300 (2006) Poster

(2006)

User Reviews

Review this title
2,099 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
A two-sided piece of art
gus49531 March 2007
This film isn't for all people. That's to say about a lot of movies in general of course, but this one in particular brings up a big clashing point between critics; What do we want to see in our movies? What is more important, to portray a fictional setting for the sake of giving people a mind blowing visual experience or to amuse and amaze them with clever plot twists and intelligent dialogs?

First lets analyze what exactly this film is made of. Basically, the whole thing is just one epic fighting scene after another. Most noticeably is the camera work and the visual effects. Every shot seems like it was intended to be a work of art. The colors, the characters, the costumes, the backgrounds... every little detail has been given so much attention. During the big fights you'll also instantly notice the unique editing. There are a lot of "time slowdowns" throughout the battles which show what exactly is happening. Fatal wounds that slowly leak blood spatters in the air, decapitated heads traveling in slow-motion across the screen... it's all there.

The story on the other hand isn't very complicated, in the sense that the whole movie could probably be described in a sentence or two. The dialogs are simple and most often talk about moral values like freedom and honor. If you would look at the script, it would probably look like another movie that has nothing more to offer then idealistic visions of how life should be.

Reviewers of this title seem to be split up in two groups. They either love it with passion calling it an epic movie of the 21th century, or hate it even more and throw it off like a piece of garbage consisting of mindless action and silly cliché phrases. I feel reluctant to take a position in this argument. Normally it's tolerable to weigh out both sides of this matter to result in a fair judgment about a movie. Not in this one. On the one hand the visual are surely among the best to be witnessed in a movie. Every detail, every background, every special effect set to the scenes are so mindblowingly stunning. On the other hand the plot and dialogs are of the most simplistic and quite frankly dumb kind. "I fight for freedom! I'd rather die in honor then live in shame!" Sounds familiar?

Of course it could be debated that this movie was never intended in the first place to have a unique plot that makes your head spin. But from an objective point of view it's still lacking in this department, so it should be noted.

Now that's fine and all, but does that all make of the film? Is it worth watching or what? I think it is. For me the good outweighs the bad by miles. From the second the movie started it grabbed me and didn't let go. Every battle, every scene of the movie had me at the tip of my chair. Everything from the strong acting to the wondrous visuals to the war-shouts of the soldiers was just so stunning... it was truly a wonderful experience.

I did not one single moment felt like the movie lacked anything. But I could imagine why other people did.

So here's the deal.

If you are easily impressed by beautiful landscapes, wonderful camera-work and editing and powerful acting then go see this. Right. Now. You'll be missing out if you don't. There is so much to see, so much power in the way this comic is translated to the big screen... It'll leave you in awe.

However, you are looking for a good story, clever plot twists, some innovating to the world of the movies then skip this. 300 contains nothing of this, nor does it wants to give you this.

I enjoyed this movie so much, but I know there will be people that will pass of as rubbish, and that's understandable. Just be sure to make up your mind about what you want to see when you go to the theater yourself instead of being drawn into bias by the tons of reviews this site has to offer.
1,112 out of 1,552 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Chills!
deadmonkeys13 March 2007
After I saw the teaser for 300 I knew I HAD to see this movie! From then on I avoided all other previews, reviews, etc. as not to influence my expectations of the movie. I then went into the theater on opening night with no knowledge of the plot... only that it had something to do with Greeks and Frank Miller! Ignorance is bliss! I was absolutely blown away. I'm a 26 yr old female who generally doesn't watch violent films... but I found the battle scenes so well done and breath taking. I had chills and goosebumps virtually the entire film. I'm with many other reviewers, who felt like they had to contain themselves from shouting "yeah!" at times. Maybe I'm crazy, but I thought the whole movie was very sexy and passionate, whether it was the sex scene, a battle scene, or Leonidis addressing his men.

I think it is a shame that so many people are condemning this movie for it's historical inaccuracies, or it's "racism", etc. People are reading far too into this movie. Whatever happened to enjoying a movie simply because it is entertaining and pleasing to to the eye? Don't people watch movies anymore to escape from the daily grind of life? I know I'm not as well spoken as many who have posted here. I just think this was a fantastic movie. I didn't go see it to learn anything! I just wanted to be entertained! And boy was I!
969 out of 1,544 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Among the Worst Films of All Time
mistabobdobolina18 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The Four FAILS of 300:

#4. LOOK MA! "STUNNING VISUALS!" No-one can say Zack Snyder doesn't know how to use a green-screen, but unfortunately he's also a fan-boy with no apparent concept of taste or restraint. We're assailed by slow-mo moments of "Look! I'm cinematically rendering a page from a comic book!" not every half an hour or every fifteen minutes, but every FIVE minutes. At least. It gets old really really fast.

#3. AND SLOW-MO ACTION! The same goes for the slow-mo action sequences, which are cool the first time and the second time, and okay the third time... and a snooze by the fifth time... and a joke by the ninth time... and just keep on coming. They're skillfully executed but ultimately dull, like an overlong Joe Satriani guitar solo.

#2. WORST. Voice-over. EVER. It's tolerable for a movie based on a comic book to have a bit of cheese factor. Those stupid loincloth outfits the Spartans are wearing? Okay, fine, I'll squint and bear it, it's a comic book. But that voice-over. Oh my God, that voice-over. It's so ridiculous, so painful, so unintentionally funny, that it would put 300 almost in "so bad it's good" territory if it wasn't for...

#1. FRANK MILLER'S NEED OF INTENSE PSYCHIATRIC CARE. The comic book 300 was written by Miller when he was embarking on what I like to call his "I'm the god damned Batman" phase or his Nutso Period: the part of his career where his work deteriorated into an insane cartoon of a cartoon. It's funny that defenders keep trying to talk it up as a fun, apolitical action flick, because it's as plain as day that Miller takes pains to slap the reader (and thus, Snyder slaps the viewer) square in the face with his politics at every opportunity. And that's not just bad... it's worse than bad.

If it were just that his Spartans talked in a mishmash of Objectivist drivel, movement-conservative cant and macho cliché -- which they do -- it would be bad enough. But what makes it worse than bad is just how creepy, ugly and fascistic Nutso-Miller's politics really are. The whole story is structured around eugenics, with Persians and traitors and "mystics" representing deformed and subhuman evil and the Spartans representing the purity of selective breeding; there's a whole subplot about Congress, sorry, I mean the Spartan senate trying to stab Leonidas in the back by daring to restrict his absolute power; there's praise not just of courage, but of hatred, anti-intellectualism and intolerance.

