300 spoilers

Scam · 23 Mar 2007 at 18:42

dmpoole said:
I thought the actual filming of it was awful and similar to that terrible film Sin City.
It'll be a long time before I watch 300 again.

I think you may have missed the point

Nah, seriously. I thought it was a beautiful film. Every shot was a work of art and the camerawork really made it awesome at points. The colours were amazing (as my mate said, 'heaven forbid they splash a bit of green in there' as it was all yellow, or all blue heh

).

I thought it was brilliant. Slighty cheesy after-taste with some of the lines and delivery but after being tremendously excited by it i wasn't dissapointed.

Oh, and a lot of girls in the audience cheered when the Queen stabbed the evil guy :eek:

SexyGreyFox · 23 Mar 2007 at 18:46

Scam said:
Every shot was a work of art

Emperors New clothes

pyro · 23 Mar 2007 at 18:49

seek said:
it's called 'fiction'.

Sin City is fiction, 300 is based on real events

DavidQ · 23 Mar 2007 at 18:59

Woah, the trailer did this movie very little justice.. I seen it last night and I'm still in awe of the cinematography, all those six packs too!!

m0r94n · 23 Mar 2007 at 19:00

pyro said:
Sin City is fiction, 300 is based on real events

"Based on" are the key words. Just cause its based on something doesnt mean it has to stick to every miniscule detail. There are thousands of films that could be criticised by your logic!

Whilst im here, did anyone notice the little error in the bit with the priests or whatever on the mountain. They say Leonidas cannot go to war in August, yet August was not a recognised calendar month until 8 BC. The Battle of Thermopylae was in 480 BC.

TriedandTested · 23 Mar 2007 at 19:02

m0r94n said:
Whilst im here, did anyone notice the little error in the bit with the priests or whatever on the mountain. They say Leonidas cannot go to war in August, yet August was not a recognised calendar month until 8 BC. The Battle of Thermopylae was in 480 BC.

The fact you DID notice that is quite amazing.

Nitefly · 23 Mar 2007 at 20:45

I'm going to strongly disagree with most of you here sadly :/

I thought it was shabby. The whole thing was so painfully style over substance. The acting was incredibly unconvincing, the subplot of getting reinforcements was boring. In fact the whole thing was pretty boring. I know that given the concept of the film not a lot could happen, but it was so drawn out and made to feel epic when it just wasn't in the slightest. There was absolutely NO character development at all!

And how much freaking slow motion can be in one film? Granted some of the fight sequences were cool but everything was so overdone I couldn't help but yawn the majority of the way through it.

A 9/10 film? Give me a break. I know its opinionated, but I would say that it was a watchable film at best.

Van Hellseek · 23 Mar 2007 at 21:33

it's 2 hours of people cutting bits off other people. who cares about character development?

take it for what it is, and it's highly enjoyable. sounds to me like you were expecting too much (especially considering it's a movie based on a comicbook/'graphic novel').

mks2005 · 23 Mar 2007 at 22:59

Nitefly said:
I'm going to strongly disagree with most of you here sadly :/

I thought it was shabby. The whole thing was so painfully style over substance. The acting was incredibly unconvincing, the subplot of getting reinforcements was boring. In fact the whole thing was pretty boring. I know that given the concept of the film not a lot could happen, but it was so drawn out and made to feel epic when it just wasn't in the slightest. There was absolutely NO character development at all!

And how much freaking slow motion can be in one film? Granted some of the fight sequences were cool but everything was so overdone I couldn't help but yawn the majority of the way through it.

A 9/10 film? Give me a break. I know its opinionated, but I would say that it was a watchable film at best.

Wow, thank god it appears at least someone has some sense. I've numerous 'great' reviews and high scores, and quite frankly, cannot understand how so many people thought it was so good.

I was genuinely excited to be seeing this movie. The trailers made me think I was in for a powerful epic. It saddens and disappoints me to say that this was far from the case.

Visually, yes it was appealling. But I can't help but agree with all of Nitefly's points. I just didn't care about anything in the film. The fight scenes were the only thing that the movie had to offer, and once you'd seen 5 minutes of stabbing, you'd seen it all.

And was this not the cheesiest movie ever? The sex scene at the start was laughable. So was the majority of the dialogue. There was so much potential but it just fell flat on it's face.

Sinizterguy · 23 Mar 2007 at 23:37

Why the big issue with the Scottish accent ?

Its Sparta and they are speaking in English - would you have preferred an American accent instead ? Or did you want a real Spartan accent ?

I thought the Scottish accent worked well given the situation.

GDad · 23 Mar 2007 at 23:42

Another check in the it wasn't anything special box from me.
The accent I didn't even notice, it all looked very nice and the battle scenes were fun enough, but I did find myself looking at my watch a fair bit and when that happens I know it wasn't that great a film. The middle of the film took too long and the ending was too quick, also found the final scenes with the 10000 or so Greeks just too much like any other recent massive battle epic film such as Troy, LOTR etc. And since I couldn't not think of the narrators voice as that of Faramir so it kinda spoilt it for me too.

AJUK · 23 Mar 2007 at 23:51

I saw it tonight and it is stylish, funny, exciting and makes me want to go down the gym. Citizen Kane it ain't, a proto-fascist, homo-erotic slash-fest with dubious historical reference it may be? FANTASTIC is what it is!

trojan698 · 24 Mar 2007 at 00:44

I hear there's lots of boobies?

Van Hellseek · 24 Mar 2007 at 01:12

trojan698 said:
I hear there's lots of boobies?

only lots of man-boobies unfortunately.

Nitefly · 24 Mar 2007 at 03:21

seek said:
it's 2 hours of people cutting bits off other people. who cares about character development?

take it for what it is, and it's highly enjoyable. sounds to me like you were expecting too much (especially considering it's a movie based on a comicbook/'graphic novel').

I knew it wasn't going to be an emotional film as such but in Sin City I really cared what happened to all of the characters. This was just dross. Everyone was lifeless and lame. Every fight scene was the same, or some variation of slow motion followed by a quick stab with generous amounts of 'digitally' added blood.

I really was expecting a comic book rather than a history lesson. However it just flat out didn't work as such and seemed stuck in a limbo of 'rambo trying to be gladiator'.

Really disapointingly poor, and I was looking forward to it too

mks2005 said:
And was this not the cheesiest movie ever? The sex scene at the start was laughable. So was the majority of the dialogue. There was so much potential but it just fell flat on it's face.

Exactly

davetherave2 · 24 Mar 2007 at 09:37

Saw this yesterday and it was amazing. I liked how the fight scenes were slowed down so you could actually see what was happening.

Although i did think during the whole film about certain scenes that would look amazing in HD at home.

I liked how the story flowed. Even though it wasn't that much of a thinker it flowed really well I felt. I didn't think to myself 'when is this going to end' like so many movies that I have seen recently.

Obviously it has a similar feel to Sin city but I felt it seemed to take a lot from Gladiator or is it that Gladiator is now a benchmark for this style of film.

All in all it was well done film and certainly one I will get when it is available on a HD Format

SexyGreyFox · 24 Mar 2007 at 11:00

AJUK said:
and makes me want to go down the gym.

FACT

In the 70's I bought books such as Very Special People and Medical Curiosities which you could only get mail order at the time.
Medical Curiosities is a reprint from a book from 1896.
One section in the Medical Curiosities book was devoted to people with muscles and in the late 1800's a muscle man was an oddity and very rare.
Here is a scan of one of the relevant pages showing a bloke with muscles -

Sorry to disillusion everybody but men didn't have six packs until a few decades ago.

WotDa · 24 Mar 2007 at 11:22

dmpoole said:
FACT

Is that a shell? :confused:

AJUK · 24 Mar 2007 at 11:51

dmpoole said:
Sorry to disillusion everybody but men didn't have six packs until a few decades ago.

I am not sure about that, almost every Greek statue and later Roman ones showed idealistic male images (Harmodius and Aristogeiton, Discobolus, Poseidon and the Elgin Marbles as examples). Perhaps normal men didn't have six packs, much like today, but as with all legends the participants are elevated to near god like status. As stated in the story, Spartans were supposed to be descended from Hercules himself - they would have to have six packs, a gut from too much wine and whenching wouldn't have the same impact.

What strange reading material for a teenage boy! :eek:

SexyGreyFox · 24 Mar 2007 at 12:58

AJUK said:
What strange reading material for a teenage boy!

Don't worry, I didn't get off on it.

I see your point but you have to ask yourself why the medical world in 1896 looked at the above picture as odd. To get six packs you have to go to the gym and do repitition weights in the right areas and somehow I can't see Spartans lifting weights and doing crunches.

300 *spoilers*

300 spoilers