 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.148.210.63
The was a visual tour-de-force. A never before done "historical uber-noir". An artistic display surpassing anything of its kind before. It's dark tone, overly asserted drama, and art direction place this over-the-top film on the "must see" list."300" is an artistic spectacle more so than anything. A "happening" to be experienced and not digested. It makes me want to see more of this style yet how many more could I stand? Go see.
........
"I'm going to go pack for France."
Follow Ups:
Now the gamers don't even have to use their thumbs to get their fix of eroticized ultra-violent graphic war porn.
You haven't actually seen the movie. Right?
I saw a slew of the trailers on the net, and the 20 minute HBO featurette on its making. All told, probably 20 minutes or more of the actual film. I even "read" Miller's $30 comic book at B&N. Unless it was all false promotion, that's more than enough to form a sound opinion. One needn't eat the whole fruit to make up one's mind when one bite says its bad.IIRC, you made up your mind about this movie months ago even though hardly any of the actual film had then been released. Have you seen it?
Funny you would cite the dorks at IMDb as evidence about the movie itself. The ones making the biggest asses of themselves largly are complaining about the content of the movie without having actually seen it. There is some irony. Bottom line, comments about a film's content based on ignorance is worthless. Sorry trailers and behind the scenes does not rate as the equivelant. Sure that is enough for one to decide they don't like the style and would be better off not seeing it. It is not good enough to comment on the content. You read the graphic novel? Was that what made you think it was a "passive video game?" Is that really what you got from the book?Have I seen it? Yes three times. I also worked on it. If people see it and don't like it so be it. It's the folks who whine about it without seeing it or make idiotic comments about the film maker's intent without really knowing jack that will get any kind of reaction out of me. Oh and those that assume it's stupid because it was based on a comic book.
To say one needs to see the whole thing to comment on content is nonsense. Its not like they've kept it a secret.The trailers and HBO thing provide plenty to base an assessment upon. And the reviews tend to bear me out; 30 minutes of prelims in Sparta, then 90 minutes of repetitive slash n' spurt; apparently way too much of it in slow-mo. My vid game assessment comes from the overall video game look, the over-use of CGI, and the cartoonish buckets of spurting blood every time someone gets stuck or slashed.I was actually surprised by the crudeness of the drawings in the comic book. I have no issues with people enjoying Miller's comic book art, but for Pete's sake, how about some perspective.
I have other thematic issues with glorifying Spartan culture with little exposure of its core brutality. Its rather like portraying hard core Nazis as heroes because they may have demonstrated loyalty and courage in battle. When this kind of distortion is directed at young men, it should be worrisome, as the many posts in the IMdB "300" forum about how cool it is to be a "badass" demonstrate.
Nothing better than an uninformed opinion. not. YES YOU DO NEED TO SEE THE MOVIE TO KNOW IT'S CONTENT. The content of your post bares that fact out. Here is a classic example. You say "I have other thematic issues with glorifying Spartan culture with little exposure of its core brutality." Dude the enitre opening fifteen minutes does nothing but expose with tremendous accuracy it's core brutality. The first scene shows the grave yard for disposed babies that don't pass inspection. They go on to show an 8 year old Leonidas and another kid beating each other to near death and then it shows a forteen year old Leonidas being flogged. Dude, you clearly DONT know the content of this film. Case closed. You are dismissed.
Couple little points about the Spartan heroes; their princes (i.e., Leonidas) were exempted from the abusive elements of training; and all Spartan warriors had to stalk & kill an unsuspecting slave...not a wolf. (BTW; Xerxes had to kill a lion.) I won't even go into their bizarre social/family relations except to say after a boy reached seven, his full time home was with his barracks buddies; including after marriage.Back to the movie; evryone is entitled to an opinion, and there's plenty of material out there on "300" short of sitting thru it for 2 hours. I just don't understand the fanatical loyalty to this thing.
and canned the faddish CGI. Elephants? Rhinos? First use of elephants in any great battle was Hannibal Barca. Why do writers/producers screw things up so bad? Geez, the real story is fantastic enough!Pressfield's book is a fascinating recounting of the battle, but also the lifestyle of the Spartan people as told by a "squire" who survived the battle and was taken to Darius for interrogation.
