Pajiba

I thought it was fantastic, and while I do agree that the pacing slackened a bit when Snyder returned to the city of Sparta, I think the film as a whole was a success.

That's interesting because I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. Maybe it was all the half naked men with banana hammocks and 8-packs?

300 a message movie? Well, the GN was published in 1998, the years prior were pretty politically eventful, and judging by Miller's previous work (The Dark Knight Returns, anyone?) I'd say he did have a statement to make, despite Snyder's innocence(?) of it. That those late-90s sentiments still ring true is quite telling.

Wow, this is the closest I've come to the top of the list in a long time.

All I can say is I saw the midnight showing and I am not embarassed to say I had a wargasm.

Don't spend you time and money on this moive, it is boring and even historically wrong in many aspects!

I caught the midnight IMAX showing last night and, I have to agree, for sheer spectacle, this one's hard to beat. Yes, it's a bit short on character development, but as long as you don't expect too much, it's a hell of a ride. Definitely catch it on the big screen.

It's funny, I was half-asleep when I first saw the preview for this, and for a minute it looked like a trailer for God of War 2, the Playstation game, LOL.

Aaand apon READING the review, couldn't agree more. Greenscreen acting has come a LONG way from, say, Anakin Skywalker shooting battle droids in The Phantom Menace.

I really like the focus on the music, because that was the best part for me. When you see a Spartan army marching out to electric power chords, the man in me reared his head and head banged along with it. I really like the detail into the composition. Thanks.

As to the "political commentary..." Does EVERYONE have to draw these lines? Can't we leave it along? Maybe it's because I'm from Canada, but really, I don't think everyone is trying to take a stab at Bush. But he'd totally be Xerxes. *grin*

"transitioning between Leonidas' men and the events unfolding back in the city, where Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey), finds herself in a battle of political will with Theron (Dominic West) about whether to send troops to support her husband's small band of fighters."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, dude, you just described an episode of The Unit.

I don't think I'll be able to get past the historical inaccuracies in this thing, Spartan women were even bigger assholes than their psycho men. They had a saying which went somewhat like this: Come back with your shield or on it, or some shit like that, which pretty much sums up how worried they were.

Spot on about the useless shots. It felt like nearly every part that took place in the town was just there, and that part of the story didn't do anything. It even sort of fights against the movie itself, because if they got the entire army, the story wouldn't be nearly as legendary.

Also the guitar parts in the score took me out of the movie.

This movie is on my agenda to see tomorrow, and from what I have read here it will not disappoint.

I could tell from the trailer that this was not a film that should be overanalyze, but a film to simply get lost in the sights and sounds. Right after I wake up at the crack of noon, I will be on my way to the theatre for a little sensory overload.

("a thundering ode to orgiastic bombast"

Thanks, D--I'm not sure if that was deliberate or not, but it's out of the park.)

Barbado--the "on your shield" saying is in the GN, anyway--it didn't make it into the film?

While I'm generally no fan of greenscreen synema (Sin City aside), I don't have a problem with something like over-the-top Classical world representation having a surreal cast. Sure, Hotgates is as much history as mythology, but sword-and-sandals always have a kind of mythic flavour for me, so I welcome this approach. I kind of don't _want_ it to look too lifelike.

Shallow or not, accurate or not (and I've studied the classics and still don't care), I'm going to eyeball the "myth", have myself a wargasm (teehee, Graceful Dave) and maybe who knows something that rhymes with "wargasm" over all that running-amok buff. It's like a three-fer.

I love how everyone's like, "Oh, it's historically inaccurate... drone, drone...". It's an adaptation of a graphic novel by Frank Miller. I'm sure that the Xmen movies are very, very inaccurate from our current political dilemmas between the government and the super powered mutants running around in spandex. But hey, I could be wrong since I'm not at the forefront of it and have the mental equivalent of a squid with down syndrome.

You know, believe it or not, this might be one of the few movies, where, if people were to once again read something political into something apolitical, it would be leaning more right than left.

An overly aggressive man not prone to thinking things through going to war with an entire cultural group that wants to overrun and replace our way of life with theirs?

But I'm with Snyder. This is a movie about elephants and dudes with swords for hands. That is all.

I was absurdly happy with the movie - this "wargasm" term applies splendidly.

What I love about the ancient Greeks, and what was successful in my opinion about the film, was that despite all of their real-life posturing about "logic, civilization, etc," they were all batshit insane. Seriously, when ye look at the stories and the myths and the heroes, they just weren't that nice! All of the Spartans in 300 are frakkin' maniacs and it works really well.

This is why it is not a political allegory. They are nuts. Although awesome.

P.S. I was, admittedly, dismayed by some of the too-long speechifying and Gladiator-esque melodrama.

Okay, don't laugh, but I have a rather odd question. I can handle blood and guts and decapitation and disembowelments and most other types of gore. I have an extreme phobia of broken bones, however. Even the sound of a bone breaking can break me out in hives. I really, really want to see this and assume that there will be snapped necks and arms. What kind of breakage am I looking at here? Is there any way I can make it through this movie?

I really enjoyed this movie. However, didn't anyone else find the (spoiler) scene where the hunchback returns (his name escapes me; in fact, I don't think I knew much of the characters names until I've read the reviews) wearing a hat incredibly funny? All the man asked for Xerxes was a uniform. And yet all they gave him a little hat. That hat, and the similarities between the man-with-axes-for-hands and Zoidberg of Futurama fame made for a good after movie discussion.

superedna: There are more limbs sliced clean off then snapped. I don't actually recall an instance of bones snapping at all, actually.

I did enjoy the movie for what it was. It wasn't meaningful, exactly, but it was fun to watch.

this movie really was jaw-dropping incredible. perhaps i'm biased because i'm a young female, and the site of 300 scantilily-clad spartan warriors was more than a little impressive...but seriously, it is damn entertaining.

and i liked how (for a change) it depicted the female lead as more than a doormat waiting for the man to come home and rescue her. spartan women really were hard- they had that saying "with this, or upon this" in reference to their men's shields, because a lost shield suggested that the men threw it at their enemy to escape.

you know what...just go see it. it's easily worth the money.

No offense to Daniel or anyone else, but I must ask: did anyone else REALLY expect there to be any serious character development in such a film? Not to say that a good action film can't have it, but it seemed clear to me that 300 was always supposed to be a visual feast of the senses, and not much more.

I'm quite surprised that there are political comparisons derived from the movie, but I haven't seen it yet. I don't know - sometimes, things just aren't that deep.

As stated before, Gerard Butler and the other men on showcase in this film is the only reason I want to watch. Hey, I heard the physical training was brutal, so I want to show my support and appreciation for the fellas who gave their all. I mean, it's the right thing to do. Thanks in advance, guys. Love ya.

Superedna, you are not alone. I also fear the bone-snappage. It is only second to anything fingernail related (tearing, snapping, yanking off of, things going underneath of) in my list of automatic cringe inducers.

I will go see this movie and probably love it, but I am a post-production nerd and give major story and character leeway to anything this digitally creative that doesn't rely on cheap explosions or lame Fanatstic Four style compositing. And the color! The colors make me weak.

"Don't spend you time and money on this moive, it is boring and even historically wrong in many aspects!"

Um, hi jackass.

I haven't seen the movie so I don't know if it's good or not but the movie is an adapation of a comic book, not 'based on a true story' like Braveheart. In the future try reading up on a film's origins (hell try reading the freakin' review) before saying stupid shit.

I haven't seen Braveheart, but what I've read/been told about it, it doesn't exactly get an A+ for accuracy. So I'll assume that wasn't entirely the point.

Um, hi jackass.
I haven't seen the movie so I don't know if it's good or not but the movie is an adapation of a comic book, not 'based on a true story' like Braveheart. In the future try reading up on a film's origins (hell try reading the freakin' review) before saying stupid shit.

Um, hi jackass, but the comic book was based on a historical event. So the film might be true to the comic, but the comic isn't true to history. I don't really care either way - I haven't read the comic, so I don't know if there's some reason for Miller to have butchered the (pretty cool) actual history, and if there isn't one then I guess I'll be a little annoyed, but...what was I saying? Oh, yeah, shut up.

"Don't spend you time and money on this moive, it is boring..."

I can see how it might not be someone's cup of tea, but I don't really understand how that equates to boring--there's far too much to look at for it to be boring.

At any rate, the "Return with your sheild, or on it" line IS in the film.

Um, hi jackass, but the comic book was based on a historical event. So the film might be true to the comic, but the comic isn't true to history. I don't really care either way - I haven't read the comic, so I don't know if there's some reason for Miller to have butchered the (pretty cool) actual history, and if there isn't one then I guess I'll be a little annoyed, but...what was I saying? Oh, yeah, shut up.

And Miller makes pretty clear in the graphic novel that he is retelling the story his way, not trying to accurately portray every detail of the actual battle.

If you want facts, watch the history channel. And if you posted not one, but two comments, I would say you do care.

I agree with some of the Gladiator-esque moments, and the narration did get on my nerves sometimes (to be honest, if he hadn't spoken at ALL during the wolf scene, I would've been a lot happier, since that speech was pointless)...

but the movie was damn awesome. And sure, the characters don't really really come alive, but hours after seeing the movie, I'm still remembering some scenes that *were* emotional and scenes that were shot so beautifully that they made flat characters *seem* more real than they were.
Point is, I'm not complaining. They fit their roles, they served the plot, and they worked.

