300 Review

Off Topic
121

[quote]BarneyFife wrote:
Majin wrote:
BarneyFife wrote:
The part where leonidas meets with the other greeks, and says that he has brough more soldiers-

I told my lady that it was the Marines meeting the national guard.

And she probably thought “who gives a shit…”. Sorry, no offense but she probably got nothing out of that reference. Am I wrong?

No she understood completely, and even chuckled at it.

You should date smarter women.

She was angry about the horses, elephants, and the rinocerhos getting killed, but you can’t win them all.

[/quote]
Everyone knows smart women are ugos.

122

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
My only criticism is that the women should have been more built.

Spartans believed that strong women produced stronger sons.

As such, they were raised in gymnastics and martial arts from birth, just like any male Spartan. The actresses should’ve at least looked the part.

– ElbowStrike[/quote]

I think taking a Leonidas size pounding every chance he can give it is pretty taxing. Do you honestly think that the Queen character would have enough strenght to do anything else but recooperate and try to regain enough strength to walk without looking like a crab?

123

For anyone interested there’s a thing on the battle of thermopalye on the history channel.

124

[quote]hockechamp14 wrote:
For anyone interested there’s a thing on the battle of thermopalye on the history channel.[/quote]

Just watched that, haven’t seen the movie, will likely wait for DVD rental.

Although I’m a pretty staunch history buff, I realize that a great amount of artistic license was taken with the movie, and no illusions were made about this fact beforehand.

Even so, I just can’t get over the fact that they had these guys fighting in little more than capes and Daisy Dukes. And some of you have bashed Troy for being homoerotic?

The Spartans, like every ancient Greek soldier, were covered head-to-toe in bronze when they went to war. This superior armoring had as much to do with their being able to hold the pass at Thermopylae as their ferocity and skill. What’s more, their armor looked bad-ass!

If a gory, test-driven cinematic event was what the movie creators were going for, I can’t fathom why they thought 3/4 naked men would look more hardcore and battle-ready than men in full Spartan war armor.

But, I guess you risk losing the female demographic without wall-to-wall ripped abs and bulging pecs. Welcome to Hollywood.

125

[quote]veruvius wrote:
I just saw this movie on IMAX. That made the experience as intense as it gets without drugs. I was entertained, but at no point was I drawn into the movie like with a great movie.

Historical accuracy does nothing to make a good movie. Textbooks won’t make a bestsellers list, but a well written non-fiction book will. Development of the plot would have made this a great movie. Instead it was left as entertaining.[/quote]

I saw the movie last night with my husband and we both liked it. I agree with the above, I was entertained, but don’t really think it was a great movie.

126

This movie was great, my wife and I really enjoyed it.

127

This actually what happen in 480 B.C., as it is based on an actual event. The movie was based on a comic book, but this book was also very close to what actually happen and yes all 300 died in the end!

128

I was so excited to see this movie, but to be honest, was a little bit let down afterwards. I had read Stephen Pressfield’s “Gates of Fire” before, so I guess my expectations were very high. I thought it was a very entertaining/manly movie, but the lack of character depth and background story really hurt my opinion of the film. As was previously stated, you felt no reason whatsoever to care if Sparta burned, no reasons to hate Xerxes and the Persian legions. In no way does this movie rank up to par with Gladiator or Braveheart, but it is entertaining and visually stunning nonetheless. Also, if you like boobies, you will like this movie. :slight_smile:

129

[quote]csuson wrote:
I was so excited to see this movie, but to be honest, was a little bit let down afterwards. I had read Stephen Pressfield’s “Gates of Fire” before, so I guess my expectations were very high. I thought it was a very entertaining/manly movie, but the lack of character depth and background story really hurt my opinion of the film. As was previously stated, you felt no reason whatsoever to care if Sparta burned, no reasons to hate Xerxes and the Persian legions. In no way does this movie rank up to par with Gladiator or Braveheart, but it is entertaining and visually stunning nonetheless. Also, if you like boobies, you will like this movie. :)[/quote]

Why would we care for Sparta regardless? In any story, the relation is to the characters, not what country they live in. Neither Gladiator nor Braveheart made you care about their countries. You cared for the individual. You cared that someone was killed leading to revenge. This movie did a great job of showing they didn’t spend much time on emotions. He didn’t even look back at his wife when he left. Showing more emotion would have TAKEN AWAY from the feeling they were trying to get across…that these people were warriors, not poetic lovers who cried themselves to sleep at night. The Queen didn’t cry over the fact that she would be sending her only son off in a year. She didn’t ball her eyes out that the King was dead. Perhaps what you all are calling a lack of character development…IS the character development.

