First review of "300"

By Ironman273
in Movie Ratings

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

revvo

Posted
Posted

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

Veteran

christracy

Posted
Posted

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.

Mentor

ck2k01

Posted
Posted
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.

Veteran

leedogg

Posted
Posted

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

Veteran

+Seetheworldsecond Subscriber¹

Posted
  • Subscriber¹
Posted

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

Proficient

morca007

Posted
Posted

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.

Grand Master

Razorwing

Posted
Posted
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.

Grand Master

Hupp

Posted
Posted
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

Grand Master

DanManIt

Posted
Posted

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.

Grand Master

revvo

Posted
Posted

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.

Veteran

R-Flex

Posted
Posted

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.

Mentor

bob_loblaw

Posted
Posted

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.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.