That ugliness makes 300 disturbing and unpleasant, in addition to being boring and stupid. Not a good combination.
16 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Forget the Naysayers, 300 Delivers!
CrassActionHero31 March 2007
300(2007)

Review: 300 has been given lots of criticism. People like to view in the political way. That is not the way. Here's my take.

300 is an entertaining movie. This is all about the action and it's Spartans. The movie takes about the first 30 minutes to give us plot development before the Spartans take it to the battlefield.

The action is the key. The slow motion action is what really delivers. This is like a ballet of blood done so nicely. The action needless to say is satisfying. We are given lots of campy dialog and some good humor here and there that works. Gerard Butler is wonderful. He embodies the great king. Becomes him.

Now, on to the politics, 300 has it's own politics, but it was also based on a comic book written back in 1998. How can this be a pro-Bush statement? This is just like another Frank Miller picture, Sin City. The point is to make the comic book come to life. 300 was written by Frank Miller almost a decade ago and you think this is right-wing propaganda?

Listen to me. Take a deep breath and lighten up. Okay?

One last thing, this movie is NOT a history lesson. This is based on a graphic novel, similar to a movie made back in 1962, and is inspired by the battle in 480 B.C. This is not racist either.

The Last Word: 300 delivers what is was sent out to do. Action. Entertainment. Skin. Ignore the naysayers and enjoy. Excellent popcorn fun.
749 out of 1,315 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
More oiled men than a night at Kaptain Quendo's Man-Love Palace
gundognc1 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Oh dear god this is bad.

As far as I can tell the most significant characters in 300 are the deltoid, bicep, abdominals and the other great muscle groups. It is a testament to how awful this film is that this is somehow a relief. The human cast are entirely secondary to the main aim which is to show lots of people slaughtering lots of other people. The whole thing appears to be some sort of visual love poem to the human body.

*may contain spoilers*

The plot of 300 can be summed up thusly: "300 Spartans die". It's not much of a plot but there you go.

King Leonidas (lit. "maker of chocolates") is unhappy at the possibility of all the Spartan health-clubs being closed by Xerxes. Having been told that he isn't allowed to defend the Spartan calisthenics program by a bunch of lepers with their own lap-dancer he decided to lead 300 prime Spartan beefcake to the "hot gates" for a body building dance-off with the 9 foot tall Xerxes and his army of slaves. Both sides do some flexing before getting down to the fighting. The Persians roll out the most farcical military units they can think of and contrive to get themselves slaughtered very cinematically. A Rhinoceros for #*$@'s sake! A #*$@ing RHINO! Really. A giant, some elephants and a guy with blades for arms who looks as if he should be auditioning for the next Clive Barker movie (who we sadly never see fighting). I was really surprised that there weren't some orcs and maybe a cave troll or two.

Finally a hunchback, who looks as if he is a silicon sex toy for the advanced user, sells out the Spartans and shows Xerxes a way round Thermopylae. Then all the Spartans die.

Admittedly there seems to be some sort of side plot about some nasty Spartan chappie trying to get the queen into the sack but I assume that this is just a time filler because they couldn't afford to make an entire two hours of CGI fighting.

*end spoiler*

I would thoroughly recommend that everyone see this film. It's appalling. It's the best comedy this year. It's a homo-erotic masterpiece.
478 out of 830 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A great movie!
shoukanmahou21 May 2007
It seems that everyone who hated this movie must have written a review, so I thought I'd throw in my two cents to even things up a bit. First, if you assume every movie is made simply to uppercut some sort of ideology into the audience's chest, then yes, it does seem very racist, xenophobic, and the like. However, this film is based on a freakin' comic book! The Spartans were some of the most skilled, nastiest, nationalistic fighters out there, and certainly had reason to be more driven and nationalistic than Persia's, which was not an army of individuals fighting for their land and families. Should they have been portrayed differently simply to satisfy the current political climate? Are you mad? The cheesy one-liners are also evidence that this movie IS BASED ON A COMIC BOOK. The exaggerated characters is further evidence that this movie IS BASED ON A COMIC BOOK. This is not a historical movie, it is a movie which seeks to put a rockstar, no-holds-barred spin on a particular historical event. It isn't attempting to be accurate, or balanced, or anything of the sort, and it SHOULDN'T, because that isn't it's purpose. It shouldn't be obligated to do anything of the sort. It's ENTERTAINMENT. Nothing more. And it's damn good entertainment, in my opinion.

Every scene is beautifully crafted. I found the slowdown to be stylistic and much of the dialogue, which is apparently cheesy and fascist to everyone else, to be at least somewhat inspiring, and certainly engaging. These Spartans were trained their entire lives to be warriors, their entire culture is built around success in battle, and you don't expect them to be quite skilled, much more so than a slave army, and quite patriotic? Also, this movie was from the point of view of the Spartans. How would this army have appeared to the Spartans? Wouldn't their stories now be over-exaggerated, over-simplified, almost legendary? There isn't a great amount of character development because this movie is about a battle, ONE battle, THE battle for the continuance of the Western world, and yes, IF the Spartans had been simply overwhelmed from the start, and if their Athenian allies hadn't completely CRUSHED the much larger Persian navy at sea, the West simply could not have existed in any similar manner as it has. And yes, the Western world is guilty of arrogance, overextending it's boundaries to the point of imperialism, however, it has given our world a plethora of all-too-important philosophical ideals that are simply irreplaceable if we want to live in a free society.

I realize I spent a great deal of my time being critical of other reviews, so I would like to take the time to apologize for perhaps wasting the time of someone who was simply searching for a detailed point of view on the film. I can assure you that the film is action-packed. The scenes are absolutely beautiful, every one of them. The film is gory, but artistically gory, if that makes any sense. You'll know what I mean. The story is simple, direct, and inspiring. The acting is excellent. The movie, overall, was a tremendous experience. I give it a 9.
393 out of 682 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Have we gone so mad we can not distinguish films from video games?
auberus29 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
For the life of me I can not understand why people would rave so much about this mockery of a movie…

I knew I was not going to see an accurate historical film. I knew I was in for a graphic novel adaptation.

But what I witnessed was a simplification of already simplified and false historical facts. The result is catastrophic.

Obviously it is easier to show "real Spartan warriors" not indulged in a fair amount of man love. But guess what they were… Obviously it is easier to show Persians as decadent, uncivilized, unsophisticated and without any understanding of military strategy…But guess what the Persian Empire established by Cyrus the great, the writer of the first human right declaration, was the most magnificent and civilized empire in 480 B.C. Obviously it is easier and convenient to imply that Greece won against Persia at the naval battle of Artemisium. But guess what, historically, the Greeks lost that naval battle as well. Obviously it is easier to define bravery as 300 Spartans warriors fighting against a million Persians. But guess what they were more like 10000 Spartans, Athenians, Thebans, Thespians and Phoceans against 200,000 Persians. Obviously it is easier to represent Xerxès the first as a giant homosexual, piercing adept. But guess what he was more like a sophisticated Persian and also a great military strategist. Obviously it is easier to make War and Killing the glorious thing a nation could ever accomplish. But guess what there is no Glory in War and Killing. Only Death… Obviously it is easier to make a baseless action movie rather than a real epic "peplum". An action movie staged in an imaginary Time and Place with imaginary heroes and villains. But guess what great movies are not easy to make, great movies are based upon a tangible scenario and everything else is aimed to support that scenario.

Some of us applaud the aesthetic of the film as I refuse to call it cinematography. But for me the glossy, saturated bronze color like background looked incredibly unrealistic. Some of us feel shiver down their spines when hearing talks of freedom" and "justice" coming out of King Leonidas, Gerard Butler's mouth. But for me it sounded more like an unintentional satire of America misadventure in Iraq. Some of us cheer at the slick fighting scenes and rejoice when Zack Snyder's camera abuses slow motions in order for the audience to enjoy the slaughtering. But for me that was the paroxysm of emptiness and the moment I felt lectured by a mediocre director as to why violence, racism, sadism are surprisingly virtues to be cherished. Some of us raise their arms in the air and wave at the ripped muscled Spartan men. But for me those leather pants Greek Warriors fighting thousands of ninjas almost died of ridicule. Some of us enjoy metal music mixed with "Gladiatoresque" chants. But for me it was noise and a sign that the film triggers 15 year old disturbed American boys who think Leonidas is a brand of chocolate and Xerxès an upcoming video game.

It's fine to make movies out of comics. It's fine to make violent films. It's also fine to use CGI in order to display thing you could not without. Eventually it is fine to fantasy an historical period. But make no mistake there is nothing groundbreaking or breathtaking in 300. As there is no soul in this film only flesh…As there are no story only events…As there is no cinematography only computerized background…As there is no feeling only fading impression…This is virtual at its worst. What's best to erase a virtual film? I suggest we all make a virtual fire in our mind in which we'll burn 300. And maybe the flames will be so big it will enlighten Hollywood once and for all...
115 out of 190 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
this is one of the worst films I watched in the past 2 years
yaboa6 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
this is a mediocre, nonsense, lousy film. Don't watch this. I cant believe that IMDb qualifies it with 8 points. perhaps they are manipulating the ratings to get the people watch it. I put 1 point because i could not put 0. This film, not only has 0 on plot, 0 on script, and 0 on acting out of 10, but also, the battles and the people fighting look like a cheap 3d studio vectorial animation I could do without any effort. All the people are exactly the same, and you could notice a lack of preparation on the scenes. I was expecting something like troy or braveheart, which are too damn good to compare with this. This is why Hollywood is in the ruin. Another expensive and terrible movie. I watched 23 with jim carrey, and thought I could not watch a worse movie than that. But if you want to find something worse, just go to watch this. Otherwise, I would not suggest it unless you don't have a brain in your head or you go high just before it starts. Awful!!!!!!
159 out of 268 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Shallow characters. Ignorant representations. A stupid movie.
SteveTobias15 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I'll be looking at three specific areas of the film: historical inaccuracy, representational issues, and a general critique based on film-making.

Once established that a film is fictional, in other words not historically accurate, it shouldn't matter whether it is accurate or not. However, the way the filmmakers deal with that abstracting of reality can disturb those who are knowledgeable about the subject, or who are simple keen on common sense. In other words, certain choices don't make sense, don't seem valid within the context of the fiction, or perhaps gear themselves more towards low-culture language/symbolism (ie Hollywood clichés). When information is taken from, in this case, the historically realistic, it still must be reassembled in valid manner. If you add a talking dragon to a King Arthur movie, there should be some explanation as to why it is there, and if it breathes flying sheep instead of fire then it contradicts the common conception of a dragon. Ultimately, it comes down to an intelligent use of elements that are abstracted from reality.

One of my problems with 300 is that I think it did a poor job of doing this. The fact that there's monsters and fictional creatures in the story is fine. What isn't fine are things like, dull blades that can cut a man's leg clean off in one swing, men who fight with a cross between WWE and matrix-style fighting, a dude eating a random red apple after a fight, other random choices that don't make sense (Japanese masks on the Persian soldiers), etc. In Kill Bill the Hansu sword didn't bother me when it cut off limb after limb, because there was a valid explanation/premise behind it. In 300 you get this huge abstraction of the phalanx, running bare-chested through a bluescreened field, throwing spears and magically killing thousands of men. In the large picture of 300, the fighting wasn't *that* bad, the Spartan soldiers would get hurt and there weren't many "Chuck Norris"-like BS moments. But I was not moved by any of it. There was no technique behind it.

As for the representational issues, I've heard many points and counter points: that it is a huge insult to Iran and Persian culture, that the film is only based on a comic book so this doesn't matter, that white people are the good guys and blacks and Arabs are the bad guys, etc. It all comes down to this: this is a Hollywood, specifically Warner Bros, picture. One good thing about modern Hollywood is that they cater to the mass audience and thus are usually considerate about race issues and whatnot. It is their responsibility. This film was extremely, extremely ignorant in its defamation of Persian/Iranian culture/history and its use of race in good vs evil. It *does not matter* what was in the comic book. Frank Miller can write whatever he wants in a comic book, because it is a very abstract medium that is taken for granted as "cartoonish." When Warner Bros. decides to ADAPT this comic into a live film, it is an entirely different deal. They had to realize all these hidden and obvious implications, and how ignorant and insulting it is. This film single-handedly mocks millions, millions of people. WB could have adapted any comic book into a film, any of Miller's other works. It was just a bad move to make this film, and that's all there is to it. No one could argue that an alternative script selection could have turned out worse. Nevertheless, 300 was made.

As for Iranians, I've heard/seen some reasonable negative reactions, and some unreasonable, uneducated reactions. I honestly don't think that most Iranians have the knowledge required of the film industry in order to properly assess a film such as in this situation. Most Americans don't even. But ultimately, there was no reason for them to receive this stupid insult of 300, and I feel ashamed to be in any way associated with it.

