Change Your Image
ponsomp-1
Reviews
300 (2006)
More Modern Democratic Ideals Read Back into Greek History
Recreations of historical periods raise some ethical questions despite disclaimers that films are only pure entertainment (how many people actually think of Brad Pitt in Troy when the name Homer or the Iliad is mentioned? How many question whether or not it was even accurately portrayed?). The modern confusion of reading the modern democratic ideal of freedom into ancient Greek and Medieval history (e.g., Kingdom of Heaven) are severely anachronistic--as if individual or collective freedom was a universal ideal.
In 300, the notion of freedom versus slavery is what motivates the Spartan polis and its citizens to stand against Xerxes (oddly Persians are portrayed by Africans). While self-sufficiency is a key idea in much of ancient Greece, freedom (in the modern sense) is not a part of this. Freedom was seen as a bi-product of self-sufficiency, not an ideal.
In any case, the glaring inconsideration to narrative and historical detail is obvious in view of the cinematic effects this film wishes to achieve. For one, the phalanx which Leonides cites as the key to Spartan military superiority was something not invented until Hellenistic times. Not to mention, the 300 don't really use the formation in practice (they use it for the first skirmish but then break into one-on-one combat). Leonides makes reference to Athens as a polis made up of philosophers (seen retrospectively by the writers in relation to the predominance of Plato and Aristotle today). But philosophy was not something held in high regard (e.g. the execution of Socrates and many others). And no doubt, the Athenian hoplite was very effective (Socrates was also a hoplite).
Fight choreography, while amazing from a CG point of view, is rather boring like much contemporary film that has no sense of movement throughout a scene and instead relies on cutting and editing to suggest the flow of action. And I never understood why the 300 charge out of the pass (in which they are supposed to lure the Persians) rather than remain in it as it was originally suggested.
So while this reviewer seems like an overly academic critic, it is interesting to see what things are held to be worthy of entertainment and enjoyment when contrasting modern renditions with the actual historical sources and the philosophical and religious ideas innate to them.
The Fog (2005)
Not So Bad...What Do You Expect?
This remake of the Fog will inevitably be compared to Carpenter's original. Nostalgia may color the perception of Carpenter's original which lacked in story and character development. Wainright's remake attempts to add more depth to the legend of Spivy Point as well as situate the main characters within a deeper relationship to what is going on.
I say "attempts" because some of this enthusiasm comes through and works, but at other times it simply falls flat and leaves many events in the film hanging or appearing to be fortuitous tangents.
Carpenter's original seems to be merely a montage of events in comparison to Wainright's attempt to create a larger narrative. But even so, for some reason I found the hokey effects of Carpenter's original to be more effective than the modern digital graphics. The original was more tangible while in the remake, where one wanted to encounter the "horror" of the Fog, one got vapors.
Wall Rats (2006)
Why? Because it's there...for kids...
Old meets new...on the walls of El Cap. Not only a great film for the climbing enthusiast but a ring-a-ding-dinger for the family. Who would have thought the rough and fuzzy world of climbing could be made so kid-friendly? Perhaps it was inevitable with the popularity of the sport in the last decade spreading to "Soccer Mom" status, but at any rate, Edwards does a brilliant job bringing together the best of both worlds without losing the realness of the humbling big wall known as "the Captain".
Along with Ben Moon and Jerry Moffitt, soon your kids will saying, "Ma, it's time to climb." Git on it!