Am I the only person that really really liked the "This is Sparta" scene? I know it was predictable and that the closeups were "pointless", but it looked beautiful, it felt epic, and dammit I enjoyed it a lot.

Sometimes, some good old fashioned bloodshed is a good, good thing.

And why is there so little mention of the visuals? The cinematography is incredible, it completes the movie, in my opinion. It's worth the ticket price for the memorable visuals alone, they really stayed in my head.

good movie, just see it :p

Um, hi jackass, but the comic book was based on a historical event.

No, the comic (300) was based on a film (The 300 Spartans, 1962) which was based on a historical event (the Battle of Thermopylae). And this info I found online the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

So the film might be true to the comic, but the comic isn't true to history.

What tipped you off: the fillings in Leonidas' molars or the blue contacts in the Persian messenger's eyes?

So, I may end up seeing this twice, becuase I found out it's playing on IMAX. I'm planning to see it this weekend near my college and then I go home later this week for break... and there's an IMAX theater 2 hours away playing it. Don't judge me, I like pretty things.

Pretty good review. The biggest complaint I've heard so far is "Well, it looks nice, but it's shallow" to which I answer "me too". I'm just happy to have something worth the price of a ticket to see on the big (or even bigger) screen.

Now that you mention it, the one thing I found jarring was that all the Spartans had perfect white teeth. Oh, and the minotaur. Yes, there was a minotaur, though sadly he was not riding a rhino.

"I haven't seen Braveheart, but what I've read/been told about it, it doesn't exactly get an A+ for accuracy. So I'll assume that wasn't entirely the point."

Good point, I should clarify that the difference is that Braveheart is a movie made based on the life of the title character and in the intro tries even tries to claim it's story as accurate.

In all the promotion for 300 there has never been any claim to historical accuracy in fact it's been stated that it's based on the comic which is quite obviously meant to be a fictional take on the battle (Frank Miller himself says this). To come to this site and talk about accuracy as a criticism of the film when only a goddamn nimrod would ever not realize it was never meant to be accurate is good justification for the claim that the internet should be something you have to get a license for, like driving. Then again with all the idiots on the road anyway maybe this dipstick of intellect would pass through anyway.

To all you wannbe scholars/movie critics.
If you want realistic movies, than watch documentaries.
If you want entertainment than shut the f*%$ up and enjoy/hate the movie.
I am sure Frank Miller/Zack Snyder could care bloody less what your opinion of the "300" is, and if you did watch it and hate it well they still have your money anyways, so it sucks to be you.

all the buzz, everybody i talk to, is having a "war-gasmic" experience watching this film. thank God something comes out of the "Hollywood machine" that doesn't espouse namby-pamby-kumbaya--limp-wristed-girly-boy-bullshit for once.

throw the candy asses to the lions. Alpha Males rule!

Ooo-rahhh!!!

A pro-war movie about a band of noble white men attempting to overthrow the armies of Persia? I mean, it really just is too politically volatile a narrative to ignore, even if Snyder didn't intend the movie to be read in that way. I think Slate Magazine put it quite well in a truly scathing review: "But what's maddening about 300 (besides the paralyzing monotony of watching chiseled white guys make shish kebabs from swarthy Persians for 116 indistinguishable minutes) is that no one involved--not Miller, not Snyder, not one of the army of screenwriters, art directors, and tech wizards who mounted this empty, gorgeous spectacle--seems to have noticed that we're in the middle of an actual war. With actual Persians (or at least denizens of that vast swath of land once occupied by the Persian empire)." Thank you Dana Stevens. I'm surprised you chose not to engage with this, Pajiba.

so wait, what?

Greeks are hardly the 'noble white men' you label them as considering a good thousand years of Greek history is tied in one way or another to the muslim world (including being under the control of that world) I find it culturally ignorant to say that Greeks are the same as descendents from Western Europe let alone boxing in the history of the ancient world into the context of the modern one.

Should the movie not be made now because it's 'pro-war' during an actual war? For god's sake it's pro-Persian War not Iraq War and if you want to lump it into that context it's anti-Bush since it's about a small group of soldiers fighting off an invasion of a larger better equipped army.

There was NO SUCH THING as Islam, Andrew AND sheshakes, at the time this battle took place. Why even bring up "the Muslim world" when it contextually has nothing to do with the story? At this time, Persians were not Muslims--they were taken over by Islamic invaders, like, over a 1000 years later. And even if it were Greeks skewering Arabs/Turks/Persians--those were the people who invaded THEM, sheshakes, throughout their history, and who are still living on land that belonged to them and from which they were expelled (i.e. Turkey), so why would that be a bad thing? This first year "Post-Colonial Studies" "white guilt" thing is old, sheshakes. Like Andrew831 points out in his second paragraph (which is much better ideas-wise than his first), does every film about a war have to fit into your idea of what is an appropriate representation of war (given your political take on current wars in the world)? If anything, the Persians in this tale (as Andrew831 points out) would stand in for NATO.

Is it really sexual? I mean, like, full-on nudity. I might take my younger brother if it isn't THAT sexual. He's kind of a Classical History nerd, but he's not at that stage yet, where he's interested in seeing that.

Thanks, Megs! I can handle limb removal... just not limbs breaking.

Great Review! Everyone in the theater seemed to love this one and I just didn't understand. It literally put me to sleep. It was like a slow motion parade of bloody gleaming abs that had no emotional impact whatsoever.

Um, davey, there's not a ton of nudity but there is some rather youthful female nudity and a mildly pornographic (and I thought, awkward) scene between Leonidas and his queen. This movie was a fun ride but there were things that definitely jarred me out of it (clearly not the target demographic, but I know that the queen's scene with the council was partially put in to placate all the girls that were dragged to this, along with all the Spartan eye candy), I thought the random guitar riffs at dramatic points were a cheap trick and the periodic mythical-looking stuff (minotaurs, the thing that looked like it had a goat's head, the guy with blade things for arms) were really jarring and fake looking and got a lot of laughs in the crowd that I was it with. They needed to either play up the mythical side a little bit more (aka make some effort) or leave it out as it didn't add anything. And seriously, could they have just cast RuPaul as Xerxes? I was not impressed with that characterization.

i could definitely see it being more enjoyable in IMAX, the giant screen and resolution would probably put it way over the top. but as it was in a standard cinema, i found it extremely underwhelming. it felt like it kept building towards some big twist or event that never came. faramir wasn't bad as the lone survivor though.

and whose brilliant idea was it to cast dennis rodman as xerxes? its kind of hard to be intimidated by the god-king when he looks like a 9 foot tall tranny (anyone else notice his lovely pink lipstick?)

Just in case, my comment was a statement of what could be my OWN experience. I'll never say no to a good old fashioned gore-fest. However, the real story doesn't really need any "re-imagining" by some douchebag (I don't care if Frank Miller is the second coming).

The facts were:

1. Those guys went in there not to come back and they didn't give a shit.

2. There was no internal political turmoil about them going there

3. There were NO FUCKING widows to be pleading for anymore men, that was not the Spartan way.

The real story was unadulterated and fat-free.

Anne (in Reno): do you mean "mildly pornographic and awkward" like the sex/orgy scene in Matrix Part Deux, or in some other way? Because, honestly, I'm not sure that I could handle something that uncomfortable again without some sort of chemical assistance . . .

"There was NO SUCH THING as Islam, Andrew AND sheshakes, at the time this battle took place. Why even bring up "the Muslim world" when it contextually has nothing to do with the story? "

I was trying to point that out when I talked about boxing in the history of the ancient world with the modern one and only was talking about the Greece/Islam connection in relation to the idea that Greeks are "white". Either way I failed, sorry.

the sex scene between the king and queen was pretty brief, less than a minute, and not too awkward. a different scene though finds a beautiful young scantily clad (extremely scantily clad) redhead entranced by vapors getting her face licked by a disfigured old priest. i thought that was creepier/more awkward than the full-on sex scene.

I hated the Slate review :( It's an injustice to this movie to add tons of racial and political undertones that just aren't there. What bothers me is that Slate accuses this movie of racism, just because A: The Spartans are white (sorry, it's Sparta, of course they are!), and B: the Persian army is "not white" (which completely ignores some of the smaller armies. For the one example I can name, The Immortals didn't even come close to being "brown", "black", "gay" or "lesbian" as Slate so eloquently accuses. Besides, Xerxes went through the Asian continent. What did the movie reviewer expect to see?!

Sigh.

As for the sex scene: It shows a lot of nudity, but it's tasteful and not tacky at all, imo. It goes on for maybe two seconds too long, but it doesn't make you feel uncomfortable; it's a lot more natural than the Matrix one.

And personally, I was pretty creeped out by Xerxes. If you look at the graphic novel artwork, he was never drawn as a really really terrifying character anyway, he was just as decorated as in the film.

Andrew831,

Again, never having seen the movie (Braveheart), I had no idea that it paraded about as being a sort of historical snapshot--if you will. Well that's... more problematic than a comic, I think.

Messages in the movie?

1. Persians were apparently from Africa, as was every part of their "Asian" army.

2. Ugly and misshapen people are weak-willed, treacherous, and easily swayed by material wealth. Beautiful people are true-hearted.

3. Palpatine was actually cloned from an Ephor.

The review's spot-on. Gorgeous action sequences combined with brutally stupid storytelling.