Getting to the more technical critique of the film: there was WAY too much post production, the writing and actor direction were HORRIBLE, there was zero character development, one-dimensional everything, everything was a caricature with no followable emotional track or realism, and so forth. The speeding up and slowing down of the film tried to emphasize certain actions and imbue it with drama or power, but instead was distracting and amateurish. EVERY single shot was over-color-corrected and looked like crap, it was so obvious to tell. The acting consisted of a few extremely cliché, hyper-masculine dramatic speeches, stealing from every epic film ranging from Braveheart to Last Samurai. The actors ONLY yelled. There was a scene where one soldier cried, but this added nothing. No one cared when people died because no one grew to know any of the characters. They only showed one side of themselves, they were caricatures. The actual content of their lines was disgraceful and rested at a 5th grade reading level. The director's choice to make the characters like football players or wrestlers, instead of increasing the power of the characters, made them incredibly fake and ineffective; whereas giving them moments of desperation, doubt, or any other realistic emotion could have lended to making them more powerful. Imagine one of the last scenes in Braveheart where Mel Gibson is being tortured in public. Now, imagine him having been a total emotionless A-hole the whole film, and instead of yelling "freedom" in a last cry, he yells it like a football player who doesn't give a crap. That was what 300 was like.

Anyway, I felt obligated to write against this film, though I never usually write reviews. I originally gave it a 6 because it didn't seem *that* bad, but am lowering it to a 4 because of the actual HARM it is doing to other people.
305 out of 530 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Waste of time
dreamdemon-124 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
When one mentions Sparta and the Greek Cities, there are expectations regarding touch with history. If king Crucifirix from the city of Baluba met an army of million from the kingdom of Zara, I would have no problem but when a claim is made at historic data, I would like that link to be consistent. Well, in '300' this link holds only when it comes to names. Yes, there was a king Leonidas and a despot called Xerxes. Yes, Thermopyle was the place where their armies met. What is not true: the ephors were not priests, they were the only spartan body democratically elected (terms of one year, without the possibility of a second); there were two kings of Sparta; the Greek army was around 6 to 8 thousand of which 300 Spartans, the only reason Leonidas was there was because the other cities agreed to let him command; the Spartans took the field only first and last day; on last day they were not alone (in fact there were a little over a thousand Greeks, thebans and thespians); the immortals were not black ninjas, they were white clad archers with secondary weapons short spear and/or short sword; the immortals strategy was shoot and advance not charge blindly not to mention they didn't look like orcs; there were two spartan survivors of Thermopyle, not one; Leonidas died in the initial assault of Xerxes forces in the last day, not after meeting with the forces sent to encircle them in the rain of arrows ... and so on. The acting is extremely poor in the first part (which introduces us to Sparta, kind of) and absent in the rest where action flows. The visual effects are anything but original, you've seen them before. The dialog revolves around words like 'death' and 'honor' every other phrase and the few metaphors used alongside phrasal inversion make the script look like a medieval play, but definitely not ancient Greek. Why would anyone enjoy this, is beyond me.
85 out of 138 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What is the point?
blacklove28 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this film last week, and I couldn't put into words what I saw. This film was so mortifyingly awful that I needed time to find words to really describe it. The words I came up with are insane, racist, homophobic, misogynistic, gratuitously violent, and not at all entertaining. I thought to myself that this will be the film viewed by a disturbed teenager who plans on doing the next Columbine type of murder.

Not only is the story bad, but I also hated the fact that I felt like I was looking at a Playstation video game for two hours. Every scene was filled with this flat, boring, dreary-looking copper-color. The music is so cliché that I could have hummed it in my sleep. I rolled my eyes every moment the opera-like singing started.

The viewer is suppose to be rooting for the Spartans, but because they come across as blood-thirsty psychopaths who were only put on earth for battle, I found myself rooting against them. Yes, war and violence are apart of life, but the realistic human emotions that are a result of war makes movies about the subject matter fascinating (i.e. Braveheart and Gladiator, two great films). This film cares nothing about story and human emotions. All this film cares about is showing spears go inside and then back out of a human body with blood splattered about and cliché dialogue in between. Even be-headings are played out as if the only result the filmmaker is going for are the three words "that was cool!"

I didn't understand why the leader of the Persian side, the mascara and piercing faced Xerxes, had to come off as a mix between Rupaul and Bam Bam Bigelow. The reverberated voice that they used for the character was distracting and unnecessary. Also, I kept wondering why Xerxes kept using the words "kneel in front of me," to the leader of the Spartans, and in one scene Xerxes places his hands on the leader of the Spartans in a way that seemed sexual. It was just plain weird and unnecessary!

From the casting, the viewer thinks that the enemy Persians are nothing more than effeminate Asians and other dark people of the earth that are trying to bring down the tough and ripped bodied white male Spartans that are outnumbered.

The one woman in the film came across as a fool that is so easily deceived (and deceived into having sex!) that her only salvation is to stab her enemy with a sword. Of course, her enemy conveniently carried around Persian coins that fell all over the place when he was stabbed, this conveniently showed us in a spoon-fed way that this guy is a trader. No thinking allowed in this movie!! The only other use for the female character in this film is a ridiculous soft- core sex scene.

Instead of this movie just coming off as a fantasy, it takes itself way too seriously and as a result I kept shaking my head at the blatant stupidity. In Kill Bill, Quentin Tarantino plays out a scene with Uma Thurman defeating a bunch of ninjas in a way where the viewer is disconnected from reality but is in awe of the cinematic technique of the film. In 300, when the 300 Spartans are defeating a gazillion enemies, you could almost hear the director saying, "These guys are so tough that this could REALLY happen.... until the end of the movie, that is."

Actors are not necessary for this film. It is as if the casting director went to Gold's Gym for the casting. Pectoral muscles get the screen time that isn't taken by spears and blood. Even the stale jokes told by the Spartans seem like the brainless banter of a stereotypical gym rat.

300 is an experiment in digital pop-art cinema gone wrong! Unlike pop-art cinema like A Scanner Darkly that advances visual aesthetic by saying something about the human condition through its story, 300 is a let down via story and visually. The entire outcome of the film leaves the viewer asking in a confused tone, "What was the point of that?"
407 out of 715 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Much worse than the trailer
EdWont10 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
In a word: disappointment.

I was one of the fanboys who loved the graphic novel, and watched the trailer on repeat for months. I'm half Greek and love action and comics, so I was superbly amped. Sadly, the movie fell so short of the mark that I was immediately reminded of how I felt after watching Star Wars: Episode I for the first time. I left it thinking, "I liked it? It was good? Right?" But I knew that it wasn't. Here are some of the ups and downs.

Let's start with what's good in the feature. The battle scenes are spectacular. The choreography didn't hinge on speed as much as it relied on visually stunning, artistic brutality (it sounds like an oxymoron, but it applies in this context). The timing during these scenes was unique, too. The motion sped up and slowed down in a way that really complimented the film. Of course, the entire movie is a mindblowing visual experience: The art direction and cinematography were stunning. This is especially true of the costuming and "creature" effects. My favorite aspect of the art direction was this profound grittiness (manifested in the dirt, bloodshed, contrast, and other details that were brought forth because of the filming technique) that almost became a character in itself, contributing to the harshness of the plot. All these things were simply standout.

