300: Worth the Hype?

[Auron's Blade]

Okay, I saw 300 this weekend and found it incredibly enjoyable. But there are people out there that don't like it. I know that it was historically inaccurate, but the way I see it is why go for a history lesson?

Also there was a lot of hype for this movie. I heard that it had very nice reveiws and was susposed to be one of the hit movies this year. I think that it was wroth the hype, as I thought that it was a great movie.

But what do you think?

[Jin]

why go for a history lesson?

Because history is fascinating.

Furthermore, the fact that they actually used Greeks and Persians made it seem as if it was going to be a historical epic. It was not. It was closer to a Lord of the Rings movie I found, what with the monsters and all. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, there have been movies like that based on historical occurances before, but it's the dissapointment that makes this movie suck in my eyes. I was promised a movie about the battle of Thermopylae (Actually, if you'll notice, the word is never used, however it is implied, what with using the same groups of people and all) and what I got was Thermopylae if it had been fought between Greeks and the Goa'uld of Stargate. Seriously, Xerxes looks like he's from Stargate. It's bad enough that the Persians were all Nubian, but then half of them look like minions of Sauron.

The acting wasn't great either, it was really overdone and on a completely superficial note: that was the worst sex scene I have ever seen. It looked like it was from the perspective of an extacy junkie watching from the closet.

[Acheron]

I thought it was really well done, the visuals that Zack Synder came up with were amazing and he really did Frank Miller proud by what he put together. As for overacting, uhh..how so? Butler did an awesome job as the big L, it's a pretty crazy role for someone to play.

Maybe it was just me but I thought the trailer made it pretty clear that 300 was not going to be about the actual historical events directly from how they were. The look of the Persians was also really well done, especially the look of Xerxes, a fantastic blend of greed and power.

Two thumbs up!

[Jin]

How am I supposed to answer that question? It was overacted because I thought they tried too hard and were over dramatic about everything. That scene where Leonidus screams "This is Sparta!" was just tacky. Obviously that's just my opinion though.

You're right though, the commercials did give a bit away about the monsters. I think I was dissapointed as soon as I saw that on the commercials mind you as before that it looked like it could be a true historical epic. I must admit that I wasn't expecting too much going into it. Regardless, I wasn't much of a fan.

[Zardoch]

How am I supposed to answer that question? It was overacted because I thought they tried too hard and were over dramatic about everything. That scene where Leonidus screams "This is Sparta!" was just tacky. Obviously that's just my opinion though.

You're right though, the commercials did give a bit away about the monsters. I think I was dissapointed as soon as I saw that on the commercials mind you as before that it looked like it could be a true historical epic. I must admit that I wasn't expecting too much going into it. Regardless, I wasn't much of a fan.

Oh jesus christ, another uninformed basher. Did you pay attention to some of the trailers that mentioned "from the creator of Sin city" (frank miller)? "300" is a graphic novel (or comic book) adaptations. It is in no way a "historically accuate" movie as it is based off a piece of fiction. That and they made it to be over-the-top.

And just incase you're skeptical in believing me here's something from the IMDB trivia page.

"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."

http://imdb.com/title/tt0416449/trivia

I'm getting tired of seeing people sling mud on the movie for being historically inaccurate.

[Angantyr]

Well it depends, if the movie is meant to be a based on an Event in History most people know the details and want to see it just as it happened, not some Hollywood butch up of it. However if it loosely inspired from it and does not use the title then it is understandable. A good example of this is the Beowulf movies, I am not saying this because I am a racist however there has NEVER been a Black Viking and their NEVER will be, perhaps a thrall but that is a different story, Hollywood or whatever needs to stop taking the classics and butchering them because they have ran out of creative ideas.

Oh and I keep hearing about this movie but honestly have no idea what it is about, somebody explain...

[Tifa]

I'm just lolling at all the people who rag on it for historical or "political" implications. Whatever though.

I didn't really pay attention to media much (I have no TV in my room either), but I thought the movie was enjoyable. I really liked how beautiful many of the scenes were with the vibrant colors (obv), but a lot of the acting via 'character development' was over the top and ridiculous.

I also ended up cracking up for most of the movie for some random reason that I probably shouldn't have. Overall, it was enjoyable. Good for the action, not much else. I liked how they did some stuff with the phalanx because I kind of studied it before, lol.

That being said, my friends and I enjoy drunken times with shouts of "THIS IS SPARTA" and kicking someone over the couch. +10pts lolz.

I'd watch it again. Sans ridiculous sex scene.

[Keisuke Takahashi]

I'm just lolling at all the people who rag on it for historical or "political" implications. Whatever though.

