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.

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.

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.

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*

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.

("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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

"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".

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.

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.

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....

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

"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.

ha ha "histroy" unintentionally awesome misspelling!

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.

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

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.

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.

"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'

" 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!

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

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.

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.

Not worth the fan fluff at all. Total bullcrap.

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

... So do I.

It sucked. I wasted 10 bucks on this shit.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

"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.

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

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.

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

"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!

"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

"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?

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.

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.

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.

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 ;)

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 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.

Salieri2 wins the thread.

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.

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?

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 wants to see some ripped mens, you have to go to gladiator/war/violent "dude" movies to see some skin. Without going into the homoerotic subtext that lures in the average American man ("Do you like Gladiator movies, Billy?"), why can't they make flicks with handsome shirtless dudes for girls? Is there really not a market? I might believe that, with the paucity of male strip clubs vice the plethora of female clubs. Maybe chicks just aren't that into the nude male form. Not just for gratuitous viewing, at any rate.

But maybe they don't know these movies are out there. I like action flicks, so I happen to have seen lots of these. It took me awhile to notice the trend. But how come Brad Pitt's potentially awesome physique isn't on display in movies catered to women?

Remember that scene in Working Girl where Harrison Ford changed his shirt and the whole office applauded? Well, so did I, from the comfort of my couch. Just saying...

3) I don't think the actors playing the Spartans were faking their aggression. But I think what came across as bloodlust was really food lust. There were like 20 to 30 guys, in loincloths and helmets, with 8 packs and separated pecs and wicked thigh muscles.

All those bitches were on the supermodel diet. Nary an ounce of fat in site. Trust me, I looked. Real hard. A lot. I might even have to go back and check again, just to be sure I'm reporting accurately.

I'm thinking the director prepped the fight scenes with some strategery in mind: "Ok, fellas. I know you've all been working hard. And I know you haven't had anything to eat but egg whites mixed with whey protein for the last 12 weeks. We're going to shoot this fight scene with the Persians. And I just want you all to know, that behind those extras in the Persian costumes, we have an all you can buffett of hamburgers. Can you smell that? Onion rings, too! Now, when I yell 'Action,' UNLEASH HELL!"

Bet those damn extras never knew what hit em.

4) Beefcake.

5) Damn, that Scotsman had these insane white comic book teeth. It's hard to describe, but you comic readers will know what I mean when you see it. I kept on checking to see if he had an underbite.

6) Thinking about showing up for my next staff meeting or Chemistry test in a loincloth and helmet.

"Fellow Chem students, tonight we dine ON SCIENTIFIC NOTATION. ARRR!"

I oppose moving the New Hire/Birthday Social to Wednesday. I booked that conference room for Tuesday, and will not bow down to another's conflicting conferecne room needs. THIS IS SPARTA! ARRRRRR!"

7) Beefcake. Fo reals, yo.

8) In conclusion: ARRRRRR!

Having always been a student of Greek history and listing my visits to the Acropolis, Marathon and Thermopylae as highlights of my travel I was interested in seeing this movie. I have the original 300 Spartans film and watch it twice a year, minimum. I also read Frank's graphic novel (puhleeeze - not a comic book!) and found the parallels to history pretty astonishing for the medium. Interesting that so many of the posts focus on supposed inaccuracies and the historical deficiencies of the Spartans. Interestinly enough, with the exception of the misquoting of the Oracle (she actually stated that either Sparta would fall or one of the great kings, descendant of Hercules, would die) and the obvious SF transformation of some of the main characters, it was relatively accurate. In fact, Leonidas led his Spartans and another 5,000 or so Greek troops to Thermopylae because the Olympic Games were underway and it was a violation of law in every city state to battle during the games. Whether you like Spartan politics or not, the bravery and ferocity of their soldiers is legend. They literally decimated the first charge of 10,000 with losses totaling less than 10 Greeks. If you want to read more about this, I would suggest a visit to Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae
The site has an excellent summation of the historical evidence surrounding the actual battle. But I digress - this is a movie set in a time when honor, bravery and ferocity were held higher than political correctness. It also has incredible cinematography, acting and sets - I'm going to go back to see it at the IMAX!

Horrible. Watching this, I was embarrassed for the human race.

I think any portrayal perpetuating a truly incredible historical event should be applauded, to visit the pass is is truly moving, even though now it is about 2 miles wide.
It has been defended many times throughout history the last time during the 2nd world war against the germans a minor action

Anyone expecting historical accuracy when it's based on a graphic novel needs their head checked.

hmm...

Please go kill yourself.

Once again I start a post with the statement
"I'm confused" Yes, there are allot of posts, but if you are going to take the time add your opinion, might it be a good idea to read the prior posts? I'm new to this particular forum, but the others that I frequent would condemn those that post without reading what was already posted as being morons.

