RE: 300 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


ilovebeerme -> RE: 300 (23/3/2007 2:30:33 PM)

Off to see it later tonight after a couple of beers.  It looks like absurd nonsesne so should be fun.  I might even post a very drunk review later if you're lucky.




dabm -> spot on review (23/3/2007 3:43:58 PM)

perfect review from empire. while the battle scenes are fantastic, there is no real emotional connection. something that i think is important in a film that tries to be so epic. the fighting style of the spartans is awesome. moving with such grace. reminded me of achilles' style in troy, the slo mo' button is perhaps slightly overused, but not really to the films detriment. the main problem i had with the film, is the big monsters and all the mythical stuff. this film is immensly fun and enjoyable. i just wander maybe if the film was based on the historical event rather than the comic book, it may have had a lot more depth.




dabm -> spot on review (23/3/2007 3:44:01 PM)

perfect review from empire. while the battle scenes are fantastic, there is no real emotional connection. something that i think is important in a film that tries to be so epic. the fighting style of the spartans is awesome. moving with such grace. reminded me of achilles' style in troy, the slo mo' button is perhaps slightly overused, but not really to the films detriment. the main problem i had with the film, is the big monsters and all the mythical stuff. this film is immensly fun and enjoyable. i just wander maybe if the film was based on the historical event rather than the comic book, it may have had a lot more depth.




Kilo_T_Mortal -> RE: spot on review (23/3/2007 4:51:23 PM)

I've been waiting for this film ever since I read the graphic novel (which is also vastly overrated) but still pretty good (although very short).

Then we have the trailer, which made me nearly wet myself, the trailer was everything I wanted from 300. Shouting Spartans, amazing visuals, realised scenes such as "Madness? This is Sparta!" and blood and splatter. The trailer promised everything.

Then the film. It's hard not to be disappointed when you want something to become everything you ever wanted to see in a film (which is frankly what this could have been). The good points are the battles, not just the man out in front loosing his mind because he son is killed. No the best bit for me was the realistic start, actually getting an impression of how the phalanx worked. Just a lot of pushing each other, then the spears coming through and you begin to imagine what real phalanx fighting would have been like (with probably a bit more armour). I have to admit though 2 hours of realistic phalanx fighting would have become very dull, so Snyder decides that the Spartans can quite easily break formation and dance around the enemy happy-as-Larry hacking off limbs. Which is fine by me it makes for a much more interesting film. The visuals have been well discussed and they need to be seen to be believed, perhaps more than any other film this would really suffer from watching outside of the cinema.

The acting has been much criticised but I have no problem with it all the major cast are decent to good, I think Butler has great screen charisma and some of the time he reminded me of Sean Connery. I was also very impressed with Vincent Regan an actor I generally have a lot of time for.

My problems come where the film deviates from the graphic novel. This may well contain spoilers so be careful before reading on...
 
Spartans. These are not real Spartans, as history would have us believe, they are not even Spartans from Frank Miller. Gone is Leonidas disciplining his troupes ("Stumbilos" being removed). Entered is Persians killing civilians (Miller's Spartans would impale the Persians for just stepping into Sparta, they don't need a tree of dead bodies to be brutal), entered is the Captain crying over his son (Miller's Spartans would have gone straight to blood rage, no mourning the dead) and entered is Leonidas looking to his wife for his advice (Miller's Leonidas kicks people down well just for showing up). I suppose I can understand why Snyder wants to make Spartans more approachable, but Miller didn’t feel the need in his graphic novel and I could live with meaner Spartans. My main gripe was Leonidas’ mother being held back as he went out to agoge, this contradicts what Spartan society and especially was it was all about (especially Spartan women – compare with Gorgo’s “only Spartan women give birth to warriors”).

The politics. I can also understand why they wanted to bulk out the whole story, but I didn’t like lots of this bit. It was a fiction based not on Miller, not on history but on an idea the screenwriter had. It must have occurred to everyone that the council was made up for old men except for a single young hansom senator. My friend even leaned into me at the cinema and asked why?
Why? Because the screenwriters wanted a younger man to add some menace and sex appeal. It was a pathetic way of driving the plot made even more cynical by the fact there seemed to be no other councillors under 50 in the whole council. It just annoyed me.
The rest of the film played out with class and energy, but the timing and the real emotional punches (which seemed to be tried for just a little bit too hard) were just lacking. Although I couldn’t help but feel a shiver as Leonidas shouts “come and take them” and his wife’s “come back with your shield, or on it”. These are classic lines from history and I’m glad I got to see them, shown as they might well have been said (If they ever were). As well as the epitome “Tell the Spartans…”. Even with all this I wished for a little bit more and with a bit more mastery I even thing Snyder could have done it.




kakkorroto -> 300 (23/3/2007 5:48:46 PM)

I thoroughly enjoyed this film and must also disagree with the inaccurate review of empire. This is a quality piece of work more akin to da vinci being let lose on a canvas. The imagery is visually stunning, the acting spot one and as for the action the following comes to mind: THIS IS SPARTA!!!!!!! This deserves a repeat viewing so I shall catch an IMAX showing. Ok the ending could have been a bit more drawn out but apart from that very good.




danbo1138 -> RE: 300 (23/3/2007 6:50:08 PM)

i loved it.4stars from danbo.one of the best comic book movies i've seen for ages.i would love to see what frank miller could do onscreen with the dark knight returns?




cadz -> rip-roaring (23/3/2007 8:21:28 PM)

sin city(in terms of an original cinematic style) meets gladiator on acid!




cadz -> rip-roaring (23/3/2007 8:21:31 PM)

sin city(in terms of an original cinematic style) meets gladiator on acid!




cluesy -> Sparta!!!! (23/3/2007 9:23:55 PM)

This film sits neatly in the "good" 3 star film mark. Disregard any historical accuracies and just enjoy the luscious carnage that unfolds. The style is magnificent and the performances just credible enough, however the film has stolen many of its ideas, especially from Gladiator and LOTR. In fact, by the end I felt a little like I'd watched the battle scenes from LOTR after skipping the majority of the rest of the film. Still terrific mindless entertainment. Good Stuff.




King_Wah -> RE: 300 (23/3/2007 10:31:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: King_Wah

I am just off to see this now. Judging by the trailer if it is not the silliest film I see this year I will be dissapointed. And bear in mind I saw Ghost Rider this year.


Well it was a very silly film. Enjoyable in parts but not enough to elevate it past two stars for me. 




Trapman9 -> RE: 300 (23/3/2007 10:55:35 PM)

How come there are two threads for 300?
http://www.empireonline.com/forum/tm.asp?m=1236421




Hamish -> RE: 300 (23/3/2007 11:37:28 PM)

Well lowered my expectations after a fair bit of anticipation earlier in the year and its a good job I did. When it works 300 is a crunching testosterone fuelled delight, unfortunately for at least half of the film it doesnt work. The magnificent middle section in which the majority of the bone crunching glorious action takes place (the action is phenomenally done and deserves five stars) is spot on but the rest is a completely muddled mess. There is no attempt to engage, no pace and a TON of forced emotion that doesn't connect in the slightest. While it is true to say this kind of thing doesnt need to connect with you emotionally, the fact that Snyder continually layers in forced "gladiator-esque" drama undermimes that argument.

Overall an ill thought out failure with a terrible ending that strives to deliver a payoff that certainly wasn't earned. 300 is two films, a hilarious, powerful brilliantly directed arty action spectacle and a terrible, forced takes-itself-too-seriously drama. The former is just about worth the trip, but the latter ensures the enjoyment factor is very much subdued. Rodriguez set the standard for Miller adaptations, this doesn't come close.




Trapman9 -> RE: 300 (24/3/2007 12:09:44 AM)

I cannot type it again so i will copy-paste it from the other thread...

Ok, first of all i'm Greek and i was full of sceptisism when i heard that 300 were made into a movie.
However being a fan of Miller's work i hoped for something good.
To put it in simple words, this movie ROCKS.Snyder stays faithful to the graphic novel and only the scenes with the queen are implemented to fill the gaps between the battle (which are not bad but could better).I mean, to film a two hour battle can be risky and as far as i know only Black Hawk Down has pulled this stunt succesfully (and even that has some minor pauses).
Historically 300 is fairly accurate and i don't mind the embellishments Snyder provides (monsters,rhinos,7 foot transexuals)
since it's based on a graphic novel and not on Herodotus.
Style over substance?It's a fooking war what do you expect?Long dialogues and beautiful sunsets?
And what people have to understand is that Spartans were like that.Strict military society with no room for error.Indeed, if you were born sickly or mishapen you were thrown down Keadas (that cliff you see at the beginning of the film full of infant sceletons, it's called Keadas).
So if the audience cannot empathise or identify with them it's only natural.