I didn't really pay attention to media much (I have no TV in my room either), but I thought the movie was enjoyable. I really liked how beautiful many of the scenes were with the vibrant colors (obv), but a lot of the acting via 'character development' was over the top and ridiculous.

I also ended up cracking up for most of the movie for some random reason that I probably shouldn't have. Overall, it was enjoyable. Good for the action, not much else. I liked how they did some stuff with the phalanx because I kind of studied it before, lol.

That being said, my friends and I enjoy drunken times with shouts of "THIS IS SPARTA" and kicking someone over the couch. +10pts lolz.

I'd watch it again. Sans ridiculous sex scene.

I just saw this movie, well like 8 hours ago... lol but I liked it. It entertained me for the 2.5 hours that I was sitting in my seat gazing at the screen. As Misa points out here, I too laughed at certain points in the movie, during inappropriate times, lol. Iono it was just funny seeing them do what they did, maybe I have a sick sense of humor =P

As for it being historically accurate or whatever? I didn't mind it at all. I mean I knew it was based off a true story, but told by Frank Miller, so you'd expect some kind of fiction to it right?

Also about the 300 bodyguards bit..

Originally Posted by Behemoth
Leonidas does not give up however and decides to use his personal body guards (300 of the best warriors that are under direct command) to fend off the Persian army.

which did number 300, but it was made up of 300 volunteers (a status given to men who had at least one male heir).

Yup, both of those happened, well in the movie anyways. =P When they're about to set out, you see them in the fields together, where Leonidas is giving his speech as to why they're there. They were volunteers that his captain I guess recruited and he made sure they had heirs to their names to go and defend Sparta. Later when "officals" come to see him wondering what they're about to do, Leonidas just refers to them as his Personal bodyguards that are following him as he goes for a stroll. Which I thought was kinda funny =P but yeah so in a sense both of you are right, in terms for the movie.. as for actual historical value? Iono.. >.>;

All in all, I thought the movie was good, some things that were kinda strange was that dude with the cleaver arms, iono why he needed cleaver arms, lol, that and the Persian women were ugly =P haha. I'd see the movie again, it was pretty good with some funny One Liners

[Dauragon]

in a sense both of you are right, in terms for the movie.. as for actual historical value? Iono.. >.>;

I hate to come across as arrogant, but as I said; history major, taken many courses in classics, read the works of Cartledge, Forrest, studied the works of Xenophon, Thucydides, etc... therefore, y'know, I know I'm right. I just really don't want to sound pretentious. I love the idea of making a movie based on an historical event, but I also don't like the "bastardization" of that same event be it intentional or unintentional.

Anyway... enough ranting.

[Zardoch]

Let me help ya there Winter .

300 is a graphic novel created by Frank Miller (as said before also the man who did Sin City) that tells his own tale about the battle of thermopylae. If you haven't researched the battle then I'll give you a simple summary of what happened.

In 480 B.C. a bunch of Persians landed near Sparta in an intention to take over. And after such Emperor Xerxes sent a messenger out to Sparta to ask for terms of surrender. Being the Spartans they were they offensively declined, killed the messenger, and decided to fight. Problem is the council does not wish to fight and as the main hero of this story - King Leonidas - ask for more troops they quickly decline. Leonidas does not give up however and decides to use his personal body guards (300 of the best warriors that are under direct command) to fend off the Persian army. And in knowing that he is greatly outnumbered he decides to fight in the place we all know as Thermopylae. This place is a narrow pathway to their city-state that has a huge mountain on one side of it and cliffs towards the ocean on the other. It's the perfect place for a small army to beat down a large number of warriors.

And that pretty much sets up the whole idea of the movie. Of course I haven't read all of the graphic novel yet, that's the best way I can explain it without spoiling anything. However, as in being a work of fiction there are also deformed beings and weird creatures that join the battle. Rhino's, elephants, and orc-like beings. Pretty much Frank did what Homer did in his poems and added an exaggerated fantasy to this true event of history. The movie has been slightly modified to appeal to a wider audience as my last post mentioned. So if there is anything I can suggest to you is to pick up the graphic novel and read it. It'll probably make the experience a whole lot more fun as well as less confusing.

[Dauragon]

Let me help ya there Winter .

300 is a graphic novel created by Frank Miller (as said before also the man who did Sin City) that tells his own tale about the battle of thermopylae. If you haven't researched the battle then I'll give you a simple summary of what happened.

In 480 B.C. a bunch of Persians landed near Sparta in an intention to take over. And after such Emperor Xerxes sent a messenger out to Sparta to ask for terms of surrender. Being the Spartans they were they offensively declined, killed the messenger, and decided to fight. Problem is the council does not wish to fight and as the main hero of this story - King Leonidas - ask for more troops they quickly decline. Leonidas does not give up however and decides to use his personal body guards (300 of the best warriors that are under direct command) to fend off the Persian army. And in knowing that he is greatly outnumbered he decides to fight in the place we all know as Thermopylae. This place is a narrow pathway to their city-state that has a huge mountain on one side of it and cliffs towards the ocean on the other. It's the perfect place for a small army to beat down a large number of warriors.

I don't want to sound pretentious or anything, but uh, as a history major, all I have to say is no, no and no.

Wars with the Persians started in 490, and were mainly against Athens due to Athens helping out during the Ionian revolts. I won't go into too much detail, but I'm sure you've all heard of the Battle of Marathon. Anyhow. Yes, ten years later, Xerxes planned an invasion of Greece using massive numbers as his strength. Thermopylae was chosen by the Spartans (who were elected to lead the campaign by the other Greeks), it was not the royal bodyguard, which did number 300, but it was made up of 300 volunteers (a status given to men who had at least one male heir). Thermopylae itself wasn't close to Sparta (the Spartans were good at fighting somewhere that wasn't the Peloponnese), but yes, it was narrow and the ideal place for the Spartan-led contingent to eliminate the Persians advantage in numbers.

I could go into specifics about how there were always two Spartan kings, the Spartans were incredibly religious, pederasty, homosexuality, etc.... but I don't think it's necessary.

Yes, something that is historically accurate would be nice, but ehh, it's a movie. I just don't want people believing that there's a lot of fact in it.

A few notes:
-"Dine in Hades" is the actual quote.
-Two Persians messengers that asked for Earth and Water, one buried alive, the other drowned in a well.
-Ephialtes was a local that was bribed by Xerxes and not horribly disfigured, but I think we all knew that.

I've taken courses devoted to Sparta, so yeah. Not being pretentious, just getting the facts straight.

[Bryan 2.0]

The movie definitely lived up to it's hype.

However, the movie was more accurate than one might think. Sure, it added fantasy and such, but there were alot of things true to history in the film. Such as some of the things that King Leonidas said. When the Persians order he and his men to lay down their weapons, his response actually was "Come and get them".

Also, he did give the "tonight we dine in hell" speech. Leonidas and the Spartans were very much like that. I think that the movie and graphic novel actually did very well in portraying the Spartans.

For example, when Philip II sent a message to Sparta that said "If I enter Laconia I will level Sparta to the ground", the Spartans simply replied with "If". It's just how they were. They were cocky and had every reason to be.

[Zardoch]

Well, I just watched it today and DAMN was that awesome. On IMDB I gave the movie a 10/10. Rarely do I 1) Write and review about a movie and 2) Give it a 10. I'm usually dissatisfied with most movies that come out (except for a few) and these are definitely one of these movies that were awesome. It's a very stylized action war film that barely slowed down once the battle ensued. In which I'll repeat in short summaries what I said in my review.

Storyline: Yes, yes. A predictable story that wasn't very "amazing". But what people forget is not how a story is written out in movies, it's how stories are told. Here we have Zack recreating Frank Miller's comic to a very loyal creation and as a director he did very well. He created the atmosphere and the graphic novel's feel perfectly. The blood helped further push that. 9/10

Acting: Overacted? Definitely. But you should already know how over-the-top this movie is made to be. However, I don't think the acting was that bad by any means really. Most of the men played their parts very well and the only problem I had a slight problem with was Lena playing Queen Gorgo, she was alright. Luckily, most of the acting is about above average or higher. 7.5/10

Graphics: What can I say? Those were some damn good graphics for a movie done mostly in green/blue screens and nothing looked too round or too blocky. The blood itself, even though CGI itself, created the comic book feel and was actually quite cool. It really created the atmosphere of the action and the graphic novel feel to a whole new level. This movie probably will change how film-makers do their films. 9.5/10

Action: I don't have say anything to let you know how much I enjoyed that action. Very stylized. Very violet. Very AWESOME! Even in the beginning I was screaming out "Ho!" with the soldiers as it really hyped me up. There was pwnage after pwnage and just mind-boggling kills that really made those Spartans look like bad-asses to the EXTREME. This mother ****er gets a 10/10.

Overall View: This movie is very loyal to the graphic novel, it is above average acted out, great graphics, great action, and great storytelling. Any flaws I saw are easily forgivable and forgettable. This movie is something any action or war fan should enjoy. Don't reference to LOTR or Gladiator. "300" is its' own ****ing masterpiece.