Why WOULD it be Historically accurate? It was shown from the perspective of someone telling others his experience with the battle. The speaker is not going to speak of his soldiers as being wimpy ugly people. As far as the Asians being shown as "had deformed monstrous looking faces" is it possible that they had never seen anyone of Asian descent and was shocked by the appearance and was not able to communicate an accurate impression of them while trying to fire up the troops? My Grandfather would tell stories of how the Vietnamese were shocked when they first saw their first African-American soldier and would take steal wool to them, trying to scrub off the color.
I do not believe offence was intended.

In ANCIENT times most Persians were indeed BLACK. As were the Egyptians, Israelites, Hittites, Hebrews, Canannites, et al. Except of course the Romans, Greeks, other Europeans, Most Asians, etc. Most of them were NOT black.

Black,
Nope. Not even close. In fact, a large part of Xerxes' army would have been taken from the Ionian coast of modern Turkey. Not only were they white, but they were Greeks of the same stock as the Athenians. Israelis,Canaanites were Semitic peoples. The Hittites had long since faded into history at that point. Egyptians ran the gamut between white to Nubian.
Prior to Xerxes' rule, Cambyses tried to invade Ethiopia (Modern Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea) and lost his entire army before even getting close. There would have been very few "black" people as we would call them in his army as the Persians never managed to conquer a country that was primarily peopled by "blacks".
Once again, it's all there in Herodotus. Hell, there is a copy of it on the site that Saeed posted somewhere as it has quite a bit of Persian history in it. It's a good read.

The movie plays out the exact same as the graphic novel. Why isn't anyone bashing Frank Miller and the comic and instead berating this movie as propaganda? Had the movie come out six years ago, do you honestly think there would be this kind of response? It's all in relation to the time of its release.

300 was great. Its target isn't any of you loathing "wannabe historians"; its target is people who want to stray away from the ordinary and the monotonous thing they call their lives and escape to a fictional world even for just an hour or two.
You guys got a problem with historical inaccuracy. It's called historical fiction. They get some pieces of information, add their own twist to it, and place it back together. Sure, it is offensive to many in more ways than one. . . But it only looks that way because people WANT to look at it that way. If you really want to make a good review, then consult the director of the film about how he envisioned the film to be, about who he really is comparing a character to any modern day person, if any. If you consult the maker, then and only then can you talk shit about what he did. . . Otherwise. . . Shut the hell up!

The dialog was so stupid. It was completely xenophobic, homophobic, and just plain ignorant and on top of it- BORING!!! Thank god it looked good because that was the only thing that kept me awake. There was no drama (all stories were already set up) and the Persians didn't even seem to be able to fight, and what was with that bad drag queen look?!? So stupid. I think the filmmakers are a little sick in the head about "alternative cultures" in fact they would probably advocate killing people who aren't beautiful!! Everyone of any ethnicity besides Scottish (they sounded Scottish) were bad or weak. But it was so stupid that I hate even writing anything about it. I thought story line of bringing in more troops PURE propaganda and I hope the rest of the country doesn't buy into this ignoramus piece of crap of a film (besides the cool post production work). Thank god that I had free passes so I didn't have to pay for it!! Zynder, the filmmaker should read more books, or get crippled, and see how it feels or live in a fat suit for awhile, and see how it feels to get discriminated against due to your physical appearances.

The movie is a reincarnation of braveheart with a bad plot and unrealistic battle scenarios. However, knowing that it was based on a comic, thats not surprising. The spartens are shown as supermans of the movie.
I must add that this movie tries to replicate braveheart. Although the graphics are dazzling, it doesnt do a good job at connecting with the viewer. Just shows the spartans as a group of brainless fighters commiting a suicide attemp if you ask me.

As far as historical accuracy, this movie is completly fabricated. The director almost goes out of his way not to represent the story based on real facts. Everything persian in the movie is fabricated, right down to clothes. There are demons, monsters and flying monkeys( there should have been). Its like watching Braveheart meets Lord of the Rings.

Lots of criticism out there about this movie. It does touch a racist nerve with the sensitive crowd. I am more surprised to read comments like " If it wasnt for the 300 spartens, we would all be slaves to the persians"
Two important facts were not mentioned about this battle

1- There were more Greeks fighting on the Persian side than Greeks fighting for Greece. They were not united and many greeks sided with the persians for various reasons at the time.

2- A big fleet from Athen was battling the persians at the time aswell. furthermore there were about 7000 spartens rotating at the gates not 300.

