We r Spar..TA (Full Version)

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



Message

moo.v.buff -> We r Spar..TA (15/4/2007 3:08:38 PM)

good cinematography/sfx, great battle scenes,choreography
lots of half naked blokes if thats your cup of tea

overall not a bad film,a graphic novel come to life





m_er -> RE: We r Spar..TA (15/4/2007 7:01:36 PM)

Finally I got time to see this great but yet not perfect movie. I wished I loved 300 so so much. It wasn't a depply disappointing film. I'm not saying this. However I was sort of gutted that 300 wasn't the best epic film I have ever seen. Hence I said above I wished I loved this flick so much.

Contains some wow moments visually, but little else. And the slow-mo scene got annoying as well to tell you the truth. However I'm also aware that this epic blockbuster of 2007 is an experience the audience won't soon forget.

I'd rated with 3 star if the moving end wasnt there. It's impossible not to be moved by its end mates. Reminded me of "For Frodooooo" in LOTR:ROTK and "You have shed blood with him now sheb blood with me. Wallace, Wallace,Wallace" in Braveheart which were absolutely a made-me-cry-like-a-girl moments.



seffa -> RE: 300 (16/4/2007 2:05:26 AM)

300 is the legendary tale of the stand off between the hundred thousand strong army of Xerxes and a mere 300 Spartan soldiers, which takes place in Theremopelaye.
The Spartans are introduced has being intensely drilled and honor struck soldiers who have been taught never to surrender, and to fight to the death. These Spartans are then faced by the overwhelming strength of a Persian army invading their lands, and take it upon them selves to do the impossible and fight back against them, bringing an unimaginable and stunning fight scene to the silver screen.

Based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller, the creator of Sin City, the film makers of 300 wanted this film to look like a comic book come to life. Yet, they didn't want the surreal and contrasting look that Sin City brought across. Thus, a new era of special effects was born.
This new generation of visual collaboration is shot behind a green screen, and when painstakingly edited in the computer rooms, brings about a look never before seen.
Moving comic book pictures and scenery that looks as if it has been painted with oil and canvas is what has been created. Dropping the shade for background effects and blurring images around main objects contributes to this new look.

Because of this new technology and stunning visual appeal, many have been drawn to conclude that this is a classic film, yet without studying the other fields of the film.
You can't see this as a classic film.
Yes the visuals are stunning, and yes the fight scenes rival any that have been put to screen so far. Yet unfortunately that is all 300 will be remembered for.
A classic should be remembered for having perfected every aspect of film making such as character development, direction, acting, score, subtext and dialogue.
300 was made in such a way that all significant development in various fields, excluding effects and choreographed battle scenes, have been left at the side, and not attended to.
There is no doubt that 300 is a vastly entertaining film, but if the film makers had spent more time neutering other aspects of a film production, 300 may well have made it into the hall of fame.

Although not a four or five star film, and certainly not a classic, this film is undeniably a huge step forward in the world of film making.

Y.A





angrymonkey -> Start a War! Kick em into a hole! (16/4/2007 2:21:13 PM)

One word - awesome!!!
I defy anyone to not jump out of their seat when the messenger is kicked into the hole! Cmon! Sparta!
A good cross of sin city meets gladiator - not a classic but damn good fun! Gonna be a real treat in HD format when I can afford it!!



omarx -> Sexy Men..Long Legs..Nice Underwear..The point is? (16/4/2007 5:48:21 PM)

Visually stunning epic, but no substance, it takes madness to do What the men did back then, instead, we had GOERGE W BUSH as a screen writer, warning us of the EVIL coming from thr EAST. It sold the Spartans short unfortunately



Bubbahhotep -> RE: 300 (17/4/2007 11:24:10 AM)

It's all about opinion's I went to see it twice I think 300 is a four star movie. The Visuals are great and Gerard Butler put's in a performance we expected from Brad Pitt in Troy instead it's just labelled as Shouty like you epect Spartans to be cultred civil warriors if you had to fight a million persians you would shout allot too.
 
It's a direct adaptation of a graphic novel and it's scene for scene picture perfect. Not in any way an epic but superb stuff. Harry lime and Empire are entitled to there opinion but for me they are way off.
 
