300
 

This is a very visually stunning and exciting film. I'll hold back on major comments right now but there are strong artistic elements throughout the film and it offers a great ride.

Once more people have seen it we can chat on it some.

I'm definitely going to see it again!!

Krystian.

Thanks Krystian! I have been waiting to hear what people thought of it here on DV info net. I did not go see it due to reading that it had a bit of nudity, is that true?

It did look like an awesome movie, and a very artistic one at that, like you said!

Thanks,
~Gabriel

It has some nudity and sexual content.

Overall, I loved it. Visually, I thought it was excellent. Definitely a fun ride, and I would see it again in a minute. The crowd I saw it with was VERY into it. Spontaneous clapping and cheering throughout.

Cheers,

Mike

There is some nudity, but it fits into the overall themes in the film; it's not overdone and is brief.

The crowd I was with were also into it and there were cheers and clapping at points where everyine were so into it you just had to show some emotion!!

The textures, colors, set design, lighting and compositions are all influenced by Clasical Art and there is a scene at the end which is very very painterly; don't want to say which to spoil it for anyone.

It's a very visceral and thrilling movie and I am going to see it again this weekend!!

It's not perfect, but we can talk more on that once more people get in on this discussion.

I know what you mean. I actually found that there were a few scenes like that. Very well done, like a work of art.

I can point them out once some time has passed and more people have seen the movie.

Cheers,

Mike

We just got back and I have to say we liked it very, very much....Stunning in fact!

At times it was to loud, but that's probably just our theater...or maybe I'm getting old. :)

Although I understand its was never intended to tell the true historic story, I was still somewhat distracted by my knowledge of what really happened.
But that's not the movies fault.

All and all, it well be added to my DVD collection for sure.

Bob T.

By "Classic Art" do you mean the comic book that it was based on? :)

Great cinematography, but we've seen enough visually stunning movies in the last few years that this doesn't really add anything new. The story is sparse (whops, nearly typed "spartan") with next to no plot outside the one we all know. Characters are fairly uh.... (damn it)... spartan....

And if I had to watch one more slow motion battle scene, I would have puked.

Overall, I did enjoy it, as it was chock full of whoop-ass, just really not worth a theater ticket, but most movies aren't these days.

Well, here's my 2 cents:

Freedom, sex, violence, loyalty, betrayal, self-sacrifice, and love are just some of the multitude of subjects touched upon in Zack Snyder's amazing swords and sandals spectacle, "300." This film, along with CASINO ROYALE, returns the macho action film to the throne of movedom.

300 tells the story of the Battle of Thermopylae and of the king of the Spartans, Leonidas (played brilliantly by Gerard Butler, in his first break-out role) and 300 of the world's toughest soldiers. Based on Frank Miller's graphic novel, the film retains the book's sensibility, with it's over-the-top violence, hyper-real colors, camera angles, and just slighter-not-real look. But unlike SIN CITY, the "comic-ness" doesn't overwhelm the realism and humanity of the tale.

300 starts like it's spiritual father, CONAN THE BARBARIAN, with a narrator (David Wenham, VAN HELSING) telling of how Leonidas became the king he is. In terms of plot, the film is simple - 300 bad-asses defend their land and life against the largest army on earth. In terms of how this simple story of heroism speaks to the human condition, it is vastly intricate - and fun. Everyone else I spoke to who had seen the film felt as though they could've watched it immediately again, a testament not only to the state of the art story telling, but also the story.

Synder never let's the sfx (much of which is amazing amounts of blood shed in all of it's iron age glory) overwhelm the film, despite the fact that the entire film was shot on a blue screen stage. All of the characters seem real, and all of them are well acted. The sound design, editing, and music are also top notch. In terms of editing, Snyder invents a new manner of not cutting by using three cameras for each action shot, each one tied next to the other, each with a different focal plane. By using CG, he fades between the 3 angles, never cutting, providing the ultimate in "Hollywood Classic Narrative" by going from long shot, to medium shot, to close-up, all w/o a single cut. And all of this is magnified by the amazing fights going on during all of this; fights with characters you care about. Simply brillant film making.

Most impressive is Gerard Butler who, wearing little more than a loincloth, shield, and red cape, manages to make you believe that he is a king, and that he is a leader of the toughest S.O.B.'s in man-kind's bloody history. Simply put - he's great. The rest of the 300 are ripped, but not with steroids - they look strong, but realistically so. They seem like real men, something a man could possibly aspire to be.

When films like ROCKY, PREDATOR, CONAN, and FIRST BLOOD hit the cineplexs in the late 70's, early 80's, they brought in an era dominated by action stars and their films. They inspired a whole genration to hit the gym.

But these stars and films quickly got cheesy; they became too strong, too powerful - more super-human than human. Steroids came to dominate sports. Perhaps it was cynicism that led to the extinction of the action star for most of the 90's and the first half of this decade. Outside of LOTR, BRAVEHEART and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, there have been very few action films that could inspire in the last 15 years.

300, along with the new Bond, puts the action film, helmed by the new bred of action star, firmly back on its pedestal of most satisfying film. The action star, sans steroids, is back - in brillant bloody technicolor action film.

BOTTOM LINE: 5 outta 5 stars

Hey Dylan, I'm sure you were kidding, but by Classical Art I mean renaissance art and works from greek civilization. The color palette, the lighting and the compositions are all very reminiscent of paintings and sculptures which typify the greek period.

I disagree: this film does add a lot visually that we have not seen before, again the compositions and cinematography are very neo-classical and some shots are very painterly.

While I can agree that perhaps the slow-motion effect was overused, I believe that Mr. Snyder was going for a different feel and my personal opinion is a ballet-like pantomine for the battle scenes, poetry in motion, paying homage to the phsyicality of the battles in a way you can only appreciate in slow-motion.

How many times have you seen fight scenes with so many cuts, you could barely follow the lines of action?

I'm not saying the film is perfect, it isn't. And there are elements which remain sparse - you could have used this word you know :-) but this film, like the book is one man's interpretation of a historical event, not a documentary or exposition about historically accurate facts. I rather like this interpretation, but I understand at its core, it is not trying to be real in a way that maybe Blackhawk Down or Saving Private Ryan may have tried to emulate reality.

It's an exciting film and I am sure it will influence many filmmakers to go out there and reach for something new.

Just my 2c,

K.

I loved every frame of this movie!

It was damn sexy, I'll give it that. But beyond that, I didn't see anything outstanding.

I saw the film tonight.

I must say after reading the comments I wondered if I'd seen the same film as the previous posters.

The dialogue was about as bad as it gets. What a stinker of a film.

What is really worrying is that the director is charged with bringing The Watchmen, one of the truly great graphic novels, to screen. On this performance that looks like a disaster waiting to happen.

TT

I haven't seen it yet, but I did hear a very funny review on the radio today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/entert.../kermode.shtml

I don't always agree with Kermode's reviews, but he's always entertaining.

Enjoy.

Liam.

True eye candy, although I think it could have less cliche dialouge and more steadicam battle sequences!

Those were straight up insane! (I'm sure they're on YouTube wink wink)

I think you guys are forgetting the material is adapted from a comic book and as a translation into a film retains a lot of the characters comic book dialogue, hence the director can't take the blame squarely. Rather, the material must stand on its own merit here.

As for the Watchmen. It is also a comic book, I'm a fan, I did a short film last year based on it "Ink Blot" (you can see it on youtube, so, I am a filmmaker who just happens to be a big fan), and I believe Zack Snyder will do a great job and tell a good story based on the Graphic Novel - which is what he did with 300.

Neither 300 nor The Watchmen have modern dialogue that can translate into great character dialogue on screen "If you try to retain much of the Original Writing". It remains to be seen what direction the film will take, but I'll put my wish in for some updated dialogue.

Everyone has their likes and dislikes, I think 300 was fun and exciting film, which you can enjoy for at least a couple of sittings. How many other films can claim that?

Taken on the surface, it seems to be a popcorn flick but again, I say look at the compositions, the lighting, the textures, the grain and compare those to any other film out now or last year, or the year before. Nothing compares.

It is not perfect. The story and plot needed some work. The dialogue was anachonistic and not as lively as it could have been. But, I thought the film rocked and was a cut above Sin City, and it stands apart from the other Comic Book films by moving in a different direction visually. Definitely it was more enjoyable than Superman Returns, in my opinion.