Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

THIS! IS! .. Well, It's Moriarty's Review Of 300, Actually...

... but I am tempted to bellow the headline just on general principle after seeing the film. It’s sort of infectious, that peculiar brand of hyper-volume bravado that Gerard Butler brings to his role as Leonidas, king of Sparta. This entire movie deserves the prefix “hyper” no matter what you’re talking about. Hyper-real. Hyper-stylized. Hyper-macho. Hyper-action. It’s basically two hours of money shots strung together. And I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. If you feel like taking a trip through all the various reviews of 300 that have shown up so far, you’re going to notice something. It’s sort of hilarious that Snyder hid an image of Rorschach in that extended trailer of 300, because I think what he’s made with this film is a political rorschach test. People are going to project a lot of their own personal politics onto this one, and you’ll hear people explain how it means this or it means that, and you’ll read both outrage and smug satisfaction. I don’t think Snyder made a political film, though. I think Frank Miller is an undeniably political writer, but I don’t think that had much to do with Snyder’s decision to make the film. I think what really attracted him to the material is exactly what attracts me to this film: the image. This is a celebration of film as a visual art form, first and foremost, and Snyder has made something stunningly beautiful, a poem of war, a movie drunk on the potential of cinema to bring to life the impossible. Working with Kurt Johnstad and Michael Gordon as co-screenwriters, Snyder’s crafted a largely-faithful adaptation of the text of Miller’s work. There are a few invented scenes, mostly concerned with Queen Gorgo (Lena Heady), left behind when King Leonidas takes his faithful band of 300 Spartans to face impossible odds in an effort to turn back the vast Persian army, poised to destroy their city. I don’t mind the new material (mainly because I really like Dominic West and think he should work more), but I don’t think it really improves the film either. No matter, though. In the end, the reason to see this film is because of the way Snyder handles the battle sequences, and this is where he proves himself as a major talent. I’m a picky bitch when it comes to action scenes on film. Geography and clarity are the two things that are most important to me in an action sequence, and Snyder’s got a great feel for both. In a film where many of the major characters look alike while in battle, it would be easy for this to become confusing, jumbled, frantic instead of kinetic. But Snyder’s got a steady hand and a great eye, and he transforms Miller’s static images into something fluid and beautiful. I’m amazed at how violent the film is. Normally, films where characters use swords end up pissing me off because Hollywood always seems determined to shy away from actually showing anybody use those swords. Not Snyder. He paints the screen red, and he’s not afraid to send limbs and heads and other body parts flying. Each of the major set pieces work for me, and I found myself laughing and applauding some of the most outrageous moments. Snyder makes you feel the action. This isn’t just a bunch of pretty pictures flashing by. It’s an immersive experience, especially if you see it in IMAX. I do think the film’s dialogue tends to be tough-guy ping-pong, with everyone speaking in perfect little badass sound bites, but that’s a minor quibble. In scene after scene, Snyder plunges you headfirst into this world he’s created wholecloth, and by about ten minutes in, you’ll know whether or not you’re up for the ride. I lost myself in the coffee-colored skies, the almost dream-like use of time as Snyder bends and stretches the rules of time and space. Some people might have a problem with a historical epic that features creatures and mutants and the rest of the flourishes that Snyder piles on, but the film isn’t meant to be taken literally. This is a campfire story, something spoken to rile up the Spartan army to go to war. You could easily label the movie “propaganda,” but you’d be giving it more heft than I think it actually has. 300 is absolutely straightforward, a tragedy disguised as a sword-and-sandals epic, and I applaud it as a work of visual art. His cinematographer, Larry Fong, should end up in constant demand after his work here. He takes this thing created entirely on greenscreen stages, and he makes it feel like a film shot in an organic world. Maybe not ours, but someplace real. I’m always pleased when I see something try to push the medium in some new direction, and 300 is the logical extension of films like SIN CITY and SKY CAPTAIN, one of the most successful examples yet of how much control these tools give filmmakers over the very nature of reality in their films. I’ve given Gerard Butler a lot of shit over the years in reviews I’ve written here, and much of that was in reaction to the near-constant assertions by various producers and directors about how he was always on the verge of stardom. Now, finally having been given the right role, it looks like stardom is finally going to find him, and he deserves it. He tears into his lead role, and he makes you believe that Leonidas really could talk 300 of the finest soldiers in all of Sparta into following him to certain death. Lena Headey does the best with her role that anyone could, but it’s a thankless role. Far more interesting is Xerxes, leader of the Perisan forces Rodrigo Santoro (best known to most genre audiences as Take A Shit Guy from LOST), who comes close to stealing the film during his brief time onscreen. He’s designed as a giant superfreak, and when we see his royal tent, it’s just as freaky as you’d expect. I know this may seem like a brief review, at least by my standards, but 300 isn’t a film that demands an in-depth conversation. It’s not an intellectual experience. It's a purely visceral one. It's one of those films where words just plain come up short. This is a film that you have to see in a theater in order to appreciate the impact, the louder the better, but it's also a film that would work just as well silent as it does with sound. It’s pure cinema, and although I don’t agree that it’s all surface and no style, as many critics have said so far, in this case, the surface is so magnificent, so engrossing, and so exciting that it just might be enough.

Drew McWeeny, Los Angeles

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • March 9, 2007, 8:55 a.m. CST

    probably about 300th by now

    by broadsmile

    Yeah, Let's have more Dominic West - the greatest Baltimoron from Sheffield - is he a fighter and in it all the way through?

  • March 9, 2007, 8:58 a.m. CST


    by SPECTRE Agent

    crap i was close!!

  • March 9, 2007, 8:59 a.m. CST

    my first first

    by broadsmile

    I can now go to Nerd heaven. So anyway. Er. DO I get a certificate or something?

  • March 9, 2007, 9:05 a.m. CST

    too soon too soon

    by broadsmile

    Might as well get them all out the way. What's that other one? "I own your ass." But you can have it back if you want it. I'm not using it.

  • March 9, 2007, 9:06 a.m. CST

    Can't wait

    by TheBlackSwan

    Seeing it normally tomorrow and then iMax next week. Then God of War II. Fucking ruthless Spartans everywhere, excellent. The only thing better than this would be literally 2 hours straight of money shots.

  • March 9, 2007, 9:10 a.m. CST


    by kbass

    Saw it last night at a local sneak and was blown away by the way it looks and suprisingly..the way it "feels." Butler is fantastic but I give Headey more credit that Moriarty does. Although the role doesn't require much from her she has an incredible scene late that really satisfies. A great movie. You won't be disappointed.

  • March 9, 2007, 9:12 a.m. CST

    "Take A Shit Guy from LOST" ???

    by Gwai L0

    That reminds me! Anybody here know what page number of the new Rob Zombie "Halloween" script the GOTTA TAKE A SHIT MASK appears on? I have the script, just don't want to read the whole thing.

  • March 9, 2007, 9:18 a.m. CST

    Good review

    by Turd Furgeson

    I'm really unsure about this movie but I may take Mori's advice and check it out for the eye candy and volume factor... Thanks for another good review Mori.

  • March 9, 2007, 9:29 a.m. CST

    the louder the better...

    by TheBaxter

    the louder the better, a film that would work just as well silent as it does with sound... isn't that a bit of an oxymoron? if it's better when louder, than how can it work just as well without sound?

  • March 9, 2007, 9:35 a.m. CST

    "Words cannot describe" = lazy writer

    by aceattorney

    Come on man...even Harry at least manages to write about sex when he can't think of anything.

  • March 9, 2007, 9:44 a.m. CST

    Short Review because of conflicts of interest...

    by genro

    ...and Mori, like all of AICN/CHUD, are in waaayy too deep with Snyder's Watchmen producers. The reviews are a disaster so if the movie underperforms, even at 60M, Watchmen ain't going anywhere. If AICN/CHUD was actually objective about this, they'd be screaming from the hills about how much of a bad omen this film is for Watchmen, the antithesis of 300. No, instead we get "kewl" headlines for what looks like fan-made Rorshach images. Great. Let's ignore the guy's track record and hype to the next film. What bullshit.

  • March 9, 2007, 9:45 a.m. CST

    Political context

    by LittleSaint

    The Cleveland Plain Dealer review points out the juxtaposition of a totalitarian state defending freedom. It suggests some corollary to current US policies. I don't think I agree with that, but it's not a far leap.

  • March 9, 2007, 9:47 a.m. CST

    Good read


    Told me everything I need to know.... gracias!

  • March 9, 2007, 9:50 a.m. CST

    And then the rhino showed up...

    by AvengingFist


  • March 9, 2007, 9:55 a.m. CST

    the acting is pretty terrible

    by Jubba

    saw this 3 weeks ago at a sneak preview and wasn't overly impressed. so much of the dialogue is terrible and the delivery is even worse. to say that's because it's from a comic book is a lazy excuse for adapting a screenplay into something that is fun to watch.

  • March 9, 2007, 10:06 a.m. CST

    Pure cinema?

    by kwisatzhaderach


  • March 9, 2007, 10:08 a.m. CST

    Off topic : What's the new Harry animated .gif of?

    by IAmLegolas

    Top left corner of the page, what's the movie reference? The background looks like it's taken from HE-MAN AND THE MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE or some sh*t.

  • March 9, 2007, 10:09 a.m. CST

    "...don’t agree that it’s all surface and no style"

    by adeepercut2k

    WOW! I mean WOW! All surface and no style...I've never heard anything quite like this. Can't wait for the Grindhouse reviews...jeebus American cinema is in trouble.

  • March 9, 2007, 10:17 a.m. CST

    Genro and his conflict of interest

    by Blueberry

    Genro, really, what's your agenda? "The reviews are a disaster". Sure, 61% on Rotten Tomatoes is a disaster most filmakers would pay for. "The movie underperforms". Well, judging from the sold-out screenings for the w-end, it seems highly improbable. 300 will be a success, like it or not.

  • March 9, 2007, 10:18 a.m. CST

    Politics shmolitics

    by Bot-Bot

    I worked on the film and not one person cared about the political implications of the film. Even Zack Snyder was motivated to do it for the love of the graphic novel and the pure ferocity and conviction of the Spartans. Whenever the "political" card was raised in a conversation, the reaction was "well, a lot of people are going to interpret this film to whatever political side they're on". The film is really about defending freedom no matter what the cost, and no battle in history was more symbolic of that belief than Thermopylae. Oh, and if you see it in Imax? sit waaaayyy back. Too many extreme close-ups for an Imax film, in my opinion.

  • March 9, 2007, 10:19 a.m. CST

    I'll Pass...

    by Grinning White Skull

    Never saw SIN CITY. The dialoge of both the comic book and what scenes I caught were gawd-awful! Same with 300. I'm just growing too old for this sophomoric crap.

  • March 9, 2007, 10:29 a.m. CST

    Saw it Last Night at midnight

    by MJDeViant

    I don't know what everyone is complaining about. The movie was great. I didn't think the dialogue was bad, seeing as how the whole movie he's trying to hype his people up. How else would he talk? He wouldn't effin whisper. The over exaggerated events and characters make it more of a handed down story and less like it's based on any written work. I absolutely loved it. To me it was the total opposite of the crap that is the lord of the rings or superman(waits for backlash). No endless speeches, no walking everywhere, no wait for payoff. It did all that and to me, basically sacrificed nothing in story.

  • March 9, 2007, 10:32 a.m. CST

    Seeing this at the Chinese tommorrow night

    by Banshee7

    Can not wait. And if it's got a message about defending freedom no matter the cost then so much the better. "Live free or Die hard".___whoops, wrong movie, but you get the idea.

  • March 9, 2007, 10:35 a.m. CST

    Can´t wait to see Xerxes royal tent

    by MasterKenobi

    Moriarty has me very hyped now. Can´t wait to see the persians overstylized warriors and freakish boss character and war-elephants and other shit. Also can´t wait to see what Snyder will do with Watchmen.

  • March 9, 2007, 10:42 a.m. CST

    please please please

    by Lil LoLo

    please please please please don't adapt watchmen. just leave it be.

  • March 9, 2007, 10:51 a.m. CST

    "I do think the film’s dialogue tends to be tough-guy "

    by Nerdboy1423

    You do know that the Spartans made up most of what you call tough guy talk, right? Most of the "Come get somes" etc etc, really anything in the movie are historically recorded. If they aren't accurate to Spartan history, they are at least accurate to the Heradotus' book, where the film and graphic novel get their dialogue from, translated of course. It's called Laconic

  • March 9, 2007, 10:53 a.m. CST

    Saw 300 last night

    by Double-Oh

    and all three showings were sold out. My showing had a crew dressed like Spartans and the rest of the crowed really got into the film, cheers and all. So if last night was any indication, people will come in droves to see 300 tonight. Rotten Tomatoes isn't the end-all be-all for how good or bad a movie is. Proof of that is in the lackluster and poor reviews that great films like The Prestige and The Fountain received.

  • March 9, 2007, 10:54 a.m. CST

    Having said that...

    by Double-Oh

    I really liked it. It wasn't a masterpiece, but I agree with Mori that it was a fun, action packed visceral experience that shouldn’t be over analyzed, although I think making a connection to current world politics is ridiculous. It’s one of those movie-going experience films that we see so few of nowadays and I look forward to a few more of those later this year.

  • March 9, 2007, 11:05 a.m. CST


    by Pound Sand

    too gay, or not gay enough?

  • March 9, 2007, 11:18 a.m. CST

    First pro American movie?

    by andrew coleman

    I mean come on a bunch of white guys fighting a Persian army? Anyone saying this isn't political is blind. Also with the new commercials using that voice over guy saying something like "Watch man's first fight for freedom". I almost laughed. Maybe people want more pro US stuff with Live Free or Die Hard coming out. I'm seeing this sunday but my friend saw it last night at midnight and claimed it rocked the shit so will see. He also claimed the theater in LA has half empty so this sold out every where statements people are making I would take with a grain of salt.

  • March 9, 2007, 11:21 a.m. CST

    I'm just going around

    by playahatersball

    to talkbacks that I know Mori is reading and kissing his ass. Sorry again.

  • March 9, 2007, 11:23 a.m. CST

    "Two hours of money shots"

    by Doctor_Sin

    Is this the same "300" based on the GN, or is it some porn remake/compilation? ;)))<p>That accurately describes it, though. Breathtaking. We need a second Oscars ceremony earlier in the year for this and Zodiac.

  • March 9, 2007, 11:25 a.m. CST

    My tent is pretty royal right now, too.

    by savagexp

    I cannot wait to see this movie.

  • March 9, 2007, 11:33 a.m. CST

    Just what I thought...

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    I had a feeling this movie would not be all it's cracked up to be. I say that with all due respect to Mori's review. However, I had a nagging suspicion that this flick would be nothing more than an incredible looking battle sequence spliced with strange, stylized characters and intermittent "meanwhile over here-type" scenes.<P>Now, having said that, I will be seeing this later on today. Ha!

  • March 9, 2007, 11:34 a.m. CST

    Reposting my review from last night on another Talkback

    by AllPowerfulWizardOfOz

    Just saw 300 at The Senator in Baltimore. (midnight showing) <BR><BR> by AllPowerfulWizardOfOz Mar 9th, 2007 01:34:25 AM <BR><BR> Was a good crowd for a movie that just got a midnight showing announcement within the last 24 hours. <BR><BR><BR> Here is the quick and dirty on it. Visually stunning. Story you have heard before from many different films. Lots of violence. Soundtrack not that great. Will appeal to diehards of Frank Miller, like myself. It will the #1 movie this weekend but won't be a long lasting film like some of you may feel before seeing it. Once you see it for yourself you will understand what I mean. This is an art piece and will stand out as unique film much like Sky Captain did. Will look great on an HDTV with HD-DVD when released. Should be a real show stopper on that. But not to detract. It is what it is. If you liked the trailer you know what to expect. But as I said it's not going to set the box office on fire like some may think due to it's limited appeal to the average moron who went to see Ghost Rider. They will get bored by the 2nd act and not get it for what it is supposed to be. It's a great piece of art. Highly recommend for those who truly appreciate the medium of film itself.

  • March 9, 2007, 11:37 a.m. CST

    Hey anchorite...

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    If you're looking for a more detailed review that discusses some of the political notions of the film, Devin has a pretty good one posted on CHUD.

  • March 9, 2007, 12:02 p.m. CST

    Well, BSB..

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    ...are you saying that you're NOT getting into the "political undertones" of the film by equating Spartans with George Bush and right-wing "assfuckers"? Or are you already interpreting the film as you want even though you haven't seen it?

  • March 9, 2007, 12:03 p.m. CST

    Anyone saying this isn't political is blind?

    by Double-Oh

    Frank Millar wrote 300 before the current Iraqi War. He wrote a story loosely based on the Battle of Thermopylae which happened in 480 BC. Don't know if you're good at math, but that's a long time before the US came into existence. So since the Iraqi War happened no one can make a film about an ancient army of the West battling an ancient army of the East without a simpleton like yourself claiming it's Pro-American? Add to the fact that you haven't even seen the film yet, you're opinion holds no weight. Just because one segment of 300's marketing campaign might be aimed at getting the flag wavers into the theatre doesn't mean that was Snyder's intention was to draw a parallel.

