Movies Reviews
Movie Review (2): 300
By Ron Wilkinson Mar 10, 2007, 13:04 GMT
Based on the epic graphic novel by Frank Miller, 300 is a ferocious retelling of the ancient Battle of Thermopylae in which King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) and 300 Spartans fought to the death against Xerxes and his massive Persian army. Facing insurmountable odds, their valor and sacrifice inspire all of Greece to unite against their Persian enemy, drawing a line in the sand for democracy. The film brings Miller’s (Sin ...more
Tremendous fun to watch, “300” is no replacement for either Frank Miller’s previous smash hit, the scintillating “Sin City” or Zack Miller’s previous hit, the raucous “Dawn of the Dead.” With 1500 cuts, of which 1300 involved special effects, the film might well contain more hi-tech gimmickry than both combined. But it failed to act out the stuff of the Spartans, choosing instead to preach to the choir about how strong they were and how they had sacrificed everything for the day when they would die glorious deaths in battle.
The film never pretends to be true to the truth, which would have been fine, if the writers could have made up a better story than the truth, which they didn’t. The real story was that the doomed heroes bought time for the Greek navy to defeat the Persians, not that their martyrdom inspired a future battle that defeated them.
Speaking of Persians, was Xerxes really gay? He certainly acts like a drag queen in this film. The whole effect would have been much better if bad guy actor Rodrigo Santoro had read up on Caligula and tried to act bad instead of talking like a angry teenager.
After losing thousands of soldiers to Sparta’s several hundred, the real Xerxes was so deranged with fury that he cut off Leonidas’ head and crucified what was left of him. Now that would have made a good ending!
Instead we have his trembling lower lip when Leo almost skewers him with a last-minute spear. These people were nasty, nasty, nasty! What we needed here was Jack Nicholson in “The Departed” or Joe Pesci in “Goodfellas,” not Michael Caine in “Dirt Rotten Scoundrels.”
The best line in the movie goes to a good guy, though, for a change. When Leo is informed that Persian arrows would be so thick as to "blot out the sun” he sarcastically replies, "So much the better, we shall fight in the shade." Very classy.
And then there’s the bad-guy politician who forces Queen Gorgo to submit to his fiendish wishes for her chance to plead for reinforcements in the senate. “You will not like this,” he snarls, in a pretty good line for a bad guy. But it is even better when she repeats it while giving him a Swedish deep muscle message with her short sword while the senators look on in horror.
Which brings us to Lena Headey who comes to the part of the Queen from previous work in “The Brother’s Grimm.” She, too, suffers from too much talking and not enough acting, not her fault, of course. More of the curse of working in a CG environment.
But her role is a good one in that it casts women (and girls) in the positive light of making a difference rather than simply background for the men.
Speaking of the men, those abs are for real. All of the cast underwent an intensive six month basic training course to make sure they were looking good for the army shots, 90% of which are topless for the guys.
By the way, the above comment about nasty, nasty, nasty applied to the Spartans as well, trained killers that they were. So Gerard Butler’s Shakespearian articulation of King Leonidas’ lines don’t add anything to the bloodthirsty nature of the whole affair. Larry Fong’s cinematography is as plain as it gets, which is predictable enough considering he was playing second fiddle to a computer processor.
But in the end little was done with the CG background compared to, say, a gold standard like “Happy Feet.” There could have been more emphasis on the size of the Persian army, estimated at some five million, as compared to the gang of Spartans.
There is one great scene that shows the endless acres of glimmering campfires in the background, but there should have been more.
In the end, you wanted a comic book look and that’s what you got. No complicated back-story like in “Sin City.” The colors are brilliant and the green/blue screen work is fantastic.
Bold but with just enough fuzz to give the scenes an other-worldly look. See it in IMAX if you can, the feeling is great.
Directed by: Zack Snyder
Written by: Zack Snyder, Kurt Johnstad and Michael Gordon (screenplay) and Frank Miller and Lynn Varley (graphic novel)
Runtime: 117 minutes
Opens: March 9, 2007 MPAA: Rated R for graphic battle sequences throughout, some sexuality and nudity.
COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in Movies
- 1. Polisse – Movie Review
- 2. Moonrise Kingdom – Movie Review 2
- 3. Moonrise Kingdom – Movie Review
- 4. Ashley’s Ashes arrives on VOD (Exclusive Clip Added)
- 5. Chinese Zodiac Cannes Photocall Pictures
Older Talkback
page: 1
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.
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.
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.
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'.
Wow, this has to be the worst written review I've ever read....
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.
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.
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.
page: 1
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