[image]http://nudo.nu/wp-content/300.jpg[/image]



furrybastard -> RE: 300 (17/4/2007 1:50:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bubbahhotep
 
It's a direct adaptation of a graphic novel and it's scene for scene picture perfect. Not in any way an epic but superb stuff.


Have you read the graphic novel? It is not a direct adaptation. He uses bits from the comic for master shots, takes the idea and some of the dialogue and that's it.

And if anything it just goes to show that any attempt at a page for page translation to cinema does not work.



Bubbahhotep -> RE: 300 (17/4/2007 5:42:58 PM)

sin city worked did it not and 300 worked also a graphic novel is just a hard back comic it's still a four star film direct adapt or not.....



Axel Foley -> RE: 300 (17/4/2007 5:43:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: furrybastard

And if anything it just goes to show that any attempt at a page for page translation to cinema does not work.


Apart from a personal dislike of the film, what makes you think that?

Ignoring my own liking for the film, and making some attempt to view this objectively, I’d say that overall film fan opinion (see the imdb rating of 7.9), critical reaction (a rotten tomatos rating of 61%) and box office returns suggest that such a translation has worked.



Bubbahhotep -> RE: 300 (17/4/2007 5:44:30 PM)

oh thats poetry rock on man done his research ...



Harry Lime -> RE: 300 (17/4/2007 7:38:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Axel Foley

Ignoring my own liking for the film, and making some attempt to view this objectively, I'd say that overall film fan opinion (see the imdb rating of 7.9), critical reaction (a rotten tomatos rating of 61%) and box office returns suggest that such a translation has worked.

I really don't put much emphasis on box office returns as so many factors play a part in this. Number of screenings is the biggie.. Along with advertising and hype. In 300's case, it must be accepted that a big, action packed spectacular will always get teenage/early 20 something boys (the biggest market next to family films) into seats. It may give an indication as to who is watching the film in question (and if it is appealing to its core audience) but it says little about quality of the film itself. After all, there is no denying that films like Night At Museum, The Holiday and Happy Feet are more likely to top the box office charts than the likes of Half-Nelson, Babel or The Fountain.
 
I find the other two statistics far more interesting. Looking at those figures, we have a recurrence of what is happening here. At 61%, critical consensus seems to share Empire's opinion (and, indeed, my own) that this is a 3 star movie. At 79%, audiences seem to rate it at 4 stars... Much like you. It will be interesting to see how these scores change over the next year or so (imdb ratings tend to slowly drop by roughly 0.5 - 0.7 in the six months after cinematic run has ended and the first month of DVD release is over) and maybe then we will get a more accurate picture of what is going on.



furrybastard -> RE: 300 (17/4/2007 9:50:23 PM)

Dear lord, I wrote out a whole post and then accidentally deleted the text. Shit shit shit shit [:@]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Axel Foley

quote:

ORIGINAL: furrybastard

And if anything it just goes to show that any attempt at a page for page translation to cinema does not work.


Apart from a personal dislike of the film, what makes you think that?


Any adaptation usually involves altering or excising certain elements from the source material. On the other hand it also allows a greater scope for utilising the capabilities of whatever medium it is being adapted into, in this case cinema. What Snyder does with 300 is translate the comic to the screen; literally using the panels of the comic as a storyboard (though as I said above, I don't think this is wholly true), lifting probably all of the dialogue in Miller's work plus adding some of his own. The problem with this is that the dialogue in the comic works; in the film it sounds ridiculous.

The elements which Snyder had to change or add in (because the source material is too slight for an entire movie if one is trying to do it panel by panel) make the film unwieldy. If he had done a proper job of it and actually adapted it i.e. developing some of the characters/themes/ideas found in the comic and using it as a foundation as opposed to a holy text, the film could have been far better and solved a lot of its own problems. I believe all of the problems 300 has - and they are many - are directly related to its absolute inability to escape from the shadow of the source material.

The rules of comic books and cinema are different. For example, voiceover works a lot better in comics than in cinema. A heavy reliance on style through the art can sustain a comic for its entirety but this rarely works for films. There are of course exceptions to these rules but 300 ain't one of them.