Now, for the reasons I gave this film 3 out of 10 stars. The plot aspect of this film was practically nonexistent. In terms of character development, not only was it predictable, but almost tragic that they didn't pursue other avenues. I especially mean this when referring to the Queen Gorgo subplot that wasn't bound by Miller's original concept. There were a variety of plot holes including, but not limited to, the end of Gorgo's subplot in which it's revealed that a traitor was carrying evidence of his crimes on him for what we can assume was the entire movie, when there's no plausible reason as to why he'd be carrying the evidence. Given the precious little plot in the film, it's sad to say that any plot holes exist. The acting was pretty terrible, spare the less demanding guttural shouting of the Spartan warriors, but I can't really fault the actors given that the writing was so, so painfully bland. Even when there was a "rallying, morale boosting" speech, as is a staple for these films, it was so upsettingly cliché' that I found it agitating to watch. What was most troubling was that the entire movie was seasoned in an all-to-blatant hyper-nationalism. It was hard to enjoy this film without examining it from a modern context because of the frequent use of the word "freedom." It was being thrown around like it was conservative talk radio. At one point one of the characters even said, "freedom isn't free." I have no problem if filmmakers wish to make patriotism a theme in their film (indeed, the historic events lend nicely to such a theme). However, they did it so straight-forwardly that it dumbed the movie down a great deal. And yes, the Spartans founded the term "laconic" but they were at least witty. Had it been more subtle or brought about in a more refined way (as opposed to the hero simply spouting about freedom and its virtues repeatedly throughout the film) then it probably would've contributed a great deal to the movie.

All in all, this has a lot to offer in terms of eye-candy. But, it has so little substance that it's aggravating to watch. Something didn't click, and it's apparent. It feels like they could've done more with it. That's why it's aggravating. That's why it's a disappointment.
589 out of 1,049 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
300=big lie
shoun22 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Your new movie called �300� opening on March 9th in theatres all over the United States and based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller portrays the battle of Thermopylae in which King Leonidas and 300 Spartans fight against Xerxes and his Persian army. Upon seeing the previews of this movie, it immediately becomes apparent that apart from the actual names used in it, the entire depiction of this battle is based upon fantasy. Nowhere among the historical data that remains of the time of Xerxes and ancient Persian empires, do we come across any reference that shows those kings and soldiers as monsters with body-piercing, armors, facial features and demonic behavior that seem to have sprung out from the dungeons of hell. The inaccurate and derogatory depiction of ancient Persians that according to all historical data conducted warfare with mastery and dignity, and looked nothing like science-fictional monsters, is a depiction of how movie studios and authors sacrifice historical accuracy for would-be profits.

The author Frank Miller and Warner Brothers Studios should understand that distorting historical data is unethical, and so is feeding ignorance to viewers and readers. Fantasy-like characters should not have names that are based on actual historical figures. Xerxes was one of the many revered and respected rulers of an ancient civilization the vestiges of which last to this day and are acknowledged by historians of all nations. He did not look like a creature out of a frightening bedtime story. Neither did his soldiers.

By all means depict important historical events, but take the trouble to visit a library and to do some research before you do so.

We, The Undersigned, consider the movie �300� an outrage and boycott it.
88 out of 144 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I'm amazed at the enthusiasm for this assault on the senses
mesakid30 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I am puzzled by the praise for this bloated, repetitive, thin, overextended video game It has restored my cynicism about movies,or I should see the people who see them, which had been somewhat diluted by seeing Pans Labyrinth, the Lives of Others, the Departed and other excellent films during the last year I admit I am not a video game junkie nor a fan of graphic novels, of which this is apparently a good example I understand the majority of the film consists of computer graphics rather than actual acting. I think the "dialog" must also consist of digital bits because it is extremely repetitive I think they recorded a half dozen bits of dialog and then just plugged them in between impalements, be-headings, and lopping off of arms and legs. I would be willing to bet that the majority of this films fans could not find both Greece and Persia in an atlas, (hint: look for Iran) nor come within 1,000 years of guessing when the battle took place if they hadn't read about it in the reviews. In case it isn't apparent, I only saw this because someone else wanted to see it. I found myself wishing I had brought along a video game or something to keep me occupied during this film.
120 out of 201 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A terrible mess
eilidh-611 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Seeing the enthusiastic comments here, I was almost wondering whether they were meant for the same film I saw. Unfortunately, there is no doubt it is the same.

Never mind the fact I am writing from Greece, and that I might be in any way biased: I didn't go to the cinema expecting to see a historically accurate film, and I never let this fact bother me in the very least. I knew it was based on a comic, and I thought I'd see a decent enough epic film. I am not hard to please when it comes to films, but honestly -- I don't think I've seen such bad directing before. Terrible overuse of slow-motion sequences, some of the most awkward posing and set-up regarding the actors, an absolutely pretentious use of colour and lightning, incredibly bad costume choices (uniform leather thongs -- give me a break) resulting in multiple layers of kitsch. There was undoubtedly some eye-candy: but it was stacked so sloppily together it ended up being unpleasant.

Add to this mess some of the cheesiest lines and concepts, and there you have it -- I would call it a complete waste of time, but in some sense it is so bad it is almost worth seeing. Flying severed limbs in the battle scenes may even bring in a good laugh -- just as most of the dialogue does.
338 out of 596 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Hitler would have liked it!
alexandermangoldt12 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Movies like these often make me wonder about the decision finding-process of an actor. For hypothesis' sake, let's take a journey into Gerard Butler's mind after reading the script: "Hmm, okay, sounds pretty much like a gory battle film to me. There isn't much of a story, but the public these days really seems to be into epic war movies, probably with the war in Iraq and 9/11 and all. Now, some of the scenes, especially those at the beginning remind me of something I learned in history class, I think it had something to do with Hitler and survival of the fittest. I don't really endorse these values, but the film seems to. Well, I'm only a second rate actor and I haven't had my big success yet, so maybe, taking on the role of Leonidas might be a good idea and an excellent career move, since the film is provocative, to say the least, and even if it turns out to be a bad movie with fascist tendencies, people will still talk about me. And all these months at the gym will finally pay off, because I get to show my sexy body throughout the entire movie. I won't be wearing much, accept for some briefs made of leather and a red cape around my neck. The text isn't too hard either, I don't have to act much, all they want me to do is shout and shout in a belligerent way like the warmonger I see on TV all the time. Yeah, I think I'll give my agent a call. There's nothing good on TV, so what the heck, let's do this flick".

