300 Movie

Status
Not open for further replies.
the movie was hot garbage. was it historically accurate for them to be fighting dinosaurs? seriously ***. one of the gayest movies ive seen. alot of stuff was added that did nothing to the story. most of the scenes looked pretty fake. i was disappointed hoping itd be as good as braveheart. everyone else in the theatre seemed to like it though.
 
Sweeping

Obiligatory petty criticisms:
Yeah, they cooked the story.

Lots of dialog that's just a tad too perfect.

Monsters.

Really bad rendering of Xerxes who actually looked more like the attached relief.

Mystical crap.
​
And yet . . .

What a ride!

I felt small.

I was quiet for an hour afterward.

Wife kept asking what was on my mind. I don't believe I answered her.

Next week we're taking one of the younger political activists in our area to see it, our treat.

As "embellished" as it is, it portrays one of history's bottleneck moments; some would call it a watershed.

Who'd a' thought that an undermanned bunch of stubborn fools willing to fight to the last man would tip the scales of history?

I caught myself wondering, if I found myself as the potter or blacksmith, would I have the nerve to stand in the face of certain death to give my culture a slim chance at survival?

I dunno.

It's a sobering thought.

One that could preoccupy your meditations for an hour.

.
 

Attachments

  • xerxes.jpg
    xerxes.jpg
    143.3 KB · Views: 82
it was a good movie.

regardless of historical accuracy.....i want to believe that what i saw was in some way accurate to the valor of those spartans.

come and get them........BITCHES!!!!!
 
lean wolf,

Kids attacking old ladies has happened forever dont just blame it on the current generation. It is sad the respect of children today I agree with you whole heartidly but this stems on the parents to. I am 20 years old and my father would beat the piss out of me if he ever heard I acted in that manner in public but some parents dont care what their kids do.

anyhow 300 was a great movie IMO. Its not based on fact and it is for entertainment only so just sit down and watch and dont try to critique it. We all could watch a movie and find something wrong with it. I am huge fan of 24 but I understand its entertainment and not entirely realistic.
 
In Ancient Greece, how would they have told the story? Do you think they would have been concerned about recounting accurate uniforms, or making sure that the Persians side of the story was explained, or that every little word uttered by Leonidas was historically correct?

No! Look back at greek literature... Look at the oral histories, Illiad, Aniead, the Odyssey. The greeks lived in a time when monsters and gods were an accepted part of their reality. They wanted to hear about idealized heroes, impossible battles, monsters, and ruthless enemies.

If you look at this movie in THAT context, then it is actually a pretty much in keeping with that SPIRIT.
 
Here's Iran's reaction, as reported by the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6446183.stm

Iran condemns Hollywood war epic

Historical war epic 300 has been criticised as an attack on Iranian culture by government figures.

The Hollywood film, which has broken US box office records, is an effects-laden retelling of a battle in which a small Greek army resisted a Persian invasion.

Javad Shamqadri, a cultural advisor to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said it was "plundering Iran's historic past and insulting this civilization".

He branded the film "psychological warfare" against Tehran and its people.

But Iranian culture was strong enough to withstand the assault, Mr Shamqadri said. [[brings up the question: how many Hollywood films would it take to destroy a mid-sized country? Bet we can take Madagascar out with just two more action films and a romantic comedy -MV]]

"American cultural officials thought they could get mental satisfaction by plundering Iran's historic past and insulting this civilization," he said.

"Following the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Hollywood and cultural authorities in the US initiated studies to figure out how to attack Iranian culture. [italics added by MV]

"Certainly, the recent movie is a product of such studies."

Daily newspaper Ayandeh-No carried the headline "Hollywood declares war on Iranians".


The film achieved the best ever March opening in North America
The paper said: "It seeks to tell people that Iran, which is in the Axis of Evil now, has for long been the source of evil and modern Iranians' ancestors are the ugly murderous dumb savages you see in 300."

Three MPs in the Iranian parliament have also written to the foreign ministry to protest against the production and screening of this "anti-Iranian Hollywood film".

The film has already proved a major box office hit in the US where it earned almost $71m (£36.8m) in its first weekend, making it the best ever March opening in North American cinemas.

This is not the first time Iran has protested over its portrayal in films made in the West.

There was outrage over the 2004 epic Alexander which showed the Macedonian general easily conquering the Persian Empire.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Boo Hoo...Maybe we should take it out of the theatres because Iran doesn't like it.

Even if it IS what they say it is,

"American cultural officials thought they could get mental satisfaction by plundering Iran's historic past and insulting this civilization," he said.
Click to expand...

