300

[balon!]

Firstly thanks for the link Warmark!


Secondly my views.

The movie was great. There were some really good camera angles, and some good memeorable lines. I like it because I like action flicks. I also like historical documentaries.

I ussually don't like them when they are put together.

This movie wasn't historical. It took some history, and made it into a great action flick, which ammounted a pretty good see.

That's it, really.

Good flick.

[Warmark]

Heh. No problem guys.

I saw this again the other day, a free ticket was going spare

This time, the only thing i didnt like was the Gorgo and Theron bit, seems to drag i think.

I also would have liked the film to be 15 mins or so longer and use the time to make sure everyones names are shown, seems like only Leonidia and Stelios are properley introduced.

[dANdeLION]

the only thing i didnt like was the Gorgo and Theron bit....

I prefer the Einstein and Theron bit myself.

[Reave the Unjust]

Reave the Unjust,

The concept of East vs. West may be as old as civilization itself, seemingly, but that does not justify anything. The fact remains that the Persians are portrayed as authoritarian, strange, foreign, invasive, and contrary to everything that the West seems to stand for. The Spartans, on the other hand, are heroic, brave, democratic, and ultimately made to appear sympathetic because they defend liberty and tradition. Franky, while the film is visually stunning and the fight scenes are incredible, it's propaganda to a disturbing degree.

Hmm. I do agree with you about the Spartans being made to look like the defenders of freedom etc. vs Persia portrayed as a bizzare empire of lunatics and barbarians, led by a madman.

As I mentioned before, to portray any civilisation other than the West as backward or evil, is just ridiculous. This was not the first film or the last, and yes, there is no excuse.
I guess I was being a bit naive about the propaganda element. There are so many films with something like that in them, that I guess my b#!/$h%t detector goes off and I ignore it. This is probably why there is so much of it around in the media; we've got so used to it! Scary stuff.....

However, I didn't find the Spartans completely sympathetic (although I imagine I was supposed to). I found elements of their way of life disturbingly inhumane (stifling all emotion but hatred and anger, children subjected to a horrifying upbringing). I am generally against conflict when it can be avoided. The same thing kept running through my mind while watching 300, that I always think while watching any "war movie": why does it have to come to this?
I'm a bit like the Acadian(sp?) who is horrified when the Spartans smile and laugh at the sight of the immense army of Xerxes:
"You what? You want to die? Stuff this for a laugh, I'm off!"
Yes, well they are not going to make an epic war movie about me, as it would be very short!

I still seem to enjoy things if I can suspend my disbelief (as Lorelei said) and enjoy the amazing visuals and fights etc. It was based on a comic book after all. I seem to remember thinking another Frank Miller adaption "Sin City" was a great film, despite the mysoginistic elements.
[Sometimes I wish I didn't have to say "despite" this or that...]

It's not perfect, but not much is in this world!

[Loredoctor]

I think I will avoid this movie.

[Reave the Unjust]

I've mentioned it elsewhere, but there is an interesting book called "The Years of Rice and Salt" by Kim Stanley-Robinson. It's an alternative (theoretical!) history of the the last 1000 years, imagining what would have happened if Europe had ceased to be an influence. While not perfect, you can tell the author has done a bit of research into science, medicine and technology from central Asia etc. A lot of this stuff was around a long time ago, but for various reasons was kept secret, or we only learn about it as a "western" invention.

Now that is BIZARRE !

I had that book in my hand not 3 hours ago in my fave 2nd hand bookshop. will have to go back and buy it now, sounds interesting.
(I was actually moving it out of the way to see something else!)

How weird! If it was the hardback I can understand it getting in the way: it's a big bugger! I would certainly encourage you to check it out. Very interesting.

I always thought (probably wrongly) that the phal of phalanx was pronounced to rhyme with 'call me AL', not 'faylanx' and that annoyed me! Still, that's not a major thing to be annoyed about!

Me too! I'd forgotten about that! Fal-anx is how I say it (Fey-lanx sounds odd).

And though I kind of understand your friend's view, he must be a real miserable so-and-so and you could probably get him to boycott just about every book and film ever made by pointing out certain bits.

Hah! Yes he is a grumble guts sometimes, but he at least made me think a bit more about subtext. You have no idea how many times myself and others have debated with him on subjects, ranging from kid's cartoons being drug adverts, to why humans are designed to eat raw meat! Never a dull moment.
Tried to get him to read TCOTC once, but guess what put him off? The "immorality" of the main character!

Glad you enjoyed the film a bit. I've seen it 3 times now and some bits are wearing on my patience now, like why didn't they just tell the "real story"?

And for flip's sake: THERE WAS A GOAT PLAYING A LUTE!!

Thanks to everyone who responded to my long ramblings; an interesting debate!

[Reave the Unjust]

I think I will avoid this movie.

Erm...It looks nice....

[Loredoctor]

I think I will avoid this movie.

Erm...It looks nice....

That's my problem, plus I hate how they change history just to make a 'fun tale'.

I don't mean to be a spoilsport or to say that people can't enjoy it, I might add.

[Reave the Unjust]

Fair enough! I was just being silly!

[Kil Tyme]

I think I will avoid this movie.

[and]

I hate how they change history just to make a 'fun tale'.

So, I'm guessing you never see any historically based movie that ever comes out of hollywood?

[Marv]

However, I didn't find the Spartans completely sympathetic (although I imagine I was supposed to). I found elements of their way of life disturbingly inhumane (stifling all emotion but hatred and anger, children subjected to a horrifying upbringing). I am generally against conflict when it can be avoided. The same thing kept running through my mind while watching 300, that I always think while watching any "war movie": why does it have to come to this?
I'm a bit like the Acadian(sp?) who is horrified when the Spartans smile and laugh at the sight of the immense army of Xerxes:
"You what? You want to die? Stuff this for a laugh, I'm off!"
Yes, well they are not going to make an epic war movie about me, as it would be very short!

Have you read Gates of Fire? The Spartan way of life and why they are the way they are is explained in a much more illuminating light.

Tbh I thought the movie got the balance right. The Spartans weren't presented as mindless thugs or sadistic animals. They fought and died for their beliefs and for their liberty.

I went to the movie with a bloke from work and he commented that if he was going in to war he would watch that movie to get himself worked up in to a battle frenzy. It occurred to me that he'd missed the one real message in the whole thing. The Spartans didn't need heavy metal music or disgusting battle cries to get motivated. They were motivated enough because they actually had a real reason to go to war, because the possible consequences of not doing all they could were more than enough motivation. If you don't believe in what you are fighting for you really shouldn't be fighting.

[Holsety]

But that's just me. For the record I thought the scene in King Kong where Kong fought a bunch of T-rex's was just about the greatest scene in cinematic history. That's the sort of stuff I could only dream about when I was a kid.

Good bloody stuff.

The only thing I disliked about the T-Rex fight in King Kong was that they kept going after the girl. Why would humongous dinosaurs care about such a little meal?

One point I am swayed on is that the film portrays that the fall of Greece (and freedom?) would be a tragedy for the ENTIRE WORLD. As if the rest of the world doesn't matter and all of our "advances" have come via the Greek civilisation.

Well, I would say that it's good greece survived, but it's not like that would've been the end of Greece.

Obviously, Greece was destroyed eventually, and I think it's very hard to say that there's any one part of history is integral to the creation of civilization. Or that greece would've been subdued by the persians without the sacrifice of the spartans - athens was sacked and burned, and that didn't stop it from having a post-persian impact on greek culture. The stand of the (actually around 7000) greeks, who included 300 spartans, was an early attempt to stop the advance, for all I know it would've worked if the persians hadn't gained the passes.

I'm a little surprised that Sparta was chosen as atheist. I'm fairly sure that atheism/deism was only present during Hellenic greece, around and after the pellopenesian war, and only among the elite of athens. A time of luxury and overindulgence, by the way.

The Roman Empire is said to decend from the Greek ways, and there are many similarities between it and the Persian Empire (everyone is welcome, as long as you submit to the will of the state, or the boss). One is as bad/good as the other IMHO!

Nah, Rome as a conqueror was far better at public works type stuff, and getting its conquered territories on its side (it phailed at that later but integrated earlier peoples in very effectively).

IMO I don't think anyone takes 300 as a good reason to kill black people or iranians or whatever, and it wasn't supposed to be historical.

I've mentioned it elsewhere, but there is an interesting book called "The Years of Rice and Salt" by Kim Stanley-Robinson. It's an alternative (theoretical!) history of the the last 1000 years, imagining what would have happened if Europe had ceased to be an influence. While not perfect, you can tell the author has done a bit of research into science, medicine and technology from central Asia etc. A lot of this stuff was around a long time ago, but for various reasons was kept secret, or we only learn about it as a "western" invention.