  • March 9, 2007, 12:05 p.m. CST

    Yea, BringingSexyBack!!!

    by PhillipMarlowe

    That's right!! Those Palestinians sure can!!! I remember that one scene where the Spartan blew himself up and killed a hundred Persian women and children!!! It was JUST like the Israeli-Palestine situation!! Or how about that one scene where a group of Spartans kidnapped a bunch of Persian athletes at the Olympics and then held them for hostage and then murdered them all? Really reminded me of the Palestinian conflict!!!

  • March 9, 2007, 12:21 p.m. CST

    The corner animation is from...

    by cyberskunk

    I believe it is an homage from the Betty Boop cartoon "The Old Man of the Mountain." You can download the cartoon here or watch it in a web browser:

  • March 9, 2007, 12:29 p.m. CST

    wow phillipmarlowe...

    by Michael Corleone

    you cant just watch munich and presume to understand the intense political complexities of the israeli-palestinian conflict. One - A people disenfranchised from their country cannot engage in anything but guerilla warfare. Two - the israeli military have never fired missiles into civillian areas??? and three, BSB said that from the palestinians point of view, THEY may see parallels in what THEY see as a fight for freedom. he did not say that was his opinion.

  • March 9, 2007, 12:34 p.m. CST

    Leonidas is bush? First pro-american film? Bullshit

    by MasterKenobi

    "I mean come on a bunch of white guys fighting a Persian army? Anyone saying this isn't political is blind." Yes it is political, but the spartans were the terrorists. It was expected everyone would read into 300 with whatever shit he likes, but come on. It´s clear that the spartans were the few, they were not the military superpower (US and A) and the persians with fucking war-elephants and rhinos and handgranates and other high technlogy of that time were the US. Spartans equals guirella warfar and terrorist tactics. Leonidas is Bush? No he is Che Guevara or a brilliant terrorist warlord; taliban or african or whatever. I don´t like communists, cause I´ve known a couple of them. Even after the fall of the Sovjet Union they still believe in their stupid communist utopia, so for me Che Guevara was never a hero, but I still think that Leonidas was more like him than Bush or any other american president for that matter, with the exception of George Washington who was sort of a terrorist himself. Ask the british.

  • March 9, 2007, 12:54 p.m. CST

    Some of the reviews I read point out

    by superninja

    that the film version tries to soften it with Gladiator-esque longing for the wife and kids. Which is completely not the point of the graphic novel and I agree it's kind of BS. The original work was reveling in the brutality of the ancient world as a marvel in and of itself.

  • March 9, 2007, 12:54 p.m. CST

    "the intense political complexities"

    by PhillipMarlowe

    No, Michael, it's very simple: Kill people who knowingly and intentionally target innocent civilians...Equating Israel firing rockets into, say, Hezbollah- controlled districts in Lebanon to suicide bombings in downtown Jerusalem is just idiotic...and if you don't realize are a moron...And trust me, I didn't get my info from Munich...but I bet YOU did, didn't you? Wait, it's a rhetorical question, don't answer it numbnuts.

  • March 9, 2007, 12:56 p.m. CST

    How does it compare to BRAVEHEART?

    by Immortal_Fish

    Honestly serious here.

  • March 9, 2007, 12:56 p.m. CST

    Argh! Sky Craptain!

    by JackPumpkinhead

    Does this mean that "300" is so hideously bad that it warrants comparisons to that garbage?

  • March 9, 2007, 12:58 p.m. CST

    The political stuff is funny, though. Frank Miller's

    by superninja

    work is just not that deep, it's all about the visuals. Actually, I don't think much of Miller's work is very deep. It's about people doing what they need to do to get things done, not in a particularly reflective manner, usually a brutal one.

  • March 9, 2007, 1:01 p.m. CST


    by PhillipMarlowe

    To draw a moral equivalency is just sickening. It's not like these terrorist only target military facilities, they target INNOCENT CIVILIANS. To try and justify that because they are "disenfranchised" is just despicable and absolutely morally reprehensible. SHAME ON YOU. The ends do not justify the means you misguided twat. Gandhi achieved far more through nonviolence than Arafat ever did. You moonbats claim to be pacifists and yet attempt to justify terrorist (but you think they're "freedom-fighters," right?) behavior. You make me want to vomit.

  • March 9, 2007, 1:03 p.m. CST

    True, Mori, you are a picky bitch...

    by thebearovingian

    I believe I've made my point.

  • March 9, 2007, 1:08 p.m. CST

    wait wait...

    by Michael Corleone

    I got my PRO-PALESTINIAN opinion from watching munich, thats what you're saying? and you completely gloss over the israeli slaughter of innocent women and children. The israeli military has used both cluster bombs, and phosphorus bombs which are illigal under the geneva convention. The israeli attacks are not just confined to hezbollah controlled districts. Their attacks on civillian areas of both palestine and lebanon are well documented. Example, 37 children died in this attack: It was a civillian shelter. Im not saying the palestinians have no blood on their hands but asserting that israel have the moral highground in this conflict is wrong and ill informed.

  • March 9, 2007, 1:15 p.m. CST

    I've noticed a lot of PC comments about

    by superninja

    the Spartans being "white" and the Persians being "brown". Take it up with Frank Miller, geniuses.

  • March 9, 2007, 1:25 p.m. CST

    Just a general TB observation

    by S-Mart shopper

    normally I don't have MediaPlayer running while I'm reading Tb's but today I do and subsuquently noticed something. Listening to ColdPLay's song "Square One" and reading these Talkbacks I found a fitting marriage of music and AICN Talkback. Anywho, 300 looks hyper-tits!!!

  • March 9, 2007, 1:26 p.m. CST

    Michael, again you miss the point...

    by PhillipMarlowe

    Your little link shows that Israel SUSPENDED air strikes after it killed civilians...They were targeting Hezbollah, and given the fact Hezbollah are cowards, they hide among innocent children. It's a damn shame. But don't you dare suggest for a moment that Israel intentionally targeted a building that it KNEW to be full of children. That's what you people fail to understand. KNOWINGLY and INTENTIONALLY targeting women and children and innocent civilians is ALWAYS WRONG, NO MATTER WHAT SIDE. If Israel did it, it's just as wrong as a Palestinian. But Hamas won't suspend it's suicide bombing, will it, Michael? That's the big difference. Let me spell it out for you again: KNOWINGLY and INTENTIONALLY killing innocent civilians is ALWAYS wrong, but causing civilian fatalities UNINTENTIONALLY is not the same, ethically. Google the doctrine of "double effect" if you're really interested in some philosophical ethics.

  • March 9, 2007, 1:43 p.m. CST

    "Freedom costs a buck oh five!" - Drturing

    by AnimeJune

    HA! I thought I was the only one who thought that! I agree that the movie, while visually spectacular, was appallingly written. "Tough-guy ping-pong" indeed. I mean, you can only watch half-naked guys hack at each other for so many minutes before it becomes repetitive. I'm glad the people who liked it liked it, but if this movie was a person, it would be a hot blond bimbo who'd marry some dicrepid Clint Eastwood movie and when he died a year later collect all the money. I didn't see anything political the first time I watched it, though. I just thought it was a dumb action flick.

  • March 9, 2007, 1:47 p.m. CST

    I haven't seen the movie yet but I have a hard time

    by Lovecraftfan

    believing its so political that it would enrage so many people. It sounds like people reading their own baggage into the film. Still maybe I'll be wrong when I see the film.

  • March 9, 2007, 1:51 p.m. CST


    by Cameron1

    Israelis KNOW they are going to be killing innocent ciivilians with their tactics. Just like Palestinians know they are going to be doing it with theirs. Israelis have more choices than just air striking suspected terrorist locations but they don't take them. They knowingly kill innocent palestinians to achieve their goal. Both sides have committed terrible atrocities in the past. Anyone who doesn't see that is part of the problem. And before anyone screams Anti semite, I'm jewish.

  • March 9, 2007, 2:04 p.m. CST

    As I burn trash in front of a Klieg searchlight ..

    by JAGUART

    I signal for the Foywonder to make his review of 300!

  • March 9, 2007, 2:20 p.m. CST

    spectrebeeyatch, Snyder's advertising

    by Nachokoolaid

    Snyder's new TV ad saying "Watch man's first fight for freedom is viral marketing, or subliminal messages, or whatever you want to call it. It's just trying to sneak "Watchmen" into your subconscious as much as it can.

  • March 9, 2007, 2:20 p.m. CST

    Sorry. This Movie was a Big Disappointment.

    by Johnny Storm

    Saw it the other night and I was really disappointed as was the crowd I saw it with. Yes, it's beautiful. But "groundbreaking?" It's fucking Sin City meets Sky Captain! And it's from Frank's book so what, exactly, makes this director such a visionary? The dialogue is laughable and the whole fucking movie is narrrated. So annoying. Everytime I wanted to get into the story that narrator would jump in and pull me out of it. And that fat guy with the swords for hands? He never fights in the movie. The Rhino? One shot. The only one who really throws down is that bald guy from the Goonies.