Now Frank Miller is the "american culture"?
 
Iranian reaction to the movie 300
"Following the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Hollywood and cultural
authorities in the US initiated studies to figure out how to attack
Iranian culture. Certainly, the recent movie is a product of
such studies."
Click to expand...
Right, Frank Miller is part of a psychological operations conspiracy.:rolleyes:
I should have recognized that when I saw Basin City.:D
Accusations often reveal more about the psychology of the
accuser, than about the accused. This is called projection.
This is probably what Iranian officials do, so they are projecting
their psychology in response to a movie.
Movie projection.
 
"American cultural officials thought they could get mental satisfaction by plundering Iran's historic past and insulting this civilization," he said.
Click to expand...

I'm just annoyed that the U.S. Department of Propaganda gave _my_ tax dollars to Frank Miller to make a movie with CGI wolves and rhinos.

Is this what we pay taxes for?

*grin*

-MV
 
I enjoyed the movie.

Yes I know it is not accurate, I watched the History Channel to get the real low-down on the battle. The question was asked as to it's relevance to guns. There were two underlying theme's I thought were relevant and every pinhead in Washington should see it because of those theme's. First, Freedom Is Not Free. Second, there are some things worth fighting for, even dieing for. Maybe I will add a third, cut and run was not in their vocabulary. Not directly gun related but I think relevant in the sense that these are things most gun owners believe in too.
 
I personally am convinced that it is immoral to be entertained by gratuitous violence.

The taking of human life is a grave event...not material for entertainment. And I'm no pacifist, but rather one who sat on "the trigger" for 100 days and was well prepared to pull it.

The fact that this movie is so popular is proof positive that American culture is somewhere between the whirlpool and the black portal at the bottom of the toilet.

And people wonder how little events like those at Abu Ghraib come to pass.
Just boys (and girls) having fun you know.....just a little entertainment.

Be careful what things you chose to "ammuse" yourself with ..... the more you seek them out in fantasy the closer you are to pursuing them in reality.

flame away.....I stand where I stand!
 
Be careful what things you chose to "ammuse" yourself with ..... the more you seek them out in fantasy the closer you are to pursuing them in reality.

flame away.....I stand where I stand!
Click to expand...

No flames, but from what I've seen, the less violent a society is in reality, the more violent their entertainment becomes. If you look back over history, mankind has always watched violence. Those few societys that weren't embroiled in everyday violence added it to their culture through entertainment. Societies that were in a struggle to survive did not tend to have violent entertainment.

Look at the Japanese. In my wildest imagination, (and it is pretty good I think) I can't come up with thinks half as messed up as what they put into cartoons.

As Roman life got easier, and the futher that the average Roman citizenry got from actual strife, the more violent their entertainment grew.

There is something deep down inside humanity that enjoys violence, and not even really for the violence I think, but rather for the struggle and the challenge. And a good struggle is by nature, violent.

As for becoming closer to persuing it because of entertainment, I train for violence. I teach people how to shoot people, and I'm certified by the state to do so. I teach self defense. I play with machine guns on a daily basis.

And if I watch 300 this weekend, I'm probably not going to go on a killing spree.

Hell, most of the 3rd world doesn't have cable or rated R movies, but I would feel a lot safer walking down a suburban street in America where all of the kids are playing Grand Theft Auto and watching Tarantino movies than spend the night in Mogadishu or Bogata.
 
If Iran loathes it, then I HAVE to see it. :D

And Hollyweird tries so hard to depict itself as enlightened, sympathetic, and anti-war. The irony alone puts this movie in my top ten. Frank Miller rules!
 
The movie was well done. I think one thing that can be said, is that the director/writer etc. have said that it was intentionally distored (ie. the lack of the true phallanx etc.) to be more visual entertaining.

From IMDB:

"# According to an interview with IGN.com, Director Zack Snyder says that fighting styles and formations (particularly the Spartan's phalanx) were purposefully changed - making them historically inaccurate - so they'd "look cool" and work better for movie purposes.

# The movie never claims to be historically correct. It is based somewhat loosely on Frank Miller's 1998 comic book mini-series. Changes from history were made by Miller and Snyder so as to appeal to a wider audience and create a more exciting and visually stunning action movie, rather than a typical historical epic."

One thing I loved was the set up and execution, if you will, of this as a retelling, or campfire account of the battle. It begins with the one eyed spartan telling the story of Leonidas and moving into this particular battle. Through out the movie he narrates at various points. The visual aspect of the movie kind of lends itself to the larger than life retelling.

