300

Remove all ads!

I dont think it takes itself seriously. Where do you see that?

Its not everyones cup of tea, but if you dont like that sort of thing you dont like that sort of thing.

Err what sort of movies do you enjoy? I mean, I think bad boys 1 & 2 are good examples of mindless action comedy, and I'm starting to wonder if you didnt like 300 because you wanted an epic classical tale and got a testosterone fuelled live action comic.

 

It was a mindless hack'n'slash movie imposing Spartans as champions of freedom and defiance in the face of tyranny (ironically the Spartan lifestyle was held together by slaves whereas the citizens were all soldiers).

In other words, it was great. The film never claimed to be historically accurate, it made no claims that everything within was fact. Certainly it drew its roots from a famous battle that did indeed result in the death of the King of Sparta and force the Persians to rethink their idea invading the Greek city states. But that's it.

It was mindless fun and so I enjoyed it.

 

Proteus: I like a lot of very different kinds of movies. If I watch action flicks, I want them to be fast paced, with witty dialogues. Not dull slaughterfests that drag on and on and on and on...

And no, I didn't expect an classical epic, because I 'read' Millers comic beforehand. It's equally bad, but at least short. The movie feels longer. Snyder wasn't able to fill it with interesting parts, but decided to include a dumb political plot and make the action sequences longer. The extensive use of slow motion action made them even longer and more boring.

The best scenes in '300' were the few dialoges between the spartans and between Leonidas and Xerxes. But as I wrote before: there were far to few of them. Some more, and '300' would have been better. The movie is in dire need of more comic relief. That's why I feel it takes itself to serious. Since Miller wrote the script, this wasn't obviously not possible. The next time, they should keep him away.

 

This is one of the reasons I liked the film as much as I did. Far too many films now have this urge to shunt in a token comedy character, or ridiculous moments, just to get laughs, which is something that I feel really detracts from most films.

 

Well if you dont like it you dont like it, apologies if it sounded like I was telling you that you were wrong for not liking it.

I just get irritated when people expect a classical adventure and get irritated with a pop action comic.

but if that is what you expected and still didnt like it I cant fault you on that.

 

Again: it's possible to recognize the myriad flaws of the movie and still enjoy it. I know, because I did.

Er, you don't? It played damn near everything straight. There was little to no irony--certainly not in the political subtext.

'Freedom isn't free' made me laugh, but it wasn't supposed to.

 

Takes itself seriously? 300?!

This film has war-rhinos, trolls, ninjas, hand granades and bloody oliphaunts. The soldiers wear uniforms made out of shin guards, a helmet and a red cape! Xerxes is like 3 meters tall!

It's one of the silliest films ever made. I agree that everyone always have a solemn expression on their face, but then again so do characters in Airplane...

 

Snakes on a plane takes it self seriously, and that movie has to be worse than the worst b grade horror movie from the 80s.

"Freedom isnt free".

Team America anyone?

 

I thought that Snakes on a Plane was a movie to be laughed at. Do you think Jackson would have signed on if that thing was meant to be serious.


WotW: Sorry, but 'heavy' movies like '300' just get on my nerves. They are so big on drama that they drip pathos, which is unbearable. I had similar problems with LotR. While Gimli's lines were sorely needed to lighten it up a bit, I felt sad that the dwarf was comic relief once again.

 

Tolkiens entire tale is very dark though. All through time the Elves get the easy deal while humans get screwed over and the Valar sit on their thrones not lifting a finger while Melkor (later morgoth) and his maiar buddy sauron destroy middle earth.

LoTR and especially its prequel the hobbit have good moments of lightness, the characterization of the hobbits was one of the best things for me. But nonetheless, the story isnt big on humour, so Jackson faced the decision of alienating fans with some injections of humour or making a true to book movie that was almost unwatchable.

I suppose snakes on a plane had moments that were too stupid to be believable, but it still smacked of a b grade script somehow turned a grade because Samuel L got drunk and signed on. As in, I think that movie takes itself too seriously.

 

Okay, I'm sorry, Fabius, but I have to ask: which is it - is 300 so 'not opera' to be lacking big drama, or so big on drama that it drips Pathos? Ye can't have it both ways...

I'm just wondering if you've read Herodotus' 'account' of the battle, and, if so, what you felt about that little bit of morality play/propaganda? (I haven't looked into this, but I'm willing to put down money that Mr.Miller based his works on The Histories that are nearly-universally seen as biased and inaccurate.)

[ April 18, 2007, 20:05: Message edited by: jaded empath ]

 

I didn't like that Gimli was made into comic relief either. That was, in fact, the primary thing I was thinking of when I said that comic relief characters detracted from films.

I'm a big fan of history in general, and films like King Arthur annoy me because they make a claim to accuracy, which they proceed to ride roughshod over. 300 made no such claims, and while I winced a bit at the Spartans claiming to fight for freedom and so forth, I still found the film fairly enjoyable, at least the bits at Thermopylae itself.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing 300, but my brother already went with his friends and I don't really know if my sister wants to watch it that much. My friend saw it yesterday and said it was really good. I might drag someone along with me to see it after our exams are over. ^^

 

Jaded Empath, you can have pathos without drama. The drama in operas applies to relations between people, which '300' had almost none. The relations that the movie shows are so sterile that the term is only barely useable.

The pathos in '300' is war-mongering. "Fighting for Freedom", and all that jazz.
The problem with this kind of drivel is that no one in his right mind believes it. No one talks like that. And I'm quoting Harrison Ford (probably falsely) here. He said that to George Lucas after he read the script to 'A New Hope'.
That's why lines like "A red sun rises. Blood has been spilt this night." are making me cringe. They may work in written epic tales, but not in movies, because I can see the person who says them, even if he is supposed to be an elf. I was actually glad about the few jokes in the movies, even it was the poor dwarf again.


Let me quote one of my favourite authors:

 

I still think you have your intellectual sights set too high for this movie.

If the words "pathos", "drama" or "relations" crossed your mind when you watched this movie, your mind was elsewhere.

 

Ah, Night Watch. imo the most touching of all the Discworld novels.

I'll have to go with Proteus on this one. It was a "hollywood movie", not really fair to expect it to be very accurate. kinda like Troy which was.. not the Iliad but had some cool parts

 

Proteus, I think my mind was were it belonged to be. In my head. I simply cannot turn down my mind that much if a movie is meant serious. Especially if I'm bored. I simply had nothing else to do than do analyze '300', because I wasn't enjoying it.

Why does everyone think that criteria that apply to all movies suddenly don't apply for '300'? Because it's 'cool'?

You can like the movie for all that I care, but at least admit that it's bad.

 

Its no Lord of the Rings, its no Beautiful Mind, its no Hero.

But it was never meant to be. Its like comparing a Ferrari to a BMW and saying the BMW is the all round better car because it has a bigger boot, and is more practical.

Both of those are true, but that doesnt make the BMW a better car, because the what everyone wants from a car is different. Some want breakneck speed, some want boot space.

Its the same with 300. If you want drama, pose and prose, witty dialogue and clever plot twists, you werent made to enjoy this movie. Doesnt make it a bad movie.

It would be bad if it failed what it set out to do - entertain people in a fairly mindless fashion. I think it has succeeded in that, it entertained me, it has entertained lots of people who know that the world doesnt always need to be cerebral to be fun.

 

What criteria are those? I don't think there is a universal recipe for an enjoyable movie. I ejoyed 300 for its cool visuals, for its ridiculous excesses and, I must admit, also for the BRIAN BLESSED school of shouted acting. I also enjoyed it for not taking itself too seriously (unlike Troy for instance).

But criticising it for the lack of 'drama' is like criticisng Citizen Kane for the boring action sequences...

 

The most basic ones: story/script, acting, visuals, music, directing. At least.

'300' is good in one of these, mediocre in one, and bad in all the rest.

Didn't critisize it for that. I just commented on Snyder's claim that the flick is an opera.

Actually, I'm critisizing '300' for the boring action sequences...