  • March 9, 2007, 2:21 p.m. CST

    Spidey Trailer before the Pic

    by MJDeViant

    The Spiderman trailer before the movie is awesome. Basically all Venom related. Make sure you get to 300 early enough to see it.

  • March 9, 2007, 2:23 p.m. CST

    Uh, the Persians weren't Muslim at the time.

    by superninja

    And almost everyone during that period had slaves, so I would hardly call it a relevant arguement against the burgeoning idea of freedom. There is still slavery going on today. And freedom isn't free. You should really stop trying to judge ancient peoples by modern political views.

  • March 9, 2007, 2:23 p.m. CST

    Xerxes is TOO VENOMY!

    by DarthStallion

    And Leonidas = Flaming nipples on Optimus.

  • March 9, 2007, 2:27 p.m. CST


    by lionbiu

    I just watched 300 and must say it is very pretty, but really has nothing else going for it.....far to simple and the music is dreadful. 3/5

  • March 9, 2007, 2:33 p.m. CST

    300 owns your fat white asses

    by BrowncoatJedi

    Sorry, nerds. I guess the film offended your feminine sensibilities.

  • March 9, 2007, 2:55 p.m. CST

    BSB, you are still wrong

    by PhillipMarlowe

    Calling someone a imbecile doesn't make you right. I never said ALL Palestinians were terrorists. That would be absurd. But I have no sympathy for those who are you silly fuck. As far as Israeli pilots being remanded, I call "bullshit." Show me a link...Even if it were true, I doubt it's as simple as you are making it out to be... As far as "complex" thinking, let's try this: if I see a bunker that houses a known terrorist and his family (like Zarqawi in Iraq), is it morally permissable to drop a bomb? By doing so, you would kill innocent civilians(a wife and child, say), but also take a valuable military target. According to the doctrine of double effect, this is morally permissable, as killing the wife and child are not the intended victims of your airstrike. Now, if you can prove to me that Israelis go around targeting innocent civilians WHO ARE NOT TERRORISTS (which is often difficult to do), I will throw my hands up and absolutely condemn those attacks. As I said before, it's ALWAYS wrong to intentionally kill innocents (who, in other words, are the sole target of your attack). BSB, I know you think you are smart, so here's an article for you to wrap that brilliant mind around: Don't call me stupid shithead.

  • March 9, 2007, 3 p.m. CST

    Er, Phil...

    by Cameron1

    the Israeli's KNOW they are going to be killing civillians, it's intentional. Maybe not the first time but after the countless attacks they are perfectly aware they are going to kill civillians. Saying "oh we didn't mean to" is the most pathetic excuse imaginable. Nevermind the fact that every time they kill an innocent palestinian they create at least 2 more terrorist. Yeh, rrreal smart.

  • March 9, 2007, 3:01 p.m. CST

    Actually, now I see that pilot story

    by PhillipMarlowe

    It's right here, for anyone interested: Again, it doesn't negate my point about the double effect. If Israel targets civilians for no reason other than that they're civilians, than it's morally reprehensible, and I would condemn those actions as well...

  • March 9, 2007, 3:03 p.m. CST

    And Cameron, completely missing the point...

    by PhillipMarlowe

    What a shock, did you even bother to read what I wrote?

  • March 9, 2007, 3:08 p.m. CST

    And Phil, not even trying to find the point.

    by Cameron1

    Did you understand what I wrote? If you know your actions will unquestionably harm civillians then when you take those actions you are intentionally harming those civilians. Just like the Palestinians who intentionally harm Israelis civillians. They are as morally despicable as each other.

  • March 9, 2007, 3:11 p.m. CST

    Cameron, "double effect," say it with me

    by PhillipMarlowe

    DOUBLE EFFECT...Obviously you are not going to listen to me, so again I point you to that article I linked to. Give it a shot, it's interesting. Here it is again:

  • March 9, 2007, 3:11 p.m. CST

    This is the kind of film...

    by Doctor_Sin

    You don't want to share a prison cell with.

  • March 9, 2007, 3:42 p.m. CST

    Timmy, do you like gladiator movies?

    by Zarles

    Can't believe I'm the only person to make that joke. Anyway, hadn't planned on seeing this, but I'm going on a man date tomorrow afternoon for a red-eye matinee. Five points to anyone who knows what that is.

  • March 9, 2007, 3:42 p.m. CST

    That movie was awsome...

    by rbatty024

    ly bad. Usually the movies that Ain't It Cool get behind are artistic truimphs even if they don't exactly set the box office on fire. However, this movie had little going for it. This has some of the worst action I've ever seen. Only the gore saves it from being a complete waste. I would go so far as saying the action was actually boring. This suffers from Matrix: Reloaded disease where just about every scene is shot in slo-motion. Leonidas is the only "character" in this film, the rest are a bunch of bland faces I don't give a shit about. Making Xerxes look like the humans in Lord of the Rings compared to the Spartan Hobbits was just a dumb decision. It looks awful. The Queen subplot was unncessary (especially her rape, which was absurd). God, what a terrible film. Let's hope this guy does not get to make The Watchmen, he will only ruin it. I already hear myself defending the original to people, "the book was a lot better."

  • March 9, 2007, 3:49 p.m. CST

    My life is complete...

    by trafficguy2000

    My cliche has been used by Mori himself!!!

  • March 9, 2007, 3:56 p.m. CST


    by ThomasServo

    I see what you're saying, but you can't just keep shouting "DOUBLE EFFECT!" as if that just ends the discussion. Double effect isn't a natural law, it's a debatable philosophy. Ask the mothers of two dead babies--one intentionally killed, and the other unintentionally, and see if they aren't both just as pissed. The Israelis are looking after their own interests just as the Palestinians are...neither side is good or evil.

  • March 9, 2007, 4:04 p.m. CST

    The funniest part of the movie was...

    by rbatty024

    the captain's speech where he said he regrest never having told his son "I love you." Hilarious. After an hour and a half of machismo you can't expect an audience not to laugh at a speech that corny.

  • March 9, 2007, 4:06 p.m. CST

    what was the Toxic Avenger doing in this movie

    by future help

    wearing short-shorts? This movie was rather boring. pretty, pretty bad. no soul. seen it all before. i think Zack provided more thrills in his DOTD remake. and now i am woried about Watchmen. However, better actors and more money might improve his chances with Watchmen.

  • March 9, 2007, 4:08 p.m. CST

    yeah, tht was funny rbatty024...

    by future help

    and his son died WAYYYYY too easy. all that worrior skill and he could'nt "duck"?

  • March 9, 2007, 4:17 p.m. CST

    I was actually looking forward to this movie.

    by rbatty024

    When you can't even say the action was fun, then there's a problem. After The Watchmen slipped through so many capable hands, I hope it's not this guy who finally gets that film made.

  • March 9, 2007, 4:24 p.m. CST

    "300 is the logical extension of films like SIN CITY...

    by -guyinthebackrow

    ... and SKY CAPTAIN." Oh... that is NOT good. SKY CAPTAIN was unwatchable, and SIN CITY was either adapted for the screen by a moron or someone who had simply lost all sense of plot and pacing. And I really wanted to like 300.

  • March 9, 2007, 4:30 p.m. CST

    Hate to break it to you PhillyMarlowe...

    by morGoth

    ...the US (along with Isreal) has purposefully targeted and killed plenty of civilians too. Just one instance; read Chuck Yeagers first book where he tells about being ordered to strafe Franch civilians to clear a road for an Allied advance. All sides in a conflict (total war) target civilians. There isn't a single nation on this earth who doesn't...conventional or guerilla war. <P> Man, I have to get out and see 300!

  • March 9, 2007, 4:30 p.m. CST

    Never said it ended the discussion

    by PhillipMarlowe

    I don't think Palestinians are inherently evil...I DO think people that intentionally kill innocent civilians for no other reason than that they are innocent civilians ARE evil. Terrorists ARE evil, and I will not apologize for that. Servo (I love MST3K by the way), at least you know what natural law is; the same no doubt cannot be said for BringingSexyBack. But in all seriousness, I think I've been incredibly fair (and certainly consistent)...I'm willing to condemn Israelis who intentionally target innocent civilians. Unfortunately, BSB cannot when it comes to Palestinians, and has to hide behind: "oh well they are guerilla fighters, and it's the only means they have." BSB, go fuck yourself. The fact that you cannot even grant me a semblance of respect shows how incredibly blinded by idealogy you are. I pity you.

  • March 9, 2007, 4:34 p.m. CST


    by PhillipMarlowe

    OH please, are going to bring up that tired argument? Jesus Christ, all you have to do is mention Hiroshima or Nagasaki as an example of a horrendous war crime and terrible targeting of innocent civilians. The dropping of the atomic bombs in WWII were absolutely unjustified, as was the firebombing of Dresden. Don't go there MorGoth, I'm way ahead of you. Never have I ever given a country carte blanche to do whatever it pleases. You must evaluate each individual action as morally wrong or right...But don't give me this "the US bombs civilians so therefore your argument is void" bullshit. Idiot. In case I'm not clear for the morons out there: the US has done some pretty awful things, but I still believe that what we fight for is right and good and true.

  • March 9, 2007, 4:41 p.m. CST

    On that topic...

    by PhillipMarlowe

    One of the more modern formulations of the doctrine of double effect was written by Anscombe, in which she criticized the atomic bombings of Japan...It was a protest to an award being given to Truman at Oxford I believe. So I think I'm standing on fairly sturdy ground...

  • March 9, 2007, 4:49 p.m. CST


    by Orionsangels

    I just saw 300 this afternoon. It was amazing and very moving!!! One of the best movies I've ever seen. The visuals are stunning. The music is epic and memorable. It must be seen in a theater! Go see it now!!! We got a new Spidey3 trailer caught me off guard. Usually I see new trailers on the Internet first. It focuses more on Venom, sweet. We also got the fun Grindhouse trailer. I went with my brother in law. We ate at Chili's first. We actually had to wait 10 minutes with that buzzing red light thing. It was packed! It was lunchtime. So obviously. We had nachos for an appetizer and I had the cheese steak, mmm. He had some new dish at Chili's that's like a taco with beans and rice, ugh.

  • March 9, 2007, 4:49 p.m. CST

    Killing Civilians

    by ThomasServo

    Phillip-- thanks for the MST3K love. One thing, though-- I don't believe terrorists are killing civilians JUST to kill civilians. A man that can walk into a crowded cafe and blow himself up, is obviously a man at the end of his rope- a man who truly believes his horrible, desperate action will have a positive effect on the lives of his people. Obviously, I'm not defending murder, but I think we can agree that a suicide bomber isn't necessarily in the same league as, say, a serial killer who just gets off on killing.

  • March 9, 2007, 4:58 p.m. CST

    Maximum Manishlyness

    by Fabulous Freak

    Saw the midnight showing of 300 last night at my local IMAX, and ever since my body has been producing nothing but testosterone and adrenaline. I've got so much fucking machismo that women passer byes are instantly impregnated by proximity; left crumpled, disoriented and sobbing. Animals won't even come near me, sensing the uncontained useless violence just beneath my surface. And here I sit, fingers skidding across the keyboard, moist with the raw carnage that I have not just desired but craved ever since leaving the theater. I recommend it.

  • March 9, 2007, 4:59 p.m. CST

    Servo, I wonder, I wonder

    by PhillipMarlowe

    I mean, I see your point, and I think it may be valid in some cases. But many suicide bombers are not simply at the "end of their rope." Much Islamic violence is ideological in nature, emerging out of various strains of Salafi, Wahabbi, and Qutbiyya thought (look it up, if you don't already know...very interesting). Most of the 9/11 hijackers were educated, in some cases highly educated, and from well-to-do families. It's not simply a matter of poor people with no other options blowing themselves up (as Syriana would have us believe), but rather an act to kill those who are not Islamic. But still, even if it were all just poor people, that does not mean we couldn't still evaluate it from an objective standard of right and wrong. In fact, if you looked at the lives of many serial killers, I'm sure you could find many events that would make you pity them, but those events do not make their actions any less evil (or wrong), do they? Cheers.

  • March 9, 2007, 5 p.m. CST

    Oh, and on topic...

    by ThomasServo

    I'm entirely too ready to see this movie. I don't even care if it *IS* shit, anymore. After waiting this long, I just want to SEE it.

  • March 9, 2007, 5:03 p.m. CST

    When will Harry give his analysis of the 300 film?

    by BDuncan

    Thanks Mori, it'd be interesting to also read Harry's analysis of the 300 film.

  • March 9, 2007, 5:30 p.m. CST

    Still from 300 extended trailer (W.B. Watchmen)

    by logocult

  • March 9, 2007, 5:39 p.m. CST

    Good, not great

    by NudeandAroused

    Certainly great atmosphere, great settings (CGI) and a lot of research. They certainly have what it was like to be Spartan in those times. Though I think that the writers would like to paint Sparta with some of the things that Athens espoused. But, the acting, including Butler, does leave something to be desired. I was not moved at all. McNulty, I thought, probably was the better of the cast. The story is OK, but it is the overall acting that does leave something to be desired.

  • March 9, 2007, 5:39 p.m. CST

    Artmachine, you got it backwards

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    bush invaded iraq - like xerxes invaded greece - depending on who you ask, the persians in the movie represent the usa - i saw it today and enjoyed it a great deal - saw it in imax - pretty cool - i want to see it again - i think the political angle is silly - its just a good popcorn movie - we all see want we want to see - more chicks with exposed hard nipples woulda been nice

  • March 9, 2007, 5:40 p.m. CST

    Miller isn't Shakespeare, fellas!

    by Bot-Bot

    Holy crap, you guys! Everyone is complaining about the bad writing. They took a GRAPHIC NOVEL that takes 8 minute to read and expanded it. Period. If the film was written like a Shakespearian opus, you'd all be complaining about how dull and unfaithful an adaption it was. Miller just wants to do comics about killing and blood in case you haven't noticed. Then he throws in a few words here and there. The best thing he wrote was The Dark Night Returns. 300 was just an hommage to the mythical brutality of that battle in 480 b.c. and nothing more. A geek love letter, as it were. The movie does not stretch much beyond that, and does not intend to. It's not the History Channel - it's WWF.

  • March 9, 2007, 5:48 p.m. CST

    James Cameron's Jesus in a grave

    by AvengingFist

    yes folks.

  • March 9, 2007, 5:50 p.m. CST


    by Kasch

    Sorry, I had to mock all you stupid talkbackers who thought I was some studio shill back when I praised this from the test screenings last year. Suck it! This movie rules. End of story.

  • March 9, 2007, 5:55 p.m. CST


    by nopix


  • March 9, 2007, 6:17 p.m. CST

    300 the SEQUEL!!!

    by Anino

    Coming in 2009! "300 part 2: Dining in Hell"--S P A R T A N S!! P R E P A R E FOR SSOOUUPP!!!!

  • March 9, 2007, 6:28 p.m. CST

    there is nothing wrong with this movie

    by roccotheripper

    spartans are so bad ass

  • March 9, 2007, 6:29 p.m. CST

    Wierd Blood issue...

    by RhesusmonkeyDave

    So I was at the first showing of this, and really enjoyed myself... however what the hell was going on with the blood? Mid air or spurting out of stuff it was great, but on the ground, totally non-existant. What's going on there? Even scenes where they were chopping endless seas of people into burger, the ground was cleaner than my tile at home... Anyone else notice that?

  • March 9, 2007, 6:37 p.m. CST

    299 the PREQUEL!!!

    by godoffireinhell

    They're not finished with this yet.

  • March 9, 2007, 6:41 p.m. CST

    PhillipMarlowe you arrogant fuck

    by The Decider

    Both sides use reprehensible tactics in war. That is what war is. So who's the aggressor? That's the only question that matters. One side was living there for a couple millenia, had their neighborhoods bulldozed, houses taken from them, and now live in squalor without any reasonable resources. The other side came from Europe, USSR, America, etc. Few have any relation to the people who actually lived there (thousands of years ago). But oh yeah, it's their right to live there because "Yahweh" gave it to them.

  • March 9, 2007, 6:45 p.m. CST

    "Freedom isn't free...

    by S-Mart shopper

    no there's a hefty fuckin fee!"<p>You gotta sing it with a slight country twang.

  • March 9, 2007, 7:06 p.m. CST

    FUCK YOU for painting your politics on this movie

    by antonphd

    It's an ACTION movie! It's not deep in the least. It's video game shallow. I loved it. I'm going again tonight. This movie is NOT political unless you are a fuckhead who can't have a life outside your political bullshit opinions. Learn to have full assholes. It's just a fucking movie.

  • March 9, 2007, 7:07 p.m. CST

    FUCK YOU for painting your politics on this movie

    by antonphd

    full = fun

  • March 9, 2007, 7:13 p.m. CST

    Why Snyder shouldn't helm The Watchmen...

    by rbatty024

    300 was relatively faithful to the comic book (with the exception of excrutiatingly boring action and a dull queen plot (and I'm not talking about Xerxes). However, the worst change made was when Leonidas rejects Ephialtes' offer to join the Spartans. In the comic book Leonidas explains to him he cannot hold his shield high enough to be a part of the Phalanx and then tells Ephialtes that he has no use for him. In the film Leonidas suggests that Ephialtes carry the dead off the battlefield. Snyder completely missed the point when he added this line. Even though Miller exalts the Spartans for most of the book, he has the insight to take them to task for lacking the imagination to find a place for everyone in their society. Leonidas' rejection of Ephialtes is one of the reasons his men are eventually slaughtered. Snyder obviously did not understand this and added the extra line to cover Leonidas' actions. 300 is not a terribly complex comic book, and still Snyder was too dimwitted to understand one of it's more interesting complexities. If this guy isn't smart enough to figure out 300, then he sure as hell isn't smart enough to figure out the incredibly complex Watchmen. Give it up Snyder!