Larsal

I'm pretty sure the narration was done by a character named "Stelios" and not "Dilios"... at least, that's the historical name and the name in the graphic novel. Plus, Dilios isn't even a Greek name...

It's visually staggering with lots of badass combat and is well worth seeing, but 300 is ultimately a hollow vessel. I swear that is the most egregious example of style over substance that I have ever seen. And, no, I don't go into a film like this expecting intricate character development, but given the choice I would always like for there to be something substantive on which I can hang my hat. There was just too much in terms of by-the-numbers, cliche posturing. If the aim was to rouse or inspire me with any of the ideas, speeches, or characters, then 300 failed. If the aim was simply to show me a beautiful piece of art upon which to gaze, then the filmmakers succeeded.

My friends and I had fun coming up with alternate titles for the movie:
"300: A tale of Xenophobia"
"300: Approve the Troop Surge, now!"
"300: THIS IS AFRICA!"

The character who relates the story to the Spartan council and the audience is named Dilios..I am not sure they were going for historical accuracy there, either.

I saw this movie today, and I loved it. I never thought the music interfered with the action, in fact, I hardly noticed it at times. I didn't mind the mythical ceatures, Xerxes "larger than life" appearance (he's supposed to be a god-king to his people), and the so-called "cheesy dialogue". If you read the actual accounts of the Battle of Thermopylae, they are filled with cheestastic quotes, many of which made it into the film (fighting in the shade, come and take them, etc.). And for those who can't get over the ethnicity of the two armies, pick up a book. The Persian Army would absorb and enslave the peoples it conquered, forcing them into battle on behalf of Xerxes. Such a large empire would, of course, include many peoples of many ethnicities...mainly Middle Easterners, Africans, and Asian peoples. The Greeks were just that - Greek, and in 480 BC most likely looked even MORE white than they do now, after thousands of years of invasions, exploration and growth.
This is an enjoyable film, and one I'd certainly see again.

We went to see this on opening day the first showing of the day and the theater was packed. Last time I have experienced that was the first Spiderman. I enjoyed the movie well enough, it was really visually amazing, but prefer the book Gates of Fire as far as storyline goes. My husband, however, practically had a religous experience he was so enraptured. Definitely it is a movie one should try and see on the big screen.

Saw it last night, and I loved every bloody, shallow, non-historical moment.

I think I'm the only one annoyed about this; Where the HELL was the homorotica? You write about Spartans and then hetero them up? For shame!

Sphira I think Alexander had enough gay for 50 movies about ancient Greece hence none was left for 300.

There's an important part about this movie that swells me with Greek pride and is one of the coolest things about Greek history.

These 300 men were the biggest bad-asses in al lof history.

All of history.

You can't conivince me that anything anywhere stands up to 300 men delaying an army of multiple hundereds of thousands (historical number disputed) for days (they only were overtaken because of a betrayal). The main Greek amry had time to retreat and regroup, and the Greek navy was allowed time to engage the Persian navy at sea. Without the 300 Spartans at the front of the battle in that gorge, all of greece might have been conquered.

Biggest badasses in all of history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

Just got home from seeing "300"
and was very impressed.
To all you idiots who think there is some subtle political message to this movie, there isn't one
keep looking though I am sure when you pull your heads out of your asses, you will realize it is just a movie thats it.
The meaning behind the "300" to me being in the military is that soldiers when the go off to fight for their country/beliefs may start out that way, but in the end they are just fighting for each other the man to the left and to the right, its that simple.
Until you serve, none of you will understand.

I saw 300 last night on IMAX in Houston, and the theater was packed. As were the other two theater screens it was showing on. Everyone loved the movie -- it was completely badass and the battle scenes were incredibly well-shot. It didn't have a lot of that jumpy-camera, quick-shot action that I find disconcerting and confusing. The audience last night was about 40/60 female-to-male last night, which surprised me because I thought I'd be one of the few chicks in the audience. I loved, loved, loved the movie. It wasn't particularly deep or historically accurate, but I don't think it ever pretended to be so.

And, by the way, they didn't include any homosexuality because male homosexuality was not tolerated in Sparta. Greece at the time was a collection of city-states, which sometimes fought together and sometimes fought each other. They each had completely different cultures. Spartans disliked the Athenians, whom they considered weak and gay. So that aspect WAS accurate.

"My other ride's Gerard Butler",

Um, no. As a classics minor, I can assure you that Sparta actually encouraged homosexual relations between men. The point of this was to forge strong relationships between the soldiers, so they would fight harder to defend one another in battle.

The (main) reason Spartans looked at the Athenians with scorn is that they thought the Athenians didn't put enough emphasis on their military, and instead were seen as frivolous (with their developments in art, philosophy, etc.) I hope this is not what you meant by "considered weak and gay".

SV, I strongly urge you to re-read your books. The Spartans practiced pederasty, not male homosexuality. At the age of 7, male Spartans were sent to an older male who was responsible for teaching them how to be warriors. A sexual relationship betwen the two was not acceptable in the Spartan culture. The boys were all taught that they must depend on each other to survive in battle, hence the famous Spartan phalanx. This, combined with the shared experiences of an extremely harsh training regime, was the source of the close bond between the Spartans, not some homosexual relationship.

And, yes, Spartans disliked the Athenians because of their artistic bent, but also because they stereotyped them as soft and womanlike and gay. If you want to believe the Spartans were gay, feel free. But I can assure you that, based on the historical evidence, they weren't.

i definitely saw the "300 is racist for the evil persian army being all black, asian, middle eastern" complaints coming as i watched the movie.

It's the PERSIAN army fighting a GREEK army. that's just they way it fucking was. get over yourselves and your need to feel culturally aware.

also, fucking awesome movie. wargasmic describes it about as well as anything i can think of to say.

I am no expert on the subject (which by the way I find silly, how did we get into this debate about who buttfucked whom in ancient Greece?) but a simple google search shows plenty of articles talking about homosexuality being a part of Spartan culture.

Now, what I DO sorta know is that Athens and Sparta did have problems because one was a militaristic culture and one was the birthplace of democratic thought which inherently leads to problems among all the other complex factors leading to the Pelopolyesian war but I don't think a major factor in that dispute was Sparta thinking Athens was 'gay'.

But then I'm not expert.

okay so wait...if you're not black, asian, or latino you're automatically "white"??? hmm. tell that to my all-greek family. my english professor is persian and he is by no means black. Since when did coming from anywhere near the Arabian Peninsula make you 'black'?? And the last time i checked the persians were the ones invading. who the hell wouldn't fight back?

really now. i've seen the stupid race card being pulled for the dumbest stuff, but this is just ridiculous. okay spartans- you "white boys" aren't allowed to defend your land. why? because they're "black."

anybody with half a brain will dismiss all that racist crap. why can't a movie just be a movie anymore? why do people always have to look for some underlying message in all forms of entertainment? just like all those idiots out there who think the Geico cavemen are true pioneers against racism.

Loved the male bodies... loved, loved, loved them. For that alone, I might actually buy this movie when it comes out. It was amazing to watch the male form at work. Fucking beautiful. We don't really get to see that in the media, where females are often the ones running around half naked. I enjoyed Troy because we finally got men running around with their legs exposed, and I obviously enjoyed the speedos in 300.

Though I must say (because this really irritated me throughout the movie) that the story line between the queen and the traitor council member (whose name I totally forgotten, except I believe the actor is named something West) was way too predictable. I knew what was going to happen when the queen was wandering around looking for her son and West showed up with him. But that predictability only heightened the intense gratification I felt when she **Spoiler** stabbed him in the fucking gut.

In the end, however, the movie was great for laughs and I had a smile on my face the entire time I watched it.

Wow!!! Horrible, horrible piece of shit movie... The worst I've seen in many, many years.
People have terrible taste in movies these days, that's for sure....

"300" is entertaining (no question about it) but, in all honesty, it's a giant turd wrapped up in a nice bow. Visually stunning but totally weak, predictable and empty.
I don't recommend spending your hard earned cash on this one.

For those of you waving the Race card in my face.
RED F***ing card to you!

So you assume the Persian (oh, wait, "black) army is being villified by the filmakers? Why? Do you think they're weak? Do you think Persian people will not be able to stomach a movie in which they're seen as the bad guys? Isn't THAT stereotyping? Aren't you limiting your view of how Persian people can behave?

That's pretty sad. If I watch a movie with Khengis Khan as the villian I'm not going to yell out RACISM just b/c he isn't "white".

Btw, if you call a Greek (or any non-Anglo-Saxon or Slavic) person white they'll laugh in your face.

Why does every war movie today have to have some sort of statement about today's political climate? 300 was re-telling of the Battle of Thermopylae that took a boat-load of Gen-X artistic license. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar people. The story itself may not have been entirely historically accurate, but historians who were present at the screening of the movie said to Snyder himself that while he took a lot of liberties with the sequence of events that he captured the spirit of the Battle of Thermopylae.

Maybe in fact Frank Miller did have a point to make - graphic novelists frequently do, but Zach Snyder sure is not going to say anything about it. He's gotten right to work on Watchmen and he damn well wants everyone to see it. I for one enjoyed the hell out of 300 and am damned excited for the Watchmen movie that Snyder has planned for a 2008 release. And that's really saying a lot because I've hated and dreaded every movie adaptation of Alan Moore novels to date, especially V For Steaming Pile.