Also: what's the point? Page for page recreation is lazy, cynical filmmaking. For me, this sort of thing is like sitting down in a theatre and filming a play, then calling it cinema. Ultimately, it's a pointless, soulless exercise. Snyder could have taken Miller's comic and used it as an inspiration - it could have been a good film, that's the most frustrating thing about it. Instead he rips out the pages, puts them up on the screen and all I'm left feeling is that he's ripped up a comic that was perfectly fine as it was.

Again, it's a personal thing in some respects. You can remain faithful to the source material without having to be imprisoned by it. I have yet to see any reaosn to believe than a straight translation will work (yes, I include Sin City). I always feel it could have been done better and that its dogged refusal to change is what lets the film down.

In 300 the comic, Miller's artwork is always striking. In the film, it's striking for all of ten minutes and looks ridiculous in motion, more like a computer game.

Sorry if some of this is incoherent, my first draft was more succint [:D]





Axel Foley -> RE: 300 (18/4/2007 5:59:56 PM)

quote:

Harry Lime
It may give an indication as to who is watching the film in question (and if it is appealing to its core audience) but it says little about quality of the film itself.


I’d agree; you can’t judge the quality of the film on such a basis. I was though, trying to get behind the question as to whether the translation worked or not, where furryb has elaborated on what he originally meant by saying 300 was proof of such an adaptation not working. Interpreting the statement one way, could mean that we look at the film’s productivity.

quote:

It will be interesting to see how these scores change over the next year or so (imdb ratings tend to slowly drop by roughly 0.5 - 0.7 in the six months after cinematic run has ended and the first month of DVD release is over) and maybe then we will get a more accurate picture of what is going on.


300’s IMDB rating seems to have stabilised with around 90000 votes. After it’s first week on release it had scaled the dizzy heights of the top 250 (much as Grindhouse is currently doing), but has since steadily dropped. I’d be surprised if it fell below 7.5.

quote:

furrybastard
What Snyder does with 300 is translate the comic to the screen; literally using the panels of the comic as a storyboard (though as I said above, I don't think this is wholly true), lifting probably all of the dialogue in Miller's work plus adding some of his own. The problem with this is that the dialogue in the comic works; in the film it sounds ridiculous.

The elements which Snyder had to change or add in (because the source material is too slight for an entire movie if one is trying to do it panel by panel) make the film unwieldy.If he had done a proper job of it and actually adapted it i.e. developing some of the characters/themes/ideas found in the comic and using it as a foundation as opposed to a holy text, the film could have been far better and solved a lot of its own problems. I believe all of the problems 300 has - and they are many - are directly related to its absolute inability to escape from the shadow of the source material.


I’d agree with some of those point. When I viewed it a second time I tried to ignore much of the dialogue and view it mainly as a visual piece. I actually think there are physical actions and gestures which better illustrate the characters than any of their dialogue (for example the look on Leonidas’ face as he left his wife or his noble expression at death – as opposed to needing the Dilios commentary). I wish Snyder had had the balls to cut the dialogue down to the bare bones. I think the temptation is to spoon feed the audience with information, when we can see for ourselves that the quaking earth is being caused by the Persian armies’ march. And once a person has spoken it does rather kill the mood.

I also think that the moving image can help bring the still images of the novel to life, so if it is a shot for shot adaptation there is some mileage there. For example I don’t think the fluidity of the character movements is to be found in the book.

I didn’t like Sin City so much, mainly because I personally felt the atmosphere was a bit flat and it felt like it had been filmed in a room, where I thought 300 felt “big” and right for the cinema.

I personally think this is a one off and I hope it doesn’t set of a surge of copy cats to try and cash in on its success. Once more and the idea will start to go stale (unless you already think it is stale).



kenada_woo -> RE: 300 (18/4/2007 6:19:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: furrybastard

Dear lord, I wrote out a whole post and then accidentally deleted the text. Shit shit shit shit [:@]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Axel Foley

quote:

ORIGINAL: furrybastard

And if anything it just goes to show that any attempt at a page for page translation to cinema does not work.


Apart from a personal dislike of the film, what makes you think that?