  • March 9, 2007, 7:18 p.m. CST


    by wolvenom

    ROTTEN TOMATOES ONLY GIVES IT A 61 PERCENT FRESH RATING. THIS IS THE SHITFEST THAT ALL YOU UBER FUCKING NERDS WERE DECLARING WAS THE NEXT GOD DAMN MASTERPIECE IN CINEMA. NOW WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY FOR YOURSELVES??? I knew from first glimpse that this was going to be a pile of shit with overly stylized cinematography and no fucking substance to it but you shit boogers kept lavishing praise on what you thought was going to be the next fucking KING KONG (not jackson's shitty remake) in cinema. I had to put up with fucking assholes and retards at work for the last several months Gooing and gaaaaaing and drooling over this shitfest soon to be released fucking trainwreck of a film. "OH THIS SHIT WILL BE LIKE NO OTHER MOVIE EVER!! IM JIZZING IN MY PANTS EXCITED!!" the amount of fucking hype people have built up for this alone was enough to make me hate it and then now i find out it sucks... ITS THE SWEET MOTHERFUCKING DESSERT AND ICING ON THE CAKE FOR ME!... suck it losers.

  • March 9, 2007, 7:19 p.m. CST

    that shit was awesome! Fuck Bush, Fuck Al Queda

    by flipster

    reason over mystuicism thank you Frank Miller! Tales to Offend - the best american comic book I ever bought.

  • March 9, 2007, 7:23 p.m. CST

    Hey Blueberry...

    by genro

    I'm not rooting for the flick to bomb. What I was trying to point out was that a superficial genre movie like this would usually take a drubbing from AICN because it's all sizzle no steak. Instead, we're getting treated to images of Rorshach supposedly from Snyder's crackberry with Harry's review nowhere to be seen until after opening weekend. It's a three card monty...AICN/CHUD is way too tight with the Gordon/Levin camp to take any news as impartial...go look at Fearci's review at CHUD and you'll see how he and Drew both acknowledge how devoid of matter this film is, then go about trying to excuse it anyway possible...and Feracis' review is absolute dogshit. One of the worst I've read of about thirty national. It has no point other than to show Devi's a rambeling socialist fruitcake. Any guy who can equate the Iraqi insurgents with a historical group that fought to be free is face-deep in their own ass. I'd really love to drop Devin off in Basrah and see how well his moral relativism plays out. But I digress...

  • March 9, 2007, 7:32 p.m. CST

    Not for nothing

    by Quin the Eskimo

    I like Moriarty just fine but I miss Ebert's takes on movies.

  • March 9, 2007, 7:36 p.m. CST

    Rbatty - nail hit on head...

    by genro

    I had a lift of confidence in Snyder from some Watchmen comments, but it's mostly gone now...break it down this way. WB loves 300 because it was cheap, so Snyder is not going to get that much more to play for Watchmen, (75, 100M max). So when you look at 300's translation and combine it with his Watchmen comments, you can see that his angle is too pull every big visual from the mini-series and weave the storyline around them. So yeah, we'll get Mars, Xanadu, Black Frieghter, a newsreel flashback, the alien, Nixon,...but the postmodern metaphor will be lost because it's easier to tell a whodunnit. In other words, Gibbons will be very happy with the film...and this strategy to get Moore on board is gibberish. Joel Silver made sure of that.

  • March 9, 2007, 7:45 p.m. CST

    Saw it Today...

    by 88mph

    Not impressed. The visuals were all this thing had to offer, and even those made for a better trailer than a two-hour film. Having every frame perfectly composited, color-corrected and posed with oiled-up, identical, uber-buff dudes from Globo-Gym can look pretty cool for a couple of minutes, but after 15 it gets pretty dull...and not to mention kind of gay. Seeing this thing, I know Snyder can't handle Watchmen. He'll make a film that looks way better than it needs to, but has shallow characters we could care less about. On a plus side, those shallow characters will have rock-solid abs.

  • March 9, 2007, 7:50 p.m. CST

    Political sub-text? You're a madman

    by AlwaysThere

    The movie falls flat on its fucking face and now people from CHUD and AICN find the desire to find hidden Political meaning in it. That's really fucking sad man.

  • March 9, 2007, 7:51 p.m. CST

    300 is the Ballz

    by AngryBuddha

    True story, went to see 300 wearing my long sleeve born to roam wolf shirt. Needless to say the movie and wolfshirt cured my acne and i grew 4 inches and gained 100lbs of pure muscle. Im a beast now, thanks to 300 and wolfshirt. Wolfshirts on sale here.

  • March 9, 2007, 7:54 p.m. CST


    by BadMrWonka

    with a c...poor bastard gave his hard to spell name in the name of a pseudo-science called the Rorschach test...the least we can do is obfuscate it...

  • March 9, 2007, 8:02 p.m. CST

    that tiny url is hilarious

    by flipster

    LMAO! see comment: Don Juan says...

  • March 9, 2007, 8:12 p.m. CST

    My thoughts...

    by Shermdawg

    All style, little substance. But seriously, who went to this for a story?<br><br>This film is a freaking visual masterpiece. So much of a sensory overload of sex and violence that I swear the thirteen year old that sat in front of me, head almost exploded. One thing I appplaud is the fact that they pull off something that is rarely done... director Zack Snyder actually focused on a single character during the battleground carnage. Usually, during a big fight in these types of films is just one giant cluster fuck of random shots that really leaves the viewer wondering what the hell is going on. That one slow motion shot of King Leonidas pwning bitches left and right as he marched across the battlefield is worth the price of admission alone. Incredible scene! I wish Snyder was the guy helming the Metal Gear flick. The dude's awesome.<br><br>The art direction, costumes, and overall look of the film is amazing, but there are some things that stand out. Like the lame as all hell cg'd wolf. It wasn't as bad as the ones in The Day After Tomorrow, but still, looked pretty shitty. Seriously, it's a wolf. Why can't someone hire some animal wranglers and use a real one for craps sake? Digitally touch it up to make it look a bit scarier. Yes, I'm one of those guys that complain about effects. Sue me.<br><br>Also, Ephialtes the Spartan turncoat hunchback is just bad. Not only in terms of makeup, but Andrew Tiernan's performance was lacking as well. Imagine someone like Andy Serkis in this role, someone that would put his all into it, making him a believable living, breathing monstrosity. But instead, Tiernan reminded me of one of the Geico Cavemen (who are getting a abc sitcom soon btw), so much so, that I wondered if it was one of those guys. And honestly, Ephialtes is nothing more than a plot device to have the Spartans ambushed during the final battle, and serves as an oppurtunity to slip in some extra female nudity to even things out. Lame.<br><br>Another thing that drug this film down was the insistance to include the been there, done that, Queen Gorgo sidestory. Instead of going that route, why not give a little depth to some of the Spartans, like the "fight in the shade" guy? In the end, all we get is paper thin characters (that could be a pun) not only on the battlefield but back at the palace admidst all the action.<br><br>But once again, who went to see this for a story?<br><br>The biggest fault of this movie is the utter lack of credible accents for the persians. I'm not asking for subtitles, but considering that most of the Spartans sound European, the Persians sound...well... like any common guy on the street, it was little weird. And worst of all, is the voice of The Persian King Xerxes. He comes off as a run of the mill Stargate SG-1 baddie. Once again, I say... LAME!<br><br>But any complaints I may have, are voided by the incredible action scenes. This is the new Matrix. Studios will try to lift things from this for years. Definitely a must see movie, but don't set your expectations too high.

  • March 9, 2007, 8:13 p.m. CST


    by quantize

    suck my cock

  • March 9, 2007, 8:24 p.m. CST

    Zack Snyder is a director more interested...

    by rbatty024

    in the visuals than he is in the author's ideas and telling a story. He should get out from in front of his computer and read a goddamn book now and then.

  • March 9, 2007, 8:49 p.m. CST

    German Office Max Commercial

    by Roboteer

    "Vat is guut in life iz to crush yer enemies, zee dem driven before you, und herr de laminations of de vomen. Dat iz guut."