300 is an entertaining movie with beautiful battles perfectly choreographed(nothing like that martial arts monkey ,Brad Pitt's Achilles), bloody and gritty and with a "balls to the wall" attitude.It stays true to the comic but most of all stays true to history.And history says that 300 Spartans gave one hell of a fight at Thermopylae...








gf17gr -> An Epic Must See! (24/3/2007 1:03:35 AM)

This movie was BRILLIANT!

Being Greek myself I grew up with stories from the ancient world. Many of these historical events or mythological epics have been brought to the silver screen the past few years, but until now they have all fallen short to my expectations. Troy was a nice movie, Alexander, not so bad… but by far the best is 300.
The movie, being based on a comicbook, takes a historical event and fills it with mythological and rather poetic, at times, elements, like the scene at the oracle.

I was particularly happy with the acting; Butler becomes Leonidas. I was also pleased to see that the script lacked cheap American wise cracks and it also included a few phrases from the original story such as "Come and get them" referring to the Spartans’ weapons.

The visuals are astonishing and the on and off slow motion scenes really hits the spot by giving impact to the scenes and could be seen as stills from the comic book when they almost paused. The overall rendering of sepia contrasting with the crimson capes of the Spartans really sets a tone for the movie and the well designed costumes succeed in transferring us to this ancient world of heroes.

A full on epic movie with great music throughout making the spectacular visuals even more dramatic. There is more to it than just great visuals. A must see.

You can not give it 3 stars the same as huge disappointment Ghost Rider…




the flick -> good (24/3/2007 2:31:51 AM)

everything a block buster ovie should be. put the cruise control on throw it in 2 5 th gear and enjoy the ride. the style and the visuals just(and i mean just) scrapes this film to my 4 star spot. best battle scene since the rings trilogy




MoBiUGeArSkIn -> RE: 300 (24/3/2007 1:43:32 PM)

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME . 9/5!

**Shivers**

I ain't never been to the Imax before. The screen itself was just ridiculous amazing... and the film... hehaha... hehahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA!!!! I laugh at how frickin' INSANE AWESOME it was! INSANE AWESOME!

"AWESANE!"

Absolutely the best comic adaption EVER! It totally embodies the source material, 90% of what's on the page is in this film. It even manages to bolster that 90% with some new stuff... but to be honest, I think the new stuff screwed the pace a little bit. The whole Gorgo/Council situation ain't bad or anything, and the sequences aren't long enough to derail the film as a whole, but I always felt like I wanted to get back to the Leonidas and co.

Still... I NEED TO SEE THIS AGAIN!




lukeyboy -> Beautifully voilent (24/3/2007 3:37:44 PM)

If you are expecting Gladiator when you go in to see this film you may well find yourself dissapointed. The worst thing you could do before you get through those screen doors is think you are about to watch a "Historical epic". Instead if you can leave the cynical side of yourself outside the door, stick your tounge firmly in your cheek, then you are in for a real treat. This is a pure comic book, movie and probably the most faithfull to it's source material i have seen since Sin City. Everything about this movie is completely fantastical, the characters, the backdrops and even the dialogue are marvellous if at times unintentionally funny "his helmet was stifling"....he he!! You should look at this film as a sheer spectacle and prime example of what can be acheived in terms of visuals if helmed by a true visionary filmaker who obviously loves film purely as an art form and not a political or socilogical tool. It is a very violent movie, but not in a bad way (if that's possible). The violence is as is everything else in this movie,.. fantastical and way way over the top, and done in such a way that makes it truly quite beautiful at times. My main criticism of this movie is the casting. Gerard Butler and Lena hedley as King Leonadis and Queen Gorgo respectively ,thankfully manage to carry everyone else in this movie who are all decidedly average. But it's David Wenham that is the sour coating on an otherwise sweet treat, as Dilios one of King Leonadis's loyal Spartan warriors and narrator of the whole movie. It is in the narration that this movie slips up,..not only does it not need a narration, (see above Helmet reference), But David Wenham doesn't have a manly enough voice to carry it off (sorry David). If Gerard Butler had been narrating it may have been palatable, but Wenham sounds more like my grandad doing an Alec Guiness impression....badly. If you can get past that and the other characters that you simply just don't care about, and sit back and watch this movie with the same head that you'd watch Superman or X-Men with, then you'll like it just fine!




