to say there was five minutes of dialogue is an exaggeration. There sure isn't as much dialogue as, say, a Tarantino film, but there was a decent amount of dialogue.
Narration isn't dialouge. 5 minutes isn't much of an exageration. There was very little spoken between characters, which the film refrenced three times.
And by all means, I felt the movie was superlative. I agree that it didn't need much dialogue. The story was told in the sense of an epic.
This was the most masculine film I have seen in a very, very long time, but I really loved it. Of course, I guess it probably helps that I'm not a "typical" girl and that I'm a huge Frank Miller fan anyway. I loved the blood splatter effects and the great rotoscope technique that feels perfected in this movie. Some of the dialogue bordered on silly, but the acting was great, deliberately over the top and larger than life. I don't think 300 was as good a film as Sin City, but it was very entertaining, very well done and has definitely earned an HD-DVD purchase, a rare honor for a film in my home.
I saw this movie yesterday, and I'm sorry to rain on the parade, but... Basically, in all the ways that matter, this film was terrible. Yes, its battle scenes were impressive. Yes, they deliberately hyped up your emotions in the most extreme way possible. Yes, the ending had the potential to be poignant. You know what? Show me a war movie that DOESN'T do that. Every war movie worth its salt will have good action sequences and hearty, screaming men who manage to corral the audience into somehow not realizing that they (the heroes) are, in fact, just as much the bloodthirsty brutes as the villains are. The acting was fine, and there has been worse dialogue in movies about the ancients (see "Troy"). Many of the special effects worked very well, like the artistic blood. But others failed miserably - this movie's rendition of a "wolf" was almost as bad as the werewolf in Harry Potter. Yes, I know that the wolf was only a metaphor for the movie, but you'd think they'd have had enough money in the budget to use a real animal or, better yet, craft a better-looking one. That's not the main issue, of course, because overall, the visuals override that one canine error. The real issue is what's behind the movie. Look, I don't care if you want to become a vegetable for two hours in watching this - this movie has themes that ought to make everyone cringe. The enemy is Persia (hint, hint: modern-day Iran), whose army consists of Chinamen with stereotypical pointy beards, snooty Africans with skulls dangling from their pants and multitudes of mindless Middle Easterners. Considering that Frank Miller is now known to be somewhat of a wingnut warmongerer, these characteristics shouldn't be taken lightly, because the public is eating it all up at a time when we're eyeing Iran with the same haughty hatred that Leonidas did. And the homophobic insults in this movie? They were simply uncalled for. Anyone who knows anything about Greece can tell you that the Spartans have a sketchy history when it comes to homosexuality, at best. It was just patently ridiculous to hear SPARTANS, of all the ancients, insult Athenians on "boyloving." Frankly, it makes me a little bit ashamed of America. That's a tall statement, but think about it: The moviemakers put those dreadful comments in because they know that the majority of Americans (as opposed to the majority of, say, Dutch, or Belgians) are uneducated enough to not know about Sparta and its reality, and generally intolerant enough to guffaw openly at such ridiculous insult. What I don't understand is why it all was needed. "Troy" was bad all around - it hardly had anything to save it. But "300" has its glorious moments, and the realism was dramatic enough (the fact that the story is basically real is amazing, and the phalanx formation was shown in true, amazing flourish); it doesn't need such stupid little things thrown in. Why even bother? Basically, "300" is good if you want to sit and stare cross-eyed at a screen for a few hours. Once you walk away from it, however, you might question it...and rightly so.
Hyzenthlay, you need to chill out. One joke about boy loving Athenians does not require a two paragraph rant. And the fact that the battle of Thermopoyle happened makes the rest of your argument borderline retarded. (advocating a war against Iran?!)
Perhaps if I were actually angry, I would need to "chill out." I'm simply trying to go deeper into this movie than the "Wow, the killing was, like, cool, man!" aspect of it. If I were mad with rage over it, you'd know. I don't understand why the parallel to modern-day Iran is that hard to get. Yes, the Battle of Thermopylae happened...so? I would think that the parallels would be rather obvious. A bunch of zealous white men crowing on about freedom triumpth against the evil mystic East. Frank Miller is a man who has publicly stated that he thinks Iraq declared war on the US, not the other way around; he considers this mess on the same level of justification as World War II. I don't think it's too absurd to see hints of anti-Iran, anti-entire Middle East going on in his movie, with that kind of attitude. The same people who defend the war in Iraq tend to be the ones who are giddy for preemptive action against Iran. There are exceptions, of course, but he seems like the type. In other words, advocating a war against Iran openly, no...but showing a sort of disturbing trend of thinking that leads people to do such things? Showing cultural disdain? I think it does. That's my opinion, and everyone is free to disagree with it. And as for the random homophobia...I simply thought it was ludicrously out of place, that's all. I think that's a bit hard to disagree with, honestly. Miller prides himself on "teaching people historically," so it's a bit annoying to hear unapologetically wrong statements in a movie about a story he created.
He has said the movie 300 trojans was an inspiration for him to make the comics, not that he intended the comics to be a subtle jab at Iran. The theme you can take out of this that at one point there was a battle in which a handfull of Greeks stood against a freaking vast army to protect their homeland, and everyone of them lost their lives. The theme, would be the same theme as a movie about The Alamo. Carpe Diem. Would someone making a movie about the Alamo suggest invading Mexico? Because Miller supported the Iraq war, and makes a Movie about an antaquiated war with Greeks against an enemy that vaugely has cultural roots in modern Iran, your view of the theme of the movie is 'Iran bad.' Thats reaching. And all the ancient greeks did some boy loving, but Athens is the best known from my perspective of history. Not that that's important. And child molestation isn't exactly the same thing as homosexuality is it?
Look, it's not reaching to say that Miller generally has a crappy view of the Middle East, or, to put it mildly, an "Iran bad" view. He's spoken about how things that the West built could never have been built by the Middle East, basically claiming that it's inferior, about how we can never understand it. He goes on about the problems of thinking that "cultures are equal." His next work is entitled "Holy Terror, Batman!," about Batman defeating al-Qaeda, and he has said about it: "Not to put too fine a point on it - it’s a piece of propaganda." Nothing about this man indicates to me that my view of the theme of 300 is wrong. Call it a hunch, when the man himself admits that his stuff is propaganda. I know that I'm filtering the movie through the lense of my view of the makers and current politics. I understand that others don't prefer to do this, but I myself can't stand pretending as if movies (or books, or anything else) exist in a vacuum. If someone else doesn't see the same themes as I do, then so be it, but I can hardly understand the point of saying that movies don't have agendas. Plenty do, and I happen to think that this movie might be one of them. And of course there's always historical controversy over pederasty. As I understand it, both Sparta and Athens had it, though it was constructed differently (as makes sense, seeing how different their cultures were).
You already made it clear that you think Frank Miller is biased. You didn't however, elaborate on any motif of the film that would make anyone exiting the theater think, "Lets attacks Iran." Which seems to be the basis of your first argument. Films are art. Sometimes art can have political metaphors, however I don't see the connection between this film, and the message of attacking Iran. Even if that message were vaugely implied, which I don't see... Artistically, the movie was very well crafted. I think you're digging very hard to reach a conclusion you had before you saw the film.
Actually, I had no other conclusion about this film before seeing it except "It looks very prettily done." It was only afterward that I grew uneasy over it. All of my ponderances are just that - ponderances. I got the intuition watching it that Miller doesn't have a particularly favorable view of Iran, that the movie shows the Middle East in a particularly harsh light in a time when it is politically charged to do so. It's not that I think Miller will be the first out there, machine gun in hand, if war on Iran is declared; I simply see this movie as slightly nudging in the direction of finding Iran and other Middle Eastern countries as unfavorable. That was one of the biggest things I noticed in the film, in the portrayal of certain characters and in the overall "freedom isn't free" phrase being thrown around. Others feel differently, and I accept that. Honestly, I think it just comes down to the fact that I looked deeper into it than 99% of viewers. It's perfectly possible that I look into it too much, and I'm willing to admit that. I like discussions like these much more than a whole bunch of people sitting around saying "Wow, wasn't that SO AWESOME!," though; I enjoy trying to find the deeper things behind them. I've been wrong on many things, so perhaps I'm completely off-base about the movie's political leaning and Miller's purpose. Either way, this talk has been invigorating. I haven't been able to get my thoughts out to my friends (they're the "this is cool, let's look no more into it" type, which is fine), so I apologize for being longwinded. It doesn't signal anger, it's just me trying to get everything out .
Well, I don't really agree with your conclusion, but theres nothing wrong with looking more into cinema. Right now I'm writing, and soon to be directing a screenplay, so I certainly understand.
for those of you that have yet to see it, i recommend going to see it ASAP. i thought it was amazing. the way it was filmed was totally innovative. it looked like the novel was coming to life right before my eyes. i hope that more movie start to film in this format. zannel has some really cool behind the scenes videos and pictures about the movie and the making of the film. its pretty interesting. i definitely recommend checking it out. if you liked the movie or are looking forward to seeing it, then you will really like the stuff that zannel has.
I just got back from seeing 300 and I thought it was fantastic. I'm glad I waited until monday because the local theatre's were packed over the weekend. Sometimes it fun to sit in a packed theatre with ever seat taken and you can gauge the pulse of the audience, then again there are other times when the guy behind you has a cold or a hacking cough, which you're forced to endure Hotwater
Yeah I liked it such good eye candy, and Im not neccessarily refering to the sweaty men ;~). It will not look as good on the small screen, so see it. Probably the best looking filmthing Ill see all year
I saw this a few days ago, and despite a number of magnificent scenes (action or otherwise), I think it could have been a lot, lot better. First of all, I think the theory that the movie somehow serves as any sort of metaphor for Iran--which I've also read other places online--is pretty much bullshit. I know Americans can be notoriously ignorant, but I seriously hope that no one mistakes the overly-exaggerated Persian characters as realistic in any way. The style of the movie, I think, was meant to be sort of outlandish and cartoonish, not necessarily realistic even though it was based on a true battle. I mean, Jesus, half of the characters looked like something out of the Lord of the Rings rather than actual humans. Just to be clear, I'm not criticizing the movie for being unrealistic or pulpy; I went into it expecting nothing except to be entertained, and throughout most of the movie I was. But when the movie drags, it really drags. Terrible dialog about not giving up or some other trite bullshit take away from what the movie really ought to have been--an exhilarating, balls to the walls, bloody war movie. There is also something to be said about the pacing of the movie. When it drags, it seriously drags and we're left waiting for another battle scene. All of that being said, I'm sure I'm going to have to keep hearing about how "great" of a movie this is for a few weeks anyway. That's not to say that it's a bad movie or anything--I actually really enjoyed it--but for me it falls quite a distance short of "greatness." Oh yeah, and -1000 points for all of the Spartan dudes in speedos. :$