Any adaptation usually involves altering or excising certain elements from the source material. On the other hand it also allows a greater scope for utilising the capabilities of whatever medium it is being adapted into, in this case cinema. What Snyder does with 300 is translate the comic to the screen; literally using the panels of the comic as a storyboard (though as I said above, I don't think this is wholly true), lifting probably all of the dialogue in Miller's work plus adding some of his own. The problem with this is that the dialogue in the comic works; in the film it sounds ridiculous.

The elements which Snyder had to change or add in (because the source material is too slight for an entire movie if one is trying to do it panel by panel) make the film unwieldy. If he had done a proper job of it and actually adapted it i.e. developing some of the characters/themes/ideas found in the comic and using it as a foundation as opposed to a holy text, the film could have been far better and solved a lot of its own problems. I believe all of the problems 300 has - and they are many - are directly related to its absolute inability to escape from the shadow of the source material.

The rules of comic books and cinema are different. For example, voiceover works a lot better in comics than in cinema. A heavy reliance on style through the art can sustain a comic for its entirety but this rarely works for films. There are of course exceptions to these rules but 300 ain't one of them.

Also: what's the point? Page for page recreation is lazy, cynical filmmaking. For me, this sort of thing is like sitting down in a theatre and filming a play, then calling it cinema. Ultimately, it's a pointless, soulless exercise. Snyder could have taken Miller's comic and used it as an inspiration - it could have been a good film, that's the most frustrating thing about it. Instead he rips out the pages, puts them up on the screen and all I'm left feeling is that he's ripped up a comic that was perfectly fine as it was.

Again, it's a personal thing in some respects. You can remain faithful to the source material without having to be imprisoned by it. I have yet to see any reaosn to believe than a straight translation will work (yes, I include Sin City). I always feel it could have been done better and that its dogged refusal to change is what lets the film down.

In 300 the comic, Miller's artwork is always striking. In the film, it's striking for all of ten minutes and looks ridiculous in motion, more like a computer game.

Sorry if some of this is incoherent, my first draft was more succint [:D]





Completely agree.



Sway -> RE: 300 (18/4/2007 6:33:24 PM)

I've been pretty slow to give a review for this so far.  I've already seen it twice since it's been out, which I guess kind of shows what I think.

Personally I don't think I've seen such a raw, visual epic on a cinema screen in my life before.  The only thing as epic I can remotely compare it to is LOTR, but even then 300 is in a world of it's own for the fantastic mix of real and blatant CGI/fantasy.

This is definitely a case of style over substance, I have to agree with Empire's review somewhat.  I felt little attachment/sympathy for any character really, but the rip-roaring action, soundtrack, speeches, visuals, blood more than made up for it.

Butler was simply phenomenal and it was such a beautiful movie in terms of the vivid crimsons and golds.

Personally my only criticisms would be, Wenham's narration - his voice is just not appropriate for it. It's just too weak.  Which is a shame because some of the lines were priceless.  Also Lena Heady as the Queen, well she was rather flat.  Stunning, but I felt really underwhelmed by her as a 'strong' spartan Queen.

Still, this movie is definitely a feast for the eyes.






darkfairy -> RE: 300 (21/4/2007 12:46:50 PM)

Cetainly not as good as it could have been but was still suitably impressed by much of it. Greard Butler was amazing, its just a shame that the film didn't concentrate more in character development as the ending would have been so much more poignant. At its end I felt like I should have been crying but just didn't feel that strongly towards the characters. One really striking part was where the Spartan guy's son was beheaded in front of him, that really moved me. All in all, a visually stunning film but not much depth to speak of.



DrachirFilm -> (24/4/2007 1:10:50 AM)

300 was a good film



Orbital -> RE: 300 (28/4/2007 10:19:47 PM)

good film, I wonder if Zack can continue his success with Watchmen



Juju boy -> RE: 300 (30/4/2007 7:45:14 PM)

Men shouting "Sparta!" And falling over in slow motion.. The wolf looked silly..



eoin_tracey -> 300 (30/4/2007 8:19:47 PM)

Very very under rated.. Was incredible in parts and very solid through out.



jacko251 -> RE: 300 (1/5/2007 7:43:49 PM)

one of the most hyped films of the year is under rated? nice one..

for what it's worth i couldn't stand 300



TygerTyger -> (8/5/2007 12:55:08 PM)