I saw it on Friday and thought it was very very good. But I am amazed by those who are upset about historical accuracy and insist on relating the movie to events that took place after it was written.

The best way I can describe "300" is that it is the most impressive live-action comic book I have ever seen. Movies like "Batman" and "Dick Tracy" tried to give a nod to their sources' medium, but failed. "Sin City" got much closer, but this movie, IMO, nails it. The colors, the pacing, the narration, the oversized animals, and the occasional "pause for an instant" visuals all scream graphic novel. (In particular, the narration here, and in TV series like "Heroes," is simply adhering to a convention; almost every comic book begins with narration.)

From the first scenes with the surrealistic wolf, why would you even for a moment think that Miller was trying to be historically detail-oriented? Just like the ancient account this is (eventually) based on, the heroes' good traits and the villians' bad traits are magnified and caricatured. They keep the basic morality tale and a few of the memorable moments (like throwing the ambassador in a well or the betrayal of the hunchback), but take license for entertainment purposes.

It's similar to making a movie about Robin Hood -- the history and legend are so muddled that historically accurate would be boring, but any successful version has to include familiar scenes (like the recruitment of Friar Tuck at the stream) or the audience would complain. I'll take this approach over movies like "Braveheart" and "Alexander" that claim to be accurate but are nowhere near so.

Looking for any anti-war sentiment from a Spartan-inspired tale is idiotic. The only war-related message that I saw being given was that the only important difference between a good soldier and a bad soldier is motivation: are you fighting out of hate of what is before you or love of what is behind you?

i saw the movie yesterday it was fucking amazing, nothing beats a movie to just watch and forget the world or something for a bit..

Now really, for all the people complaining that it's historically inaccurate, has laughable dialogue, etc., etc. What were you expecting? From the beginning, no one predicted 300 to be an Oscar contender. I went on Friday and went in with no expectations. I was not disappointed. It is certainly visually stunning, but it's lacking in substance, for sure.

This movie was OK. The script was absolutely terrible. For example, the 300 are fighting and standing near a cliff. Someone says to the king, "Their troops are thirsty!" and the king replies with, "Well, let's give them something to drink," and then they pushed the opposing forces off the cliff into water below. It is so unbelievably cheesy that many people in the theater laughed.
Spectacle-wise, it was pretty good. I thought there would be more with the war rhinos as the trailer showcased the rhino, but no, there's only one and it doesn't even do anything cool.
The movie doesn't completely suck, but it isn't really worth seeing on the big screen. It's more of a rental movie.

Good job CJ.
This was the first time in months we said "let's drive the 50 miles round trip to town, have dinner out and go see THIS movie on a BIG screen
with a Big sound system and lose ourseleves in what is bound to be an interpretation somewhat loose with history but high on visual effects and fun." We enjoyed the hell out of it. We had a good time. It is what it is.

yeah, come on guys, if they were shooting for historical accuracy they would have drawn on a source a little more scholarly than frank miller.

as a mindless action flick, its probably a classic. the social context into which it was released (as is true of any film, novel, poem, etc.) ultimately has to serve as the crucible in which it will be analyzed, so while i agree that these themes of racial tension and anti-war commentary are unquestionably present in the film, they are the deduced conclusion of the viewer, not a specific agenda being promoted by the filmmakers, in my mind.

there will be no art houses carrying this unless they need to make some scratch. this is not a "message movie", it's filmed to look like a comic book, for christ's sake. it's stupid, violent entertainment and analyzing it as anything else is just plumbing for depths of meaning that aren't there.

I am really worried about Zack Snyder being let loose on Watchmen. He might be good at stuff like 300, but you really believe Alan Moore was not trying to make a political point with Watchmen? Snyder surgically removed any deeper subtext when he remade Dawn of the Dead. He better not try the same trick with Watchmen or the result will be horrific.

I loved this movie! Even considering it was cheesy at times and not incredibly deep. What else would you expect, it's based off a comic. For those who complain about the mythical characters or the perfect white teeth of the cast, see above. Go look at a few comics written for young adults and adults. They are filled with images that go to one extreme or another. Complete human perfection to grotesque mutated animals, humans, demons, ect. As for the people who thought the female audience only could enjoy all the man flesh, come on, I thought the violence was well done and not so in your face I had to look away. Not to say I didn't enjoy all the gleaming abs. Dustin I often agree with your reviews, but you seem to have an issue with projects that are only meant to entertain. Next time an action movie needs reviewing you might consider passing it off to someone who can appreciate shallowness in all it's glory.

OH. MY. GOSH!

If you want to have fun, look at some great eye-candy, see some heads roll, go partial deaf from the loud THX sound system, then see this movie.

Grab some popcorn, take off your thinking cap, sit back and enjoy the ride.

I swear, some people spend more time arguing over fictional things than actual issues...

"Btw, if you call a Greek (or any non-Anglo-Saxon or Slavic) person white they'll laugh in your face."

While I agree with the implied comment here that race categories are essentially pointless, I would venture to say that plenty of "non-Anglo-Saxon" people (Italians, e.g.) consider themselves "white".

I am really worried about Zack Snyder being let loose on Watchmen. He might be good at stuff like 300, but you really believe Alan Moore was not trying to make a political point with Watchmen? Snyder surgically removed any deeper subtext when he remade Dawn of the Dead. He better not try the same trick with Watchmen or the result will be horrific.

I don't know if Simon was referring to me, but I'll answer as the Token Alan Moore Fan. ;-) Alan Moore absolutely was trying to make a political commentary with Watchmen. I've read several interviews with Zach Snyder and it sounds like so far he's trying to stick very closely to the spirit and storyline of Watchmen as any good Alan Moore fan would. He claims he is standing up to the studios when they ask him why he can't make it like the Fantastic Four movie and telling them that it's much more Dr. Strangelove. Of course, I'm still skeptical about what I consider to be Alan Moore's best work being made into a movie because there is so much stuff going on in that book. But I think if anyone can begin to do it justice and not butcher it all to hell that person is Zach Snyder.

No expert, I've taken a few classes and whatever, and it was mentioned upthread before, but I believe that in those days Greeks would have been lighter in complexion and often hair colours. It would not have been out of the ordinary to find many blondes back then. The physical appearance that came to dominate (I was taught, but my prof was crap for that class) was largely because of Slavic influence. Of the Greek art pieces that you see today (the ones that still have some colour left), you can find depictions of Aphrodite with blonde hair and blue eyes, et cetera. I was told that this wasn't done as a service to some sort of aesthetic ideal, but because she was of a believeably Greek appearance. There was a lot of time separating this time period from say that of the Minoans or today. I mean, I'm black, but it seems to we that if we cry 'foul' at everything that can be even vaguely perceived as a slight-- like history, and what people looked like--no one's going to take the real stuff seriously and call us oversensitive.

But it isn't as if you couldn't ever for the life of you find non-whites in Greece, they just weren't the majority. I've seen some examples of artists from the fifth century during the time of Phedias and Polykleitos, sculpture and shit, but memory fails on details.

At any rate, I'm way to lily-livered to watch this film, but I'm just reporting what I culled from some shitty classes on an interesting time span.

As a Democrat, I can say this movie is a triumph for black people everywhere!

Please vote Democrat - Preserve our right to legally kill unborn babies. Give the useless in society hope that they will legally mooch more off the people who work.

Democrats are semi united atheists who just want to cry out at the world's lack of compassion and faith in humanity, and we need your help...

wow, that was totally relevant to the discussion at hand tabu, thank you for contributing.

dumbass.

ps- aborted babies are DELICIOUS

Tabu- is atheist supposed to be an insult? I'm *proud* to be an atheist. And a democrat, for that matter.

I thought this movie was amazing. I don't know why anyone would go into this movie expecting it to be a historically accurate film. It's based on a GRAPHIC NOVEL, I think that says it all. The cinematography was amazing, and I thought the fight scenes were, as people keep saying, "wargasmic".

The biggest complaint I've heard so far is "Well, it looks nice, but it's shallow" to which I answer "me too".

And seriously, could they have just cast RuPaul as Xerxes?

Genny & Anne- HILARIOUS.

Movie was fantastic.

I realize that no one will probably get to read this as there are so many comments already but I felt I had to say:

I'm a 21 year old female and I wanted to see this, not because of my boyfriend or for the eight pack visuals, but because it looked amazing.

I thought it was a beautiful movie, the special effects did not take me out of it as they do in many movies these days where it just seems ridiculous. I felt it was very artistic.

I would definitely see this again and again. It's a great film. No, it's not deep, it's not "The Good Shepherd"...it's gory and violent and proud and everything you would expect from the adverts you've seen. And worth the ten bucks for the ticket or more.

BTW, I didn't hear or see any bones breaking, for the person who asked. So you should be fine.

Also, for the person asking about sex, there was a the scene with the oracle but to me it was more artistic and, I suppose "mythical looking" if I can say that or perhaps "fantasy" than sexual. The sex scene is tastefully done. There is a scene in a harem that greats pretty scandalous...I don't know if I'd take kids.

GREAT MOVIE!! If you have any interest, go see it...you won't be disappointed!!

xo

Pros:
1. extremely great fight sequences
2. ridiculous abs
3. unnecessary tits

Cons:
1. bad pacing to the plot - seemed like it needed more exposition in some places and less in others
2. poor use of the narrator as a transitional device
3. almost no character development at all

i wouldnt even be complaining at all, but sin city was way better. it seems like this could have been close to that good.