But at the same time, I'm pretty sure Rome was the first place where stuff like highways, aqueducts, slaves in the upper levels of society AKA servants (chinese slaves were always put to work in pubic works type styff), etc really developed. Also, industrialism, though much later, was literally destined to start in England; the only eastern country which had similar geological motivations for industry was Japan, which wasn't pushed into the modern era until after industrialization had started.

Comparing east and west advances is IMO wrong. Both had their impact.

The concept of East vs. West may be as old as civilization itself, seemingly, but that does not justify anything. The fact remains that the Persians are portrayed as authoritarian, strange, foreign, invasive, and contrary to everything that the West seems to stand for. The Spartans, on the other hand, are heroic, brave, democratic, and ultimately made to appear sympathetic because they defend liberty and tradition. Franky, while the film is visually stunning and the fight scenes are incredible, it's propaganda to a disturbing degree.

Not to mention that all those characteristics apply to Sparta. The dorians (ruling class of sparta) conquered the region of Laconia from the native ionians (who you find in Athens) and enslaved the survivors (basically).

I still enjoyed the movie.

[CovenantJr]

Yeah, I've heard the 'racism' argument a few times now. Apparently 300 demonises Asians and Iranians. The fact that, broadly, this stuff actually happened appears to be irrelevant to these people.

No, what they are referring to is the element of bisexuality in Xerxes and the monstrous imagery of the Persians.

No, each of the people who brought this up in conversation with me has specified that the film demonises Asians and Arabs because they are the enemy.

[Holsety]

Actually, from what I remember most of the evil people who play roles with voices and such are more african'ish looking than arab, persian (remember the two are not the same!), or asian, at least to me. But whatever.

[CovenantJr]

*shrug* It's not my argument.

[Vain]

Very cool movie ! Even better in IMAX mode

[CovenantJr]

chinese slaves were always put to work in pubic works

I just noticed this. Yes, it's juvenile to laugh at this typo. Yes. But I am anyway.

[Cail]

I just can't stop posting these....

[matrixman]

Oh, great, I get to post after Cail's conversation killer.

Late to the party as usual, but I finally watched 300. The fight sequences were incredible, the rest of the film not so much. My opinion is pretty much the same as CovJr's and dlbpharmd's: a lot of spectacle, but didn't leave me with much to think about afterwards. 300 suffers in the inevitable comparison with Sin City, and probably not a fair comparison, since they tell very different stories. Still, I felt Sin City had more depth, with a more interesting set of characters.

Gladiator was another movie mentioned. It makes for a better comparison in terms of subject matter, but here again, 300 suffers. The physical and emotional trials of Maximus are far more compelling than those of Leonidas, who is really a static character. Maximus is a man of nuances, Leonidas is over-the-top hysterics. If we're talking personal magnetism, Gerard Butler is no Russell Crowe. And in terms of direction, Zack Snyder is no Ridley Scott.

I've also seen the hype that says 300 is "groundbreaking" like the Matrix was. I don't see it. Maybe someone can convince me in what way 300 sets a new paradigm. As far as I can tell, 300 is not revolutionary, it is an extension of the style of Sin City - and that film truly was the groundbreaker.

I've nothing much to add to the whole East vs. West debate, the Persians are all evil, the Spartans are all good, etc. This aspect of the film might've left me with something to ponder, but more learned minds than mine have already discussed it at length here, and I'm the one learning from them.

[[Syl]]

Just watched it today. What a hollow piece of shite. The cinematography was interesting, but mostly felt like a video game (didn't help that you'd get level one enemies, a boss fight, level two enemies, a boss fight, etc.). The acting was competent, but they had nothing to work with.

The spartans talk a good game, but when their golden boy gets it, they almost cry. You'd think they'd be cheering, because that's what they've always said they wanted. If there was some kind of reflection upon their ideals vs the real world cost, that'd be one thing. But there isn't. Nope, the spartans start off as badasses, fight as badasses, and die as badasses. It's that simple. And boring.

And sure, it's based off a comic book. Doesn't make it any better. They make fun of homosexuals, but... They decry slavery, yet the spartans were the most cruel, evil bastards ever when it came to their own slaves. Then there's the entire omission of the fact that Sparta had two kings. Oh, and the tree part was interesting, but totally not in character with the Persians.

Pretty sad when your historical accuracy is on par with an episdoe of Samurai Jack.