  • March 9, 2007, 8:52 p.m. CST

    If Paulo on LOST was like Xerxes

    by Drath

    He'd be "Makes US Take a Shit Guy." Seriuosly, he was the best part of the movie, but it was all in the get up and the fake voice. And for all that he made me think of the villain from Stargate. In general I thought this movie was a joke. Mori, yo'ure a picky bitch except, apparently, when you don't feel like it. This was a retched as the Cell I thought. And as the wannabe alpha male fetish movie, it's a big ass fucking joke! Their war cry was "Ho! Ho! Ho!" for fuck's sake!!! This movie was made to be spoofed. It's almost self parody with ass lines/deliveries like "Then we will fight in the shade!" Epic Movie 2 practically writes itself now.

  • March 9, 2007, 8:56 p.m. CST

    BSB, sticks and stones

    by PhillipMarlowe

    Sticks and are still wrong.

  • March 9, 2007, 9:05 p.m. CST

    Where're the great characters?

    by performingmonkey

    Why do movies like this hardly ever give us good characters? They're more interested in the next retarded visual sequence than trying to make interesting characters and story, two things that will make a movie good regardless of anything else. Directors now seem to think that flashy visuals make a good movie regardless of character/dialogue/story. It's as though the writer and director want less to do and more work pushed on the technical side. Peter Jackson suffered from this syndrome on Return Of The King, he seemed more interested in fell beast flybys and 'cool' scenes like Legolas single-handedly taking out a mumakil and the dead sweeping through the battlefield and Minas Tirith than giving us an impactful story ending. Instead it just dragged into oblivion. Aragorn's character was fucked up after the great build in FOTR & TTT. This is now an LOTR TB, so fuck you all.

  • March 9, 2007, 9:17 p.m. CST

    I hate apologetic reviews

    by Rupee88

    Mori clearly didn't really enjoy 300, but he won't just come out and say so. Keep it real, man.

  • March 9, 2007, 9:38 p.m. CST

    Is every word in this movie shouted?

    by Doc_Strange

    Seems like it from the trailers. Though I expect it to be a good flick nonetheless.

  • March 9, 2007, 9:57 p.m. CST

    Deny it all you want...

    by El Scorcho

    the movie's political implications are obvious. But, if you need to make it "all about the visuals" to enjoy it, oh well. I'm glad we finally have a movie that's not damning of our nation's foreign policy... but the movie just wasn't that great. Good, but not worth the hype.

  • March 9, 2007, 10:01 p.m. CST

    Good point, rbatty.

    by superninja

    Really, really doubt Synder is up for Watchmen.

  • March 9, 2007, 10:20 p.m. CST

    There Was This Guy Named Howard Faust...

    by Grinning White Skull

    ...and he wrote a book entitled "SPARTACUS" about fighting for one's freedom and the freedom of ideas... From the intro, "Spartacus and the Blacklist". When I sat down to begin the long and difficult task of writing the fust draft of Spartacus--it was well over forty years ago--I had just been released from prison. I had worked out some of the book in my mind while still in prison, which was an excellent environment for the task. My crime then was that I had refused to turn over to the House Committee on Un-American Activities a list of supporters of the Joint Antifascist Refugee Committee. With Francisco Franco's victory over the legally constituted Spanish Republic, thousands of Republican soldiers, supporters, and their families had fled across the Pyrenees to France, and many of them had settled in Toulouse, a large number of them sick or wounded. Their condition was desperate. A group of antifascists found the money to buy an old convent and turn it into a hospital. The Quakers' Relief agreed to operate the hospital, if we would raise the money for the continuing function of the hospital. At that time, there was tremendous support for the cause of Republican Spain among people of good will, many of them very prominent. It was the list of these people that we refused to turn over to the House Com- mittee, and thereby, all the members of the group were found in contempt and sent to prison. It was a bad time, the worst time that I and my good wife had ever lived through. The country was as close to a police state as ithad ever been. J. Edgar Hoover, the chief of the FBI, took on the role of a petty dictator. The fear of Hoover and his file on thousands of liberals permeated the country. No one dared to vote and speak against our imprisonment. As I said, it was not the worst time to write a book like Spartacus. When the manuscript was finished, I sent it to Angus Cameron, then my publisher at Little, Brown and Company. He loved the book, and wrote that he would publish it with pride and pleasure. Then J. Edgar Hoover sent word to Little, Brown, that they were not to publish the book. Angus Cameron resigned in protest, and after that, the manuscript went to seven other leading publishers. All of them refused to publish it. The last of the seven was Doubleday, and after a meeting of the editorial board, George Hecht, head of the Doubleday chain of bookstores, walked out of the room in anger and disgust. He then telephoned me, saying that he had never seen such a display of cowardice as among the Doubleday editorial board, and he said that if I published the book myself, he would give me an order for 600 copies. I had never published a book myself, but there was support from the liberal community and I went ahead, poured the little money we had into the job, and somehow it got done. To my amazement, it sold over 40,000 copies in hardcover, and several million more years later when the terror was over. It was translated into 56 languages, and finally, ten years after I had written it, Kirk Douglas persuaded Universal Studios to turn it into a film. Through the years, the film has been enormously successful, still being played as I write this. I suppose that I owe something for its coming into being to my prison term. War and prison are difficult for a writer to approach without seeing something of it himself. I knew no Latin, so learning a good deal of Latin, most of which I have forgotten, was also a part of the writing process. I never regret the past, and if my own ordeal helped me to write Spartacus, I think it was well worth it. Howard Fast Old Greenwich, Connecticut March 1996

  • March 9, 2007, 10:24 p.m. CST

    There Was This Guy Named Howard Faust...

    by Grinning White Skull

    ...and he wrote a book entitled "SPARTACUS" about fighting for one's freedom and the freedom of ideas... From the intro, "Spartacus and the Blacklist". When I sat down to begin the long and difficult task of writing the fust draft of Spartacus--it was well over forty years ago--I had just been released from prison. I had worked out some of the book in my mind while still in prison, which was an excellent environment for the task. My crime then was that I had refused to turn over to the House Committee on Un-American Activities a list of supporters of the Joint Antifascist Refugee Committee. With Francisco Franco's victory over the legally constituted Spanish Republic, thousands of Republican soldiers, supporters, and their families had fled across the Pyrenees to France, and many of them had settled in Toulouse, a large number of them sick or wounded. Their condition was desperate. A group of antifascists found the money to buy an old convent and turn it into a hospital. The Quakers' Relief agreed to operate the hospital, if we would raise the money for the continuing function of the hospital. At that time, there was tremendous support for the cause of Republican Spain among people of good will, many of them very prominent. It was the list of these people that we refused to turn over to the House Com- mittee, and thereby, all the members of the group were found in contempt and sent to prison. It was a bad time, the worst time that I and my good wife had ever lived through. The country was as close to a police state as ithad ever been. J. Edgar Hoover, the chief of the FBI, took on the role of a petty dictator. The fear of Hoover and his file on thousands of liberals permeated the country. No one dared to vote and speak against our imprisonment. As I said, it was not the worst time to write a book like Spartacus. When the manuscript was finished, I sent it to Angus Cameron, then my publisher at Little, Brown and Company. He loved the book, and wrote that he would publish it with pride and pleasure. Then J. Edgar Hoover sent word to Little, Brown, that they were not to publish the book. Angus Cameron resigned in protest, and after that, the manuscript went to seven other leading publishers. All of them refused to publish it. The last of the seven was Doubleday, and after a meeting of the editorial board, George Hecht, head of the Doubleday chain of bookstores, walked out of the room in anger and disgust. He then telephoned me, saying that he had never seen such a display of cowardice as among the Doubleday editorial board, and he said that if I published the book myself, he would give me an order for 600 copies. I had never published a book myself, but there was support from the liberal community and I went ahead, poured the little money we had into the job, and somehow it got done. To my amazement, it sold over 40,000 copies in hardcover, and several million more years later when the terror was over. It was translated into 56 languages, and finally, ten years after I had written it, Kirk Douglas persuaded Universal Studios to turn it into a film. Through the years, the film has been enormously successful, still being played as I write this. I suppose that I owe something for its coming into being to my prison term. War and prison are difficult for a writer to approach without seeing something of it himself. I knew no Latin, so learning a good deal of Latin, most of which I have forgotten, was also a part of the writing process. I never regret the past, and if my own ordeal helped me to write Spartacus, I think it was well worth it. Howard Fast Old Greenwich, Connecticut March 1996

  • March 9, 2007, 10:25 p.m. CST

    all you fuckheads need to get a fucking life

    by the_shogun_gunslinger

    hating on a movie just because its been hyped doesnt make you a unique and beautiful snowflake. i saw this last night at midnite and i can say for once in a good long fucking time i wasnt disappointed. it looked amazing, the actors went all out in their roles, the production values and the camera work were all top notch. the story was simple but it was there, and to say snyder didnt cae about the story is bullshit when he took the time to add story and break the action by focusing on the queen. <P> above someone pointed out that after braveheart he wanted to get a kilt and fight the british and didnt care for the spartans...well my 9 year old son came bounding out of the theatre at 2 am wired as hell saying he wanted a red cape and sword so he could be a spartan. everyone is entitled to their opinion but this whole attitude of "im too cool for popular movies" needs to go. same with ppl who think that just because they write a thesis on Eraserhead that makes them uber-hip and cultured, cuz it doesnt.