As to many of the "flaws", I think the quotes above address part of it...if anything its written towards our culture and our understanding or belief as to what the hero should be. As disturbed as I usually am when i see a "historical" movie that does no justice to its orgins, this does enough to at least capture the spirit.

As to the dinosaur thing, where was that in the movie? I saw elephants and what appered to be rhinos (again, the fantasy retelling idea) in the battle. The "smegol" looking guy, he was just a former Spartan, deformed at birth and taken out the community by the parents.

Andrew
 
To say that Spartans believed in "freedom" is about as laughable as the idea of professional soldiers being heavily muscled, oiled, and hairless.
Click to expand...

Yep. Haven't seen it yet, but the idea that Spartans fought for freedom is about as silly as the monsters in the film.
 
I'm just annoyed that the U.S. Department of Propaganda gave _my_ tax dollars to Frank Miller to make a movie with CGI wolves and rhinos.

Is this what we pay taxes for?
Click to expand...

Seems to be a better use of tax dollars than many other programs I have seen in the last few years! :D
 
Speer said:
Yep. Haven't seen it yet, but the idea that Spartans fought for freedom is about as silly as the monsters in the film.
Click to expand...
Whatever their personal motivations, the result of their delaying action at Thermopylae was the survival of the philosophy on which Western Civilization was built--by others. Detritus has already pointed that out in Post #37 of this thread.

I like the characterization of the movie by historian Bettany Hughes, quoted by Zack Snyder in this Paul Fischer interview linked by Beau93 above at Post #68. Using the character named Dilios as narrator emphasizes the notion that this is the way that the Spartans would have told the story. Dilios is the guy who's been sent back to Sparta by Leonidas after losing an eye in battle. His assignment: "Tell them to remember us."

Here's a slightly longer excerpt:
Question: Did you throw history out the window?

Snyder: Did Frank throw history out the window - a little bit. I feel like I have shown the movie to historians. But it was funny Bettany Hughes, who's this English historian who has done - a Spartan specialist; I showed the first 20 minutes of the movie to her, and said, 'What do you think? Is it crazy? Am I stupid? Do I hate history? Am I a **** up?' And it was cool, because she said, 'You know what, in a lot of ways, it's more Spartan than anything I could do.' In a sense that it is - 'As historians, I can't be emotional with what I feel about the Spartans because I'm trying to give historical reference. But you, what you've made, feels like it was made by Spartans.'

Question: Like a home movie -

Snyder: Yeah, a home movie, like the essence of how a Spartan thinks.
Click to expand...
A campfire story.

I especially liked the depictions of rhinoceri and elephants in the movie. This is what they would look like to a guy first seeing them attacking in battle, after possibly having heard of such monsters via travelers' tales but never having seen them standing around in zoos or explained by Marlin Perkins on TV.

Go and see it. :)
 
Last edited:
Okay, here's my review.
It has broad audience appeal. It most definitely has the "kick some ass" factor; always good. Has its quiet moments.
I think they could've made it just a little bit tighter. Just my opinion.
To me it seemed like with the voiceover and the images on the screen, I was actually watching the imagination of a child listening to a story told by an elder. Both surreal and fantastic. Like watching a Boris Vallejo painting come to life. The CGI helps and doesn't really overwhelm and bog down the story as it tends to do in these kinds of movies.
Depending on who you are you will take away something different from it.
If you are too much of a jaded left-brainer, you will probably hate this movie.

Blood, guts, ultramachismo, and a hot Queen. Why the hec not?
This is why we go to the movies. Kick back and enjoy a tale told.
All in all a good time at the movies.
 
:D Ya more proof us whiteys were sh*ting all over iranians 2000 years ago and were still doing it now. Whatcha gunna do about it huh?
 
I went into it hoping to really like, but expecting not to.

I almost never go to movies in the theatre and I never go on opening night. I did both when I went and saw this movie. It was worth every penny and every minute of my time.

Historically accurate? Not really, but that is not it's aim.

Hollywood-ed up? Sure, but like some others have said it is framed and meant as a campfire tale. A documentary would make a poor campfire tale.

W
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
Molon Labe
Replies
2
Views
442
modifiedbrowning
M
Z
  • Locked
"300" - The Movie
2 3
Replies
52
Views
5K
Cosmoline
C
B
  • Locked
The 300
Replies
4
Views
422
Justin
Justin
Speedo66
  • Locked
Flame and Citron- Movie About WWII Danish Resistance
Replies
3
Views
475
Speedo66
Speedo66
C
  • Locked
Molon Labe gear for sale, order by November 29th
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
luxone
L
Back
Top