300 Review

[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]

very well said.

[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 think this movie may have stirred some latent feelings deep within you that have caused inner conflict and turmoil you are now taking out on us.

Just kidding man, I can see you really didn’t like this movie.

Take care,

D

[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 am glad someone posted a dissenting opinion. I am sure I will see it eventually but you have hit some of my concerns from seeing the commercials.

I won’t be getting a babysitter to go see it.

I saw it this weekend and thought it not bad. I would like to have seen a little more background of the Spartans and understanding of their culture (though I know its not a documentary.

I also saw the 1962 version on cable on Sunday. Of course, the special effects were nowhere near as good but the story seemed a little more developed. The women also were hotter ;D

Spartan politicians were men who fullfilled there military service to the state and were above the age of 60. Only then were they allowed to follow a life of politics. If you notice in the movie all the men in the senate (excluding the dude that boned the queen) were older aged men.

FYI

And for the people complaining that it is not historically accurate…

IT’S BASED ON A FREAKING COMIC BOOK.

If you want to “prepare” for the movie by reading something READ THE FREAKING COMIC BOOK!! Then you will be in awe how “accurate” the movie is to the actual source material it is based on.

The fact that this movie is based off a graphic novel/comic book, is a factor I have stressed to those I’ve recommended this movie to. Suspension of Disbelief Absolutely Required. And it’s worth it. Do we question the plausibility and tactics of Batman and Spider Man? When watching the X-Men films, is anyone muttering about the inaccuracies?

If you didn’t like the movie, that’s fine, of course not everyone will. There are tons of holes, inconsistencies and the completely way out there. But if you didn’t like it because of the liberties taken with the actions scenes and storyline, you’ve forgotten the source.

I’ll still buy the DVD, and would like to check out the novel. Could be a great way to up my own testosterone and build more muscle without the steroids or that freaky jaw thang…

I heard Chuck Liddell was supposed to be in 300 somewhere. Anyone know who he played? or am I misinformed?

[quote]Psychotropic wrote:
The fact that this movie is based off a graphic novel/comic book, is a factor I have stressed to those I’ve recommended this movie to. Suspension of Disbelief Absolutely Required. And it’s worth it. Do we question the plausibility and tactics of Batman and Spider Man? When watching the X-Men films, is anyone muttering about the inaccuracies?

If you didn’t like the movie, that’s fine, of course not everyone will. There are tons of holes, inconsistencies and the completely way out there. But if you didn’t like it because of the liberties taken with the actions scenes and storyline, you’ve forgotten the source.

I’ll still buy the DVD, and would like to check out the novel. Could be a great way to up my own testosterone and build more muscle without the steroids or that freaky jaw thang…
[/quote]

My problem was that I knew it was based on a comic book and still went, because I thought the comic was based on the book “gates of fire” which I enjoyed. It was not even close to “gates of fire”. It wasn’t even on the same planet as “gates of fire”

I have a long history of not enjoying comic book movies and should have known better. What snared me was all of the great reviews here and by some friends who went. I walked in expecting greatness, then I tried to settle for average, but I thought it even failed at that.

I was still mad about wasting all of that time when I wrote my review. In retrospect, I still hated everything about it, but I guess if you enjoy comic book movies and have the ability to suspend not just disbelief but also all reason and logic then it could be an ok action flick… I guess. Liking it probably doesn’t make you gay, but I sure can’t figure out what people liked about it.

[quote]Flop Hat wrote:

My problem was that I knew it was based on a comic book and still went, because I thought the comic was based on the book “gates of fire” which I enjoyed. It was not even close to “gates of fire”. It wasn’t even on the same planet as “gates of fire” [/quote]

I’m sorry…but you are basically saying you knew it was based on a GRAPHIC NOVEL (“comic book” is a little off) and are now upset that the GRAPHIC NOVEL it was based on was not based on another book that you liked? That’s retarded.

[quote]
I was still mad about wasting all of that time when I wrote my review. In retrospect, I still hated everything about it, but I guess if you enjoy comic book movies and have the ability to suspend not just disbelief but also all reason and logic then it could be an ok action flick… I guess. Liking it probably doesn’t make you gay, but I sure can’t figure out what people liked about it. [/quote]

Dude, you don’t like it. Fine. That doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with anyone else who does like it. The fact that you expressed such a negative opinion of those who liked it IS a problem, however. I hope you work that out someday.

Saw the movie yesterday. It was better than I expected. Cracked up laughing at the technical filipino aspects of the dramatic fighting. My thirst for bloodlust was briefly quenched. Nice to once and a while watch a movie where each day is a day to die. Much like me going to work- each work day is a day I can die. I love it. I am not even putting my life on the line for a caucasian tyrant and his nation of fools.

