It's funny how you guys hate on it because they were killing the Persians too easy... but do you not realize that these were probably the greatest warriors of ALL TIME and their fighting form and strategy were the greatest ideas of all time.

Dude... You're not helping.

Anyways, having seen it again tonight, I'd argue there's somewhat more depth to the film than is being accounted for, particularly in the sounds. When Dominic West speaks to Gorgo, you can make out in the distance the same wolf howls that were in the opening. It's not one of the best movies ever made, but it's not one of the most shallow either.

I saw this film twice its opening weekend, and I plan on seeing it again some time next week. It is one of the best films of the Decade, and easily the most BAD ASS film since Predator.

A

Shift of opinion? They are just coming out of their usual holes in the ground.

i was the first to say it. the film has depth. specially in its visual ques.

Where oh where is Bradley's review here?Im fully expecting a 2/10 from him here

Clearly, 300 isn't all visuals and no substance, and I sincerely doubt anybody claimed that it was while proclaiming it to be the greatest movie of all time (at least I hope not - I didn't read all the reviews here). Generally movies that do fit that bill - things like UltraViolet and Aeon Flux - flop miserably.

I do think that 300 placed an emphasis on visuals, but that's not to say it was completely without substance or merit in any other department. There are a handful of movies I like that have a heavy visual style - such as 300, Sin City, Underworld, and the Matrix.

I enjoy a variety in my cinema - sometimes I enjoy a visual laden flick (like the aforementioned ones), and there are times I like movies that are heavy in substance and light on flare. Ditto for comedies... I can find myself enjoying a completely juvenile and mindless movie, or one that has more class and refinement.

I guess what I'm saying is that it takes all kinds of cinema to make the world go around. This may not be your cup of tea, but it's hardly a movie that smacks of impending doom for all of cinema and the entire art world.

That constitutes "depth"? Really? Really?

Maybe not, but I've seen very similar examples used by posters and professional reviewers to talk about a film's layers. As many others have said this isn't anything but big brash entertainment, but I'd give it more credit then say The Marine.

<object><param></param><param></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_IN04nnRfFw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

I gave it A-

Very entertaining movie

Well it's not the best film I'm likely to see this year and in parts it feels completely unsure of what it's trying to do but while it lasts 300 is a cracking chest thumping ride.

I'm definetly going to go with Arsi's assertion that this film is loaded with visual symbolism and double meaning. Every scene seemed to drip with the stuff. Everything from the actual landscape resembling a vulture whenever the Hunchback appeared in distance to the evocation of the Mongolian destruction of Harat and Kiev and its Grecian parallel with the mountains of skulls and walls of bodies which litter the movie. And of course there was the more blatant nods like Xerxes looking like a freakish cross between a WWE wrestler and a well spoken Englishman, and the link between deformity and treachery seen in the Oracle's and Xerses tent. (Admittedly every movie has symbolism if your deranged enough to insist on it, hell I could make a case for the original American Pie movie being a prophetic warning about the Iraq war if I was so inclined, but again I'd run into the deranged problem)

Indeed the very idea that anybody could just call this movie shallow is erroneous to me, granted Yoshue is allowed because that lad would find fault in the 2nd coming of Christ (I love ya anyways Yoshue ya hyper-critical loon) but anybody else? Van Wilder is Shallow, Click is shallow, 300 isn't shallow. In fact I can pretty much guarantee if Snyder and Miller came out with a movie depicting the Mongolian destruction of Islamic Caliph in the 11th century people would probably just default to calling it shallow without even bothering to look at the real history behind it which in a manner mirrors the primal yet calculated fury of the real battle of Thermopylae, of which 300 does a pretty decent if exaggerated job of depicting. Althou its decision to ignore the Athenian contribution was a tad irksome.

It seems whenever people see brutal single minded violence they just immediately think shallow, I consider this a failure in the persons ability to think outside their own moralistic and societal framework. In short 300 ain't shallow, 300 is just 300.

Anyways I've blathered on about nonsense only vaguely related to the movie for long enough time to give my 2 cents from a cinematic viewpoint.

I loved all the battle sequences, yes there is a mass of slow motion shots but they never got irritating at any point, if anything they help highlight the synchronism of the Spartan's (in several of the scenes I noted them mirroring each others movements to a tee). Admittedly I'd have liked the Rhino/Massive Elephants to be more then cameo's but the Persian elite guard which looked like they'd walked straight in off the set of Chronicles of Riddick were a nice macabre touch.