I give "300" a 10/10

[CLOUD]

Well,i just saw the movie & i also think it lived up to it's hype.

The only thing i didn't like was that in some parts it was as if we were watching LOTR 3,for instance the part with the 2 Spartans butchering & talking to each other.That was just like Legolas & Gimly.

Avtually,the answer was "Molon Lave" which is so much better to hear than come & get them.Just like that,the women of Sparta,not just the King's wife,always told the soldiers when they game them their sields "I tan,I epi tas" aka "with it or on it".The part where the blonde guy said that we'd fight in the shade was a good one too.That's accurate.

The thing is that in reallity,Spartans were even worse than what Hollywood made them look like.We're talking about the worst SOBs greece hwad given birth to.And,they killed more than shown in the movie,just because they were stronger than the Persians & they had an organized army,not like the Persian mercenairies.The Immorals were stong,but they weren't THAT much.They've shown at least double Immortals than they actually were.

Something exaggerating was what Sparta looked like.It wasn't that big & the structures were even more simple-lacedaimonians prefered simple things.At least,Thermolylae was quite good.It wasn't actually like that,but no matter that,it has been a good attempt.

In the ancient times intil today,there's this sayingm"to laconizin esti filosofin" which means (with a free translation) that "The laconian way is the philorophical way" not just with the way they spoke,with as few words as possible,but with the whole lifestyle,simple,something not to brag about.

For those who say that it's historically inaccurate,it's just innacurate because it's not based on history,but in FM's graphic novel,which is like that,full of sauce.Besides,it's Hollywood baby.

[saber372]

ugh.. i am having a horribly hard time deciding how good i thought this movie was. and i think the ending was the part that has me so torn. i dont know if i liked it. and i agree with whoever said there was much overacting. jsut about everything was. and i dont know yet. perhaps i shall vote another time. just someparts made me completely not interested. and not caring for characters. not a good thing.

[Zardoch]

I was laying out the story from the graphic novel's perspective, not the actual history. Though saying it started in 490 B.C. is slightly pushing it. Yes, Athens rebelled against them, but it took 10 years for Xerxes to group everything up and attack. I'd say it was more of a "spark" that began the preparation of the whole thing.

[Jin]

Oh jesus christ, another uninformed basher. Did you pay attention to some of the trailers that mentioned "from the creator of Sin city" (frank miller)? "300" is a graphic novel (or comic book) adaptations. It is in no way a "historically accuate" movie as it is based off a piece of fiction. That and they made it to be over-the-top.

And just incase you're skeptical in believing me here's something from the IMDB trivia page.

Oh Jesus, what a fan boy.

Please reread the last part of my post, genius. I clearly admitted that the commercials did not make it seem to be accurate minus the first few seconds, afterwhich I was instantly dissapointed and that contributed to my dislike of it.

Even so, I still don't think it was that great. If it isn't meant to be historically accurate, then it's nothing more than a historical rip off that had no original ideas of its own...save for that thing with cleavers for hands, whatever that was supposed to be.

[Itachi Uchiha]

I went watching the film yesterday with a few of my mates and all i can say is that we loved it. Sure there were some bits that people turned away (unlike me who just drooled from the violence ) but still it was an awesome fill. I don't see why some people think its rubbish (no offence to you people).

As was said earlier there was little to no storyline.

I'd have to disagree with that. There was a storyline to it that was put in throughout the film. Its the story of 300 spartans vs over million persians. So basicly its a a story about a battle and what happened in the eyes of the director.

And while the scenery was a thing of beauty some of the fighting didn't look all that realistic. Characters in the movie lacked uniquities like that which you see in real life fights.

True the effects of the environment and scenery were done to a almost perfect standard, flawless in my opinion. however the fighting did seem realistic to me. You say the soldiers lacked uniquities, well that is true. However thats what you get for bringing up and army in the say old fashioned way. No one had different training.

nothing wrong with watching incredibly buff men run around in loincloths for 2 hours.

I think most of the girls that came a long did enjoy that. Still there was a lot of flesh shown by both men and women throughout that film.

[Rocky]

I thought that 300 was great. It was made as a rated-R action film, and definitely lived up to its purpose in the movie industry. The battle scenes were very memorable and you could get the feel of how badass all the spartans were just by taking one look at them. It was a very intense and entertaining movie, and I got my money's worth by seeing it in the theaters.

[EthanElephants]

The battle scenes were very memorable and you could get the feel of how badass all the spartans were just by taking one look at them.

well acually you got about 50% of the feel of spartan life, they were alot different in real life.

[Kyo-san]

I just saw it. In terms of storyline... the movie was completely BUNK!