To the film itself: After twenty minutes into the movie I got bored. A juxtaposition of battle scenes, monsters that looked like prototypes from the LORD OF THE RINGS and a more than stupid side story with King Leonidas wife and some gossamer thin malice spun by a third rate playwright. Whether this film endorses fascism or not doesn't really matter, because this film boils down to one simple adjective: stupid!
52 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Visceral, violent and visually stunning to the point where the lack of much else doesn't really matter
bob the moo18 November 2007
In the year 480 BC, King Xerxes of Persia set in motion his enormous slave empire to crush the small group of independent Greek states – the only stronghold of freedom still remaining in the then known world. As the countless armies of Xerxes approaches, King Leonidas petitions the ruling council to meet the army with whatever men can be found. With the council unwilling to release soldiers until after the religious festival, Leonidas sets out with his 300 strong personal army to meet Xerxes' men at a narrow pass knowing they must hold off the approach for as long as they can until the army arrives– even if it means their deaths.

Although I am surprised to see this film so highly rated on IMDb, I can understand why it is so because it does deliver a powerful experience, almost powerful enough to carry it through its lack of real depth or substance. You can see the selling point on the DVD cover or the poster because it is in these places where any film visually has to sell itself. With 300 though this selling continues across the entire film because, holding close to the graphic novel roots, the visual design is the all here. The plot is simple and, although there is a little bit of politicing back home, the film is all about the stand of the 300 against countless others. In this regard it is visceral, violent and visually stunning. The mix of effects with live action brings the action to live and is as suitably overblown as the legend.

Snyder's direction matches the effects and he wallows in every macho swing of the sword, doing really well to capture the action in a way that is engaging and clear. The lack of substance was a bit of a problem but to be honest the film does sweep you along in the moment of the battle and mostly this is all you care about. The cast don't really have characters so much as presence and mostly they deliver in this area. Butler is strong in the lead and he convinces in the role of Leonidas. Headley and West have the harder job back home to provide some interest in the politics behind the battle – they do well enough (particularly The Wire's West, but I'm biased) but the script does rather leave them to their own devices. The rest of the cast are appropriately muscular and heroic and fit in with what the script is trying to do.

Overall this is an effective but superficial film. The design and the look is the all but fortunately it delivers in this regard really well. The performances, the script and everything else falls into line in supporting the graphic novel feel of the film and, although I would like to say I favour substance over style, it is hard not to like when the style is this well done.
26 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Sparta as a bastion of freedom?
admorgan0420 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
300 goes out of its way to depict Sparta as a bastion of freedom and liberty--a characterization which anyone familiar with Greek history (including ancient Greek scholars themselves) knows to be untrue.

Sparta was a great place to be for Spartan citizens, but the vast majority of the city's population were non-citizens. Only those who could trace their lineage to the city's original inhabitants could claim themselves as "Spartans" and thus enjoy the full range of freedoms available. The remainder, who quickly came to outnumber the "Spartans" in Sparta, were forced to live as a perpetual underclass serving the whim of the Spartans until the city fell.

To the extent that the film portrays the Persian empire as wicked in its reliance on slaves, it is laughably hypocritical and, for some, outright offensive.
64 out of 103 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
there're a few you cant blame for...
snooooks18 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
that this movie will probably be remembered as...? no, unlike the real battle of Thermopylae, this "film" wont be remembered at all.

but no, you cant blame Zack Snyder for it. for me "directing" a movie means, to make actors balance on the thin red line called story and to guide them on their way. and sorry, from this viewpoint there's no directing at all in 300. take away the decent special effects and there's not a whole lot left. yes decent special effects, not groundbreaking at all. "the terminator 2" was "groundbreaking" in effects and so was "jurassic park" at its time. but 300 didn't show anything that hasn't been done at least a dozen times before... so does the music.

neither you can blame paramount for it. all they did was, what most of the big studios do these days. they jumped on the money-train without really taking care about, what this comic book is about.

also Gerard butler isn't responsible for that "300" is nothing more than a waste of money and time. actually he's the only character in this so called epics, who leaves the 1st dimension at least in a few scenes. he acts as good as it gets under this circumstances.

but yes, there's one person you can blame for this movie: frank miller. and if its now "300" or "sin city", his world obviously is only black or white, good or bad, day or night... no shades between. and yes, this comic IS full of racism, prejudices and whats worst, disrespect for history. and as stated by others, this film is pretty close to the original comic book. so what else to expect? certain comics tried to approach historic events or periods and as seen in aster ix and a few others this can be done, if the author of the story shows respect to the events that happened. and herein lies the problem. obviously miller has a lack of respect for those who fought and died those days. yes, exaggeration in comics is a valid way to tell a story, playing with racism and prejudices isn't.

bottom line, neither from the viewpoint of a comic book.based movie nor from the historical viewpoint this film is worth to be seen. the effects and visuals don't carry it at all. neither does the acting of the cast. and whats left from the original great story of the battle of Thermopylae is as deformed and unreal as the Persian warriors.

actually there's only 1 thing that could have made this waste of celluloid even more ridiculous...

Charlton Heston, with a NRA bumper sticker on his butt, jumping out of a burning bush shouting...

FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS! while lightnings out of his hands kill Xerxes and company whilst hunchback, rhinos and elephants sail into the sun on Noah's ark and live happily ever after.
183 out of 317 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
best animated movie of the year, worst historic movie ever
jkf00723 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The movie is a fantastic animation movie. I wonder why they bothered listing the actors in the credits. There is a few things missing from this movie; acting, and colors. Everything is probably shot in front of a green screen and later painted in oker, sienna and umber. The earthy colors are the only colors you'll see in the movie, plus red or carmine. The acting is terrible. Only the faces of the actors have been saved for most parts, but even the beards and eyes are painted on. When an actor smiles or show pain you'll notice how the animators have tried to move parts of the face but doesn't succeed very well.

The story is completely nonsense. This is not Sparta, its some twisted wannabe historical document from the mind of the creator. There is a lot of talk about how these warriors cannot go to war without having felt the bussums of a woman.. Hey, man they practiced pederasty. Having relations with a woman was not for a warrior. They were supposedly doing it the lacedaemonian way. When training they were supposed to be oiled in and nude.

As mentioned before, this is good animation, but the worst ever movie I have seen. Save your money and watch TV instead.
108 out of 182 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The Evolution of Epic Battles
Alex_Priest15 February 2007
After gaving us some of the greatest epic movies in the last 50 years,it was clear that filmmakers needed to take them to the next level.

But how can you make a new movie,for the audience to like,without recycling old material?

Answer:You improve what old filmmakers couldn't:Graphics.

Ben Hur,Braveheart,Gladiator,Spartacus and perhaps even Troy are only some of the epic movies that gave the audience so big thrills that they cannot be repeated. Almost every epic movie that will be made today,no matter how good the story will be or how faithful will be to reality,is bound to repeat itself.We got examples from Alexander and Kingdom of Heaven.

300 doesn't apply to this category.Besides it takes the epic to the next level.And more are like to follow.

Just like in the Lord of the Rings,much CGI was used here.

The result? This movie was a pleasure for the eye.

All the camera work and graphics exceeded my expectations. I thought they were comparable,if not better,to the LOTR,go see for yourselves.

I could write something about the plot or the actors's outstanding performances(especially Gerard Butler's..you see,being Greek-Italian,I wanted the best from the actors..Butler gave it. The anger in his eyes,the fury in his voice and the violence in his actions really reminded an ancient Greek king),but I won't ruin it for you. You must see it to understand how great this movie is.

But always remember that this is a movie that is based on a graphic novel and is by no means a faithful depiction of what really happened in Thermopylae in 480 B.C. All those who will pay the ticket to see this movie,must be prepared not for a historic movie,but for a stylish battle movie.

This movie,together with the LOTR,is the entrance to the 21st century's new epic movies.

Kudos to Zack Snyder,who came from nowhere and has,already from Dawn of the Dead,proved that he is a brilliant and capable director. We will surely see more of him in the upcoming years.

So,you read my Comment?

Aren't you curious?

What are you waiting for?

Run to the nearest cinema,see this piece of art and when you are finished don't forget to come to IMDb to vote. This movie is destined to be at least in the top 100.

C'mon people!Hail for 300,the Evolution of Epic Battles!
1,359 out of 2,539 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
"That comic book movie like Sin City with Greeks"
phenomynouss1 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
From a visual perspective, 300 is something of a masterpiece. But movies aren't supposed to be visual masterpieces---they're supposed to have decent dialogue, story, and substance to back it up. That is what separates good movies from bad ones that look good.

I've had my months leading up to the movie and afterwards of trashing this movie for not only its historical inaccuracies, but it's ridiculous treatment of basic logic. Nowhere else can you see 300 naked men bellow at two massive elephants and send them toppling off a cliff, or a single naked man kill a charging rhino with little more than a flimsy wooden spear.

Everything in 300 save for a scene with horses was filmed in a warehouse against green or bluescreen, and while it makes for some visual spectacles, it removes a certain grittiness from it that fails to capture the audience and thrust them right in the midst of the action.

Another major failing is the Spartans themselves. The key to any superhero comic movie (because these Spartans can't be human) is for the hero to be endearing to the audience. The director appears to have completely fumbled this, by making the main characters incredibly arrogant, intolerant, and smug, while giving them anachronistic ideals of freedom and liberty (like a Roman Emperor preaching equality for all men) which rather than preach, they bellow at one another.

Rarely does Leonidas say anything that isn't shrieked in the most bellicose manner possible. His lines range in depth and complexity from "SPARTAAAAANS! PUSH!" "SPARTAAAAAANS!! PREPARE FOR GLOOOORY!!" "SPARTAAAANS! WE WILL STAND AND FIGHT!!!" By failing to endear, and arrogance, I refer to several scenes, including when Leonidas first meets Ephialtes. In history, Ephialtes was a normal goat herder or farmer, who betrayed the Greeks by revealing to Xerxes a goat path leading around the pass out of greed. In the movie, he's a horribly deformed monster (akin to a mix of Gollum from LOTR and Joe Merrick, the Elephant Man), with a heart of gold, seeking to prove himself in battle. His effort to hoist a shield and thrust a spear is almost heartwarming in its attempts, yet Leonidas haughtily says that since he can't raise his shield high enough for long enough, he can't fight in a phalanx (which is particularly ironic, since the Spartans never fight in a phalanx in the entire movie save for the first battle---the director Zack Snyder even admitted doing away with the phalanx because it wasn't "cool enough" for his movie), thrusting Ephialtes into a grief-ridden rage which causes him to betray the Spartans rather than help them.

Leonidas also very arrogantly mocks his Phokian allies for not being born to kill like the Spartans are.

A lot of movie cross-over appears to happen, as Ephialtes very much resembles Gollum in Lord of the Rings, so too the Persian Immortals must have been dug up in Isengard, like the Uruk-hai in LOTR---they are not human, and look very much like Orcs. And the "Uber Immortal" as it was so brilliantly labeled, was little more than a thinner, more muscular cave troll.

Whatever humanity is left in the film is squandered for the more machismo audience. Queen Gorgo's role is little more than to look like a frumpy 50 year old housewife, muttering about some incomprehensible thing or other while another Spartan attempts to court her. Before Leonidas leaves, he treats the audience to a sex scene so dull and lifeless that it amounts to little more than a CG dry humping with Gorgo. The end of this subplot culminates in the Spartan who has been flirting with her getting stabbed in the public forum while gold coins fly in the air and everyone bellows "TRAITOR TRAITOR TRAITOR TRAITOR!!!!!"

To the battle scenes: As mentioned above, Zack Snyder admitted to doing away with the phalanx because it wasn't "cool". So rather than attempt to give the audience something new, innovative, and unbelievably bloody and violent, he gives us the same old glorified one-man-army crap we've seen in a dozen action movies. CG or not, there's little innovation or anything to impress with the action scenes. Many times, you're left laughing or shaking your head in disbelief as the fighters go out of their way to look "cool" rather than deadly. One case in particular is when a Persian Immortal has a clear shot at a Spartan, and chooses rather than to stab his naked chest, to drop his weapon and DROPKICK him.

At some point, you get overwhelmed with the Spartans sticking Persians with their spears like hot knives through margarine, and giant waves of bodies keeling onto a wave of Immortals, and quite literally random slow-motion sequences showing off how close a hurled axe cuts Leonidas' helmet plume, or how many rope fibers are at the end of a Persian's whip, or how many beads of sweat drip down the bronzed and chiseled chest of a Spartan. Okay, we get it! You have a 100 million dollar budget to spend on CG and you don't know how to show it off! There's little else going for the movie other than nonstop and often senseless action violence which gets excessive, broken only by the lonely and useless subplot with Gorgo looking frumpy and Spartan #2 forcibly kissing her. Even if you were to look past the unbearably significant historical inaccuracies and the gaping holes in logic (like how 300 Spartans march off to battle without any supplies, no food or water or baggage train, with nothing but their capes, short-shorts, spears, helmets, and shields) it amounts to little more than an action yarn and a visual mess of action and sunset-colored landscape, little else from dialogue and script, acting, even sound, make it distinct in any sort of way. I doubt many people in years to come would remember this as any more than "That comic book movie like Sin City with Greeks"
25 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
If You're Looking for another Braveheart or Gladiator, Keep Looking
sgreenwa25 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is awful and it had NOTHING to do with the violence like for many. I am a movie fanatic and I am most specifically a history fanatic. My fav. movies are time pieces. My fav. show on television is easily Rome. I can't tell you how excited I was about this movie. Unfortunately, it was utterly awful.

