't educational." "This movie had/didn't have an agenda." Those are statements, possibly verifiable. But they do not mean "good" or "bad". They can't. Ever. Never, ever. Because this is art we're talking about. It is ultimately subjective and dynamic.

    And, ultimately, what value, what enrichment can any person get from NOT seeing a movie? If you're too cheap to spend the money, and too technically ignorant to download the DVD-rip, that's one thing. But not seeing a movie because someone thought it was bad? I have seen plenty of movies in my time that I didn't enjoy. Some, I came to, later; most, I did not. But I do not regret having seen them. Not one. Not even Manos: The Hands of Fate.

    The simple fact is, art is enriching whether or not you like it. It tends to give you better feelings when you like it. If you like art for that reason, then try to restrict yourself to things you think you'll like. I know I do. But I do not ever listen to anyone who tells me not to see a movie, or read a book, or what-have-you. I take statements (other than subjective "good" and "bad") under advisement, then make my own decision. Having read plenty about the movie 300 in advance (nothing you said was new), I still saw it, and really, really enjoyed it.

    And that is ALL that matters.

    I strongly recommend that everyone see the movie 300, and all other movies, as you please.
  • Were the fight scenes bad in the sense that MI2 had horrible fight scenes because the director was trying to copy the Matrix and have Tom Cruise do too many back flips?

    Or was it bad in the way Brad Pitt did all of the "Zelda Four Swords" power jump/downward thrust attacks when he played Achilles?
    well MI:2 was directed by John Woo, who is essentially the pioneer of blood operas, akimbo style dual gun weilding and diving gun battles, so if anything the Wachowski Bros kind of copied John Woo first...
    That may be but the Matrix put "Bullet Time" on the map. I still think all of the back flips in that movie made it funny to watch.
  • Wait, you mean 300 is not historically accurate, and here I thought the Persian army was made up of Vampires and Mutants... Damn...
  • Wait, you mean 300 is not historically accurate, and here I thought the Persian army was made up of Vampires and Mutants... Damn...
    And RuPaul, evidently.

    I found the movie thoroughly entertaining in the violence/bloodshed/testosterone sort of way. There is no denying the sheer awesomeness of watching a Spartan hurl a spear into the eye of charging rhinocerous, and then standing defiantly as it skids to a halt inches from his feet. Ignoring the plot, it is an extremely entertaining display of violence, choreography, and visual effects.

    I have to comment on the actual plot, though. I found the actual plot to be a bit weak and thin, though granted there isn't too much to it besides the battle of Thermapolyae (spelling?). What plot there was seemed to focus on either hyper-nationalism to the point of jingoism (which is actually quite realisitc, because that's what the Spartans were like), or on a weird heterosexuality vs. homosexuality battle that is quite confused. Every hetero male is obviously supposed to identify with the over-macho Spartans, and while every male has a bit of that Spartan gene in him (seriously, you all know you'd love to be kneep deep in the corpses of your foes), the movie characters take it to an extreme. The counterpoint to that is the Persian army, that looks, to quote Dan Savage, like "an armed gay pride parade," and is led by an interesting represenation of Xerxes, who is huge, alien, unnatural, and looks quite a bit like some kind of drag queen. The Spartans, ironically enough, also make a couple of homophobic jokes, calling the Athenians "boy lovers," obviously meant to show that Spartan men are straight men of action, and Athenians are useless fags. The irony is that King Leonidas of Sparta was a notorious boy fuckers, as were all Greeks at the time.

    The problem with that battle is that while the movie is homophobic, it is also simulatenously homoerotic, as the Spartans are basically mostly naked throughout the whole movie (they wear a leather speedo and a cloak), and look like some kind of all-male revue. The hyper-macho talk about brotherhood and fighting together and all that jazz, combined with the constant near-nudity, makes the Spartans look really, really gay despite all their manliness. I was actually a little disturbed by just how gay it was, while still being very homophobic. It's like watching someone who really hates themselves fight an inner battle on screen, which may very well one of the things Frank Miller's comic intended to address. I honestly don't quite know how to take that angle of the film.

