Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Rant: 300 [The Movie]
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?
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?
Comments
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.
300 is a movie designed to make your penis hard with violence. It's pretty disingenuous to take it any other way.
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]
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.