As already stated this film is visually stunning and should be seen and heard at the cinema. Story-wise 300 is as historically accurate as you'd expect of a Hollywood movie, the earlier 300 Spartans is much closer to documented events. Ephialtes is not recorded as being a grossly disfigured hunchback, merely an opportunistic goatherder! Also, the movie down-plays the role of the Spartan's allies who actually fought alongside them. A detachment even held the pass against Xerxes' out-flanking movement that ended the battle, all of them dying just like the Spartans!
That said, the film is great to watch with some fantastic action scenes, although it does get a little over the top in parts, such as the executioner with blades for hands and Xerxes as some 7 foot androgenous freak; oh well, it was based on a comic book after all!



elimonator -> 300 (18/5/2007 2:10:06 PM)

It was cool, but i expected a little more to chew on.
Jerald butler is on his way to true stardom.



surfy -> stunning to watch (26/6/2007 4:30:22 PM)

This film could have been amazing. Artistically it was.... if you turned the sound off it is masterful film making, however... The characters were 2 dimensional. I didn't much care what happened to any of them. It comes down to what u want out of a film, visually stunning effects or some story... the choice is yours



RZfilmfan -> 300 (12/7/2007 8:00:23 PM)

i do prefere films with a little more depth than jus blood guts glory and action but i really enjoyed this film i thaught the slow-mo in the fight scenes was awsome. i actually watched this on the first night of its release and i enjoyed it emensly i give this film a five star rating simply because its just so enjoyable to watch its like die hard 4.0 but ancient well it ent rele but we'll say that just to get a comparison



b4r1 -> THIS IS SPARTA!!!!!!! (16/7/2007 9:42:35 PM)

Great Visuals!!! this movie is incredibly underrated. Much better than anything that's come out of hollywood this year anyway. Looking at you Pirates 3, Shrek 3, Spiderman 3, Die hard 4.0, and the outright stupid hostel 2 and Grindhouse.



b4r1 -> THIS IS SPARTA!!!!!!! (16/7/2007 9:43:18 PM)

Great Visuals!!! this movie is incredibly underrated. Much better than anything that's come out of hollywood this year anyway. Looking at you Pirates 3, Shrek 3, Spiderman 3, Die hard 4.0, and the outright stupid hostel 2 and Grindhouse.



b4r1 -> THIS IS SPARTA!!!!!!! (16/7/2007 9:43:27 PM)

Great Visuals!!! this movie is incredibly underrated. Much better than anything that's come out of hollywood this year anyway. Looking at you Pirates 3, Shrek 3, Spiderman 3, Die hard 4.0, and the outright stupid hostel 2 and Grindhouse.



MartinBlank76 -> RE: 300 (23/7/2007 9:18:10 AM)

The film picked up well after a bit of a slow start though I guess that they had to do that to set up why they were going to battle and why only 300 went and not the full army of SPARTA! The script was quite by the numbers esp in terms of the dialogue but it felt to me thats what they were going for. To keep it nice and simple. of course that sort of approach means the film is never going to scale the heights of a classic like gladiator or spartacus. SPARTA!! Visually stunning and i liked the way you got right into the middle of the action scenes and it wasnt the usual longshot millions of troops type battle they usually have. i found the battle scenes quite exhilirating actually. There wasnt that much for the actors to do but i thought dominic west was suitably sleazy if a tad panto like as the traitor, lena heady was pretty queen like and gerard butler was the stand out as Leonidus. He would have made a good achilles. Even though most of his lines were limited to, 'blah blah blah, FOR SPARTA!!!' Followed by much gritting of teeth. My god, they were pearly and white. It was mad how it looked like every single spartan had the same exact body just with different heads. Except for the hunchback of course. SPARTA! I think I would give it 7 out of 10. Does exactly what it says on the tin. Very enjoyable.... The subtext pretty much could have been 'Watch out america for the threat from the east...'



maxii -> RE: 300 (23/7/2007 1:10:03 PM)

[:D] I only watched this the other day i know i'm a bit behind ! but i really enjoyed it! The film was a cross between lord of the rings and gladiator. It is a shame though that the good guy has always got to die at the end!



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.078125