Frank Miller's 300

Discuss films.
User avatar
wendy w
Posts: 476
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Nowhere, England

Post by wendy w » Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:09 pm

I haven't read or seen 300 yet so I have no opinion on it at the moment.

I have another link to a Watchmen article though and there's even a picture.

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?nid=20478

Image

Personally I can't see how anyone can make a decent adaption of it.
(\__/)
(O.o )
(> < ) Bunny says you need to read
Image

User avatar
Vince
Posts: 740
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 2:13 am
Location: Berkeley, CA
Contact:

Post by Vince » Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:31 pm

Agreed. Should be a miniseries or something. And as others have pointed out, Watchmen's long enough with slooooooow-mooooooooo
Image

User avatar
Dresden Codak
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:11 am
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by Dresden Codak » Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:49 pm

Saw 300 last week. I thought it was a poorly paced, infantile and oversimplified fictionalization of an historical event. Some of the fights were pretty cool, but they were not frequent enough to keep me from checking my watch. I'm fairly certain over 70% of the movie was in slow motion. Also the whole "free man" crap drove me up the wall. Sparta was an oligarchy, with a class system and slaves and everything! I am well aware that it's not supposed to be a realistic depiction (I'm all for stylistic flourishes), but why does it have to be so brutally whitewashed so it can be safely spoonfed to American audiences? It's insulting. Also, by removing so many facts from the events (Leonidas didn't lead a preemptive strike by himself, he was protecting a retreating army of Greeks by sacrificing himself and his men), the story makes the Spartans look like imbeciles who only wanted to die for the sake of dying.

Frank Miller is ten years old.
Image

User avatar
lifelibertyland
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 5:50 pm
Location: bucktown, NY
Contact:

Post by lifelibertyland » Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:59 pm

I have to say, I didn't get why leonidas rejected the hunchbacked guy (being unable to be part of the phalanx aside). All he wanted to do was regain his honor, which the spartians seemed so keen on.
They're fighting for thier freedom, but for some reason he's not allowed that right because he's deformed?
Maybe I missed something, but if anyone can shed some light on this that'd be nice.

User avatar
dik pose
Posts: 1948
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: Culver City
Contact:

Post by dik pose » Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:00 pm

Leonidas didnt let the guy help not because he was deformed, but because he couldnt raise his own shield... All Leonidas asked of his Spartans was that they can raise their shield to protect themselves, and their brothers in arms... Xerxces didnt ask for that, all he asked is that you kneel before him...

Leonidas= Do it on your own.
Xerxces= Bow down to me.

Thats what I got from it... at the time it seemed like a dicked thing to do, until I realized Xerces is about subjugation and Leonidas, while seeming unfair, was about self-realization.

Reagan
Posts: 660
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 5:01 pm
Contact:

Post by Reagan » Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:22 pm

Dresden Codak wrote:Frank Miller is ten years old.
And a master storyteller.

Tamte
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:26 pm
Location: Sarasota
Contact:

Post by Tamte » Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:11 pm

Granted the story was not an accurate depiction of historic events,I thought it was a very successful film. I was initially kind of let down by how over the top some of the characters were (the goat-man playing the flute and the huge fat man with swords for arms), until I considered it as a recount of the batlle as told by the one-eyed spartan I can understand how he would indulge many of the details that upset me due to their outlandishness. I liked the book much better, but after talking to a friend of mine I decided to let movies be movies and comic books be comic books.

-Tamte

gau dog
Posts: 526
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 11:56 am
Contact:

Post by gau dog » Wed May 16, 2007 11:52 pm

A stubborn leader fights a meaningless battle for freedom, men, women, children, duty, honor, glory, and all that idealogical stuff. 300 kind of reminded me of the Iraq war. Especially all the beheadings and that spartan who loses his son. But instead of naked prisoners and deglorifiaction of war there's gratuitous boobie scenes and over glorification of war. In 300, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, and ugly handicapped people are bad guys. And I also learned we should cheer for a strong outspoken sympathetic feminist queen who'll willingly whore herself when it matters most. (say what?)

Other than the brainless story, it was shot well and the cinematography was great. I mean sure, the characters were "comic bookish" but it had great style.