Matt Sin City was directed by a totally different person and Zack Snyder is not known for being able to make movies with any real depth regardless of the source material. He's a great popcorn-flick director and that's pretty much it.

Props to CJ, well written post.

I loved the movie, it hit me square in my need for visually stunning violence. I felt that some of the exposition dragged, and I wasn't a fan of the narration but didnt find it distracting (realized it must be a nod to the GN).

I've never heard the exprssion wargasm before, but its a perfect summary for my feeling over this. I just didnt care about the rest of the film, i was so happy with the combat scenes and the overall atmosphere imparted by the look of it.

Btw im so bitterly disappointed that Pajiba didnt like gladiator. I loved it. Kingdom of Heaven, now that film i hated. Why Ridley.. why.

Watching this craptacular movie is as interesting as watching video games being played.

The only reason this film is drawing people in is because most people are so fucking stupid they don't know what good is. If you think this movie has any redeeming qualities you should be removed from the gene pool.

I was trapped with some douche bags who took me to go see this after eating at Carrabas. Go figure. Terrible movie, terrible food.

Did Spartans really go into battle in speedos? Seems a little dangerous and gay.

I saw it last night and it was awful. The dialogue was SOOOOO cheesy. It was really sad. Fun to look at sure, but its definitely style over substance on this one.
Avoid it like the plage.

Hey guys... Are you being serious? This is the biggest pile of crap in cinema's history hands down.
The script is so atrocious that only bloodthirsty and retarded two-year-olds or adults with an IQ level below room temperature in an igloo can enjoy this brainless piece of shit...
I haven't read the comic book [now they call these things "Graphic Novels"?? Gosh!!], so maybe the problem steams from the source material... So who's to blame here? Miller or Snyder???... I don't know, but they equally suck... This movie is as sad as it comes.
One thing is clear: Zack Snyder should be blackballed from the industry FOR EVER!!!

listen I'll put this all to rest right now, I'm 2500 years old and I was there, ok and I saw the whole thing. the spartans were led to war by a scottish king to fight a brazilian "god king". the brazilian king's army was made up of many races and tribes such as the swordarmians. but they where held back by 300 spartans with there advanced military power and blinding white teeth. altough the 300 were eventualy defeated, there legend lived on by the retelling of there battle. of course (as does happen) after thousands of years of retelling some things were left out or forgotten. like mutant, immortal nijas and the rinoriders but thanks to this new movie all the historical errors have been corrected.

but all kidding aside it was a fun movie to watch and worth my 11 dollars.

for history go read a book on the subject (or a 100 books) or watch the show on history channel about the 300. I know that any movie based on historical events gets people(who like to show off what they know to complete strangers)all heated up. but movies are for entertainment and should not be how you learn history. even though today it seems like thats how people are. if this movie made you intrested in the history then great. but if you just want to see some great action in a new way, go see this movie.

Very, very disappointing.
Go rent Apocalypse Now, The Godfather, Blade Runner or some other REAL movie, and stay away from this Xbox-lookalike kind of crap.

In fact, I agree with most of you regarding this totally laughable poor excuse for a script.
Dialogues are nothing too write home about either, and more often than not the action it's way too over the top and hardly believable.
Anyway, let me just play Devil's Advocate for a minute and assure you that nobody in their right mind was expecting to see a new "Citizen Kane" here.
So basically, yeah, it's total rubbish, but truly entertaining rubbish at its finest.
5 out of 10 (due to its entertainment value).
Besides that, I am pretty sure "300" will be forgotten in one or two years at best.

I noticed that the movie is being told around a campfire by the narator ( I forget the name) to pump men up for battle, so if it is over the top than it is serving its purpos.

Altough its based on actual events, its has become the stuff of legends and told acordingly.

This is a little off topic, but...THERE indicates a place, ex. "We walked over there." THEIR indicates ownership, ex. "That is their television." If you are too stupid to know the difference, NO POST FOR YOU!

I know it is not historically accurate, but so what? It is a movie based on a GRAPHIC NOVEL, not on historical record. It is beautifully shot, and God, Gerard Butler is INCREDIBLE!!!!!! As an action-flick chick, I thought it was GREAT!!!!!

"The only reason this film is drawing people in is because most people are so fucking stupid they don't know what good is. If you think this movie has any redeeming qualities you should be removed from the gene pool."

I'm quickly coming to realize just how many people have a dim view of the masses yet all seem to think they aren't part of the ignorant majority. If that were true how would there even be a majority of ignorant people?

The things we do to justify our opinions.

I skipped seeing this movie until I could get the Pajiba take on it. The review and the comments are actually pushing me towards seeing it. I will go into it with my thinking cap off as instructed.

For some great historically valuable Greek histroy storytelling, check out the Mary Renault books. They are awesome.

ha ha "histroy" unintentionally awesome misspelling!

Indeed, 300 did give me a wargasm. The visual spectacle of the battles were one of the few times I can remember saying "Whoa" in a theater.

I feel sorry for all the people who came to see this movie and can not get past the stilted script or, god help us, perceived political overtones. If this ruins the movie for any of the men who went to see it, then you should probably turn in your testicles on the way out (or at least never see another film with any action in it) because there is no hope for you.

Kitsch, tacky, cheesy, ultra racist, morbidly violent, historically inaccurate and overall lame. A complete and utter disaster and a total waste of celluloid... I would only recommend it to action films hardcorest fans... People with half a brain or anyone who knows one thing or two about real cinema would do their self a favor skipping this one.
0 out of 0, and I'm being generous.

If you go into the theater without expecting too much and not buying into the fan fluff crap, it can pass as an ok action movie. But that's about it, folks.

No surprises here: The comic book was terrible, so it is the movie.
Next...

I think this movie has too many modern references to gain any merit. The persians are portrayed as savage people who are dominated by greed, sin, and corruption. This is no way to present one of the most vast and powerful empires in history. Xerxes is portrayed in a demeaning way as a hairless tyrant riding on a throne carried by slaves. Both armies fought very bravely and with much dignity but from 300 all one sees is how the west triumphs over evil from the east.

A friend of mine described "300" very accurately "the best looking turd in cinema's history". Completely spot on!
All in all, a movie to forget about.

LOL at the people who say this movie has no propaganda value. Newsflash:

1. Hollywood is a major propoganda tool and often works with and is funded by the military industrial complex. Just because the director lifted it from a comic book doesn't mean that it wasn't marketed and released at a key point in our history.

2. Those who describe the film as giving them a "wargasm" were the perfect target audience to respond to the film's obvious goal in instilling fervor and lust for waging war. Take off your Goebbel's reading glasses my friends, and take your heads out of the sand

Jesus H. Christ, this movie was awful. I was invited to see it with my friends last night and, having only glanced at Pajiba's headline and not read the review itself, assumed it was a simple gorefest done on a large budget; not my thing, but tolerable in light of the fact that I wanted to catch up with my friends.

How could I have been so foolish... when the credits rolled and I saw Frank Miller's name attached to the project, I felt betrayed; Maus and The Return of the Dark Knight were fantastic, so how did this happen?

As a female viewer, I was most offended by the narrative's attempt to gloss over its own ubiquitous and subtle sexism (I lost count of the number of times the act of being either female or homosexual was used as a perjorative or derogatory term) with a flimsy and poorly followed subplot about a woman speaking in the senate.

And while I'm on the topic of the Queen's speech to the Senate, was it commissioned by Dubya himself? If not, he should be paying the studios for that one (as if they needed it following the booty collected this weekend; it appears the studio's aim to appeal to the lowest common denominator was wildly successful).

I could sit here enumerating the many missteps taken throughout the film, but I fear the task would monopolize my entire day. How do you guys have the mental fortitude to continue to not only watch, but to revisit and analyze such terrible movies ad infinitum? That's not intended as a conceit, either; I'm being entirely serious. Kudos.

People, I have two children (and for two days out of the week a friend's infant) that I stay home with and a husband that works like 10 hours a day. At the end of the week after changing 200 diapers, cooking 50 meals, washing and folding 100 loads of laundry, do you really, honestly think I have the mental capacity for a movie with real plot, well thought out dialogue, and good characterization? Well, yes, but not until Sunday. Friday nights I'm wasted, and if all I want to do is look at some eye candy and indulge in my violent streak to let off some steam (Neverwinter Nights doesn't always cut it.) then this sound like the perfect movie.
If I want historical accuracy I'll rent the PBS documentary "The Spartans" which I only caught half of, and I'll go check out all the source material from Steven Pressfields book "Gates of Fire". Now THAT book would make for the kind of movie some of you wanted "300" to be.

Otherwise, get off my case for wanting to enjoy this.

"0 out of 0, and I'm being generous."

It is pretty generous to give a movie a perfect score, good on ya 'Pure Shit'

"Xerxes is portrayed in a demeaning way as a hairless tyrant riding on a throne carried by slaves."

In Herodotus, Xerxes is represented as the height of hubris. That would be one part of the movie that agreed with the source.

See also, Herodotus' portrayal of Cambyses.

" Hollywood is a major propoganda tool and often works with and is funded by the military industrial complex."

What the...are you living in a different reality?

