300 pwnage! Exclusive review from Athens!

[Darkmatter]

I loved it. The battle scenes made me wish I was as beefy and arrogant as a spartan.

 

[Vadriel]

Hell yes. "I trust that little scratch hasn't made you useless." "Not at all milord, it's only an eye. The gods were kind enough to bless me with a spare."

Total badassery.

Yeah, and I bought the book, too. Pretty damn good, very very similar to the movie. They did a good job mirroring the book.

 

[coRtALoS]

Honestly, I thought one thing was rather humorous about why the Spartans were fighting for all of Greece. They claimed it was for Democracy, and freedom, when Sparta had a slave to citizen ratio of I think 10 to 1? It's been awhile since my ancient Greece classes, but I kind of chuckled whenever they said that during the movie, otherwise, very very pleased with everything about it. ****ing unbelievable.

I actually left the theatre with a feeling of patriotism for Greece by the end of it, and thought of Gally. :heart

And here's a few links copied from my guild's forums for those of you that haven't seen them yet.

http://www.break.com/index/300_the_pg_remix.html

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/03/21

http://leonidasaddressescongress.ytmnd.com

http://spearupyourass.ytmnd.com/

 

[TrongaMonga]

Democracy means power to the people. People were the citizens of the city-states of Greece. Slaves were not people.

It was pretty simple back then, everyone accepted it, slaves included.

Mind you, Ancient Greece slaves are not the same as Imperialist Europe slavery. It was merely a working cast, no more, no less. Sometimes they were brutally treated, yes, but the whole idea is that they did all the work, and were given food and shelter on return. And they did have the chance to change their lifestyle, as long as they worked hard enough, pleased their masters, etc.

Of course, the whole idea sounds absurd to us now, but it really was simpler back then.

 

[Emperor Pan I]

From what I remember they threw around the words "Freedom" a lot more than the graphic novel. I also don't remember Spartans using the term democracy in the movie. I know specifically one part in the graphic novel Leonidas says to one of his Spartans, "this is not a democracy". This is appropriate, because in essence Sparta wasn't a democracy.

The movie is historical fiction really based on a graphic novel. Obvious blaring historical inaccuracies: (Sparta had 2 kings, There were around five thousand Greeks at Thermopylae , 700 Thespians aided the 300 Greeks, No mention that at the same time the Greek fleets battled the Persian navy and inflicted heavy casualties). Also I would like to know, did they start with 300 spartan, or did they die as 300? Because all things considered, several Spartans were killed during the battle.

In the end it really doesn't matter. I'm surprised no one really realizes this, but it's when you really look at the movie, the entire thing wreaks of bias. Who narrates the film? Dilios, a Spartan. Think about it he is retelling the story throughout. You aren't witnessing the actual events, you are taking a journey through a story told by a good story teller. Thats why the 150,000 Persians became a million. That is why Persians are "monstrous", and the Spartans are heroes. Of course only the Spartans would appear as courageous and the rest of the Greeks cowardly. The only Spartan depicted as being deformed was a traitor. It's a movie about perspective, with some really cool ****ing battle scenes, and is in no way a "documentary". As the director said, He knows how to tell a story without throwing in facts to make it boring.

 

[Galatia]

Honestly, I thought one thing was rather humorous about why the Spartans were fighting for all of Greece. They claimed it was for Democracy, and freedom

The only Democracy among the greek cities back then was Athens. And the Persians were once again trying to conquer those cities. The battle of Thermopylae had major strategic impact on delaying the army of Xerxes - so, yes, they were all fighting for freedom, mr.Cort :heart (btw, did I ever tell you that my father's roots are from Sparta?)

 

[Wing Zero]

And I based my opinion on REVIEWS that agreed it was.

bleh those snobby people in suits or the average common man?

 

[ST]

[glow=black]6 story screen
12,000 watts of sound
I saw it in Imax.

Amazing.[/glow]

 

[Darkmatter]

I watched yesterday on my PC again, because in the theater there were loud people...they mention Zeus when theres the rainstorm that pwns Xerses ships. I thought that was cool.

 

[Wing Zero]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PZ3XDFJj98

lol a clip from the original i guess

o yea more i dont like inaccuracies in movies http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQG18NYOk-c

 

[Vadriel]

bleh those snobby people in suits or the average common man?