Reagan
Posts: 660
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 5:01 pm
Contact:

Post by Reagan » Thu May 17, 2007 12:19 am

gau dog wrote:A stubborn leader fights a meaningless battle for freedom, men, women, children, duty, honor, glory, and all that idealogical stuff.
That's actually what I liked about 300, was how recklessly, ham-fistedly idealistic it was. Maybe it's because I'm tired of the endless line of war movies which try to draw some kind of moral equivalence argument between two sides, but it was nice to see something that was just so obnoxiously over the top heroic. I didn't take the movie seriously, because.. Well, holy crap, just look at it. I was laughing most of the time, but simply because it was just so fun and I couldn't believe this came out of Hollywood.

And the ideals about hopelessly standing up for freedom and honor and all that other stuff it propagandized isn't necessarily realistic, but that's the whole point - Miller's message was that they should be realistic.
300 kind of reminded me of the Iraq war. Especially all the beheadings and that spartan who loses his son.


Except that it was written several years before the Iraq War. Though there is something to be said about the timing for its release..
But instead of naked prisoners and deglorifiaction of war there's gratuitous boobie scenes and over glorification of war. In 300, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, and ugly handicapped people are bad guys.
I don't think the movie was racist towards Arabs and Persians any more than Saving Private Ryan was racist against Germans.
And I also learned we should cheer for a strong outspoken sympathetic feminist queen who'll willingly whore herself when it matters most. (say what?)
I thought the weird rape scene was really... Unnecessary, personally. I wish they didn't have it in there. Somehow it weakened her character to me. I don't think she "whored herself out" though - she did do it to try and save her husband, but I still wish they didn't have to go to that extreme. Then again I get really uncomfortable about rape scenes in general, yet have no problem with extreme combat violence for some reason.

gau dog
Posts: 526
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 11:56 am
Contact:

Post by gau dog » Thu May 17, 2007 1:36 am

Even though I consider 300 to be somewhat of a fanboy/fanservice movie that definitely invites MST3000 commentary, I don't know if it's a truly campy movie. It does take itself seriously, has streamline productions, and too many people call it a "masterpiece". Maybe it needs to age. Like wine, true campiness only gets better with age. If you like cheesy over the top war movies, you should see the movie "Red Dawn". It does it better. WOLVERINES!!!!!!!

User avatar
Og
Posts: 884
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:49 pm
Location: The Moon
Contact:

Post by Og » Thu May 17, 2007 7:34 am

I thought it was a very well done film, and a lot of fun to watch. I also thought it was amazing how close to the source material they stuck (the comic book, obviously, not the "history"). It's certainly not a perfect movie. But I didn't go to it looking for perfection nor for a history lesson.

I had to wonder, after going to such faithful lengths regarding the source material, why they felt they needed to expand the role of the queen. To me, it came off as if they were trying to push it that little bit extra into Ridley Scott's Gladiator territory, even down to echoing the Golden Fields motif. Perhaps they were trying to remind the audience what Leonidas was fighting to protect, as if we needed reminding...

Because they expanded her role, and tasked her with exposing the corruption, it was doubly confusing to me as to why they took the character into rape territory. Going back to the source material, the story worked fine without all that. So much so that they decided to make a movie based on it... *scratch head*

Despite its many shortcomings, I am encouraged and surprised that a movie like this actually came out of Hollywood. The ways it was different from typical Hollywood fare made up for its shortcomings in my opinion. Viva la differences.
ImageImage

Reagan
Posts: 660
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 5:01 pm
Contact:

Post by Reagan » Thu May 17, 2007 9:12 am

gau dog wrote:Even though I consider 300 to be somewhat of a fanboy/fanservice movie that definitely invites MST3000 commentary, I don't know if it's a truly campy movie. It does take itself seriously, has streamline productions, and too many people call it a "masterpiece". Maybe it needs to age. Like wine, true campiness only gets better with age. If you like cheesy over the top war movies, you should see the movie "Red Dawn". It does it better. WOLVERINES!!!!!!!
Oh boy.. Red Dawn. I remember that movie pretty well. Ultimate campfest indeed. Russia invading the US so they can have our grain? Brilliant!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests