300!!!!!!

[danny_galaga]

Saw it sunday, it rocked. 
For those of you afraid of the duditude there was at least 3 topless women scenes which automatically bumps the rating in my book.

you do realise though that a number of those 'women' were packing a bit more than you would probably like? 

read an interview with australian actor david wenham. he said that it didnt occur to him at the time of signing that working in toronto in winter and wearing leather underwear might not be a whole heap of fun  . he also said frank miller was great to work with and that frank was inspired by a movie called 300 spartans (i think it was the first movie frank ever saw), which david thought was pretty dismal but hes glad that frank saw something in it...

[ChadTower]

I still can't seem to get through this whole movie.

[jbox]

[RayB]

I still can't seem to get through this whole movie.

What does that mean? You've paid to see it, then left the theatre half way? And then did it AGAIN??

[KenToad]

Wow, I thought this movie looked neat and was exciting for about half of the battle scenes.  The plot and dialogue is just plain thick, though.  Oh, and whatever you say about dudeity, I was more disgusted by the amount of makeup the "heroes" in this movie wear.   

Oh, and the ending was total crap.  Why did there have to be some stupid treachery subtheme?

I hope The Watchmen turns out better.

[shardian]

I still can't seem to get through this whole movie.

What does that mean? You've paid to see it, then left the theatre half way? And then did it AGAIN??

Oh, young nieve one. He is watching it from the comfort of his living room. The reason you can't get thru it Chad is because you are watching a visual and audial experience as a low-quality screener on a 19" tv.

[ChadTower]

Quality and such aren't all that important to me when I don't care much about the movie to begin with.  It's much better quality than that, upscaled to 720p, regular stereo.  It's more about the content of this movie that just doesn't do it for me.  It's not gripping me.

[KenToad]

A bigger screen doesn't make a half-decent movie great.

[ChadTower]

It may make it a better experience, though, which does seem to be part of this movie.  Only if you actually like the movie, though, which didn't happen here.  It was playing at the IMAX near my house and I was considering seeing it there but didn't want to drop the heavy admission fee without being at least somewhat certain I'd like it.

[jbox]

It's more about the content of this movie that just doesn't do it for me.

Ahhhhh..... Chad wants there to be in the movie!   

[(+_+)]

It's more about the content of this movie that just doesn't do it for me.

Ahhhhh..... Chad wants there to be in the movie!   

Could have been but I heard they ended up cutting out the "drop the soap" scene.

[RayB]

Maybe Paul Ruben is free for an evening...

[danny_galaga]

Wow, I thought this movie looked neat and was exciting for about half of the battle scenes.  The plot and dialogue is just plain thick, though.  Oh, and whatever you say about dudeity, I was more disgusted by the amount of makeup the "heroes" in this movie wear.   

Oh, and the ending was total crap.  Why did there have to be some stupid treachery subtheme?

I hope The Watchmen turns out better.

frpm wikipedia:

After three days of battle, a local resident named Ephialtes betrayed the Greeks by revealing a mountain path that led behind the Greek lines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

[Samstag]

Wow, I thought this movie looked neat and was exciting for about half of the battle scenes.  The plot and dialogue is just plain thick, though.  Oh, and whatever you say about dudeity, I was more disgusted by the amount of makeup the "heroes" in this movie wear.   

Oh, and the ending was total crap.  Why did there have to be some stupid treachery subtheme?

I hope The Watchmen turns out better.

frpm wikipedia:

After three days of battle, a local resident named Ephialtes betrayed the Greeks by revealing a mountain path that led behind the Greek lines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

I thought he was referring to the treachery back in Sparta.  Historically everything was fine back home because the second king (conveniently forgotten in the movie) was still in charge.

[KenToad]

Wow, I thought this movie looked neat and was exciting for about half of the battle scenes.  The plot and dialogue is just plain thick, though.  Oh, and whatever you say about dudeity, I was more disgusted by the amount of makeup the "heroes" in this movie wear.   

Oh, and the ending was total crap.  Why did there have to be some stupid treachery subtheme?

I hope The Watchmen turns out better.

frpm wikipedia:

After three days of battle, a local resident named Ephialtes betrayed the Greeks by revealing a mountain path that led behind the Greek lines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

I thought he was referring to the treachery back in Sparta.  Historically everything was fine back home because the second king (conveniently forgotten in the movie) was still in charge.

I didn't like any of the treachery aspects, too black and white for me, but I didn't know, either, that it was true that some sniveling deformed guy was the only thing stopping the 300 from defeating the Persian army entirely.   