I don't trust ANYONE's reviews. It's all bull. I know for sure that professional critics are full of it...I actually read professional reviews and ratings, and base my decision on taking the course of action as if the opposite of what they say were true. If they say it sucks, I see it. If they say it's amazing and god forbid "visionary" or a "masterpiece" I run like all hell in the other direction.

 

[CelestialBadger]

That's cause you suck at film.

 

[Wing Zero]

i see no logic in that

 

[Vadriel]

That's cause you suck at film.

No, that's cuz THEY suck at film. I hate movies that are done to make a statement or something...and god forbid I'm browsing at Movie Gallery and come across the damn "Wheat Parentheses" marking it as coming from the Sundance Film Festival.

Movies intended to be anything more than a movie are two long hours of a twisted ménage à trois of obscure plot representing some "visionary" abstraction, tryhard actors desperately attempting to snag a resumé booster, and the most absolutely anticlimactic series of events known to a movie. I swear, film festival movies wage a bloody war for the title of "Most Boring Movie."

Personally, I just want a movie that's fun to watch. Cool effects, intriguing plot, or quality humor are all it takes to win me over...it's not necessary to try so hard to "redefine the concept of film."

But then, the people making this crap aren't doing it to win the populace, the ticket buyers...they're doing it to impress all the sad and lonely people who dedicate their lives to judging others' efforts and choosing who gets their much sought-after seal of approval, who insist that liking a bad movie makes them seem like next-level visionaries or the highly cultured upper crust of society.

 

[CelestialBadger]

Guarantee that most of your favorite movies are critically aclaimed.

Also I don't know a single mainstream film critic who has anything to do with experimental film, so I have no clue what you're even talking about. Oh and "wheat parenteses"?? Are you talking about the palmes d'ors from cannes? Because yeah, practically all of the cannes winners I've seen were amazing. I don't pretend to know as much about film as I should, but that's why it's important to be as open minded as possible.

 

[Vadriel]

Anything with that on it goes back on the shelf.

My favorite favorites are just too good to NOT be critically acclaimed. Pulp Fiction, Jurassic Park...if the critics didn't like them they'd be revolted against.

And pretty much every movie has SOME sort of positive review, even if it's just some obscure journalist at US Weekly...what I'm trying to say is that the bigboy critics raved about Moulin Rouge and American Beauty, but talked shit about 300. AND OH MY ****ING GOD, if I have to see ONE MORE PREVIEW for ONE MORE ZODIAC MOVIE...I'm going to go to Hollywood and burn the whole damn place down.

 

[CelestialBadger]

I'm not usually one to back down from an e-argument like this, but how about I just leave it at: If you write off most critically acclaimed films as bad, you're going to miss a lot of good art. And if you're not watching film for art, you're missing the point of film.

That being said, you're welcome to like/dislike whatever you feel like.

 

[Vadriel]

Thanks man, for not turning it into a big fight. I don't care to do battle with you, lol.

I appreciate y' viewpoint, but I personally don't enjoy movies that focus more on being "artistic" than they do on having an enjoyable plot. That said, I do like to see movies done in an unconventional manner. Sin City and 300 are among my favorite movies, I was the only one in my family who actually paid attention to A Scanner Darkly (my mother's response when I told her about the cell-shaded style was "It's a ****ing cartoon?")...and I rest solidly on how Pulp Fiction is possibly the greatest movie of all time.

I'm not saying (yes I know I said it in jest, but come on you know exaggeration when you hear [see?] it) that just because a critic liked something I refuse to watch it...but I've noticed a pattern in that my personal tastes tend to conflict with those of the "professionals." Due to this, I tend to take what the critics say with very little seriousness.

I mean, shit. I liked Ghost Rider.

 

[Jenny!]

Jurassic Park got alot of great reviews and critics loved it I don't see why you still like it then. Zodiac was a great movie too. You try too hard to be an outcast that you pass up good films because it'll make you look deep or something to your one or two friends.

 

[CelestialBadger]

I would have gone with Pulp Fiction, since it won the palmes at cannes. Anyway, you can take over here while I'm temporarily bored with arguing.