Yeah, Hollywood is just a BASTION of conservative pro-Bush rhetoric, what with movies like Syriana and liberal actors like Clooney, Fonda, Sarandon, Jolie and all the fundraisers for pro-war candidates that take place on a consistent basis.

The way some people are trying to inject political commentary on a popcorn movie is hilarious, next they'll be telling us how Spiderman 3 is unpatriotic and anti-police because Parker doesn't have a badge!

Hey Becca, actually "Maus" was a graphic novel by Art Spiegelman, not Frank Miller... But anyway, I basically agree with you that Miller has hit a new low (even for a sell out and a total has been in the Comics field as himself)... "The Dark Knight Returns" days are long gone and he can't write a decent story to save his sorry ass anymore. Have you read its sequel "DK2"??? Forget about Al-Qaeda... THIS was the ultimate terrorist attack, if I ever saw one, man.
Zack Snyder is another useless hack director who would do a very good thing crawling under the rock he came from in the first place.

I went to see it yesterday and I felt robbed and pissed off. I want my money back!!!

This movie was worth every penny to see in the theatre. WOW. I don't think I have ever been so turned on by violence before in my life. It was like an orgy of blood and really buff men with a beautiful background.

Awesome entertainment. I miss movies that only set out to entertain. We've had enough of the touchy-feely look how deep I am crap. Give me a movie with guys swinging axes while wearing sandals and little else. Seriously, I could have watched this movie on mute and still enjoyed every single second of it.

I don't get the people that are pissed off about the movie. Did you not see the trailers? It makes no pretenses about what it is in any of its ads. Seems like you would have just stayed away from it to begin with and gone to see something else.

Its like the video game God of War (the sequel to which comes out tomorrow). So, if you went in expecting it to be anything more than visual stimulation, that was your bad. Not the movie's.

"...Give me a movie with guys swinging axes while wearing sandals and little else... Yadda yadda yadda".

Well, here we have the finest example of an exigent movie viewer if I ever saw one... Sigh!

LOVED this movie. I don't normally care for war movies or gore, but this was done very well. I can't believe I was watching heads roll and thinking "That's beautiful!" The colors and backgrounds were gorgeous sweeps of watercolor, the music added a little depth without taking over. Yes, there were plenty of over-the-top moments but they worked with the "honor, glory" wargasm moments. Pecs! lovely sights for my female friend and for her male friend, pretty boobies. We were in a theatre filled with Marines, mostly, and the whole crowd cheered, yelled, and had a blast. Best time I've had in a theatre in many many months.

It's ENTERTAINMENT, people. sheesh.

Not worth the fan fluff at all. Total bullcrap.

this movie was vastly disappointing. go read steven pressfield's book 'gates of fire'. way better.

was it me or was their a goat playing a guitar at one point in this movie????

"I went to see it yesterday and I felt robbed and pissed off. I want my money back!!!"

... So do I.

This fucking turd is an insult to intelligence. Snyder should be shot.

It sucked. I wasted 10 bucks on this shit.

I can't believe nobody noticed this and hate to be the grammar police but...

"And for a moment, it looks like the battle scenes will unfold with the some choppy look of Ridley Scott's film."

Shouldn't that say the "SAME" choppy look?

P.S.
I liked the movie- didn't notice any modern political references but then again, maybe being Canadian I'm not always thinking about Bush. I thought it was an awesome visual spectacle that needs to be seen on the big screen.

Barry,

You're absolutely correct- I've read Maus, but for some reason I thought that Frank Miller had a connection to it... I was also unaware that a DK2 existed, and I'm kind of sorry that I now know.

And here's another thing...

Presumably, a large portion of the audience already knew how the movie would end, and thus the burden rested on the characters (unless you really were in it for gore and flash and ironic in-your-faceism) to engage the audience. In this case, I struggle and ultimately was unable to invest myself in the shoddily-consructed strands of personal subplots, and for the life of me I found myself completely neutral towards almost every character; even the traitor who commits rape (I've forgotten names) seemed like a charicature of the bad guy, as opposed to a sleek, stylized villain a la other comic series turned movies.

The only character who mildly entertained me was Xirxes; the man was fierce in the eyeliner and had the charisma of a king so sorely lacking in... Lionitus? Oh, and I wanted the two young Spartan soldier-friends to make out; sadly, one died in battle and snuffed out any flicker of interest left in me.

OK, for real, that's pretty much it.

I saw this last night on our local IMAX screen, and while I thought it was a pleasant diversion, the dialogue was definitely awful. I prayed for Leonidas' tongue to be cut off in one of the battles so I wouldn't have to hear any more of his awful lines (no disrespect to Gerard Butler, who I believe did the best he could with what he was given). But overall, I found the visual effects and the battle choreography to be well worth the price of admission.

Absolutely A+++!!!

To many nit-picking, dictionary addicts on this site....leave that to D.R.! haha

GREAT movie. I thought Gerard Butler playing the king was spectacular. Outstanding acting and he really brought the movie to the next level.
Visually incredible!

As "Master Zen" says, the movie is "Visually incredible!"... The only problem is that it's a visually incredible piece of insufferable shit.
Worst movie of the year so far.

I'm pretty sure I meant caricature, but maybe I was making up words at the time... Seriously, I'm literate.

Don't bother folks. It's not worth your time and money.
Recommended for teenagers with anger management issues only.

Just wanted to stop in and say hey to everyone. Keep the discussion going, but know this: Ted, Larry, greg, Jennifer, Heather, Jake, Oh my gosh!, Jack Nance, Barry Lyndon, Pure shit, Wenworth Fagger, Coochie monster, 300 turds!!, Film Buff, It sucks., Conan the Bavarian, and Orson Wills are the same person: Same email, same IP.

Granted, the "Wenworth Fagger" name probably should have been a tip-off, but still. If you really hate or love a movie we review, try to stick with three or fewer names, folks. Repeat posting under dozens of names isn't going to do anything but, well, get me to out you. Gracias. -- D

oh, nice. Great way (Ted, Larry, greg, Jennifer et al) to present your opinion in an intelligent and thoughtful manner. Just spam the comments, yes? We know you didn't like the movie. Get over it and move on.

Wow. So nearly (not all, but NEARLY) every person in the comments slamming the movie is actually one person who felt invested enough into this movie that they spent their time coming up with separate identities in order to express his or her disappointment? Even more, this person quoted themselves, as if to offer some sort of reassurance that they weren't alone!

Color me impressed. Now I have to see this thing to a) spite this person for being such an annoying spammer, and b) see what kind of film could engender that much vitriol into a person.

with all that time wasted attacking a movie using so many impersonations you'd think it slept with his girlfriend or something.

It's not bad as long as you don't listen to the stupid dialogue and narration.

"The script is so atrocious that only bloodthirsty and retarded two-year-olds or adults with an IQ level below room temperature in an igloo can enjoy this brainless piece of shit..."

Ah, dearest 300 turds!!, I take some issue with your comment.

Let's see. I am neither bloodthirsty, nor am I two years old. Last time I checked, IQ stood for "intelligence quotient," and thus the term "IQ level" does not make sense grammatically. That said, having an IQ "below room temperature in an igloo" would clearly qualify one as "retarded," since I think the IQ cutoff for mental retardation is around 70 or 75, and the laws of science tell us that, be your system Fahrenheit or Celsius, 70 or 75 is going to be higher than the room temperature of an igloo. So your insult is not really an either/or statement, friend, unless you're choosing to differentiate between retarded two-year-olds and retarded adults. If that's the case, please pardon my grammatical nitpicking. But if you choose to deride the loving viewers of this film with such vigor, you could surely be more creative in your word choice, or at the very least, your sentence structure?

Next, I could choose to mention that I made a perfect score on my SAT, as well as four SAT II's, or perhaps that I'm about to graduate cum laude from an Ivy League university that is heralded as one of the top in the world. I could mention to you that I speak three languages fluently or that I was a top scorer on the national math exam for four years in a row. I could add to this that I am a dancer, actress, and that I run marathons (lest you think I am only an academic), but I think that none of these would make a difference. Given that you have gone to the effort of posting under not less than seventeen different names to detail your hatred of this movie, I think you would probably still lump me in with your so-called "brainless" masses because I enjoyed this movie for what it was.

Now, as far as the script goes--

First off, imk, thank you for bringing up Herodotus. For anyone who IS interested in the original historical account, I'd recommend picking up a copy of The History by Herodotus, translated by David Grene (especially if classical history is your thing). The battles of Salamis and Plataea (the latter being the battle briefly featured at the film's end, where Xerxes's army was finally defeated) occurred during Herodotus's childhood, when the Battle of Thermopylae was only just becoming the stuff of legend.

That said, the comments like "We can fight in the shade" and "Our weapons? Come and get them" were included in this account, as well as the hubris of Xerxes (thanks again to imk and Kolby for mentioning this). There was also a Greek traitor, Ephialtes, whose treachery led to the Spartan downfall. If memory serves, I don't think Herodotus mentions him being a hunchback, but again, let's not forget that this movie is Zack Snyder's adaptation of a Frank Miller *COMIC BOOK*. Thank you to everyone who has pointed that out so far, and to everyone who will do so again after I post. I could say more about this, but it's 3 AM and there are certainly other things I should be doing rather than posting on Pajiba.

"I'm quickly coming to realize just how many people have a dim view of the masses yet all seem to think they aren't part of the ignorant majority. If that were true how would there even be a majority of ignorant people?

Andrew831, I've really enjoyed and appreciated your comments in the fight against angry and often uninformed posters, and I thought this one was particularly great. How true! Keep fighting the good fight, and well-done on not having to resort to self-quoting under assorted aliases to get your point across. :)

P.S. webbkidd, I loved your comment, too. :) Props.

Hilarious how film critics become insta-historians when a film like this comes out. Locally, the critics are in a tizz about the leather Speedos.

I understand, though, the Greeks in this period went to war naked. Not completely, of course: helmet, sandals, maybe a cape for chilly nights. Just the essentials.

So the men in this movie are treated like pieces of meat. Now all we need is about 300,000,000 films like this, for the female pieces of meat to get even.

I'll say it... Gladiator sucked balls. And not in a good way.

It is a proven scholarly fact that the Persian Empire in 480 B.C was the most magnificent and civilized empire. Established by the Cyrus the great, the writer of the first human right declaration, Persians ruled over significant portions of Greater Iran, the east modern Afghanistan and beyond into central Asia; in the north and west all of Asia Minor (modern Turkey), the upper Balkans peninsula (Thrace), and most of the Black Sea coastal regions; in the west and southwest the territories of modern Iraq, northern Saudi-Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, all significant population centers of ancient Egypt and as far west as portions of Libya. Having twenty nations under control, encompassing approximately 7.5 million square kilometers, unquestionably the Achaemenid Empire was territorially the largest empire of classical antiquity.

Based on the Zoroastrian doctrine, it was the strong emphasis on honesty and integrity that gave the ancient Persians credibility to rule the world, even in the eyes of the people belonging to the conquered nations (Herodotus, mid 5th century B.C). Truth for the sake of truth, was the universal motto and the very core of the Persian culture that was followed not only by the great kings, but even the ordinary Persians made it a point to adhere to this code of conduct.

We did not expect Warner Bros. Picture company, as one of the world's largest producers of film and television entertainment to ignore the proven obvious historical facts, and damage its own reputation by showing the Persian army at the battle of Thermopylae as some monstrous savages, and thus create an atmosphere of public mistrust in its content, and hurt the national pride of the millions of Persians while doing so.

While announcing our disgust at such a heresy, we demand an immediate historical review and quick apology from the responsible people.

http://www.petitiononline.com/wpci96c/petition.html

It is a proven scholarly fact that the Persian Empire in 480 B.C was the most magnificent and civilized empire. Established by the Cyrus the great, the writer of the first human right declaration, Persians ruled over significant portions of Greater Iran, the east modern Afghanistan and beyond into central Asia; in the north and west all of Asia Minor (modern Turkey), the upper Balkans peninsula (Thrace), and most of the Black Sea coastal regions; in the west and southwest the territories of modern Iraq, northern Saudi-Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, all significant population centers of ancient Egypt and as far west as portions of Libya. Having twenty nations under control, encompassing approximately 7.5 million square kilometers, unquestionably the Achaemenid Empire was territorially the largest empire of classical antiquity.

Based on the Zoroastrian doctrine, it was the strong emphasis on honesty and integrity that gave the ancient Persians credibility to rule the world, even in the eyes of the people belonging to the conquered nations (Herodotus, mid 5th century B.C). Truth for the sake of truth, was the universal motto and the very core of the Persian culture that was followed not only by the great kings, but even the ordinary Persians made it a point to adhere to this code of conduct.

We did not expect Warner Bros. Picture company, as one of the world's largest producers of film and television entertainment to ignore the proven obvious historical facts, and damage its own reputation by showing the Persian army at the battle of Thermopylae as some monstrous savages, and thus create an atmosphere of public mistrust in its content, and hurt the national pride of the millions of Persians while doing so.

While announcing our disgust at such a heresy, we demand an immediate historical review and quick apology from the responsible people.

http://www.petitiononline.com/wpci96c/petition.html

I'm confused Sodagar, why would they need to do a historical review of a movie based on a comic book?

The behavior of Xerxes reflected little on the greatness of Cyrus. Cyrus = good (just ask the Jews). Alexander the Great refurbished the tomb of Cyrus at his own expense when he conquered Persia. There was plenty of respect there.

Regardless of time,place and religion, absolute rulers usually don't feel any strong need to adhere to religious doctrine. Why would Zoroastrian rulers be any different?

Once again, people seem to be making too much of this, including me probably. I'm just happy for the opportunity to show people that I actually read books every now and then.

Considering the word 'Spartan' means simple, frugal, or austere, I can imaging them warring naked.

Wait... I think I just had another wargasm....

I liked it even though Gerard Butler's shouting was a bit much. My husband has vowed to go to the gym.

"I'm confused Sodagar, why would they need to do a historical review of a movie based on a comic book?"

Artistic license is not a license to kill.
The facts are that we are at war, and this war is framed as a clash of civilizations. The further fact is that the media subtly and not so subtly frames the enemy as uncivilized and worthy of destruction so as to preserve our inherent superiority. This is our national narrative, a narrative of noble empire-- every dead insurgent and destroyed building is one step closer to freedom.

A war movie made during wartime is relevant no matter the intent of the filmmaker. That this war movie glorifies violence, the beauty of murder, so that the audience can experience a collective wargasm without guilt is all the more suspect. The enemy is made savage so that their blood is spilt shamelessly.

300 is propoganda and it is pornography. Marines are seeing the movie in groups so as to get motivated to deploy. It is an innoculation against the true nature of brutality, dulling the senses and apologizing for an atmosphere that has contributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths and catastrophic injuries along with the legions of the mentally scarred veterans who expect Thermopylae and find hell instead.

"300 is propoganda and it is pornography. Marines are seeing the movie in groups so as to get motivated to deploy. It is an innoculation against the true nature of brutality, dulling the senses and apologizing for an atmosphere that has contributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths and catastrophic injuries along with the legions of the mentally scarred veterans who expect Thermopylae and find hell instead."

lmao yep I saw this movie and now I'm all rooting for Bush and thinking we should bomb Iran. I mean look at Bush's approval ratings and polls on the war since this film came up, they are up!

I'm telling you we're only one Rambo flick away from World War III just you wait beware the evil popcorn flick!

I'm surprised no one's said it yet. So I will. This movie was about nipples. Nipples nipples nipples nipples, it should have been called "600."

I'm not sure there was a character in it whose nipples we DIDN'T see, in fact, so probably "650" or "700" would be a more accurate count. Not since "Batman Forever" have the nipples been so prominently displayed. I don't have much of an opinion about the nipples themselves, really, except that they're getting a lot more air in this movie than they typically do.

Everybody's got 'em. Watch it again! Try to look away!!

"Now that you mention it, the one thing I found jarring was that all the Spartans had perfect white teeth. Oh, and the minotaur. Yes, there was a minotaur, though sadly he was not riding a rhino"

My boyfriend asked "so do you think the Spartans really kept their pecs so nicely waxed?" not that I minded...
I thought the film was amazing visually, and energetic but the dialogue really was atrocious and cheesy. the "the movie isn't suppossed to have deep dialogue, what were you expecting, blah blah blah" argument is a weak one because some of the dialogue was bad enough to be distracting, ESPECIALLY the narration about the wolf. that beginning dialogue made me apprhensive about how good the movie could be because it was so awful.
some of the characters were a little over the top too...its like the director was torn between making it fairly historically accurate and using CGI/comic drawings as much as possible
its a good action movie about an interesting topic, but thats about it. The Pajiba review sums it perfectly

oh, shut up Sodagar. no one cares about your persian imperialist excuses.

ps. do you really think someone will watch a film about ancient persians and equate them with contemporary persians (iranians)?

if you do, you're an idiot.

"The facts are that we are at war, and this war is framed as a clash of civilizations. The further fact is that the media subtly and not so subtly frames the enemy as uncivilized and worthy of destruction so as to preserve our inherent superiority. This is our national narrative, a narrative of noble empire-- every dead insurgent and destroyed building is one step closer to freedom."

But, this makes no sense in the context of the movie. The Spartans were obviously the insurgents. And in the context of the movie every dead insurgent meant being one step closer to a loss of freedom.

Wait, have you seen the movie yet?

all you haters out there thinking your getting paid to review a film everyone is going to have their own views on this movie but i thought it kicked ass and when is any movie made now right on target with history because even Troy with brad pitt wasnt dead on so everyone can shut their mouths who hate htis movie and say dont spend your money because it made 70+ million in the first weekend i think that silences all you haters that need to get ur fatass in gyms and stop tryin to be a film critic...and who cares about the comic book X-men 3 wasnt true either you wanna cry about that one 2 grow up

I liked it even though Gerard Butler's shouting was a bit much. My husband has vowed to go to the gym.

Ha! And I hope that you reap the rewards, Rose. I really do.

I thought the film was amazing visually, and energetic but the dialogue really was atrocious and cheesy. the "the movie isn't suppossed to have deep dialogue, what were you expecting, blah blah blah" argument is a weak one because some of the dialogue was bad enough to be distracting,

I don't understand this - there was plenty of bad dialogue just in the trailer. I may change my tune after seeing it, but it's unrealistic to expect something different when it would appear that the advertising for the movie has no false pretenses (which is becoming rare, these days). Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but all of this talk about lack of character depth or bad dialogue, historical accuracy, and political metaphors is....just not what I expected to read regarding a movie that was obviously, clearly, no bones about it "fluff." Cheese and crackers, people. Don't you have a headache from all of the overthinking?