That said, I really only enjoyed the first couple of battles.  Most of the stuff with the bigger monsters and the campy Persian Mini-bosses was at least good for a laugh.  It just seemed that the premise of the movie revolved around a military force that was truly indestructible because of their quality and devotion to being soldiers.  Unfortunately, I think it would have made a better movie to play down the treachery angle and show that they would have been overwhelmed.

The spear at the end seemed anticlimactic to me.

[shardian]

WTF, that lame Paolo guy from Lost plays Xerxes??? No wonder Iranians are pissed at this movie.

[Samstag]

It just seemed that the premise of the movie revolved around a military force that was truly indestructible because of their quality and devotion to being soldiers. 

That part is pretty close to accurate, if you allow for the fact that they were in a geographic position where a small force of determined soldiers could hold up any size force for at least a little while.  They were such great soldiers because that's all they did.  Slaves from other Greek tribes did all the work so the Spartans could be so protective of Greek freedom.

The movie leaves a lot of history out to make them into bigger badasses, but they were the best in the world at the time.

[KenToad]

It just seemed that the premise of the movie revolved around a military force that was truly indestructible because of their quality and devotion to being soldiers.

That part is pretty close to accurate, if you allow for the fact that they were in a geographic position where a small force of determined soldiers could hold up any size force for at least a little while.  They were such great soldiers because that's all they did.  Slaves from other Greek tribes did all the work so the Spartans could be so protective of Greek freedom.

The movie leaves a lot of history out to make them into bigger badasses, but they were the best in the world at the time.

Well, I don't deny any of that.  I couldn't help being a critic as I was watching and noting that, no matter how great they were, they were bound to be overwhelmed and it sort of undermined their sacrifice and sense of duty to show them as superheroes who couldn't be stopped except by some lamely presented treachery, historically accurate or not.  I mean if they are near indestructible, then there is no story, since they do not need to show bravery or anything.  It's like what Superman would be without Kryptonite ... or just an excercise in CGI and choreography.  Anyway, I feel like I'm crapping a bit on this thread, since all you guys already expressed your undying devotion to movies without plot and good dialogue.   

[Samstag]

Well, I don't deny any of that.  I couldn't help being a critic as I was watching and noting that, no matter how great they were, they were bound to be overwhelmed and it sort of undermined their sacrifice and sense of duty to show them as superheroes who couldn't be stopped except by some lamely presented treachery, historically accurate or not.  I mean if they are near indestructible, then there is no story, since they do not need to show bravery or anything.  It's like what Superman would be without Kryptonite ... or just an excercise in CGI and choreography.  Anyway, I feel like I'm crapping a bit on this thread, since all you guys already expressed your undying devotion to movies without plot and good dialogue.   

I understand where you're coming from and I agreed it was pretty lame the way they presented it.  When they told the guy he couldn't fight because he couldn't cover the man on his left with his shield, I accepted that.  Then they spent all of 30 seconds in formation before they went solo.  That's where they lost me.

The original 300 Spartans from the 60's was a much better movie in my opinion.  Not as flashy or artistic, but a great story.  And if you want to read an excellent book pick up a copy of The Gates of Fire by Stephen Pressfield.  It'll give you a feel for what it would really be like to be a Spartan and march to what you know will be a futile last stand.

[danny_galaga]

Well, I don't deny any of that.  I couldn't help being a critic as I was watching and noting that, no matter how great they were, they were bound to be overwhelmed and it sort of undermined their sacrifice and sense of duty to show them as superheroes who couldn't be stopped except by some lamely presented treachery, historically accurate or not.  I mean if they are near indestructible, then there is no story, since they do not need to show bravery or anything.  It's like what Superman would be without Kryptonite ... or just an excercise in CGI and choreography.  Anyway, I feel like I'm crapping a bit on this thread, since all you guys already expressed your undying devotion to movies without plot and good dialogue.   

I understand where you're coming from and I agreed it was pretty lame the way they presented it.  When they told the guy he couldn't fight because he couldn't cover the man on his left with his shield, I accepted that.  Then they spent all of 30 seconds in formation before they went solo.  That's where they lost me.

The original 300 Spartans from the 60's was a much better movie in my opinion.  Not as flashy or artistic, but a great story.  And if you want to read an excellent book pick up a copy of The Gates of Fire by Stephen Pressfield.  It'll give you a feel for what it would really be like to be a Spartan and march to what you know will be a futile last stand.

even in the movie they knew they would not be returning. the premise is to buy time for a larger force. i enjoyed it, but i always get distracted by artistic licence. like those silly arrow heads and all the persians looked like what todays emos will look like when they grow up, what with their faces full of stupidly placed piercings. having said that, since most of the movie is the story as told by the survivor to his troops, then artistic licence makes sense. like those huge elephants for instance, and that goat smoking a hookah