First review of "300"


Recommended Posts

For a movie that was filmed in 60 days, 58 of them being here in Montreal my home town (w00!), I don't think they could have done any better. The CG is abusive, but the style is really nice.

One thing I don't understand is the following, for the ppl who have seen it

What was with that one goat playing the instrument with the strippers? What did the goat have to do with everything! :p

well I'd guess that symbolically it had something to do with that goat pass that was the hot gates undoing. especially with the fact that the goat only appeared when Quasimodo betraying the Spartans.

For a movie that was filmed in 60 days, 58 of them being here in Montreal my home town (w00!), I don't think they could have done any better. The CG is abusive, but the style is really nice.

One thing I don't understand is the following, for the ppl who have seen it

What was with that one goat playing the instrument with the strippers? What did the goat have to do with everything! :p

well I'd guess that symbolically it had something to do with that goat pass that was the hot gates undoing. especially with the fact that the goat only appeared when Quasimodo betraying the Spartans.

For a movie that was filmed in 60 days, 58 of them being here in Montreal my home town (w00!), I don't think they could have done any better. The CG is abusive, but the style is really nice.

One thing I don't understand is the following, for the ppl who have seen it

What was with that one goat playing the instrument with the strippers? What did the goat have to do with everything! :p

Lol, I forgot all about that random goat part until now. Most random part of the movie for sure.

Check this review:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/31520 :laugh:

These are Greek times, when there were a lot of naked women around. And there are some naked women in this film, but almost every naked woman scene has a muscular dude giving the screen an ass picnic. Dude-ity is something directors put in their movies so people will think they?re serious, I guess, and not just throwing in naked hotties.

Any directors reading this ? IT?S OKAY TO JUST THROW IN NAKED HOTTIES.

the director, who must have a dick made of three machine guns

Movie was great ,not perfect but nonetheless enjoyable.Wish certain things could have went differently and explained more of a background on how each "people" were made slaves.And on those "things"Perhaps made longer too.

8/10

Amazing movie, visually, and viscerally.

My friends and I had fun coming up with alternate titles for the movie:

"300: A tale of Xenophobia"

"300: Approve the Troop Surge, now!"

"300: THIS IS AFRICA!"

Also, was it just me, or was the logical end point...

When Leonitas is showered in arrows? I had a total Return of the King (IE- Too many endings) moment when it didn't just end after that.

LOL is that what he actually say? I saw the trailer and I thought he said "WE DIE, IN HELL" , well, the meaning doesn't really make a diff though

yeah I guess.. I haven't seen the movie yet. I think "to dine in hell" is say a metaphor for to die tonight, or tonight we will die.

Awesome awesome movie, visually that is. But that is what I went in expecting and definitely got my money's worth. I just wish my town had an IMAX :(

Fav line/scene: "There's no reason we can't be civil, right?"

not having an imax is better than having an Imax and it only shows educational movies

I saw it earlier today with my friend. He didn't like it because it was unrealistic and all. I knew it came from a comic book and it would be unrealistic so I enjoyed it. I didn't like the hunchback guy in it though. Especially when he was walking around in the wizard's hat it was just humorous and got rid of the intense part of the movie (which i wont say cause i dont know how to put up the black tags so the font isnt visible.

One thing to add about the movie though and it's that they don't go into depth into the characters and their roles. When ppl die, you don't feel anything. Now I'm aware that this is from a comic and that's it's more about the story of 300 men who die trying but I guess I'm the type of person who likes stories where it revolves around some important characters.

For a movie that was filmed in 60 days, almost entirely using CG/blue screens for the backgrounds and actually many soldiers, it was good.

I wasn't particularly too impressed by this film. Indeed, it was worth watching, but it was the legendary film I was expecting. Perhaps that expectation served to dampen my view of the film, but I doubt it had such a serious impact. Truly, the visual effects of the entire production were spectacular, but could not carry the film. The greatest flaw was that most of the movie revolved around one setting and one battle. How could it continue the same filming for an entire hour of bloodshed and killing, without growing stale? That was the greatest problem. Attempts to improve it were made, especially with exotic animals or great warriors, but they were mostly too short, unimpressive, and did not serve to diversify the action. It also lacked different settings, something that added to the rather stale action.

One can only stand the same action a few times, but continued killing gave little to imagine. Neither did the storyline; it did not work, perhaps partly because we know the basic plot, but also because it did not give enough emphasis on drama and suspense. It did not give a legendary feeling to the concept behind a legendary stand of arms to an evil foe. Heroics and bravery were obvious, but were not as great as one might imagine.

The ending was not superb, either. The fall of the three hundred at the climax was rather anti-climatic, and the lack of gore and violence in the closing half hour left me feeling devoid of the action I had desired. Even the continued use of the siege at Thermopylae would have been preferred the the drained ending. Especially, one would want the armies of Sparta and all Greece to clash with Persia at the very end in a final view of war, but I was disappointed. The emotion that had stirred these armies was of little value to the viewer- It was not strong enough.

Having said of the flaws of 300, I must admit it was good. However, it was not great nor legendary. Three out of five stars would be appropriate. I suppose it is worth the cost of entrance to a theatre, but I was glad not to have accompanied a date, lest I spend twenty dollars on a film simply not legendary enough to justify that cost.

I went and saw it tonight. I thought it was a really great movie. Battle scenes were amazing especially the slow motion parts; really allow you to take it all in.

I saw part of a documentary on History channel about the ware and thought it was really interesting.

One thing a friend of mine joked about is how this movie has more animals than a zoo.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • This got me thinking, would you rather a self driving car prioritise protecting its passengers or everyone else? I'd choose the one that keeps me and my kids safest. At some point, these cars have to make those choices already, don't they? Wonder if we have a way to find out what way they lean.
    • The proportion (or number of iterations) has nothing to with this aspect of Copyright I am describing. In short, it doesn't matter how many times the manager tells you to change something or how. Your work product is always YOURS until and unless you then assign that to the person representing the client/company, usually for financial compensation -- either in salary or as a subcontract work for hire payment. if iterations determined copyright, then businesses would have learned to just keep making changes until they could claim they owned the copyright, without having to compensate the artist for their work. And that would be BAD. The only place where the amount of changes does have a role is in how much does a human modify a previous public domain work (from any source) before it is considered fair use or their own work, etc. For example, if a human makes substantial changes to a public domain (re: AI, by definition) work, then they can then claim that derivative work as their own...but NEVER the original version, of course. That's why anyone can make a movie about Dracula, for example, as long as it is based on the public domain novel, but not if they take new ideas from copyrighted movies made afterwards. As one of the people who personally advised the US Copyright Office on their recent ruling on these very issues, be assured that I specifically used the terminology precisely -- though I made it simple enough for laymen to understand it. If I made this confusing by doing so, I apologize. But, to be clear regarding your assumption that I would agree to your second statement that I quoted above -- the answer is NO. If AI does the work, no matter how much "direction" you give it, it cannot be copyrighted. All AI generated content is in the Public Domain and therefore the copyright cannot be assigned to ANYONE, even you -- until and unless substantial modifications are made to it BY A HUMAN BEING (yourself or a contracted artist/writer/etc.) and then that copyright on the derivative work is legally (in writing) transferred to you. This is a critical distinction. And it is important that people, especially AI sloppers, understand this. For example, YouTube is not paying AI slop generators for the copyright, etc. of their AI slop. What YouTube is doing is sharing AD REVENUE for permission to publish your AI slop. Copyright/ownership/rights never come into it. Importantly, that means that anyone can copy any AI slopware on YouTube, etc. and rehost it anywhere they want, even back on YouTube, and there is nothing legal that YouTube can do about it with regards to copyright protections, ownership, DMCA, etc. Anyone is legally free to use any AI slopware in any way they want. When this ruling was pending, I warned Disney legal of all of this before they did their OpenAI deal -- that it would literally dilute their entire IP portfolio forever. They ignored that warning for the PR and stock bump. But that is why, when the ruling came down last year, Disney quickly extricated themselves from that OpenAI deal, even eating the initial upfront fees -- followed closely by OpenAI ending their entire AI video generating business model. They adjusted their PR release dates to make this less obvious to shareholders, of course. Phew. I hope that this clears up the key distinctions for you and anyone reading. If you have any additional questions or even hypotheticals about AI and Copyright, please feel free to ask.
    • Each of the devices displayed on this page now has a little volume meter next to it to show if there is audio actively playing. About time.
    • Owing to the nature of Windows feature enablement updates, it was distributed over Windows Update services as a complete system upgrade rather than as an ordinary cumulative update
  • Recent Achievements

    • Collaborator
      ryansurfer98 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Week One Done
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      Skeet Campbell earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      Sharbel earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      565
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      188
    3. 3
      Michael Scrip
      79
    4. 4
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      74
    5. 5
      neufuse
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!