Xerxes went on to conquer Athens after this battle and succeded. A year later it fell back to the greeks in another battle. So the spartens didnt realy accomplish much aside from a fairytale that made $70 million 2500 years later and left some people wanting there 12 bucks back.

suggest u all go do ur history of the whole battle and all before u go crying "ur picking on us"...

last time i checked the Persian's tryed to overtake them and got held off by the 300 spartans (and really 7,000 other greeks that came to fight with them)...

u cryin that the Persian's are shown as "the bad guys"... b/c u were in real life also!

if u go do ur research, u will find out that really it was not that badly based off of history
(cept it is beleived that the spartan king was killed early in the fighting and they were pretty much fighting each other to recover his body)

if u go do ur history lessons, u will learn that the greeks did join up together and made the Persian's run away and the greeks chased after them for years and pretty much killed them off

as for the color of there skin? who was around about 3,000 years ago? so how can u claim there color of there skin? fucking retards! people do move around, and countrys change... if u dont know how the countrys were set up then, suggest u dont go talking...

ddj,

Try History 102 dude, Xerxes wasn't killed, he went back to Asia (where he was killed over something fairly stupid, iirc).

Although I can't say I find the historical inaccuracies of this film particularly disturbing, I am disturbed by the various stereotypes I think it is a proponent of. Irregardless of what apolitical intentions Zack Snyder had, it doesn't take a very critical eye to read the text of this film as homophobic, sexist, xenophobic, and pro-war. Not that this is something new in Hollywood; I just find it interesting that people are getting so up and arms about a piece that's possibly even more blatantly problematic than a lot of what our film industry produces, particularly given the current political climate of the nation.

One could argue that it is just meaningless entertainment, but I'd be hesitant to call any entertainment meaningless. Both the debatably "apolitical" content of 300 and its massive popularity seem to reflect rather grimly on American consumers and their tastes. Is it possible that people don't see the film as offensive because they generally agree with the stereotypes it incorporates into the physicality and psychology of its characters? Even the possibility that this is the case disturbs me beyond description.

Don't drink and versify, kiddies--naturally, "Peloponnesian" should be replaced with "Thermopylean" in line 1 (how's that for "historical accuracy", huh?).

Word to everyone who hated the narration. There is absolutely no need to tell me something so unimportant as how many men it took to drag a grieving warrior away, when I can see for my own self just how many men it's taking if I'm really concerned about it. The clunkiness of it was so irritating by the end that it was taking me out of enjoying the movie (which I really did), because I don't think there's a viewer quite stupid enough to have missed the miniscule amount of "subtext" in the movie even without the narrator.

Gina , what kinda drugs are you on ?

The part about borderline unintentional comedy was spot on. I could not take this movie seriously -- more than a few laughs slipped out of me in the theater. Oops.

Just wanted to point out to Curious that you completely misread Gina's comment.
She specifically says "This has been true in literature/storytelling" not real life.
She isn't saying ugly people are weaker or worse, but it is often the way of storytelling to cast things in their most dramatic/simplistic light.
Battle stories were often used as motivating propaganda. Read some of the early Celtic battle tales if you really want some great blood stirring bombast! (love that word, glad it has made a comeback. Now to re-launch 'forsooth')

Snyder's action sequences are shot like a Michael Bay film on acid. But instead of overusing MTV style fast cuts, Snyder makes use of long steadicam and dolly shots which allow you to see the choreographed action unfold like never before. Over-saturated imagery mixed with innovative slow motion effects, make for an incredibly innovative experience. Blood splatters across the screen like a Jackson Pollock painting.

300 plays like a cinematic video game. To see the Spartan's fight is badass, to see Spartan's talk is boring.

One can also see comparisons to modern day politics. The king goes to war without legal approval, leading to the loss of many lives. He believes it is okay to break laws in the course of freedom. There is talk about how Freedom comes at the cost of blood. Of Course, much of the film was directly adapted from the graphic novel which was released in 1998, years before the Bush administration entered office. A subplot added to the film involves a sequence which reveals on of the characters who is verbally against the war to be an outright traitor. It's obviously hard not to draw comparisons, intended or not.
300 also might be the most sexist and testosterone filled piece of America cinema in the last few years. One sequence involves a full on lesbian orgy. At one point the lead character (the protagonist) passive aggressively bashes a gay culture. Leonidas has little to no qualities for children to look up to. The main villain is a drag queen.

The characters, with exception of the minor relationship subplot between the Captain and his son, are unsympathetic and uninteresting. When the Spartans die in battle, you just don't care. The film instead celebrates the bloodshed but not meaning. There is a little to love, but much to hate.

The movie is stuffed full of two dimensional values that will no doubt appeal to the lowest common denominator.

http://www.payvand.com/news/07/mar/African-levy-Achaemenid.jpg

This is the link that got missed out from the above post

Its a DUMB movie, with dumb overly fictional fighting scenes, a dumb script, cheesy acting, impresive yet already done to death visual effects, dumb historic relivance and its based on a DUMB comic book written by a Dumbass....Frank Miller is a DUMB closet nazi with Homosexual tendencies....
Waste of my TIMe....just because its fiction dont mean it has to be empty of a single drop of reality....
its suitable for a 9 year olds brain....or your avergae joe american i guess...haha