Anyhoo, much as I appreciate getting to ogle the men, I do not wish to see a flurry of similar movies follow this. Once a year will suffice, just to give me my Adonis fix. Thanks in advance, Hollywood.

"I don't understand this - there was plenty of bad dialogue just in the trailer."
I wasn't expecting great dialogue, or even above average dialogue from the trailer. I was expecting lots of shouting, mostly. maybe "bad narration" would be more clear? the wolf narration really made me absolutely cringe, and any time the narrator started up I would just roll my eyes. I found most of the "WE ARE SPARTANS!! WE ARE MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN!" pretty appropirate and wasn't bothered by it at all, but its actually when the movie TRIED to have more serious dialogue (and not be testerone pumped "fluff") that it was so cringe inducing.

all you haters out there thinking your getting paid to review a film everyone is going to have their own views on this movie but i thought it kicked ass and when is any movie made now right on target with history because even Troy with brad pitt wasnt dead on so everyone can shut their mouths who hate htis movie and say dont spend your money because it made 70+ million in the first weekend i think that silences all you haters that need to get ur fatass in gyms and stop tryin to be a film critic...and who cares about the comic book X-men 3 wasnt true either you wanna cry about that one 2 grow up

Posted by: Colby at March 13, 2007 6:24 PM

on the news some analyst was talking about the ticket sale records 300 broke and mentioned that 70 million might have been an under projection since a lot of "young teenage boys" may have bought tickets to PG-13 movies and snuck into it. I guess he was right. they really should enforce movies better.

Jeez, you people need to stop looking so deeply into movies. Its an action movie. No message. No political commentary. Everyone is making up stuff and claiming it to be true. I saw someone say that historians went to see the movie with the director. Seriously. Why would they do that? The movie has nothing to do with trying to retell history. Its just entertainment. It's like a star trek episode where they went back in time to world war 2, did any of you poindexters get all anal and scream, "My god in heaven, golly gee jeepers, that never happened, shame on artistic license!"? No, you didnt. Stop criticizing people for taking creative control in works of fiction very, very loosely based on a small event that happened thousands of years ago. Get a life. It's fiction, i.e., not real. Its not a documentary. Its an action movie designed to rake in the eary summer blockbuster bucks. Thats all. Man, i'd love to meet just one of you in real life. I really want to see what some of you morons look like. Heh. Racial undertones, political overtones. Since when was being patriotic a solely american thing? Love for ones country seems to have been the reason for a lot of wars. If they didnt care, they wouldnt have fought.

but its actually when the movie TRIED to have more serious dialogue (and not be testerone pumped "fluff") that it was so cringe inducing.
LOL. I see your point.

even the tagline on the poster was pretty bad.

"Prepare for Glory!"

In my head it registered as "Prepare for Suck!"

Yeah, dialogue is not this movie's friend...

It's amazing to me how many people come out of the woodwork to find flaws and insult this movie the very instant they find out how well it's doing at the box office.

I almost feel bad for the huge amount of success; suddenly everyone finds all kinds of things wrong with it, for little good reason.

Here's a tip: stop bringing so many expectations into your viewing of a film. Let it be what it is. 300 shouldn't be reviewed as a moving, deep and meaningful bioepic, because it's not trying at all to be that.

It's an amusing (honestly, the only laughter I heard was good-natured, and in jest, laughing *with* the characters), wild and crazy romp through bloodshed and war. If you want to see a movie to have fun, get away for a while, and have an awesome time at the theatre, see this movie.

And Daniel, thanks for the heads up ;)

Everyone drawing a political conclusion from this movie needs to give it a rest. There are only two more years. Calm the fuck down. Enjoy the spectacle. And Lena Headey's breasts (a welcome surprise, at least, for me).

And one more thing -

We all know the story. This should not be your first encounter with the Spartans or the Battle of Thermopylae. If it is, don't be disappointed. It's a fictionalized account of the battle. If you attended a screening of this movie and actually sought a historically accurate perspective... well I don't really know what to say. You probably need more friends.

i have seen this movie twice and i can say that it is the worst mov ha ha ha ha i couldnt even get throught that without laughing i loved this movie all you people (er i guess 1 person really) telling me to save my money its my money and my opinion the dialouge was cheesy and i loved it the action was so over the top i saw it twice the only thing i didnt like was the wife but hey her ending made me enjoy it again.

p.s. i plan on seeing it many more times and buying the dvd when it comes out

I saw someone say that historians went to see the movie with the director. Seriously. Why would they do that?

Yeah, I said that. I went back and read that article - never rely solely on your memory, kids. Reread your sources. ;-) He apparently showed part of it to a historian who specializes on Sparta, there weren't any present at the screening. As to why he did that...buddy, if I could read minds or had a crystal ball I can tell you I wouldn't be in front of my computer commenting on this post. I'd be somewhere away from civilization where stupid people like the commenter with multiple personalities couldn't take up my mental space.

On your other points, I'm with you. When did people stop have a sense of humor and forget how to have a bit of fun? If some people get this worked up over a damned movie, they must have a fucking coronary when real injustice happens.

Wow - I've never seem this many comments for a movie before. I saw this at the Irish Film Festival a few weeks ago and I've been waiting for it to be featured here. I loved it like I haven't loved a movie in a very long time. In fact I came close to giving up on going to the cinema at all recently I was so dissapointed with what was coming out. This totally renewed my fate in what can be done with films. I was a big fan of the novel already (I even have two copies - one for me and one for letting other people get their dirty paws all over) and the story of Thermopylae is my favourite story from ancient military history.

What pisses me off is people insisting on contemporary political messages in a story that happened thousands of years ago. I was so happy when I first read how Snyder was not making any points about the modern world with ihs film. This movie was purely for fun and thats how it should be watched. Sure, the history is a bit off - 5000 Greek allies? Uh yeah, sure they were in there somewhere - but this is what you want the story to be. It gave me everything I went in to the cinema for and I can't wait for it to come out on general release over here so I can go see it again with my friends and see what they think.

Salieri2 wins the thread.

Uncool, Salieri2. Now when I see the film, I won't be able to concentrate on anything for the nipples.

Thanks a lot, pal, really.

looking forward to seeing this movie....just for the pecs alone.....or nipples....or pecs. Maybe the historical signifigance? Nah, the pecs.

and, um, Colby? Punctuation is your friend.

I saw this movie Tuesday, and I enjoyed the hell out of it. I'm a 25 year old female, so a lot of my enjoyment had to do with all the good-looking-nearly-naked men running around. But I also had the "wargasm" experience (thank you to whomever coined that term--it's very apt!)

I know that this is never going to appear on a list of "BEST MOVIES OF THE 21ST CENTURY!" nor will it be winning any awards for stunning dialogue. That being said, it was fun. It was great to sit in the theater and watch the movie and throw some popcorn around and giggle (along with every else in the place) every time Xerxes jingled on-screen (sidenote: while I don't think the director was going for any kind of racist, xenophobic, or homophobic message, the stylistic choices re: Xerxes could have been much better) and ooh and ahhh over the battle scenes. It was like two hours of the battle of Helm's Deep but with out all the whining Frodo bits.

Don't read too much into it. If you can take off your historical-accuracy-political-agenda hat and watch it for pure entertainment, you might love it. If you don't think you can do that, then by all means save your money and go see something else.

The crazy white teeth!! That is what stands out for me about this plodding yet visually interesting movie.
Overall, I would prefer to see Sin City again.
Now where can I get teeth and abs like those Spartans?

Historical inaccuracies!?!?

From a comic book?!?!

OH NOESS1!!!1!!1one11!

I enjoyed this movie, and took it as pure fluff and fun.

However, even with that expectation and result, this movie had a strange effect on me. While having the obligatory post-viewing discussion with my friends, I had several mini-epiphanies about the film industry. So much so I was compelled to record them.

A little late to the game, but I come forth bearing my first ever Pajiba comments post!! (You have to imagine my incredibly large and imposing white teeth while I say that).

1) So, I think I've figured out the strange gratuitous boobery (and I ain't talking about the sidekicks) that goes on in action movies. First quarter of the film had some very pointed (pun intended) T&A, so much so that it was a little jarring. I imagine the Hollywood Exec thought process went a little like this--

"Man, this movie is going to make major bank. We've got blood and guts and more blood and machismo and death and we take a couple swipes at gays. We are GOLDEN. Hrm...there are a lot of half nekkid guys in this. They seem to be half nekkid from the get-go. My internal alarm is going off! We don't have a proper fight scene until ALMOST 20 WHOLE MINUTES into the movie. American men will flee in abject heterosexual terror if we expose them to that much oiled pectoral and ripped abdominus rectus with no blood or phallic weaponry involved! I've got to call the boys and we have to splice in some sex-n-breasts-n-sex-stuff. Let's see...20 minutes before fight, divided by number of shirtless men with better physiques than the average American male, to the power of homophobia in Alabama....means we need to put 17 nipple shots to compensate. Phew! Glad we had some nip shots by the second unit! Movie is SAVED!"

2) Beefcake.

3) In any movie a man MAY POSSIBLY go to, there is always at least one female with an incredible body in a nude or revealing outfit. Now, if you're a female who wan