300

This film isn't for all people. That's to say about a lot of movies in general of course, but this one in particular brings up a big clashing point between critics; What do we want to see in our movies? What is more important, to portray a fictional setting for the sake of giving people a mind blowing visual experience or to amuse and amaze them with clever plot twists and intelligent dialogs?

First lets analyze what exactly this film is made of. Basically, the whole thing is just one epic fighting scene after another. Most noticeably is the camera work and the visual effects. Every shot seems like it was intended to be a work of art. The colors, the characters, the costumes, the backgrounds... every little detail has been given so much attention. During the big fights you'll also instantly notice the unique editing. There are a lot of "time slowdowns" throughout the battles which show what exactly is happening. Fatal wounds that slowly leak blood spatters in the air, decapitated heads traveling in slow-motion across the screen... it's all there.

The story on the other hand isn't very complicated, in the sense that the whole movie could probably be described in a sentence or two. The dialogs are simple and most often talk about moral values like freedom and honor. If you would look at the script, it would probably look like another movie that has nothing more to offer then idealistic visions of how life should be.

Reviewers of this title seem to be split up in two groups. They either love it with passion calling it an epic movie of the 21th century, or hate it even more and throw it off like a piece of garbage consisting of mindless action and silly cliché phrases. I feel reluctant to take a position in this argument. Normally it's tolerable to weigh out both sides of this matter to result in a fair judgment about a movie. Not in this one. On the one hand the visual are surely among the best to be witnessed in a movie. Every detail, every background, every special effect set to the scenes are so mindblowingly stunning. On the other hand the plot and dialogs are of the most simplistic and quite frankly dumb kind. "I fight for freedom! I'd rather die in honor then live in shame!" Sounds familiar?

Of course it could be debated that this movie was never intended in the first place to have a unique plot that makes your head spin. But from an objective point of view it's still lacking in this department, so it should be noted.

Now that's fine and all, but does that all make of the film? Is it worth watching or what? I think it is. For me the good outweighs the bad by miles. From the second the movie started it grabbed me and didn't let go. Every battle, every scene of the movie had me at the tip of my chair. Everything from the strong acting to the wondrous visuals to the war-shouts of the soldiers was just so stunning... it was truly a wonderful experience.

I did not one single moment felt like the movie lacked anything. But I could imagine why other people did.

So here's the deal.

If you are easily impressed by beautiful landscapes, wonderful camera-work and editing and powerful acting then go see this. Right. Now. You'll be missing out if you don't. There is so much to see, so much power in the way this comic is translated to the big screen... It'll leave you in awe.

However, you are looking for a good story, clever plot twists, some innovating to the world of the movies then skip this. 300 contains nothing of this, nor does it wants to give you this.

I enjoyed this movie so much, but I know there will be people that will pass of as rubbish, and that's understandable. Just be sure to make up your mind about what you want to see when you go to the theater yourself instead of being drawn into bias by the tons of reviews this site has to offer.

After gaving us some of the greatest epic movies in the last 50 years,it was clear that filmmakers needed to take them to the next level.

But how can you make a new movie,for the audience to like,without recycling old material?

Answer:You improve what old filmmakers couldn't:Graphics.

Ben Hur,Braveheart,Gladiator,Spartacus and perhaps even Troy are only some of the epic movies that gave the audience so big thrills that they cannot be repeated. Almost every epic movie that will be made today,no matter how good the story will be or how faithful will be to reality,is bound to repeat itself.We got examples from Alexander and Kingdom of Heaven.

300 doesn't apply to this category.Besides it takes the epic to the next level.And more are like to follow.

Just like in the Lord of the Rings,much CGI was used here.

The result? This movie was a pleasure for the eye.

All the camera work and graphics exceeded my expectations. I thought they were comparable,if not better,to the LOTR,go see for yourselves.

I could write something about the plot or the actors's outstanding performances(especially Gerard Butler's..you see,being Greek-Italian,I wanted the best from the actors..Butler gave it. The anger in his eyes,the fury in his voice and the violence in his actions really reminded an ancient Greek king),but I won't ruin it for you. You must see it to understand how great this movie is.

But always remember that this is a movie that is based on a graphic novel and is by no means a faithful depiction of what really happened in Thermopylae in 480 B.C. All those who will pay the ticket to see this movie,must be prepared not for a historic movie,but for a stylish battle movie.

This movie,together with the LOTR,is the entrance to the 21st century's new epic movies.

Kudos to Zack Snyder,who came from nowhere and has,already from Dawn of the Dead,proved that he is a brilliant and capable director. We will surely see more of him in the upcoming years.

So,you read my Comment?

Aren't you curious?

What are you waiting for?

Run to the nearest cinema,see this piece of art and when you are finished don't forget to come to IMDb to vote. This movie is destined to be at least in the top 100.