Auron41 -> RE: 300 (24/3/2007 4:42:51 PM)

Spot on Empire.  *Pasted from other thread*
 
"There's no reason why we can't all be civil, is there?"
 
I just got back from watching 300, and I must say it really tested my philosophy that no film is a waste of time.
 
From the offset it looked promising, with it's grainy yet surreal cinematography doing the graphic novel justice.  
The decline began with the sex scene.  Excessive slow-mo's in combat I can forgive, but did we really need to sit through thirty seconds of Gorgo's melons pounding away at a snail's pace?  I had to laugh.
 
What I did appreciate was a leaning towards the mythological.  The film makes it obvious that it has no intention of remaining historically accurate, and I struggle to see why so many have argued over this.  No, the real Persian army was not a force of a million men, ogres and goat-headed minstrels.  Who'd have thought?  Moreover, scenes such as the drugged oracle and the arrow-eclipse were memorable and inspired. 
 
Furthermore, the choreography was enjoyable; finally a film that focuses on detailed individual action instead of two huge CGI forces vaguely clashing together (Troy, Alexander).  The problems occur when the fighting becomes tired, and a much more brutal, gruesome element comes into play. 
 
The dialog.
 
I swear if someone screams "SPAAAAAARTAAAAA!!!!" one more time, I'll have to don a codpiece and do some serious arse-kicking of my own.  The only believable speech comes from Gorgo as she addresses the council, and by that point the audience no longer cares. All due respect to her for acting better than her melons, however,  which is more than most of the cast do; there airbrushed abs convey the Spartan ideal better than any amount of slo-mo headshot barking.
 
And dare I mention the music?!  Death metal is appropriate in name alone.  I cringed as the remaining Spartans marched towards camera in slow-motion, accompanied by goodness-know's-what guitar band.
 
Perhaps the biggest flaw of this movie is the concept itself.  The audience doesn't empathise with the Spartans, despite Snyder's best attempts to make them the heroes (they have the looks, they havethe looks, the lines, they are the David versus the Goliath).  However, they are arrogant, brutal, with no respect or vision beyond their own borders.  This makes scenes such as the decapitation of the Captain's son, and the resulting grief, particularly worthless.  In terms of conjuring compassion in the audience, you can see the attempts and that makes them fail even more. 
 
Against films such as The Last Samurai, which actually references the battle of Thermopolae and evokes a hundred times the emotion and empathy, 300 falls short by a long way.
 
So in summary, 300 should have accepted that it's predominantly superficial and stayed that way, for the action is very easy on the eye and this counters the usual lack of dialog expected with historical epics.  The portions of the film that try and tackle grief, loyalty, brotherhood and idealism mar it irrevocably with an air of campness only rivalled by Xerxes' exceptionally well-painted nails.  It will no-doubt appease the die-hard fans of the graphic novel, but to the vast cinema-going audience it is excruciatingly hollow and ironically spartan.
 
2.5 *s    
 
[8|]    




Axel Foley -> RE: 300 (24/3/2007 5:00:25 PM)

Skulls are piled high in what is shown to be gorge: evidence of the brutality of Spartan life, one in which the malformed are mercilessly dispatched in a quest for perfection. The introduction to 300 continues by detailing the early life of the Spartan King Leonidas, where like all Spartiates he was sent away at the age of seven to learn the arts of a killer. There’s no doubting that they were a hard race, during a time in which the rest of Greece was experimenting with philosophy, the arts and the beginnings of democracy. Although, they are mainly depicted as heroes, director Zack Snyder does not hide the fact that the Spartans thought little for the finer things in life, least of all their emotions.

The king’s return from the wilderness and coming of age is marked by his slaying of a giant wolf, an episode shrouded in the veils of myth and legend, as is the film’s main event the Battle of Thermopylae. Frank Miller realised this when writing his seminal comic on which the film is based and Snyder has been faithful in bringing this vision to the big screen. He delivers imagery that has been bronzed in post-production to look feel as though it were ancient legend, tinged with a milky dreamlike quality.

The bulk of the film is built around the battle itself, as the Spartans (and a few of their Greek chums) take on the might of the Persian army at the ‘Hot Gates’. As Persian bodies begin to pile up and ink textured blood splatters the screen it does start to get repetitive, though at times it is quite spectacular. The battles lack the immediacy and verisimilitude of a forebear like Gladiator, nor a stand out set-piece such as in Troy it, but is the lack of characterisation that is the most nagging problem, as without getting into the psyche of these men, it is hard to feel any sense of tense tension as to their fates.

But wait. Perhaps, this was intended? The Spartans themselves cared little for emotion and this is a tale told by one of their own (Snyder uses David Wenham’s knight Dilios as narrator). To take it a face value would indeed be foolish, after all this is a highly stylised look at the ancient world. One in which the Spartan magistrates are hideous beings with worm ridden skin, leching over their nymphet Oracle, who’s prophesising methods involve gyrating sinuously as her diaphanous dress helpfully reveals her nipples. And that’s all in the first twenty minutes. Before we’ve met the ten feet tall Persian King Xerxes, clad in gold chains and his army of faceless ‘immortals’, bulging ogres and uncontrollable rhino like beasts. This is an exercise in creating a spectacle unlike anything we’ve witnessed to date.

As Leonidas summons one last burst of energy in an attempt to test the Xerxes’s supposed divinity, I realised I’d been in some sort of trance for a couple of hours, carried along by the sheer extravagance of the images. Forget the lack of emotional connection (note I’ve mentioned one actor – Snyder could’ve cast pro-wrestlers) and the daft dialogue (I’m sure that was intended too - conforming to the overly earnest stereo-typical legend - with nods to modern action requirement for a one-liner or two), as well as the unnecessary introduction of politicising: for the most part this is cinema as visual experience. And it’s quite a sight at that. 8/10




Axel Foley -> RE: 300 (24/3/2007 5:32:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harry Lime

No. I should judge it as a film. Do you compare every screen adaption that you see to the source material that it actually came from? Sure, it can be a reference point if you want it to be but a film is a film and should be judged on the same criteria as every other film. A work of art that should be judged on characterisation, acting, dialogue, plot, pacing, subtext and context aswell as its sound, visuals and action choreography. So why treat 300 any different?

Besides, if 300 is as faithful to its source as you suggest then I would conclude that Frank Miller's graphic novel is not quite the fantastical fiction you suggest. Rather a beautifully illustrated piece of work that trades on violence and bloodshed but has about as much interest in character, plot and dialogue as a sea monkey.

I've explained quite clearly why the Gladiator comparissons are perfectly valid. Snyder himself clearly homages the Scott picture in the film and, despite the stylistic differences, the films are very close to each other generically and, to a degree, thematically.


I think the Gladiator comparison was inevitable, as it will be to all subsequent films depicting the ancient world. But where I think the comparison was more appropriate to Troy, which followed much the same framework, I don't think it's so useful in judging 300. The film is so off the wall it was surely intended as an exercise in style. The characters are all blunt archetypes, the plot is heroic bloodshed by numbers and the dialogue as you describe, but I'm sure that was the point.

Just as Sin City was noir stripped of its romance and mystery with achetypes hewn from granite contained in its hermnetically sealed world, 300 is a historical epic stero-type to the power of ten. I seriously believe that if Snyder could've resisted the urge to succumb to convention and not only ditched the political tomfoolery and wailing vocal soundtrack, but also made a silent film, we'd be talking about a work of genius...




moviemaniac2 -> (24/3/2007 5:37:03 PM)

Bloody, brutal and overblown, the mother of all battle movies




Dude No.9 -> 300 (24/3/2007 5:56:22 PM)

Really enjoyed 300, great battle scenes, the picture was fantastic and I've heard its a faithful adaptation of the comic which I wouldn't mind reading now. Glad snyders doing watchmen I can't wait to see what he does with it!




Funk -> So So (24/3/2007 6:08:10 PM)

As much as i liked the acting and gory battles and the tartishness of the whole fillm...... its just way 2long!!!! For the type of film it is, it should have been 30mins shorter! I mean would u really want 2watch Lord Of the Rings in the cinema if all it involved was 3hours of Helms Deep (note i said cinema,,,,cos this would b a far better film at home)




Funk -> So So (24/3/2007 6:08:16 PM)

As much as i liked the acting and gory battles and the tartishness of the whole fillm...... its just way 2long!!!! For the type of film it is, it should have been 30mins shorter! I mean would u really want 2watch Lord Of the Rings in the cinema if all it involved was 3hours of Helms Deep (note i said cinema,,,,cos this would b a far better film at home)




DJ Rob C: Mark II! -> RE: So So (24/3/2007 6:40:49 PM)

Absolutely terrific, if slightly emotionally shallow. Still a good cast, amazing action sequences and the whole thing looks utterly fantastic. Better yet, see it on an IMAX screen as this is quite possibly the only way to see it. It's just so amazing!

