*** MOVIE 300 - REVIEW ***

[Warfare1]

I saw the film today and loved it.

It has a unique visual style that is simply stunning; the battle sequences are superb; and the acting reflects that this movie is a man's movie - that Spartan warriors are born and bred for battle...

9.5/10




Here is Roeper's review - he loved the film:

Listen up, men! And women! But not kids!

If you thought "Gladiator" was a bit too stingy with the bloodshed, if you felt "Sin City" could have been more stylized, if you hate it when the masses refer to graphic novels as "comic books," this is your day.

Warner Bros. Pictures presents a film directed by Zack Snyder. Written by Snyder, Kurt Johnstad and Michael Gordon. Based on the novel by Frank Miller. Running time: 117 minutes. Rated R (for graphic battle sequences throughout, some sexuality and nudity). Opening today at local theaters.

For today brings about the release of "300," and it is the "Citizen Kane" of cinematic graphic novels.

This is a movie that revels in a time when men were men and women were women, and the men loved the women but spent most of their time fighting with other men, all the while spouting grandiloquent speeches about duty and country and loyalty, and the glory of a "beautiful death" on the battlefield.

It is excessively, cheerfully violent -- and it is gorgeous to behold. It looks like the world's most sophisticated and expensive video game, and I mean that in a good way.

In this sweeping and epic adaptation of the classic graphic novel from master-of-the-genre Frank Miller ("Sin City," "The Dark Knight Returns"), director Zack Snyder has created a jaw-dropping, surrealistic dreamscape filled with stunning images, simmering and seriocomic homoeroticism, a topless oracle-babe, a sexy queen, larger-than-life warriors, hot love scenes, cutting-edge special effects and battle sequences so ambitious, you sometimes have to laugh at the sheer audacity of the whole thing.

This is a film that never, not for one second, considers taking its foot off the accelerator. Once the battle is joined, it pretty much keeps going until the final frame, with only a few dialogue-driven scenes placed here and there to allow you to catch your breath, turn to your buddy and say, "Are you #%!#$!* kidding me!"

This is the kind of movie that throws babies off a cliff, literally. (Hey -- there's a reason for it.) This is the kind of film that presents battlefield beheadings with the same slow-motion poetry it employs for a soft-core sex sequence, and if you're offended by that, you're at the wrong flick. The blood flies and spurts with such force and velocity that I felt a little like one of those front-row attendees at a Blue Man Group show, where they have you put on a poncho lest you get covered in viscous liquid goo.

The blueprint for "300" is drawn from ancient Greece and one of the most legendary and important conflicts in recorded history -- the Battle of Thermopylae, pitting a small band of Spartan warriors against the massive Persian forces that were conquering much of the world, one blood-spattered territory after another. Snyder and Miller combine elements of the actual battle from 480 B.C. with other clashes between the mighty Spartans and the overwhelming forces of the Persian "god-king" Xerxes (as played by Rodrigo Santoro, he's a giant warlord with Jared Leto-esque eyeliner and more piercings than Christina Aguilera in her sadomasochistic heyday), but the essence of the legend is intact: At a point in history when an oppressive ruler was a threat to rule the world, a fierce king and his hand-selected army of just 300 warriors fought to the death to preserve freedom for Sparta and for all of Greece. Their valiant stance provided the inspiration for Spartan warriors and for other freedom fighters for generations to come -- and if you think all that sounds a bit hokey and pretentious, wait until you hear the narration in this movie.

They're not kidding around here. This is manly man stuff, with bare-chested studs with rippled torsos (did they have Bowflex back in the day?) becoming nearly orgasmic at the prospect of slaughtering the enemy -- or perhaps even better, dying on the battlefield in the name of Sparta. (After a Spartan captain loses an eye in battle, the king asks him if the "scratch" will hold him back. The captain jauntily responds that the Good Lord was kind enough to grant him a spare eye, so he'll be just fine. Now what's for post-battle dinner?) When fending off tens of thousands of men, not to mention a charging rhino and multiple elephants, they dig in their sandals and figure it's time to get serious. Outnumbered 100-to-1, that seems like a fair fight.

These men are bred to fight from an early age -- literally expelled to the wild at age 7. They'll return as Spartan warriors, or they don't return. On the field of battle, they're in their natural habitat. You half-expect one blood-spattered warrior to turn to another and say, "It doesn't get any better than this."

Though his face is covered with a tricky beard throughout and a battle mask for much of the film, Gerard Butler delivers an honest and three-dimensional performance as King Leonidas, who never strays from his convictions and never hesitates to put himself on the front lines. Perhaps the only stronger character in the film is his adoring wife, Queen Gorgo (the luminous Lena Headey). She doesn't just encourage her king to take on the suicidal task of fending off the Persians, she insists upon on it, telling him, "Return with your shield -- or on your shield." Something tells us she won't be tying yellow ribbons 'round the old Greek columns, waiting for her man to come home.

Dominic West is suitably slimy as Theron, a politician who plots against Leonidas while the king is away. Even as he tries to make the argument that Leonidas is engaging in an illegal war that will destroy Sparta, you just know there's going to be a scene in which he encounters the beautiful queen in a dark corner and places his filthy hands on her. Gorgo's moment of revenge is perhaps the signature applause moment in a film sure to have the fanboys hooting their approval numerous times.

Snyder directs "300" as the tallest of tall tales -- a vivid dream. You want realism and devotion to the hard facts, watch the History Channel. You want to experience the Battle of Thermopylae as a nonstop thrill ride, here's your ticket.

[Warfare1]

Here are some pictures from the movie:

http://movies.about.com/library/weekly/bl300picsa.htm

[Warfare1]

Here are a few pictures:

[David Heath]

My son wants to see this movie so bad.  I don't mind the battle parts being bloody but I want to rally avoid it with him if there is a lot of sex parts in the flick.  Does any one have a answer for me on this that has seen the movie.

David

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: David Heath

My son wants to see this movie so bad.  I don't mind the battle parts being bloody but I want to rally avoid it with him if there is a lot of sex parts in the flick.  Does any one have a answer for me on this that has seen the movie.

David

Here's a website for you that gets down into very great detail describing all sorts of possible objectionable details in any movie he covers, but he doesn't cover them all. I notice he hasn't covered 300 yet, and perhaps that means he will not. Here's the website anyway:

http://www.screenit.com/

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: David Heath

My son wants to see this movie so bad.  I don't mind the battle parts being bloody but I want to rally avoid it with him if there is a lot of sex parts in the flick.  Does any one have a answer for me on this that has seen the movie.

David

With all respect why is a sex scene -probably no longer than a couple of seconds- more disturbing than mutilated bodies, exterminated envoys, tramped soldiers oiles of bodies, and frightening monsters?

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

With all respect why is a sex scene -probably no longer than a couple of seconds- more disturbing than mutilated bodies, exterminated envoys, tramped soldiers oiles of bodies, and frightening monsters?

Good question. Strange attitude in relation to a 'R' rated movie, IMHO... certainly one that doesn't have a specific sexual theme, anyway.

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: David Heath

My son wants to see this movie so bad. I don't mind the battle parts being bloody but I want to rally avoid it with him if there is a lot of sex parts in the flick. Does any one have a answer for me on this that has seen the movie.

David

David:

There is one loving sex scene between Leonidas and his wife that is very tastefully handled. You don't see much. I have seen more on TV.

There is also a forceful "rape" scene that is also tastefully done - ie very little is shown and it doesn't last long.

I thought the film would be a lot bloodier - again, it is all tastefully handled.

This is a graphic novel come to the big screen. Zack Synder (the director) and Gerald Butler (Leonidas) deserve a lot praise for what they have done.

[Warfare1]

I should also add that I went to the first showing in the afternoon of this film and the theatre was packed with the young and the old; with couples; with groups of guys; and with groups of girls. Usually, the theatre is never this crowded at that time of day. 

[Warfare1]

Here is another review from "Moviesonline":


300 Movie Review
10 out of 10 Stars
By: The Dude

If you've seen the trailer, you know that the movie looks full of obscenely ridiculous action sequences that would kick unholy amounts of arse. The movie is a two hour, R-rated version of that trailer. It inspires many an exagerrated obscene comment, but it's completely deserving in doing so. 300 is adapted from the graphic novel by Frank Miller.

It tells the story of the 300 Spartan warriors led by their bad ass King Leonidas (Gerard Butler), as they stand up against the tens of thousands of Persians awaiting to conquer and absorb Sparta into the empire. The Persians are lead by Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro), who figures himself a god among men. And the movie is about their battle. Sure, there's a fair amount of political intrigue amongst the Queen (Lena Headey, who is quite yummy) and a traitor among the Sparta elite (Dominic West), but really the movie is about the battle, which is a technically accomplished series of fight scenes like I have yet to see before. Seriously. You'll want to compare them to scenes from Lord of the Rings or Gladiator, but you'd be wrong. Oh my, you will be wrong. One example would be the long, unbroken shot of Leonidas fighting in the first battle, the one that doesn't cut and keeps speeding up and slowing down, was quite invigorating, and a stand out among many great epic battle sequences.

Jaw dropping, and I might even be so inclined to say awe inspiring, battle sequences. The visuals themselves, even when not involving bloodshed or carnage, are a sight to behold. Much like the previous Miller adaptation Sin City, 300 was made with generous help from all digital environments. I don't know how faithful the film is to the graphic novel, but I can say that it looks damn fine, like the novel had come to life. Although what I viewed tonight was a workprint, most of the effects and digital rendering had been completed, and it never looked obnoxiously fake at all. It's a beautiful looking movie. The actors do well for their roles, with Gerard Butler as a very convincing badass leader, even though he doesn't need to keep shouting everything as if it were a grand statement. But you know what? It doesn't matter because I'd follow him into battle any day.

Mainly because I know that he could pretty much single-handedly take care of everyone for me, but he'd know I have his back. Zach Snyder, he of Dawn of the Dead ('04) fame, directs 300 with a sure hand, telling a rock solid tale of honor and valor and mostly about kicking ass. Looking back upon the film, I'm starting to pick up on some themes that are a little freaky if you stop to think about them. (Spartans discard imperfect babies, so as to keep their army full of the strongest. This leads one to realize that the Spartans are kind of creating their own master race. And when you think of creating a master race, Nazis also come to mind. And yet, we the viewer are supposed to identify and support these Nazis. These superior soldiers who, by the way, all kind of look like He-Man action figures, and made me feel inadequate about myself.)

There is a lot one can take away from this film. But purely on a knee-jerk visceral level, it's going to be very hard to top this movie. It's an adrenaline shot to your standard epic film. It packs a lot of testosterone into a two hour gap, but when compared to the bloated epics of late (Troy, Alexander, Kingdom of Heaven), it's quite refreshing. I don't know if I can keep lavishing praise on this film. I know this much, I can't wait to see it again. It's nice to see a movie that's not afraid to do new things while at the same time telling a solid story. A story of fighting. A lot of fighting. A hell of a lot of fighting, but done so well, and in such a damn good looking movie. It's a movie that makes you excited about movies again. Hell, it reduced me to obscene fan-boy gushing like I lost my virginity or solved the world's economic crises, full of hyperbole and nonsensical ramblings. That's what this movie does!!! 300 is one hell of a film.

http://www.moviesonline.ca/movie_review ... hp?id=4354

[Warfare1]

Early showings for "300" film draw sell-out crowds

By Steve Gorman

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The ultra-bloody warrior film "300," about a legendary battle between the Spartans and Persians, seemed headed for U.S. box-office glory on Friday with sell-out crowds flocking to early showings.

Imax, the giant-screen movie chain, reported that all 57 of its 12:01 a.m. Friday screenings of the Warner Bros. film had sold out as its advance ticket sales for the weekend hit a new record for the month of March.

"We had the most amazing night," said Greg Foster, chairman and president of Imax Filmed Entertainment, adding that many Imax cinemas arranged 2:30 a.m. shows at the last minute to accommodate fans who failed to get into the midnight showings.

Many of the rest of the nation's 600 cinemas with early morning shows also played to capacity crowds, said Dan Fellman, domestic distribution president for the Time Warner-owned studio.

"They were flocking everywhere, not just to Imax," he told Reuters.

While overnight business accounted for a fraction of the more than 3,100 North American cinemas where "300" was opening on Friday, the early surge at the multiplex was a strong indicator that the film was poised for a robust first weekend.

Some box-office analysts predicted "300" could finish the weekend in the $50 million (26 million pound) range, an impressive achievement for a March opening given the film's "R" rating and lack of stars.

Seeking to squelch inflated expectations, Fellman said a weekend gross in the mid-$30 million range was "a more accurate estimate of where things are going to go."

SOLD OUT

Still, leading online ticket seller Fandango reported "300" was selling at twice the rate of a previously unexpected box-office hit, "Ghost Rider," which opened two weekends ago with $38 million.

With no other major film releases this weekend, Fandango said 94 percent of its business was going to "300" with hundreds of screenings selling out. "Exhibitors are continually adding show times," Fandango spokesman Harry Medved said.

The record sum for a March opening is currently held by the computer-animated family film "Ice Age: The Meltdown," which grossed $68 million in its first weekend last year. The original "Ice Age" is No. 2 with $46 million in 2002.

"300" has received mixed reviews -- New York Times critic A.O. Scott called it "about as violent as 'Apocalypto' and twice as stupid" -- but has benefited from an aggressive Internet-based promotional campaign appealing to a younger, tech-focused crowd.

The hyper-stylised film, based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller about the ancient battle at Thermopylae in 480 B.C., was shot using actors staging combat scenes against blue screens on which the background and special effects are superimposed via computer graphics.

Amid the spectacle of severed limbs, decapitations and copious amounts of blood, the movie reenacts the story of 300 Spartans under King Leonidas who held out against the advancing Persian hordes led by Xerxes in one of the most famous last stands in history.

Warner Bros. is hoping to surpass the box-office success of another Miller adaptation, "Sin City," which grossed $160 million worldwide from a $40 million budget, according to movie Web site boxofficemojo.com

[martxyz]

I'd heard some mild critism of the original graphic novel, because of one significant bending of history. I'm afraid that I have neither read the novel or seen the movie, but I did get to watch a brilliant BBC documentary on Sparta and on Thermopylae. The criticism of the 300 graphic novel was that it portrayed the Spartans as being a bit homophobic. The criticism wasn't a moral one, but made the observation that to think of Spartans as homophobic  missed the whole point. Spartan men were raised together, grew up together, made love to each other and had strong bonds based on friendship and love. That's what made them so formidable. They would die for each other. They had wives and families, but the bonds between Spartan warriors were so strong because they were also lovers.

I just wondered what the film made of all that.

When I saw the documentary, I was SO surprised. It wasn't a moral thing. It was just that, like most people, it wasn't how I imagined it was among the Spartan warriors. It had simply never entered my imagination. In any event, the documentary about thermopylae was pretty rivetting in it's own right, and by the sound of it, the film is fantastic.

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: Mart

I'd heard some mild critism of the original graphic novel, because of one significant bending of history. I'm afraid that I have neither read the novel or seen the movie, but I did get to watch a brilliant BBC documentary on Sparta and on Thermopylae. The criticism of the 300 graphic novel was that it portrayed the Spartans as being a bit homophobic. The criticism wasn't a moral one, but made the observation that to think of Spartans as homophobic missed the whole point. Spartan men were raised together, grew up together, made love to each other and had strong bonds based on friendship and love. That's what made them so formidable. They would die for each other. They had wives and families, but the bonds between Spartan warriors were so strong because they were also lovers.

I just wondered what the film made of all that.

When I saw the documentary, I was SO surprised. It wasn't a moral thing. It was just that, like most people, it wasn't how I imagined it was among the Spartan warriors. It had simply never entered my imagination. In any event, the documentary about thermopylae was pretty rivetting in it's own right, and by the sound of it, the film is fantastic.

No mention is made of anything even coming close to what you mentioned.

The opening narration sets the stage about Spartan society, its children, and its warrior ethos.

It's all about the battle, duty, honor, and how utterly bad-ass the Spartans were. They would rather die than surrender or retreat.

[martxyz]

Yeah, that's exactly the impression I got from the documentary. They led a very tough life, and were apparently very harsh with "slaves" captured in various wars. The interesting thing was that apart from the tough regime that the spartan males were used to, and their personal courage, there was also this incredible bond between groups that had grown up together, fought together, and within which there had been strong sexual ties. They weren't just a "band of brothers" but almost had family loyalty to their comrades, and were savagely protective of each other, as well as being extremely cohesive as a force. Interestingly, the documentary about thermopylae showed then having exactly the attitude you describe in the film. Apparently they just sat around casually, waiting for the onslaught, and didn't even give a damn if obvious spies were to walk around their camp. They took the attitude that "we have nothing to hide and we're just here whenever you want to give it a try!". Absolutely phenomenal. I often wonder how it would have ended if they hadn't been betrayed. My guess is that they would probably have won! 

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

With all respect why is a sex scene -probably no longer than a couple of seconds- more disturbing than mutilated bodies, exterminated envoys, tramped soldiers oiles of bodies, and frightening monsters?

Good question. Strange attitude in relation to a 'R' rated movie, IMHO... certainly one that doesn't have a specific sexual theme, anyway.

Although asked respectfully, it was still a somewhat rude question. Mr Heath shouldn't have to explain his reasons. He just asked a simple question to get some info for his own valid reasons.

You guys prefer to take your kids to see "sexy" movies rather than violent movies that's your business. I can tell you this, your kids might be uncomfortable watching them with their parents.

One good reason I can think of to shield kids from sex in movies is: You wouldn't want your child to get confusing or improper messages on an activity they will soon be very interested in, if they aren't already.

An even simpler reason a person might have could be: Sex should be private.

[Brigz]

ORIGINAL: mjk428

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

With all respect why is a sex scene -probably no longer than a couple of seconds- more disturbing than mutilated bodies, exterminated envoys, tramped soldiers oiles of bodies, and frightening monsters?

Good question. Strange attitude in relation to a 'R' rated movie, IMHO... certainly one that doesn't have a specific sexual theme, anyway.

Although asked respectfully, it was still a somewhat rude question. Mr Heath shouldn't have to explain his reasons. He just asked a simple question to get some info for his own valid reasons.

You guys prefer to take your kids to see "sexy" movies rather than violent movies that's your business. I can tell you this, your kids might be uncomfortable watching them with their parents.

One good reason I can think of to shield kids from sex in movies is: You wouldn't want your child to get confusing or improper messages on an activity they will soon be very interested in, if they aren't already.

An even simpler reason a person might have could be: Sex should be private.

Ursa MAior obviously threw the comment in just to start an argument. The sex/violence in film content debate is a very old and worn out subject. Every one here has heard it before, so to inject it in this thead is just an attempt to throw a handgrenade into what was a polite discussion obout a current movie.

But to be blunt, here in the US we tend to grudgingly accept graphic violence in films but put more stringent curbs on graphic sex when it comes to our children. Those who have young children will know what I mean. It's a cultural thing. And I know Ursa MAior would be the last person on these forums to insult or criticise someone else's country or culture.

[Ursa MAior]

Thanks for the positivsm Dave. [;)]
 
I have a 7 yr old daughter and a 4,5 yr old son. Until they are 15+ they wont see any R rated movies for sure (at least not with my knowledge). Ratings are there for a reason and IMDB has a short description after the rating. I know that in the US violence is more accepted visually than sex, Sophie Marceau had a good line about it after she played in one of the Bond movies, but I am still curious on why the forum members (or moderatrs in this case) see it this way?
 
I am interested in your opinion too Dave and mjk.
 
As of insults Dave you will have a hard time to find one offending sentence from me towards ANY civilized country. I know what it means to be guest, not that  it can be said for some of the hosts. [;)][8D]

[Brigz]

I appreciate your reply and knowing you have children of your own puts the matter in a better context. However, I still don't understand your intention or motivation to bring up such a trivial and extremely common argument in this thread. Everyone here has heard the sex/violence film content argument hundreds of times concerning countless films. It serves no purpose to interject it here other than to get some idiot like me to respond. [;)]

I'm honestly not trying to pick on you or single you out. It's just that your intention, at least to me, is highly suspect. You might as well have made the comment, "The sky is blue today" or "water is wet". The logical and meaningful positioning of your comment in this thread defies me. I am very interested in hearing comments about this particular film, which is what this thread is about. The cultural relevance of sex vs. violence in films has nothing to do with this discussion. Why bring it up? [&:]

Like you, as I have read in your post so many times before, I have the most absolute respect for other people, their cultures and opinons, and also like you I would never knowingly try to inflict my own cultural bias on someone else. That is why I find it so baffling as to why you would interject such a culturally relative argument into this thread.

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: David Heath

My son wants to see this movie so bad.  I don't mind the battle parts being bloody but I want to rally avoid it with him if there is a lot of sex parts in the flick.  Does any one have a answer for me on this that has seen the movie.

David

Dave,

I just saw the movie last night with some friends (Ironically for a man's movie, they were all women. I won't complain though).

I will warn you, there is one sex scene that is fairly graphic for an R rated movie. It isn't long, but you do see nipples. You also see nipples during a scene involving an oracle. There is also a brief rape scene that doesn't show anything. It is only about a minute long, and really doesn't show anything leaving most of what happened to the imagination, but I can see where you might not think it is appropriate for a son.

The battle scenes are really graphic and IMO on the graphic-o-meter outweigh the short sex scene, but I thought I would let you know.

If you covered his eyes (like my mom did me way back when) it might be okay, but I dunno...

[Ursa MAior]

1. I have not heard about this sex/violance issue before. I knew about it but did not know it is so common.
2. I dont visit too many forums and would not expect a we-went-over-it-a-1000-times approach towards this isssue from a wargames community. I would not bring up anything like zero/f4f or tiger/any other tank.[;)]
3. After getting my masters in history I plan to teach in an anglophone country (of course USA is on the list too) so I'd like to know as much as from those in question as possible. I read Huntington's Who we are and understand a lot more about americans than before, but of course not everything.

If I may I'd like to suggest that foreigners asking questions should not be shot on spot.[;)] Every joke is new for an infant.