130

[quote]Professor X wrote:
csuson wrote:
I was so excited to see this movie, but to be honest, was a little bit let down afterwards. I had read Stephen Pressfield’s “Gates of Fire” before, so I guess my expectations were very high. I thought it was a very entertaining/manly movie, but the lack of character depth and background story really hurt my opinion of the film. As was previously stated, you felt no reason whatsoever to care if Sparta burned, no reasons to hate Xerxes and the Persian legions. In no way does this movie rank up to par with Gladiator or Braveheart, but it is entertaining and visually stunning nonetheless. Also, if you like boobies, you will like this movie. :slight_smile:

Why would we care for Sparta regardless? In any story, the relation is to the characters, not what country they live in. Neither Gladiator nor Braveheart made you care about their countries. You cared for the individual. You cared that someone was killed leading to revenge. This movie did a great job of showing they didn’t spend much time on emotions. He didn’t even look back at his wife when he left. Showing more emotion would have TAKEN AWAY from the feeling they were trying to get across…that these people were warriors, not poetic lovers who cried themselves to sleep at night. The Queen didn’t cry over the fact that she would be sending her only son off in a year. She didn’t ball her eyes out that the King was dead. Perhaps what you all are calling a lack of character development…IS the character development.[/quote]

Good point.

131

Strong point “X.”

And as far as the homoerotic comments…the dudes were jacked and shredded. I think that is where many t-thoughts come out, not in their garb, but the shape that these guys were in.

As far as anyone being let down, well heck I have friends that didnt like the Conan Saga, the two Star Wars Trilogies, and Pacino movies…does that mean that they are bad people, NO…BUT they have really bad taste like some of you estrogen laiden people.

SP

ps…this is not aimed towards any women who may read, just for men lacking the T-gene.

132

Looooved the movie. I’ll buy the DVD. Expected it to be light on actual history and heavy on the violence, it’s based on the graphic novel after all.

Amused that they made Xerses look like RuPaul on a tantrum tear - the real Xerses, and the real Persian army were formidable opposition. It would have made the Spartans look more impressive had they shown a bit more of Persian Power to balance out the Pomp.

Loved that the warriors were hard asses, bantering while building a wall of stinking rotting humans, rather than talking about their pregnant wives, grain fields back home, and the trick they taught their dog.

Fight scenes where downright fun.

Sexual scenes were too heavy in inference with not enough substance.

“What is you profession?” a favorite scene. I think the nay-sayers running about squealing like stuck pigs would have been dealt with more severely than just telling them to bugger off.

After the peppered comments about the strength and power of Spartan women, her falling for the ‘I’ll turn tail in the Senate and support you whom I’ve always emphatically stood against - if I can do you’ scene was beyond stupid. I liked that she offed him herself but she did make it quick. Dammit.

I agree with an earlier post on the physique of the women. That Queen would have had a body that was more than just attractive, it would have been powerful too.

133

[quote]Professor X wrote:
csuson wrote:
I was so excited to see this movie, but to be honest, was a little bit let down afterwards. I had read Stephen Pressfield’s “Gates of Fire” before, so I guess my expectations were very high. I thought it was a very entertaining/manly movie, but the lack of character depth and background story really hurt my opinion of the film. As was previously stated, you felt no reason whatsoever to care if Sparta burned, no reasons to hate Xerxes and the Persian legions. In no way does this movie rank up to par with Gladiator or Braveheart, but it is entertaining and visually stunning nonetheless. Also, if you like boobies, you will like this movie. :slight_smile:

Why would we care for Sparta regardless? In any story, the relation is to the characters, not what country they live in. Neither Gladiator nor Braveheart made you care about their countries. You cared for the individual. You cared that someone was killed leading to revenge. This movie did a great job of showing they didn’t spend much time on emotions. He didn’t even look back at his wife when he left. Showing more emotion would have TAKEN AWAY from the feeling they were trying to get across…that these people were warriors, not poetic lovers who cried themselves to sleep at night. The Queen didn’t cry over the fact that she would be sending her only son off in a year. She didn’t ball her eyes out that the King was dead. Perhaps what you all are calling a lack of character development…IS the character development.[/quote]

finally! someone who gets it. I get so tired of people saying it lacks character development…take it for what it is a movie based on an actual event in history and you will enjoy instead of comparing it to the over dramatic movie gladiator…which in my opinion was good but not great

134

[quote]Psychotropic wrote:
Looooved the movie. I’ll buy the DVD. Expected it to be light on actual history and heavy on the violence, it’s based on the graphic novel after all.

Amused that they made Xerses look like RuPaul on a tantrum tear - the real Xerses, and the real Persian army were formidable opposition. It would have made the Spartans look more impressive had they shown a bit more of Persian Power to balance out the Pomp.

Loved that the warriors were hard asses, bantering while building a wall of stinking rotting humans, rather than talking about their pregnant wives, grain fields back home, and the trick they taught their dog.

Fight scenes where downright fun.

Sexual scenes were too heavy in inference with not enough substance.

“What is you profession?” a favorite scene. I think the nay-sayers running about squealing like stuck pigs would have been dealt with more severely than just telling them to bugger off.

After the peppered comments about the strength and power of Spartan women, her falling for the ‘I’ll turn tail in the Senate and support you whom I’ve always emphatically stood against - if I can do you’ scene was beyond stupid. I liked that she offed him herself but she did make it quick. Dammit.

I agree with an earlier post on the physique of the women. That Queen would have had a body that was more than just attractive, it would have been powerful too. [/quote]

Yeah it would have added to the movie had the shown the persian army’s prowess. Afterall they did rule the entire known world at that time so they definitely were not a push over. However, this is the same army that was dfeated by Alexander the great in their own territory and again the had superiority in numbers as well…as matter of fact it was xerxes father—darius

135

[quote]Mad Titan wrote:
Psychotropic wrote:
Looooved the movie. I’ll buy the DVD. Expected it to be light on actual history and heavy on the violence, it’s based on the graphic novel after all.

Amused that they made Xerses look like RuPaul on a tantrum tear - the real Xerses, and the real Persian army were formidable opposition. It would have made the Spartans look more impressive had they shown a bit more of Persian Power to balance out the Pomp.

Loved that the warriors were hard asses, bantering while building a wall of stinking rotting humans, rather than talking about their pregnant wives, grain fields back home, and the trick they taught their dog.

Fight scenes where downright fun.

Sexual scenes were too heavy in inference with not enough substance.

“What is you profession?” a favorite scene. I think the nay-sayers running about squealing like stuck pigs would have been dealt with more severely than just telling them to bugger off.

After the peppered comments about the strength and power of Spartan women, her falling for the ‘I’ll turn tail in the Senate and support you whom I’ve always emphatically stood against - if I can do you’ scene was beyond stupid. I liked that she offed him herself but she did make it quick. Dammit.

I agree with an earlier post on the physique of the women. That Queen would have had a body that was more than just attractive, it would have been powerful too.

Yeah it would have added to the movie had the shown the persian army’s prowess. Afterall they did rule the entire known world at that time so they definitely were not a push over. However, this is the same army that was dfeated by Alexander the great in their own territory and again the had superiority in numbers as well…as matter of fact it was xerxes father—darius

[/quote]

Alexander fought Darius III who was a distant relative of Xerxes.

Anyways this movie was awesome and what I love about T-Nation is people can see that. On another message board I go to everyone is freaking out over whether it is racist and/or sexist, homophobic etc. It’s tiresome.

136

Didn’t see the movie yet so don’t know how it is depicted:

In real life history, even though there were 300 Spartans that indeed did fight, they did not fight alone. There were about 1,000 (if I remember correctly the number) other solders that fought by their sides. Despite that, the Spartans were some of the best skilled and very hardened solders. I remember in history class that it was the belief of Spartans that one spartan soldier was equal to 10 enemy soldiers. Spartans had an extremely rigorous training program for their warriors.

The reason Leonidas fought to the death was due to some prophecy that he was to fulfill stating that he and his men would fight to their deaths a valiant fight. Leonidas apparently attempted to make the prophecy come true and did indeed wipe out huge numbers of the opposing army with a small number of warriors. However, there was no way they were going to win against such steep odds against Xerxes’ army. Xerxes must have been a bit humiliated that it took so many of his own soldiers to beat down such a small army (relatively speaking). The Spartans were perhaps the best fighting ferocious soldiers of all ancient times even moreso than Ghingis Khan’s vicious army.

137

Pro X: I’m agreeing with you 100% on your assessment of the characters here. The reason I loved this movie was because it portrayed men the way men should be and the way our nature was designed to be. Strong, hardened, calculated, responsible, and willing to fight for what is our at the drop of a hat.

What I loved about this movie was the fact that the Spartan men knew who they were and were unapologetic for it in the least. Their women understood the role of the man and were proud of it.

This movie has to be at the top of my favorites list. I left with my chest stuck out a little and ready to go do something involving a testosterone filled rage!! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh…

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why would we care for Sparta regardless? In any story, the relation is to the characters, not what country they live in. Neither Gladiator nor Braveheart made you care about their countries. You cared for the individual. You cared that someone was killed leading to revenge. This movie did a great job of showing they didn’t spend much time on emotions. He didn’t even look back at his wife when he left. Showing more emotion would have TAKEN AWAY from the feeling they were trying to get across…that these people were warriors, not poetic lovers who cried themselves to sleep at night. The Queen didn’t cry over the fact that she would be sending her only son off in a year. She didn’t ball her eyes out that the King was dead. Perhaps what you all are calling a lack of character development…IS the character development.[/quote]

138

[quote]HogLover wrote:
Pro X: I’m agreeing with you 100% on your assessment of the characters here. The reason I loved this movie was because it portrayed men the way men should be and the way our nature was designed to be. Strong, hardened, calculated, responsible, and willing to fight for what is our at the drop of a hat.

What I loved about this movie was the fact that the Spartan men knew who they were and were unapologetic for it in the least. Their women understood the role of the man and were proud of it.

[/quote]

I disagree. Spartan men are not a good example of what men should be. They were the pinnacle of what a warrior should be, but not what men should be. Sparta lacked greatly in politics, literature, arts, economy, compassion, philosophy and many other areas that make great societies. Man is not designed to be cruel, uncaring, brutal, and “willing to fight at the drop of a hat”.

Other than their warrior culture, Sparta is not worth emulating or celebrating.

139

I saw 300 yesterday and thought it was awful. It was awful as historical fiction, and it was awful as a movie not based on history because it was internally inconsistent.

At one point Leonidas says the power of the spartan warriors is their formation, in the very next scene Spartans are running around wily nilly. They start off the movie by saying the weak babies are killed and all men are trained as warriors and do no work other than soldiering.

Then they proceed to introduce full time politicians that seem to have no concept of war, or fighting, freedom, and that need to be convinced to save the city- state every day else they become traitors and/or party through the war.

The fight scenes had nothing to do with how hoplites or for that matter any human would have fought with that gear. Why does everyone in the movie have to twirl around in this movie when they fight. It was like watching a ballerina acting out a fight scene.

The biggest problem is that is was gay. Gay unnecessary/redundant speeches, gay guys fighting without shirts or armor, gay pseudo politics, and a gay enemy. Gay plot line, gay actors, and gay costumes. The only time that the movie was remotely funny or cool is when they used historical spartan quotes.

I honestly don’t see how anyone liked this movie unless they are just too scared to buy gay porn and this is a close second. If you are literate, knowledgeable of Greek history, and not excited by the thought of naked men twirling around, skip this film.

140

[quote]Flop Hat wrote:
I saw 300 yesterday and thought it was awful. It was awful as historical fiction, and it was awful as a movie not based on history because it was internally inconsistent.

At one point Leonidas says the power of the spartan warriors is their formation, in the very next scene Spartans are running around wily nilly. They start off the movie by saying the weak babies are killed and all men are trained as warriors and do no work other than soldiering.

Then they proceed to introduce full time politicians that seem to have no concept of war, or fighting, freedom, and that need to be convinced to save the city- state every day else they become traitors and/or party through the war.

The fight scenes had nothing to do with how hoplites or for that matter any human would have fought with that gear. Why does everyone in the movie have to twirl around in this movie when they fight. It was like watching a ballerina acting out a fight scene.

The biggest problem is that is was gay. Gay unnecessary/redundant speeches, gay guys fighting without shirts or armor, gay pseudo politics, and a gay enemy. Gay plot line, gay actors, and gay costumes. The only time that the movie was remotely funny or cool is when they used historical spartan quotes.

I honestly don’t see how anyone liked this movie unless they are just too scared to buy gay porn and this is a close second. If you are literate, knowledgeable of Greek history, and not excited by the thought of naked men twirling around, skip this film.

[/quote]

I’m a proud Greek, and that pretty much sums up my thoughts on the movie. That said, the start was good, and it was a nice idea.