1. I DON'T CARE HOW VIOLENT IT WAS, that is not my gripe.

2. I DON'T care how historic it was. Most movies fall far short of what really happened...I get that. That is also not my gripe.

3. The dialogue was bar none pathetic. The worst i have seen in ages. People were laughing at the lines that many here have already made fun of. I rolled my eyes at least 10 times. "tonight we dine in hell" takes the cake.

4. How many times must we see the king shout to get his point across. It's supposed to be a Braveheart moment with the whole "Freeeeeeeeeeedom", but never once is it effective. It's not effective because he does it a dozen times and he does it in moments where it's not needed. We also don't care about him or his gang of suicidal warriors like we did William Wallace and his men. Why? Simple. the character development is terribly hollow. They force it on you that "Spartans can't afford to be emotional". Okay...and because of that, just realize every time you try to have your over the top powerhouse inspirational moments, they're not going to affe4ct us the same way as say in a Braveheart...because William Wallace WAS emotional...and we related to him...and cared about him, and we felt for him when he suffered loss...but in this movie...you don't allow us to gravitate to these characters. Bantering back and forth in play while they chop peoples heads off is simply not going to warm us to these people so that the "inspirational" moments have ANY affect. Like when the Captain's son is beheaded. In most movies your heart would be torn out in sorrow for the guy...but in this movie...it's just another head hitting the ground. They want to pull on your emotional strings, but they never pull it off anywhere and it's all in the setup and how much of a testosterone induced farce they set this up to be. It needed to have the dramatic pull of a Braveheart...a Gladiator...it had the storyline potential to give us that, but they butcher it from moment one and it's impossible to take ANYTHING serious.

5. The Persian king was pathetic. everything about him. he wasn't scary, he wasn't to be taken serious...he was a farce who liked to wear women's makeup. AWFUL. And how they did his voice so that he was to seem god-like...AWFUL. he seemed like a fruit-cake...nothing more. "i am nice. I will show them I am nice". that is when I said "that's it...Im out of here".

There was nothing to like about this movie...not a thing. I went in expecting it to be my fav. movie of the year bar none...and i actually walked out with 20 or so minutes to go. What a joke. I'll now go give it a 1/10 and the 1 is for the fact it was just under 2 hrs. if you're going to make an awful movie, make sure it is under 2 hrs please. They did, so they get 1 star instead of zero. Oh wait...there is no zero. My decision is even easier now.
88 out of 148 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Good moments, but not enough for 2 hours
Horst_In_Translation25 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
"300" is one of the most talked-about and most-honored films of 2006, even if it was not appreciated by the really big awards ceremonies, a bit of a curse that happened many times during director and writer Zack Snyder's career. His movie here tells us the story of Sparta and King Leonidas, who worked as a role model in terms of bravery for many later conquerors. The cast includes many big names, you can check these in the list, but today, almost 10 years later, Michael Fassbender appears probably as the most prominent name. My favorite character, however, was certainly Rodrigo Santoro's Xerxes, who is pretty memorable here thanks to his size and wickedness.

Unfortunately, in terms of the story, I was not convinced particularly. There were some scenes I liked, such as the beginning, everything with Xerxes, the disfigured Gollum look-alike and also Headey's speech and final scene. I may be a bit biased as historic films (except 20th century) are not exactly my preferred choice, especially if they include mostly action and battle scenes like this one. Visually, it's a fine film, but there were several occasions during which it dragged in terms of the story. I may have been more generous with my rating if Snyder had kept it more essential, maybe at 85 minutes. Yes it would have been pretty short, but that's a price I am willing to pay if it turns into a much better film. At almost 2 hours, it lacks focus several times and I cannot recommend it.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Spectacular and colorful version about Battle of Thermopylae between Leonidas and Xerxes
ma-cortes27 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This is a splendid film written, produced , directed by Zack Snyder and based on sensational Frank Miller's comic book.Here are magnificently brought to life the heroics deeds about battle of Thermopylae, the only trail to arrive Athens . The events(480 B.C) are well developed, these are the following : King Leonidas(Gerard Butler) establishes an alliance with Greeks polis facing the invading Persian army.Leonidas leaves his wife Queen Gorgo(Lena Headey) and son , leading a small army formed by a captain(Vincent Regan), accompanied by his son(Fassbender), the tough Dilios(David Wenham), among others. The army called Falange is constituted by 300 Spartans named Hoplitas wielding the shield Heplon and long lances, plus 700 Thespians, while the soldiers Phocios sent by Leonidas to protect separated pass flee. The 300 hold off an immense Persian army commanded by king Xerxes(Rodrigo Santoro), over 100.000, though the famous historian Heredoto, possibly excessive, wrote they were 1.700.000. Meantime in Sparta are happening intrigues surrounding the Greek council whose protagonists are the Queen, Theron(Dominic West) and a loyalist(Stephen McHatti). A hunchbacked wanna-be warrior, actually a local shepherd, named Ephialtes(Andrew Tiernan) informed Persians of a hidden way that could utilize to besiege the Spartans. The impact of the battle was enormous , as the Hellens lost their fright for the Persians and led by Themistocles created their proper defense and allowing the Greek city states organize their own army and retain the fearful enemy. Ultimately the Persians are vanquished in the battles of Salamina, Platea and Mycala.

Violent movie blends historic events, drama and breathtaking fights .Every little scene has been given maximum detail, as gowns, environment and set design, adding too much computer generator backgrounds and lush frames. Colorist and glimmer cinematography by Larry Fong. Vibrating and shaking musical score by Tyler Bates. This excellent picture is stunningly directed by Zack Snyder who after made a similar experiment with Watchmen. Another adaptation about this historic tale are : the classic version ,the Lion of Sparta, by Rudolph Mate with Richard Egan as Leonidas and Ralph Richardson as Themistocles; and a phenomenal documentary, The Last stand of the 300, produced by History Channel which is totally necessary seeing it along with 300. The film will like to epic deeds enthusiastic and history lovers. Rating : Extraordinary and above average.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed