First review of "300"


Recommended Posts

just saw this in the UK, special previews or something both the screens were fully booked. Wow, what an awesome movie!

Still wondering where

he got that apple from, and why the quasimodo guy wanted a wizard hat, but yeh lol.

Also, who threw the spear at the beginning into that front dudes chest?

And, am i right in thinking that at the end, he threw the spear at Xerxes but missed on purpose to show he isnt a god? and that he bleeds, or was it just unlucky that he missed?

either way

a really great film, shame how it ended, although i did kinda expect that to happen, shame they didnt show the huge battle at the end.

Also, gotta love the killing of people with the shield =D.

Will definitley get this on DVD.

well from the comic, Leonidis threw the spear, wanting to kill Xerxes, but missed.

Lol sick movie. I loved the battle scenes. I liked the sex scene hahahaha.

it was nice, but how the hell did they kill those elephants? definitively buying the 2dvd set when it comes out.

they threw their spears.. lol.

Lol sick movie. I loved the battle scenes. I liked the sex scene hahahaha.

it was nice, but how the hell did they kill those elephants? definitively buying the 2dvd set when it comes out.

Pushed them off the cliff, like every other enemy they fought with.

Ran out of spears? Push them.

Freakin awsome movie. If you know frank millers style then you probably would have expected in from the beginning that it would be gorry, lots of slow-mo, and tons of action. I love his style. He took an amazing piece of history and comic and made it into an awsome movie.

Too bad it came at the beginning of movie season as far as awards for next year

yup...finally saw it yesterday at IMAX here in bombay.. due to IMAX the movie was enjoyable but yea... the gruesomeness went over the edge so to speak and kind of made it dulled... but its ok if you want to have fun with movie its enjoyable,.. I dont know was the sex scene edited out specially for showing here.. but i felt it was very short...still enjoyed :D

It was a visually appealing movie with lots of fighting action. One thing I didn't like about it was the nudity and the gore. I'm not talking about the "stab you in the stomach" gore, I'm talking about full on beheading. Complete with the head flying off and the body collapsing. I still think more than half the movie was exaggerated. Especially the scene where Leonidas ducks slightly to dodge the axe thrown by the uber Immortal warrior. Yes, the one that took a sword out of its bicep. Yep, the same one that took a dagger out of its eye. Other than what I mentioned, I thought the movie was great.

For glory, for honour... I give this movie a rating of:

:star: :star: :star: :star:

4/5 stars

I just got back from seeing this at the BFI Imax, apparently the largest cinema screen in the UK. I don't know what the hell you people are talking about. The film is complete and utter ****. I really enjoyed it though, it was utterly hilarious.

300 is, without doubt, the gayest film I've ever seen. Let's be clear on this: I never, ever use the word "gay" to mean "bad", I think people that do are the biggest ****ing morons in the world. I don't mean any single word I say as a slight against homosexuals and I have no prejudice agains gays. I'm merely describing the film in the way that I saw it.

300 is the gayest film I've ever seen. I haven't seen Brokeback Mountain, but I'd put money on 300 being more gay. The film follows a large group of greased-up beefcake men who go to war because their king won't give someone a ######.

I'm not joking.

Basically, this guy called Xerxes wants the king of Sparta to give him a ######. He says that he will invade unless King Leonidas "kneels down before him". Leonidas refuses this, probably because Xerxes is a ridiculously camp, bling-encrusted ###### with a voice so stupid that it's a parody of itself. So, ###### refused, 300 greased-up beefcake guys go to battle in the most incredibly gay innuendo-laden film you'll ever see. The men contiunally talk about each other's "behinds", and "watching each other's backs" and being "right behind you".

In one of the only heterosexual scenes in the film, a woman gets ****ed in the ass. The symbolism throughout the film is genius though. The persians represent AIDS, and the film tells the story of the homosexuals' epic struggle against it.

The film itself is utterly terrible, devoid of any plot, apart from the ###### refusal I've already outlined.

The action sequences are all completely unoriginal, you will have seen all of them before. You know that bit in Hero where they fire all those arrows at once? That same thing is in 300, except the CGI people selected the arrows, pressed Ctrl+C, and then Ctrl+V several times. It's the exact same scene, only duplicated several times over.

You know the scene in Matrix Reloaded when Neo fights all those Agent Smiths? The same thing is in 300, except the CGI people selected the Agent Smiths, pressed Ctrl+C, and then Ctrl+V several times.

Every single action sequence has been done before in another film, they just took the existing sequence, and did it on a bigger scale.

Talking of bigger scales, seeing the film on the biggest cinema screen in the country added nothing to the film, since all the scenery comprises of glowing yellow blurs, and all the characters are just greased-up beefcakes.

The dialogue is diabolical, and the quality of the acting is laughable in places.

In fact, the only thing that made me enjoy the film was that the whole thing was laughable. As soon as you realise that virtually every line of dialogue is gay innuendo, the film is a riot of hilarity. I was crying with laughter in places.

Totally agree with you. It was nothing but a hollywood money maker. Everything is digital, even the blood...poor acting, absolutely no depth, and the direction was completely biased and discriminatory. Xerxes was one of the greatest leaders in human history.

I was most disappointed aesthetically. The movie failed to connect its loudly-proclaimed broad abstractions to its concretes, mostly notably in the case of the ideas of reason and freedom. Consider a few examples.

First, Leonidas was supposed to be uncompromising. He wasn't swayed by the appeals of Xerxes (and the deformed Ephialtes) to be reasonable by submitting to Persian rule. Yet he compromised from the very start, not just by submitting to the mystical demands of the Ephors, but then by circumventing their demands without directly challenging them. The fact that he did so begrudgingly, as a necessity of Spartan political life, shows him to be open to compromise in the name of necessity. So why not compromise with the Persians too? Just because, I guess.

Second, the Spartans were repeatedly said to be superb warriors, not just for their strength, courage and skills, but also for their use of reason. However, the training of the youth was not just purely physical, but also mostly the endurance of pains like freezing cold human brutality. Even worse, the training was positively irrational, e.g. the young men had to steal food to live, then would be brutally punished if caught. Unsurprisingly then, the Spartans showed basically no ingenuity in battle in the movie. They relied solely on their strength, skill, discipline, courage, and even indifference to life -- not on any clever tactics. In contrast, Herodotus recounts that the Spartans would often fake retreats, then turn back en masse to slaughter unwary Persians. It's significant that that bit of actual history was omitted from the movie, I think.

Third, Sparta was clearly portrayed in the movie as a fundamentally totalitarian society. (That's certainly accurate.) Yet those concrete facts were never reconciled with all the Spartan talk about the value of freedom. So really, what made life under Persian rule so much worse than life under Spartan rule? That totalitarianism was also grossly inconsistent with Sparta's supposed ideal of reason. Unsurprisingly, no rationale was ever offered for Sparta's overwhelmingly militaristic culture: it was just supposed to be obviously superior to a city in which the army is composed of reservist potters and sculptors.

Fourth, and perhaps most galling of all, the final heroism of the Spartans was portrayed as nothing short of senseless adherence to duty. The Spartans were forbidden from retreating in battle. They could only stay, fight, and die -- and that's what they did. To retreat was portrayed as obvious cowardice -- yet the movie Spartans had absolutely no rational reason to stand their ground. As recounted by Herodotus, the Spartans stayed for a very rational reason: the unprepared Greek city-states to the south desperately needed time to muster their forces. The Spartans fought at the pass after the betrayal to hold off the Persians for a bit longer. Unlike in the movie, where all were slaughtered immediately, the real Spartans achieved that purpose with their deaths.

These failures to connect the abstract ideals of the movie with its concretes was the reason why, I think, the dialogue of the movie often seemed like a disconnected series of stirring but empty one-liners. It was, to put it in terms of Leonard Peikoff's "DIM Hypothesis," very much M1. It aspired to be more than the writers could muster, I think.

That's not to say that I didn't like some of the elements of the movie. I very much enjoyed the characters of Leonidas and Gorgo. I decided not to focus on those better elements of the movie not just because I regard them as inessential, but also because I've already seen much praise for the movie, including from Objectivists.

Overall, I thought the movie a serious failure. That was disappointing.

Edited by tonyh21

I didn't think it was anything special. I mean the approach of the film was quite good with the different way of filming it. But no way was this film an epic. It had it's moments but after so long I felt like the movie wasn't actually doing much and in the end I was quite glad it finished.

There were times in the movie when the acting was just plain boring, the things they were saying, it was as if they were giving it a modern approach with the dialog used. But I couldn't really get my head around it in all fairness, the whole deal with the CGI blood was a bit OTT, but some of the gore in the film was great and I don't mean that in a morbid way. But overall I'll give it a 6 out of 10. Could of been so much better in my opinion.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • This is why science is the only path to truth. It isn't rigid in its beliefs, rather it changes its views based on scientific discoveries.
    • A 13 billion year old secret about our Universe's origin was revealed by Sayan Sen Image by Pascal Küffer via Pexels Researchers at the Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK) in Heidelberg had recreated a key chemical reaction from the early universe, producing results that could change scientists' understanding of how the first stars formed. The study focused on the helium hydride ion (HeH⁺), which is widely regarded as the first molecule to form in the universe. Scientists believe HeH⁺ appeared around 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe had cooled enough for electrons and atomic nuclei to combine into neutral atoms in a period known as recombination. This marked the beginning of chemistry in the cosmos. Immediately after the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As it expanded and cooled, hydrogen and helium became the dominant elements. Once neutral helium atoms formed, they could react with ionised hydrogen nuclei, or protons, to create helium hydride ions. Although simple in structure, HeH⁺ played an important role in the young universe. It was the first step in a chain of reactions that eventually produced molecular hydrogen (H₂), a molecule made up of two hydrogen atoms and now the most abundant molecule in the universe. Molecular hydrogen later became a key ingredient in the formation of the first stars. At the time, the universe had entered a phase often called the cosmological "dark age." Matter had become transparent to light following recombination, but there were still no stars or galaxies producing visible light. Several hundred million years would pass before the first stars appeared. For those first stars to form, large clouds of gas had to collapse under their own gravity. To do that, the gas needed to cool by releasing energy. While hydrogen atoms can help with this process at high temperatures, they become less effective below about 10,000 degrees Celsius. Molecules can continue the cooling process by releasing energy through rotational and vibrational motions. Scientists have long considered HeH⁺ a potentially important coolant because of its comparatively large dipole moment, a property that describes how electric charge is distributed within a molecule and allows it to release energy efficiently. The amount of helium hydride present in the early universe may therefore have influenced how easily the first stars could form. At the same time, HeH⁺ was constantly being destroyed. Under primordial conditions, its main destruction mechanisms were recombination with free electrons and chemical reactions with hydrogen atoms. These reactions ultimately helped produce molecular hydrogen, linking the formation and destruction of HeH⁺ to the chemistry that shaped the early universe. For many years, theoretical studies suggested that reactions between HeH⁺ and hydrogen atoms would become much slower at low temperatures. Scientists believed there was an energy barrier along the reaction pathway that reduced the chances of the reaction taking place in the cold conditions of the early universe. The new study suggests otherwise. To investigate the process, researchers recreated a closely related reaction using deuterium, a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that contains one proton and one neutron in its nucleus. When HeH⁺ collides with deuterium, it forms an HD⁺ ion and a neutral helium atom. This allows scientists to study the reaction in a controlled way while closely mimicking the behaviour of the original reaction involving hydrogen. The experiments were carried out at the Cryogenic Storage Ring (CSR) at MPIK, a specialised facility designed to recreate conditions similar to those found in space. Researchers stored HeH⁺ ions in the 35-metre storage ring for up to 60 seconds at temperatures just a few kelvins above absolute zero and merged them with a beam of neutral deuterium atoms. By adjusting the speeds of the two particle beams, the team measured how the reaction rate changed with collision energy, which is directly related to temperature. The researchers found that the reaction rate remains almost constant as temperatures decrease. In other words, the reaction does not slow down at low temperatures as earlier models predicted. “Previous theories predicted a significant decrease in the reaction probability at low temperatures, but we were unable to verify this in either the experiment or new theoretical calculations by our colleagues,” explained Dr Holger Kreckel of MPIK. “The reactions of HeH⁺ with neutral hydrogen and deuterium therefore appear to have been far more important for chemistry in the early universe than previously assumed,” he continued. According to the researchers, the reaction appears to be barrierless, meaning there is no energy obstacle preventing it from taking place efficiently even at very low temperatures. The findings support recent theoretical work led by physicist Yohann Scribano, whose group identified an error in a widely used potential energy surface, a mathematical model used to describe how the energy of a system changes during a chemical reaction. The error appears to have caused previous studies to significantly underestimate reaction rates under primordial conditions. The new calculations closely match the experimental results. Together, they suggest that helium chemistry in the early universe may need to be re-evaluated. Because molecules such as HeH⁺ and molecular hydrogen played an important role in cooling primordial gas clouds, the findings could help scientists build more accurate models of how the first stars formed. By showing that helium hydride was likely destroyed more efficiently than previously thought, the study offers new insight into the chemical processes that shaped the universe during its earliest stages and helped set the conditions for the emergence of the first stars. Source: Max-Planck Institute, EDP Sciences This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "What an interesting smell you've discovered"
    • It could EASILY be 70 for the base game BUT + lots of FOMO to make it up to 100-120, like a few days Early Access, online money, pre-order bonus cars, weapons, missions, clothing, avatars or profile stuff, etc... And still WAY TOO MANY people would buy those and make Rockstar insane money.
    • Just to understand: your solution to getting rid of an online password manager is...another online password manager?
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      DrWankel earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      DrWankel earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      Supreme Spray LV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Genuinetonerink- Dubai earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      164
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      92
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!