There was some beautiful imagery (and I'm not speaking about the muscular abs... I like my men thin, tall and PALE!). The bright colors (like the red of the Spartan cloaks) against a primarily mono-chromatic background were gorgeous.

However, I just can't get past the actual story... complete bollocks...

[Georg Prime]

Yeah I think the movie definitely lacks in terms of storyline..but at the same time, I don't think it was a movie really going for having a good storyline. I mean essentially it was a movie about a battle, and I think it accomplished it's job at being a somewhat mindless action film with some over dramatic acting and beautiful imagery. I mean I'd say it's definitely entertaining, the movie purposely wasn't going for the historical epic kind of thing and was offering something very different.

[Zardoch]

Yeah I think the movie definitely lacks in terms of storyline..but at the same time, I don't think it was a movie really going for having a good storyline. I mean essentially it was a movie about a battle, and I think it accomplished it's job at being a somewhat mindless action film with some over dramatic acting and beautiful imagery. I mean I'd say it's definitely entertaining, the movie purposely wasn't going for the historical epic kind of thing and was offering something very different.

Well, as I said in posting my review it's some times not how great how a story is written, it's how a story is told. And that's the director's job to bring the imagery from the script to life and even though the story was definitely "not that strong", Zack did a great job telling it. He's good at making entertainment . That was pretty much the movies purpose like you said.

[Bryan 2.0]

Even so, I still don't think it was that great. If it isn't meant to be historically accurate, then it's nothing more than a historical rip off that had no original ideas of its own...save for that thing with cleavers for hands, whatever that was supposed to be.

Well, if that's the case, alot of classic movies are "ripoffs". Take the Texas Chainsaw Massacre for example. There was no actual guy running around with a chainsaw screaming like he was a four year old. It's based on Ed Gein...and the movie is a classic.

I guess it's good news for you, then. You can save money on movie tickets and just sit at home watching the history channel. Whatever works for you, I guess.

[Jin]

Well, if that's the case, alot of classic movies are "ripoffs". Take the Texas Chainsaw Massacre for example. There was no actual guy running around with a chainsaw screaming like he was a four year old. It's based on Ed Gein...and the movie is a classic.

I guess it's good news for you, then. You can save money on movie tickets and just sit at home watching the history channel. Whatever works for you, I guess.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre...classic? Haha. Whatever works for you I suppose. I lke the fact that you're trying to call me a loser for having a different opinion about a movie. Anyways, I didn't mean that no movie should be made based on historical events. What I meant by that is that if it is they should say it is and try to be true to what happened. 300 did a very good job of not mentioning Thermopylae, which is silly. Anyways, historical issues aside, I still didn't really like it. It was okay, but nothing revolutionary in my opinion. What're you going to do?

[Kaiser Dragoon]

You took that all wrong. Granted, TCM is a terrible example of "originality", you have to look at a few key things. Movies are not original, period. That is just the way things are. Texas Chainsaw Massacre= a guy running around killing people. Where have I seen that before, oh wait, yeah, in all the Friday the 13th and Halloween movies. 300 is just another example of "A bunch of soldiers killing another bunch of soldiers". Honestly, if you don't like a movie because of originality, then there is no reason to watch any modern movies. They are all basically "Same Idea, different story".

Other than that, I have nothing to add to the discussion other than the fact I want to see this movie . I love movies based on Greek stuff .

~TheDarkDragoon

[Jin]

I'll say it again: Putting historical issues aside, I still didn't think the movie was that great. Not worth the hype that people are giving it anyways. Then again, this was more an action movie than a true epic (which I had been expecting) and I'm not that big a fan of action movies. So I guess we'll just agree to disagree. Or fight endlessly over nothing, either or.

[Bryan 2.0]

I wasn't implying that you were a loser because you have a different opinion. To each his own. I was just stating that everything has been done before in Hollywood and it'll continue to go that way.

As far as the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, yes, it is a classic and that is a fact. Not opinion. I'm not talking about the remake. I'm talking about the original. Now if I said it's the best movie ever made, it'd just be my opinion.

The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre paved the way for alot of horror films in it's class. Try an experiment. Ask the next person you see if they know what the Texas Chainsaw Massacre is. Then ask them if they've ever heard of a movie called Altered States.

It's just a fact.

[seven_DeviL_Clever]

i am a marine so seeing that movie was hardcore motivation. reading about the spartans is awesome they were an amazing culture and the movie flippin rocked

[Oathkeeper13]

Man I cannot wait to see this movie.

I keep hearing that it kicks ass. Im goanna see this tomorrow hopefully it will rock.