Film: 4/5
IMAX Experience: 5/5!




bozo -> RE: So So (24/3/2007 6:47:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Funk

As much as i liked the acting and gory battles and the tartishness of the whole fillm...... its just way 2long!!!! For the type of film it is, it should have been 30mins shorter! I mean would u really want 2watch Lord Of the Rings in the cinema if all it involved was 3hours of Helms Deep (note i said cinema,,,,cos this would b a far better film at home)


[sm=augen14.gif][sm=augen14.gif]
You... liked... the acting?!
117 mins - too long?




MoBiUGeArSkIn -> RE: 300 (24/3/2007 6:50:21 PM)

Anyone see the movie that inspired Frank Miller on BBC2 earlier?
Now that had heart, and lots of story, and lots of dialogue... same story... Different kind of film.

It's seriously narking me how people, mainly critics, say this is "like a videogame", as if there is something wrong with videogames. I mean the talent it takes to create a virtual world is out of any critics reach. And what's with implying those who enjoy this stuff are stupid? Am I stupid because I'd stick this in my top 5 films right now? I don't pretend what's here is deep. It isn't. It wasn't meant to be. So perhaps those who go in expecting Gladiator, or some kind of historical epic... perhaps they're the stupid ones.




jimthemovie -> RE: It's a comic book movie.... (24/3/2007 6:55:18 PM)

i haven't seen the movie yet, but the trailers, posters and the comic look great.




Harry Lime -> RE: 300 (24/3/2007 7:04:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Axel Foley
I think the Gladiator comparison was inevitable, as it will be to all subsequent films depicting the ancient world. But where I think the comparison was more appropriate to Troy, which followed much the same framework, I don't think it's so useful in judging 300. The film is so off the wall it was surely intended as an exercise in style. The characters are all blunt archetypes, the plot is heroic bloodshed by numbers and the dialogue as you describe, but I'm sure that was the point.

Just as Sin City was noir stripped of its romance and mystery with achetypes hewn from granite contained in its hermnetically sealed world, 300 is a historical epic stero-type to the power of ten. I seriously believe that if Snyder could've resisted the urge to succumb to convention and not only ditched the political tomfoolery and wailing vocal soundtrack, but also made a silent film, we'd be talking about a work of genius...

Steady on, Axel. I know that I generally dislike the term "genius" being thrown around so freely and that you are not saying that is film is such, but I find it hard to accept that you are suggesting 300 is anything close to approaching this level. Surely the same could be said of any visually stunning movie.
 
A silent film would have been an interesting take and perhaps made the visual side of the film more potent and spectacular but even the very earliest of silent epics demonstrated a level of sophistication far, far beyond what is offered in here. I completely agree that the political tomfoolery is sorely misjudged but if you were to remove this and make the film one long silent battle without fleshing out the characters actually involved in it then you'd still be left with exactly the same problems. All the films flaws arrive from the very fact that this is a work very much based on the fact that the elaborate dazzle of the action is merely covering very little underneath. Such a move that you suggest would simply compound this issue even further.
 
Again, you seem to be suggesting that we should judge 300 entirely differently because it is intentionally stereotypical. I'm sorry, this doesn't wash with me. For a start, Snyder does try to shoehorn emotion and substance into proceedings that undermine this rationale (most notably the Gorgo/Theron and captain and his son subplots). In doing this he steps out of the territory of "blunt archetypes" and beyond merely "an exercise in style".
 
More importantly, 300 is a conventional film that, once stripped down to the bare nuts and bolts, can (and should) be judged as any other. Barring the use of pure CGI, at its very heart it is not new and offers absolutely nothing fresh. As such, it is extremely mediocre.




Filmic Joe -> RE: 300 (24/3/2007 7:22:41 PM)

Well, it was hugely entertaining.  Nothing particularly new, but it was technically fantastic.  A little on the shallow side, but truly breathtaking at times.

4/5




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0625