The scene's cutting back to Sparta were a bit of a clunking mess however. I can see what Snyder was trying to do but at no point did it flow very well, at times it was like the characters were just reading off a PowerPoint presentation. This is definetly one area where a film like Gladiator did a better job.

A bit of a side note but during the first encounter between Xerses and Leonidas I was full sure Xerses was going to offer him a steamy session of lovemaking to smooth over the whole Killee Killee Stabee Stabee problem. Xerses's insanely refined voice and those massive hands on Leonidas's shoulders really did have me thinking he was going to say "lets go back to my opulent tent full of Goatmen and armless women and make with the sexy time". For some reason I was disappointed when that didn't happened, it would have be quite the memorable scene.

Speaking of the Goatman thingy, WTF!!! I read you lot mentioning it in this thread but I still got a bit of a jolt when it appeared, I'm all for symbolism but Goatman was way to much.

The overall style gets a general thumbs up from me, everything seems to happen in a dusk glow althou the lack of variety from the muddy yet golden view was a slight minus point.

I was amazed that there was an actual funny moment in this, the scene with Leonidas eating an Apple and the Spartan's casually going through the wounded finishing them off while they pleaded for mercy was very comical in a macabre sense. I'm I a sick bastard for finding that funny?

300 confirmed the historical movies love of flowing cornfield's, what a boring diet they must have had.

Nice to see Emperor Palpatine is still getting work, this time as the freaky mountaintop Oracle's.

It's tricky movie to grade thou, because 70% works brilliantly while the rest is a drag, but then most movie's today would be more then happy with that level.


B+

Ian McDiarmid is in the movie?

Nah, the Oracle's just look exactly like the Emperor from Star Wars.

B+

I agree with the general sentiment that it delivers exactly what it promised. I also with agree with a bit of bABA's and Gulli's sentiments that the film isn't quite a shallow as it appears, apart from the obvious symbolisms like the traitor and corrupt oracle's being deformed creatures, the general idea of freedom and attempting something for the heck of it was done pretty well. Also while the Sparta scenes weren't as strong, the queen's actions to get the armies sent and her reaction at the end, showed a bit of depth.

I felt the film honestly though, didn't really go anywhere when it wasn't doing the battle scenes, they're the main reason to see the film.

I think I appreciate Sin City a lot more after seeing this though, that's a much stronger film overall.

Well I've just got back from seeing 300 on IMAX, and what can I say that hasn't already been said before, stunning visuals, great fight scenes, overall a very good movie, made me wanna start a fight on someone much smaller then me. A very solid:

B

Tonight I dine on a Bacon sandwhich, WOAH!!!!

The best looking video game I ever saw. If only I could have played it.

***

(keep in mind the power went out in the theater with about 1 or 2 minutes left to go, so I don't know, maybe there's something in those final 2 minutes to raise my grade!)

A

Much better than I was expecting, given all the "great popcorn action flick" talk. I preferred it to any of the sword and sandals epics of the last however many years. Zack Snyder is now officially one of my favourite directors. It only takes two A movies to make that grade.

I confess to even crying a little at the end. And when I say a little, I mean the tears literally fell from my eyes. In the way they only seem to in Hollywood movies. They were just... so... muscle-y...

When I went to see this, I was under the impression that this army of 300 had WON and defeated the Persians. I thought that is what the whole hoopla around the story was; the fact that these 300 warriors were beyond anybody else in strength, intelligence, focus and determination and defeated the massive army. But they ended up losing. That really, really disappointed me. That was my own fault of course, because clearly I was not informed about this story ahead of time.

What I really liked about the film was the fact that the Spartans were not robotic, "I'm too cool for you" soldiers. They joked with their comrades, they laughed, and not everything spoken was over-heightened in dramatic language. There was an ability to relate there.

Overall, I was impressed with the style and substance of the film. It set out and did precisely what it intended to do and did it well.

B

Peace,
Mike.

Heh, yeah you missed it. The hoopla was that 300 men killed 1 million of the persian army. Or something like that.

Anyway, to those saying "it was too easy" well if you believed the legend than shouldn't it look easy? How else would 300 end up killing as many as they did if they lost several soldiers on each attack?

its even better on second viewing ....

B, I liked Troy and Gladiator better.

I really want to see this movie again.

"This is SPARTA!" *kicks down the well*

I want to see this again too but on IMAX. it is a very memorable film. the look. the one liners. the concept. the freaky stuff.

It will probably be in IMAX for a while, so I don't need to be in that much of a rush, but I really shouldn't wait that long. Badly want to see it there.