Zyskandar A. JaimotMar 11th, 2007 - 16:49:38

Anthing(even this soft-core porn adventure mixed with brutal violence) to teach anyone about history especially the Spartans and Persians at Thermopylae is 'better' than the insipid singing IDOLS on FOX NETWORKS!!! Too bad Antonella Barba wasn't available to play one of the 'sluts' in this movie - perfect typecasting!!!

Report this comment

mikiMar 11th, 2007 - 19:54:50

i am very sorry to hear that the critics do their job without any knowledge about history whatsoever. the writer of the article needs to read some history books. although they didn't do the best job they could have done, because there is always space for more in every movie, they did an excellent job, or would you prefer fuckin troy with brad pitt? the English actors certainly did a much better job than Americans usually do. so long for troys and brad pitts, i hope a new era in epic movie making will start with this movie.

Report this comment

Yeah...no.Mar 16th, 2007 - 18:43:07

Just for clarity, it was not Leo who uttered the famous 'then we will fight in the shade.' It would help if the critic actually paid more attention to detail, one would think, then the review would have a bit more credibility.

(WARNING: SOME SPOILERS BELOW)

How about the fact that nothing really ever came from Ephialtes' betrayal by the goat path? Or his eventual fading out at the end of the film? Leo humbles him with a stern line 'Will you live forever?' and that's it?!?! Very loose ends there.

Other than these, however, 300 is a great fantastical depiction of the Battle of Themapole in all it's glorious mythic proportions which is truly deserves. Even though the historic account (or what historians cam find of it) is just about as good, the larger, more mystical and in some ways more grotesque than life imagery in 300 serves the memory of the 300 Spartans who defended the 'hot gate' quite well.

Report this comment

MattMar 20th, 2007 - 00:54:46

The thing that I very much disagree with many of the critics on, is their assumption that 'You don't get a story'. That's true, in a traditional sense. Most of the critics seem to think that there should be some long and drawn out development of some character, with some made up reason for them being in the situation they are, etc. But, look wider. You'll see that the 'story' is the battle itself.

The movie is about a single battle. Not an entire war, not even a campaign. A single, two-day episode. They whine and complain about all the bloodshed, but, again- the movie focuses on a BATTLE, where nothing but fighting and bloodshed occurs. Would they have rather had maybe... 2 20 minute action scenes depicting the fierce melee, with the other 80 or so minutes dialoge and character development between, say-- Leonidas and one of his men, or Xerxes? Probably so, but- that would in essence detract from the very purpose of the film: to essentially honor the *DEED* these men accomplished.

While not totally historically accurate, it is still a very good representation of the events (seemingly taken from ?was it Herodatus?-a greek historian- accounts [thus there being 1 million or so men, when modern accounts put the number at around 2-3 hundred thousand] that took place. It may be violent, but-- that's what a battle is. It isnt sitting around and talking. There wasn't time for there to be an actual story... really, what sort of complex character interaction can take place over 48 hours whenever you have armies breathing down your neck? None.

And, just for clarification; movies like this which describe and detail heroic deeds, honor, valour, and such-- strike me far emotionally deeper than the most intense dilogue, or character driven movie. To this day, the only times I've ever cried in movies is the death of the William Wallace character in Braveheart, the death of the charging samurais in The Last Samurai, the death of Boromir in the Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring, and the last few minutes in 300. While Gibson's character in Braveheart was well defined, the mass group of Samurai and Boromir were definately not, and neither were the Spartans in 300. That should say something. The ability of a film to make me care about characters I know nothing about, except for their deeds, seems to outweigh that of a film which spends two hours on developing a character, with me not really caring about their outcome.

So, essentially... the critics need to get off their high horses of trying to look for 'what traditionally makes a good film' and realize that this may in fact break that mold.

Report this comment

jevousenprieMar 27th, 2007 - 05:09:11

As a student of Cinematography I have to disagree with this critic whole-heartedly on the comment that it was 'as plain as could be'.
You seem to be very anti- cgi in this as well, blaming it for anything the film lacks, when really I feel that the imagery made it all the more powerful.

This was not made to be historically accurate, and if they had changed the story they would have been doing a diservice to the man who made the comic, Frank Miller. This film pretty much followed the comic page by page....
it was meant to end the way it did.

Seriously, and to be truthfully honest this critic really needs to do their research before putting down a film that was based on a COMIC.
But yeah, the cinematography was bloody amazing, not plain at all...but then again, I guess it'd take someone who actually works on the craft to know that, not some bitter 'critic'.

Report this comment

sarahMar 27th, 2007 - 05:10:39

Wow, this has to be the worst written review I've ever read....

Report this comment

300 girlMar 29th, 2007 - 03:35:03

Did anyone that saw the movie the last samuri realize that at the end, during the battle, Tom Cruise character was telling Katsimoto about the battle of Thermopolye. I thought that was awesome. I loved this movie.

Report this comment

SeekerAug 7th, 2007 - 08:44:51

Sorry to say that the movie was irritating and not at all accurate both in a historical sense as in the motivation behind the war.

King Leonidas cuts of the head of a messenger, which was a grave crime in those days. And then he calls the Persians 'barbarians' ..?
To make the Spartan king popular with the audience, the directors make him say that his wife has a voice in his decisions (or something to that extent). Historically, a woman would have been killed for interfering in political decisions.

Leonidas also calls the Athen warriors 'lovers of boys'...Incredible !
If anything, the Spartans were known to have homosexual relationships, in fact it was promoted within the ranks 'for one fights harder for a lover than for a stranger' .

And depicting Xerxes as a wimp with make up?
Calling the enemy 'the asian hordes?

The movie was in my opinion, on the brink of being called a racist movie.

As if there were no heroes in the persan/asian ranks. As if they were all cowards. As if they did not know warfare and could be defeated or lose thousands of lives while attacking a small passage, defended by a few spartans?

Incredible how the movie was full of historical errata, white supremacy emotions, and a total lack of political background for the war.

Report this comment

JonAug 9th, 2007 - 14:20:18

I'm afraid my friend Seeker, you have no idea about spartan society, so it would be good not to talk about historical truth. In fact spartan women had the same place with men. For 2 reasons. They gave birth to the next warriors and (since until they became 30, spartans spent only 2-3 hours a day at their house) they were responsible for the house, family and property. When the husband died, they were the head of the family. Women even had combat training. Spartan system was unique and it needs a lot of studying to talk about it.
As for racism, I think the 'politically correct' thing has gone too far. Enough with that... In an epic movie the characters' characteristics are magnified, the good and the bad are made quite obvious to serve the story.
If the movie influence someone to hate Persians, that someone has some serious issues and needs therapy...
Apart from all that, the film doesn't claim to be an historical movie. I found it aesthetically great with perfect use of CG.

Report this comment