[quote]PGJ wrote:
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.
[/quote]

I am glad at least one other person out there agrees with me on this aspect. I find the worship of Sparta as a whole ever since this movie came out to be a little disturbing in the sense that everything I’ve come to learn about them has led me to believe that these were extremely violent people. I think some people may get a little caught up in the “testosterone attitude” (I’m not speaking only of people who read this site, BTW), thinking that constant fighting, bloodshed, and brutal punishment would be a great way to live.

I wonder - if people had the ability to travel through time (bear with me here) - if they would really want to immerse themselves in the middle of that, given how easily we live our lives these days (relatively speaking). My guess is not many people would really be able to handle it, nor would they want to.

As you said perfectly, admiring their fighting prowess is one thing; admiring their society as a whole is an entirely different matter.

JMO

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I’m sorry…but you are basically saying you knew it was based on a GRAPHIC NOVEL (“comic book” is a little off) and are now upset that the GRAPHIC NOVEL it was based on was not based on another book that you liked? That’s retarded.
[/quote]

I was told by someone who saw the movie already that the comic was based on the book. I also saw a reference on a website to “gates of fire” on an internet review I read. It’s not like I woke up and thought “Wow, a comic book version of the battle of Thermopylae. It must be based on a book I liked.” However, I guess that happens to you enough that you just assume that other people are the same way.

graphic novel
noun
a novel in the form of comic strips.

Main Entry: graphic novel
Function: noun
: a fictional story that is presented in comic-strip format and published as a book

Those are from Websters and dictionary.com. If saying graphic novel makes you feel better than by all means use it, but it is the same as a comic book. Don’t try to church it up.

Well I could not help but wonder what type of person enjoyed watching scantly clad playgirl cover models jump and twirl while stabbing very fancy Persians. It was kind of gay to me. I don’t think liking it makes you gay, but it is an indicator.

[quote]CC wrote:
PGJ wrote:
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.

I am glad at least one other person out there agrees with me on this aspect. I find the worship of Sparta as a whole ever since this movie came out to be a little disturbing in the sense that everything I’ve come to learn about them has led me to believe that these were extremely violent people. I think some people may get a little caught up in the “testosterone attitude” (I’m not speaking only of people who read this site, BTW), thinking that constant fighting, bloodshed, and brutal punishment would be a great way to live.

I wonder - if people had the ability to travel through time (bear with me here) - if they would really want to immerse themselves in the middle of that, given how easily we live our lives these days (relatively speaking). My guess is not many people would really be able to handle it, nor would they want to.

As you said perfectly, admiring their fighting prowess is one thing; admiring their society as a whole is an entirely different matter.

JMO

[/quote]

I think you have hit on two of the main reasons people are so enamored of the Spartans. The first reason was their fighting prowess that was unmatched for several hundred years. The second, is that they lived so… spartan. Current day tough people enjoy the thought of people that made life more difficult than it needed to be in an already difficult time, just to be more tough and ready to fight.

We shouldn’t forget all of the contributions of the Athenians. They did defeat the Persians during the first Persian invasion at Marathon. They also started this whole democracy thing. If you read “History of the Peloponnesian War” by Thucydides, especially the funeral oration of Pericles you start getting the idea that the Spartans weren’t exactly all they were cracked up to be.

And just as a side note, if you enjoy ancient history, Donald Kagan’s book “The Peloponnesian war” is an excellent account.

[quote]webman wrote:
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.[/quote]

Actually, the 300 Spartans led a force of 7,000 Greeks from other city-states, primarily Athens, as that’s who the Persians were looking to punish for their defeat at the battle of Marathon (which was, itself, an attempt to punish Athens for its support of a rebellion and burning of one of its capital cities).

When it became clear that the Persian forces were closing in from behind, most of the forces dispersed to defend their home city-states except for the entire force of around 1,000 Thespians (not actors, guys actually from the Greek city-state of Thespiae), who stayed behind and fought to the end with the Spartans.

[quote]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.[/quote]

Two main schools of thought on this one:

While Leonidas did consort the Oracle at Delphi and was told something to the effect of “either a great king will fall in battle or his city will perish” (paraphrasing here, but, it goes without saying that Leonidas just knew the ‘great king’ had to be him), some historical scholars have pointed out that he and his soldiers’ suicide/sacrifice had important strategic value, as it allowed the bulk of the Greek forces to retreat without being crushed by the far superior numbers of the Persian army. The Spartans were not just great warriors, but great tacticians as well, and Leonidas knew that he had to keep up the illusion that all of the Greek forces were standing their ground so a tactical retreat could be made.

The answer is probably a good deal of both things were the impetus behind Leonidas’ decision to stay and fight.