Gates" would make a great miniseries.
"Gates of Fire" had serious characters and more cultural/historic accuracy. "300" is little more than an excuse for CGI blood by the gallon. Go to IMBD and read the "300" forum...its pretty pathetic.
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. A pure popcorn movie.See it on the biggest screen you can find . . . I saw it on the biggest screen (with DLP projector) at the local Cinemark. It probably would have been even better in IMAX format . . . see link below for list of IMAX theaters showing "300."
IMO, if a movie of this kind avoids being corny or cheesy, then it makes the grade. "300" is an honor role movie.
It doesn't take itself too seriously; there are several intentionally humorous lines.
Clearly derivative in part from "Gladiator," with the visual style of Sin City (though I only saw previews of the later).
Two criticisms:
1) They ran the Persian ruler's voice through some kind of vocal filter. I didn't care at all for the resulting tone. It sounded phony.WARNING PLOT SPOILER: DID NOT READ FURTHER UNLESS YOU'VE BEEN ENLIGHTENED . . .
2) OK, OK, the Spartans are surrounded on all sides at the end. They lock their shields to form a "turtle shell" defense. But there is really no battle at the end . . . next thing you know, they are all dead. I guess it was time to end the movie, but I wanted a knock-down, drag-out final battle scene, in which the Spartans fight for their lives and slowly succumb to the Persian hordes.
Minor quibbles . . . great movie.
Of course I saw this, I knew I would since the first preview.The visual style is that of Sin City, another Frank Miller comic adaptation.
But it is not anywhere near the pulp fiction greatness of Sin City. Sin City was a takeoff of film noir, a rich vein of movie history. 300 is a takeoff of the 50s gladiator movies, most of which seemed to be poorly dubbed from Italian.
This is to say it is almost instant camp. The warriors in speedos and the ultra-macho lines such as "Tonight we dine in hell!"
But I liked it enormously. The battle choreography is fabulous. The visual style is compulsively entertaining. There is some realism to the portrayal of the Spartan code, where the highest honor a man can achieve is to die in battle.
They easily could have dropped the subplot with the queen back in Sparta. But I guess they wanted to have something beside just battle scenes. Bottom line: a fairly long movie and I was never bored and would not mind seeing it again sometime. But I will not purchase it on DVD as I did Sin City.
military code which highly encouraged soldier sexual relationships, feeling that it would lead to greater warrior bravery--protecting one's lover instead of just a comrade.
There is more exposed male flesh in this film than in any bathhouse. Spartan chest armor has been eschewed in favor of fully exposed, massively muscled, hairless torsos. It is incomprehensible that the 300 do not end up being human shish-ke-bobs during the first two days of battle.The reality was that the Spartans wore body armor and the Persians wore none and had poor wicker shields.
I enjoyed the look of the film. But make no mistake, this ain't no "Gladiator."
If I were a cynical liberal, I would regard this film as poorly disguised propaganda for an American war with Iran.
The idea of the "beautiful death" may appeal to suicide bombers, who will probably embrace this movie, but it is unlikely to resonate among the American audience in general. I don't think the Spartan lifestyle is going to be hugely popular among the normal movie-going audience.
John EH, HiFi Guy, etc.
News to me for sure..but if we are why are our troops in Iraq?
I was referring to propaganda for a possible future war with Iran.
A generation or so after The Persian War the Spartans discarded all body armor except a small pot helmet; evidently they figured the large shield was sufficient protection and that lightening the soldier's load gave more stamina for the push, also more flexibility in fighting light infantry armed with missle weapons.The other Greeks seem to have followed suit. Then about a generation later armor made a comeback.
hjg
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