C'mon people!Hail for 300,the Evolution of Epic Battles!

The 480 BC Battle of Thermopylae is the stuff of military legend when, in popular lore, a mere 300 Spartans commanded by King Leonidas held off a Persian force led by Xerxes the Great that Herodotus claimed as 2.6 million. In truth, the Spartans were backed by a mixed force of almost 7,000, while there are enormous variations in modern estimates of the multi-ethnic Persian army, but somewhere between 100,000-200,000 seems realistic. Whatever the actual figures, the odds against the Spartans were terrible, death was inevitable, and their honour secure.

The story was first told on film in 1962 when director Rudolph Maté went to Greece and shot a worthy, but conventional and surprisingly leaden, version entitled "The 300 Spartans", starring American Richard Egan as King Leonidas and the British David Farrar as Xerxes. "300" takes the same basic narrative and presents it in an utterly different style in a blood-fest when "The Wild Bunch" meets "Kill Bill" and the visuals are like nothing except "Sin City". This time the director is Zack Snyder, known for his music videos, and the location is a studio set in Montreal with green backgrounds later filled by superb computer-generated graphics and the whole storybook style is based on the graphic novel by co-producer Frank Miller. Both versions use the legendary exchange: "When we attack today, our arrows will blot out the sun!" "Good; then we will fight in the shade." But only "300" has such fun lines as: "Spartans! Enjoy your breakfast, for tonight we dine in Hell!"

Ever since its first public showing at the Berlin Film Festival, most critics have mauled "300" and it presents an easy target for those wanting something more cerebral: there is virtually no plot or characterisation, the script is sparse and bland, much of the acting is exaggerated and over-loud, when it is not homo-erotic it is oddly camp, and the whole thing is stereotypical when it is not outright xenophobic and politically incorrect. And yet, as entertainment, it has much to offer: the sepia-tinged visuals are absolutely stunning and the fight sequences viscerally exciting. I was fortunate enough to see it in IMAX and I regularly felt blood-splattered and exhausted and quite ready to leap into the action.

There are no big names in the cast list which helps the sense of history but does not raise the thespian talent quotient. Gerard Butler plays King Leonidas with a Scottish accent, while the Brazilian Rodrigo Santoro is a version of Xerxes bejewelled with ethnic metalwork. Most of the warriors are literally larger than life: the actors playing the Spartans reveal most of their bodies with digitally-enhanced muscles, while on Xerxes' side characters include a huge hunchback, a giant emissary and a claw-armed executioner as well the metal-masked Immortals. This is before we get on to an enormous raging rhino and bedecked elephants. Truly this is a battle with a circus-like cast. The love interest comes from the feisty wife of Leonidas, Queen Gorgo, portrayed by the alluring British actress Lena Headey. There is even a scene in a rippling corn field borrowed from "Gladiator".

At the end of the day, what makes the movie are the thrilling fight sequences with encounters in which the film is slowed down and then speeded up to give a video-game quality that is unlike anything you have previously seen on the big screen. Whem a sword slashes or a spear lungs or an arrow whistles, you really feel and hear it. At times, it is as if a picture by Hieronymus Bosch had come to life.

In the year 480 BC, King Xerxes of Persia set in motion his enormous slave empire to crush the small group of independent Greek states – the only stronghold of freedom still remaining in the then known world. As the countless armies of Xerxes approaches, King Leonidas petitions the ruling council to meet the army with whatever men can be found. With the council unwilling to release soldiers until after the religious festival, Leonidas sets out with his 300 strong personal army to meet Xerxes' men at a narrow pass knowing they must hold off the approach for as long as they can until the army arrives– even if it means their deaths.

Although I am surprised to see this film so highly rated on IMDb, I can understand why it is so because it does deliver a powerful experience, almost powerful enough to carry it through its lack of real depth or substance. You can see the selling point on the DVD cover or the poster because it is in these places where any film visually has to sell itself. With 300 though this selling continues across the entire film because, holding close to the graphic novel roots, the visual design is the all here. The plot is simple and, although there is a little bit of politicing back home, the film is all about the stand of the 300 against countless others. In this regard it is visceral, violent and visually stunning. The mix of effects with live action brings the action to live and is as suitably overblown as the legend.

Snyder's direction matches the effects and he wallows in every macho swing of the sword, doing really well to capture the action in a way that is engaging and clear. The lack of substance was a bit of a problem but to be honest the film does sweep you along in the moment of the battle and mostly this is all you care about. The cast don't really have characters so much as presence and mostly they deliver in this area. Butler is strong in the lead and he convinces in the role of Leonidas. Headley and West have the harder job back home to provide some interest in the politics behind the battle – they do well enough (particularly The Wire's West, but I'm biased) but the script does rather leave them to their own devices. The rest of the cast are appropriately muscular and heroic and fit in with what the script is trying to do.

Overall this is an effective but superficial film. The design and the look is the all but fortunately it delivers in this regard really well. The performances, the script and everything else falls into line in supporting the graphic novel feel of the film and, although I would like to say I favour substance over style, it is hard not to like when the style is this well done.

The title refers to "the good friend" character who gives a memorial speech at the end, presenting the legacy that grows to fantastic proportions on its way to us as narrator whose words are from another planet. Presumably you as a viewer will make the association I did the with the demigods of Olympus, so artificial and childlike are the notions this narrator presents. They are so simple and extreme, these notions of how the world is abstracted through one eye..

It allows us to take a very few indicators and suppose a world. Deliberate deprivation of young boys is supposed to somehow instill valor. Flying blood droplets is supposed to somehow validate combat expertise. Tactical stubbornness leading to defeat is somehow celebrated, I suppose, coming very close to the 72 virgins bit. Yes, indeed, sometimes this slipped for me into the opposite of what it was intended to purify. The elixir of admiration for the west snapped to Zoroastrian soma more often than not.

That's because the history is that the Persians (the Achaemenids were actually Medes, more like Afghans are today) were the great world-builders of the era, creating less a totalitarian state than a federation of free states that flourished by trade not terror. And the Spartans were the thugs, the warlords who oppressed and terrorized their neighbors, building a state based on pillaged wealth. Even the Nazi association is reversed, the Medes were the Aryans, the Spartans essentially African, and no longer extant in today's Greece.

(Later, the Alexandran Macedonians, the Greeks of today, destroyed the by then corrupt and fragile Persian empire and all its great libraries and histories, torturing the collected scientists to death, in what has to have been the greatest and most brutal setbacks of civilization ever.)

So the resonances with today keep oscillating in a strange and stimulating dance between the intended admiration of these thugs we are meant to feel as the west, and those of Islam. But that "struggle" is over issues as remote from this as swimsuits are from locomotives. Let's even say vinyl padded speedos.

As a movie, the thing is oddly uneven. It's tied together by a consistent score, mixed of heavy metal and aeolian voices. And it does have a story, actually two; though simple, they span the thing and stitch pieces together. But there are distinct visual styles here, too many to integrate. I felt actually as if I were defending myself from some of them as they came at me just as the different components of the Persian army attacked the 300 hooting bodybuilders.

Its inevitable I suppose, when the computer work is so massive it has to be parsed out to creative teams distributed all over the world, and they have nothing better to go on than a comic book. I will admit that some of the these teams gave me great satisfaction, some of them in the actual battle scenes where the speed-shifts worked to emphasize the mapping of comic panels into reality. This, if you follow such things, was developed by Peter Weir in "Gallipoli," starring a then new Mel Gibson. Mel then sorta borrowed them for his own battle epic, including the early scene where he lops off a head. Here we emphasize the flying bodies, body parts and blood which quite literally become architectural. In fact there are three distinct architectural structures here made of bodies, and many others large and small made of living men.

For me the center of the thing is the early scene where the oracle is consulted. Three bits of background.

— when I see this plot device early in a movie, someone with a vision (or dream or hallucination) I tend to see the rest of the movie as what's in that vision. In other words here, when this girl reports what she sees in the future, the report is the movie that follows, and that we see through her eyes. It works for me because then I can ascribe the limits of the vision I see to the character I know shaped it.

— one of my most valued movie experiences is a very early short film. Shucks I see my comment on it here at IMDb is deleted. (If anyone saved it, please send it to me.) Its a dancer with flowing garments that sail with her in space. Over this has been hand painted color that overlaps the boundaries of the fabric, the first spatial artificial effect in film. Its transporting, this century-old image. Its copied in many ways here with the oracle's appearance. She's a drugged young beauty, and they use this as an excuse to have her dance, with smoke, hair, skin and fabric tendrils weaving space, sex, sense, vision. The designers of this scene were used nowhere else that I could tell. Its an extraordinary bit of art.

— There's something inherently cinematic about redheads. All filmmakers know this. Its in many how-to shortcut books. But like other fundamentals, no matter how hackneyed it gets, it can still be effective. In a film of actors whose hair has been blacked to seem Greek (and elsewhere skin darkened to seem "Persian"), they find an Irish girl to play the oracle. I guess she's pretty; it's hard to tell because she's less a person than the provider of hair and a nipple in a complex assembly, but there you have the redhead, first seen doing a Gilda hair introduction.

I saw this in a theater with a friend and despite dangerous political twinges we got swept up in it, together with the people in the auditorium. I think there's an analogy between the brotherhood of the men we see, and the implied brotherhood of the people in the audience. It brought us closer through vision. Film can do a lot worse.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.