Maybe, maybe not. The main reason for the Spartans’ defeat was that Xerxes had found a way around the pass at Thermopylae they were bottle-necked at via a Greek traitor named Ephialtes. Taken from Wikipedia:

[i]Late on the second day of battle, as the king was pondering what to do next, he received a windfall: a Malian Greek traitor named Ephialtes informed him of a path around Thermopylae and offered to guide the Persian Empire army through the pass. Ephialtes was motivated by the desire of a reward. For this act, the name of Ephialtes received a lasting stigma: it means “nightmare” and is synonymous with “traitor” in Greek.[31] Xerxes I sent his Hydarnes with the Immortals and other troops through the pass, Ctesias gives 40,000 as the number of troops led by Hydarnes.[22]

The path led from east of the Persian Empire camp along the ridge of Mt. Anopaea behind the cliffs that flanked the pass. It branched with one path leading to Phocis and the other down to the Gulf of Malis at Alpenus, first town of Locris. Leonidas had stationed 1,000 Phocian volunteers on the heights to guard that path.[32]

Despite their indignation and determination on defending Thermopylae, the Phocians were not expecting such an outcome: There were no advance positions, sentinels, or patrols. Their first warning of the approach of the Immortals under Hydarnes was the rustling of oak leaves at first light on the third day of the battle. Herodotus says that they “jumped up”, suggesting that the Greek force was still asleep, and were “greatly amazed”, which no alert unit should have been.[33]

Hydarnes was as amazed to see them hastily arming themselves. He feared that they were Spartans, but was enlightened by Ephialtes. Not wishing to be delayed by an assault, Hydarnes resorted to a tactic that later turned out to be a victorious one: He fired “showers of arrows” at them. The Phocians retreated to the crest of the mountain to make their stand. The Persians branched left to Alpenus.[/i]

So, basically, if these Phocian faggots had had their shit together, history may have shown the Persian army defeated and driven back at Thermopylae.

No argument here.

Just saw it again and I have to say that the most badass scene has to be the first attack that the persians make, after the spartans hold them back and the camera is solely on Leonidas as he makes his way forward and absolutely DESTROYS every persian that comes his way, fuckin awesome

Also, the soundtrack runs about an hour long…a great addition to the Ipod if you are going to train.

[quote]CC wrote:
PGJ wrote:
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.

I am glad at least one other person out there agrees with me on this aspect.[/quote]

I agree with pgj and cc on this, spartans did not (and do not) represent an ideal what men should be.

They were the ultimate warriors of their age but their unwillingness to educate themselves on other areas of life was one reason for their destruction. Another reason might have been just the thing what they are known for, their fighting ability or better put, their onlook on fighting. Their very rigid mentality gave them the courage to fight efficiently even when facing certain death, but on the other hand it did not allow them always to think strategically, to withdraw and then strike again because their ideal of honour forbade it.

To return back to the movie, I find it strange that the movie can be seen as softcore gay porn by some, just because the warriors are seminude. Maybe you regard old Tarzan movies with the same homophobia.

I understand that some history buffs (including me) are somewhat disappointed that the actual fighting style of the day was not very well portrayed by the film but it did not make the movie any less unenjoyable if you just adjusted your own attitude.

All in all, the movie was not superb in any respect but an ok actionflick anyway.

[quote]CC wrote:
PGJ wrote:
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.

I am glad at least one other person out there agrees with me on this aspect. I find the worship of Sparta as a whole ever since this movie came out to be a little disturbing in the sense that everything I’ve come to learn about them has led me to believe that these were extremely violent people. I think some people may get a little caught up in the “testosterone attitude” (I’m not speaking only of people who read this site, BTW), thinking that constant fighting, bloodshed, and brutal punishment would be a great way to live.

I wonder - if people had the ability to travel through time (bear with me here) - if they would really want to immerse themselves in the middle of that, given how easily we live our lives these days (relatively speaking). My guess is not many people would really be able to handle it, nor would they want to.

As you said perfectly, admiring their fighting prowess is one thing; admiring their society as a whole is an entirely different matter.

JMO

[/quote]

It seems like a gangster lifestyle.

Such trite and bitter people.

It’s a movie…MOVIE…some of you forgot the meaning of entertainment. If you want history read a text, if you want all facts…read historical records…If you want something that can jolt you up and give you some added motivation to get your butt up and train, go see it and stop bitching and reading this forum.

BTW, because Gladiators slept in the same cages, in little less then a loin clothe, does that make them “gay?” Or when the Scottish wear kilts to battle, does that make them “gay?”

SP

Still… loved it… trying to go see it again today!

[quote]strongFB wrote:
Such trite and bitter people.

It’s a movie…MOVIE…some of you forgot the meaning of entertainment. If you want history read a text, if you want all facts…read historical records…If you want something that can jolt you up and give you some added motivation to get your butt up and train, go see it and stop bitching and reading this forum.
[/quote]

I thought it was a bad movie whether it was historical fiction or not. It was just a bad movie. The only thing it “jolted” me into doing was making sure I never see this movie or any movie made by the same people again.

No, it doesn’t make them gay, but if you are a guy and you like to spend an hour or two watching mostly nude gladiators or shirtless, kilted Scots prance around, then you might be a touch fruity, not that there is anything wrong with that.