    There is also the constant talk of "freedom" throughout the film, and it's impossible to not take that in a modern context in the US. There is a jingoistic streak through the film, which basically has a warlord defying the will of the government and going ahead with a mad scheme. It portrayed senators and government officials as weak, ineffective, and corrupt, and the man who defied their will as the hero. Granted, the Spartans were actually heroes in that particular battle, but one must really think about that mentality in a modern context. It's almost as if the movie is saying it's OK to go ahead with action that you think is right, even when the people you represent are telling you otherwise. In the case of an advancing army, I agree, but in most other cases, I would disagree. Let's not even get into the fact that in the film or in history, the Spartans weren't actually free; they were forced into military service at age 7, and couldn't be placed on reserve until they were 30. Not too free if you ask me.

    But, plot aside, the movie was still damn entertaining.
  • Here's where Rym jumps in talking about vikings having sex...
  • I did think a couple instances of dialog went over the edge. The added bits of American propaganda were totally unnecessary, and are a blemish upon the movie.

    Pete, the fact that you were disturbed by the gayness does, perhaps, beg the question.

    After all, I should be afraid of Islamic fundamentalists--they might kill me, after all. Yet, will I be shaken by seeing images of thousands of them on a screen? Nay, because it is a mere screen. So even if gay people scare you, should imagery of them produce such a reaction? Or, perhaps, does the site of clay-chested macho men in speedos, alongside whipped man-slaves under the thrall of a giant, hairless SM freak stir something within you you'd rather not reveal?

    Pray tell.
  • Here is the original e-mail. You tell me if you think I'm a sexist or not.
    Alright guys, here is a tough question that might require all of your powers combined to answer. I just read To Terra vol. 1 from Vertical. The sales pitch they've been using is that this thing is shoujou Star Trek. The creator Keiko Takemiya is supposedly a great shoujo manga master. After reading it, all I can say is that I don't notice any shoujo at all. This is a straight up epic sci-fi manga. I mean, this shit is awesome. I don't want to say it, but I might have to say it is on Tezuka's level. I never thought anything could be better than Phoenix, but this has the potential. It all depends on what happens in the rest of the volumes.

    Anyway. How the hell is this shoujo? The character designs are a little bit shoujoish, but other than that I notice nothing that makes To Terra a shoujo manga. I mean, if this is shoujo, then so is Phoenix vol. 2. What's the deal? Is there going to be some hidden BL in vol. 2 that I'm not prepared for? Warn me now!

    Also, there's a To Terra anime coming out in April. If it's as good as this manga, all I can say is w00t!
    There have been some replies in both directions, but I'll save those for later.
  • It wasn't the gayness that disturbed me, per se. It was the idea that what was being portrayed was obviously supposed to be the peak of heterosexuality, the ultimate expression of manliness, and it was very, very gay. It seems to highlight the kind of confusion and hypocrisy that is present in that sort of hyper-macho mentality; if we were to look at the battle as that of heterosexuality versus homosexuality, I would find it difficult to really call the Spartans totally hetero. It's sort of like an onscreen display of the insecurity of man with his sexuality, and the resultant intense need to rebel against what he perceives as being homosexual in order to make himself feel comfortable as being heterosexual.

    Essentially, I was disturbed in the same way that I'm disturbed when Ann Coulter says something like, "We should convert Muslims to Christianity at gunpoint" and actually means it. Realizing that there are men who perceive the Spartans as the ideal to which a hetero male must strive while being blind to its faults and the inherent irony of it all is what disturbed me. I can stare at pictures of mostly naked well-chiseled men all day*; it was the context here that bothered me.

    *Totally not gay.
  • Just got back from watching 300 and I must say I loved it!!
  • I don't think anyone really thinks the 300 ideal should be actively aspired to. I think it's meant to represent the ideals of masculinity that are "lost" to the modern generation. Even then, it's questionable that anyone should live their life that way, or some other way.

    I found it silly and a bit annoying that they projected their homosexuality onto the Athenians. The Spartans were big into pederasty--REAL big. It's fine that they didn't call attention to their penchant for man-boy love, but to bring it up, only to pass it off on some other people...why even bring it up?

    If the successes of classical civilizations are meant to teach us anything, it isn't to have a giant clay chest and a man beard, it's to work together. That's why the Athenians kicked ass, and so did the Romans, the Vikings, the Huns, the Mongols, the United Kingdom, Germany, and every major nation since the advent of nationalism.
  • If the successes of classical civilizations are meant to teach us anything, it isn't to have a giant clay chest and a man beard, it's to work together. That's why the Athenians kicked ass, and so did the Romans
    Phalanx ftw
  • If the successes of classical civilizations are meant to teach us anything, it isn't to have a giant clay chest and a man beard, it's to work together. That's why the Athenians kicked ass, and so did the Romans, the Vikings, (...)
    Working together was not the main reason the vikings kicked ass. They kicked ass by using coward guerrilla tactics. They were actually known for being untrustworthy, changing alliance to anyone who seemed to be the new man of the day. The Nordic countries of that time consisted of small kingdoms and counties continually ripped apart by changing alliances and conquests from neighbours.
  • I thought the Vikings kicked ass because they knew where North was?
  • Tonight we dine in HELLAS!
  • I really didn't care much for 300 at all. I wrote a rant on it in another forum and I'll just cross-post this for your amusement. Continuing along the lines of Whale Shark:

    In terms of action movies, it was above par. I liked the fight choreography and the stylized visuals and environments. However, beyond that, 300 really doesn't offer much at all; coming out of the theater I had very mixed feelings about it.

    Couched beneath the surface of 300 and its trappings of badassery are a lot of values reflective of the American political and social climate right now, some that really disturbed me to see reiterated so blatantly. The whole West vs. East deal, with the West representing heroism, democracy, rationality, and austerity, with the (Middle) East representing decadence, cowardice, and domination. Did you catch the line at the end? Along the lines of "we must defeat mysticism and tyranny?" Whoooa, brother. It's no wonder the Iranians are upset over the movie. Americans seem to have just brushed off that nation's complaint with a shrug and mutterings about "it's just entertainment," but considering that movies are both a reflection of popular values and in turn a shaper of them, it's a little distressing.

    In any case, it's pretty clear why this movie has come out now, when the whole war in the Middle East issue is getting stickier and is losing more support the longer our troops are stuck there. 300 is very pro-war, and in fact the entire movie is a CALL for war. It's an attempt at rallying patriotism, villifying and dehumanizing an enemy nation, glorifying the life of a soldier, and balancing the sorrow of combat casualties with the "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" illusion of honorable death.

    Furthermore, the movie also champions extreme hyper-masculinity and is profoundly androcentric. I found it odd that though Spartan women were supposed to be considered so strong, the only named female characters in the movie (the Queen and the Oracle) became victims to the sexual advances and aggressions of men. In 300, women at their most deviant (in this case, the Persian women) are sexually unrestrained, hedonistic temptresses who engage in orgies and bisexuality; women at their most honorable (Spartan women) are dutiful, monogamous keepers of the home and children, supporters of their husbands, and ultimately represent themselves only as mothers, wives, or daughters. All women, however, are emblems of sexual reception for men, and are controlled by them - the Persian women by the harem-master Emperor Xerxes, the Greek women by their husbands and the government.

    The mocking of Athens also served as a sly way to take a jab at liberals and liberally oriented/ left-wing politics, and homosexuals.

    These are all traditional, conservative values, exaggerated through drama and put up on the big screen in one epic piece of propaganda. 300 has a big agenda, but through all its showmanship, it truly has little heart, subtlety, or substance.
Sign In or Register to comment.