  • March 9, 2007, 10:25 p.m. CST

    Whoops, I meant "Howard Fast"...

    by Grinning White Skull

    Instead of Faust...

  • March 9, 2007, 10:29 p.m. CST

    wolvenom needs therapy

    by Seph_J

    wolvenom needs therapy

  • March 9, 2007, 10:36 p.m. CST


    by wolvenom

    you fucking idiot....bringing a 9 year to a fucking violent bloody filled movie like this not to mention a midnight showing? what kind of a shitty fucking father are you?

  • March 9, 2007, 11 p.m. CST

    PhillipMarlowe proves Zionism = Racism

    by Bill Clay

    How can you compare those sub-human Palestinians to the Spartans?! Those Islamic savages deserve every cluster bomb that Israel has illegally dropped on their civilian population!

  • March 9, 2007, 11:06 p.m. CST


    by antonphd

    If there is any politics in this movie at all it's that nations shouldn't be lead by logic and not mystisism. As in... you shouldn't fucking go to war because God(s) are telling you to. Anyway, just saw it again and it's better the second time.

  • March 9, 2007, 11:13 p.m. CST

    Spartan ideology=Creating superior race=Nazi! Helooo?

    by AvengingFist

    Zionism = racism

  • March 9, 2007, 11:13 p.m. CST

    Style over Substance

    by antonphd

    If you think this movie is all style over substance... you just don't have the brain to percieve the substance. Sorry, but it's like saying the Simpsons is just a cartoon. It's not The Squid and The Whale for sure, but it's not the fucking Marine. This movie is Braveheart done in 2 hours. That's what it is. And it is by far the ballsiest movie I've seen in a fucking long time. As far as I'm concerned we are witnessing the birth of the american Zhang Yimou. Mark my words. And if you think The Lovers aka House of Flying Daggers is just a shitty style over substance movie... you can go fuck yourself.

  • March 9, 2007, 11:36 p.m. CST

    You know, Krull is actually a pretty good movie.

    by superninja

    Probably better story than 300.

  • March 9, 2007, 11:37 p.m. CST

    It could be seen as political

    by #1 Zero

    It seemed that Sparta was standing in for America in this film. Gorgo even tells one of the council that "Freedom isn't free". I think I've seen that on a bumper sticker somewhere. While the filmmakers may not have cared to make a political film and the politics in it may only be in there to show the politics of the time one could easily apply it to today's world. I could almost see this as a conservative/republican movie (though that is not the overt intention and I'm not conservative or republican). "Freedom isn't free" (seems like an American platitude) and the middle east looking Persian "Mystics" (who throw bombs at one point; suicide bombers perhaps) vs. White men who see themselves only as soldiers seems metaphorical for certain middle east wars going on right now.

  • March 9, 2007, 11:40 p.m. CST

    I forgot one thing

    by #1 Zero

    Persian harem women are presented as maimed and scarred in this film, which could also be a statement about certain cultures treatment of women.

  • March 10, 2007, midnight CST

    What does Frank think about it?

    by otto maddox

    has he commented?

  • March 10, 2007, 12:25 a.m. CST

    Genro and Rupee88...

    by drew mcweeny

    Sincerely, go fuck yourself. <P>I'm not "in the Gordon/Levin camp," and I don't have any investment in how 300 does this weekend. I gave it a positive-to-mixed review because that's how I felt. I know it's hard to fathom in a world of either "YAY!" or "BOO!" but sometimes there is nuance in someone's reaction to something. I explained myself, and I don't really need you to "interpret" what I said. <P>There is nothing more obnoxious than some jackass who is determined to find some conspiracy behind a review that allows for more than just blind allegiance or blind hatred.

  • March 10, 2007, 12:30 a.m. CST


    by drew mcweeny

    I'm not talking about propaganda for us. If you see the film, you'll see that the framing story is literally David Wenham's character using the story of the 300 to rile up the massive Greek army that is going to face the Persians in the final frames. I'm talking about story context.

  • March 10, 2007, 12:38 a.m. CST

    Always There...

    by drew mcweeny

    Actually, my point was that the film is not a political screed, but that I'm sure people will project in order to pump up their own point of view. But thanks for calling me an asshole anyway.

  • March 10, 2007, 12:39 a.m. CST

    So I just reread the graphic novel, and frankly

    by superninja

    it's about a very narrow idea of freedom and reason in a specific place and time, and to be honest I doubt it can support either modern political view given that this does not wholly apply to either.

  • March 10, 2007, 2:19 a.m. CST


    by the_shogun_gunslinger

    frankly, who the fuck are you to tell me how to raise my fucking kids? sorry if it offends you that my 9 year old is probably more mature and intelligent than you, but thats just how it is. my kids know the difference between real and fantasy violence and there was nothing i thought was terribly inappropriate for him to see...the blood was mostly CG and was hyper stylized. nudity...well i dont think seeing a womans breasts for 2 minutes onscreen is going to harm him. so the bottom line is that if i think my children are mature enough to handle a movie, i will take them to see it. fuck, he was perfectly fine durring some of the shit "mature" older people were giggling about. so im sorry if your parents treated you like a retarded jellyfish growing up but my kids get the benifit of the doubt. and a midnight but i also dont really give a shit if he misses a day at the conformity factory because he and i had a great time watching a great movie and then will get to spend a 3 day weekend together. in short...fuck off

  • March 10, 2007, 2:19 a.m. CST

    I thought 300 was BADASS

    by thebearovingian

    I enjoyed the hell out of it. It had a great feel and atmosphere. Gerard Butler was a badass as King Leonidas, as were the other Spartans. I loved the stylized action scenes and fighting. Didn't think the Queen subplot dragged too much as I'd read in some reviews. The ending did go a little too Gladiator-ish and LOTR-ish. My biggest gripe with the dialogue was the one dude saying to Leonidas, "It was an honor to die/fight alongside you" and Leonidas replies, "It was an honor to LIVE alongside you." Help me out here with other examples but I know there are incarnations of that cliched line in The Last Samurai and Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story. I had to cringe. I really dug this movie, it lived up to my expectations. As my man antonphd has said: "Learn to have fun assholes." No need for a comma. *chuckle*

  • March 10, 2007, 5:55 a.m. CST

    If 300 was a truly great movie...

    by workshed would have been released at the height of Summer's blockbuster madness. Most reviewers seem to ridicule the acting/dialogue and so i'll be steering clear of this one. Hey, here's an idea - why not release 'The Squid and The Whale' again this Summer (with all the fanfare of a Spiderman III) so Americans can watch the best film to come out of their country in the last five years. The fact that it didn't scoop lots of Oscars and make a mint at the BO was an indictment of American audiences and the Hollywood system as a whole.

  • March 10, 2007, 6:06 a.m. CST

    The one satisfying thing about the negative comments...

    by FuzzyWhisper

    ...that are being made about 300 is they're all fucking stupid. Each and every single one. People sound like they went to this movie expecting a factually accurate history lesson. Wrong film, bitches. People claim that emotional scenes have no place in this sort of action flick when, in fact, all of them were beautifully played and offer a welcome balancing note due to their intelligent placement amid all the action. Without pacing it would all blend together. People complain that it's style over substance, which, considering how it's based on a goddamned graphic novel about a hugeass battle, is kind of the entire point. Christ Jesus, hearing so many bleeding pussies whine about how disappointed they are makes me wonder how it didn't occur to them until afterward that 300 isn't their type of movie. I mean, the ad campaign is clear enough, to say nothing of the trailer. Use your brains, please.

  • March 10, 2007, 6:09 a.m. CST

    Gotta say, I enjoyed the hell out of this film

    by FluffyUnbound

    The framing device is CRITICAL, because all of the film's excesses become acceptable once you realize that you aren't seeing reality, you're seeing the graphic depiction of a bardic tale or war poem. It's like standing inside a Shelley or Tennyson poem. God I wish Troy had been made with the acceptance of the heroic aesthetic showed here. I wouldn't want to see a movie like this every day, but in last night's viewing it blew me away. I've never seen anything like it. And when the reviewers said "Snyder's not afraid of the swords like some other directors," boy, oh boy is that the case.

  • March 10, 2007, 6:19 a.m. CST

    Hey, about The Squid and the Whale

    by FluffyUnbound

    Great film, but essentially unwatchable. How can that be? Because since it's not a youth-interest film, most of the people watching it will be middle-aged adults. Middle-aged adults watch most movies with their spouses. And it's impossible to watch The Squid and the Whale with your spouse. I know, I tried. We got halfway through and said, "This film is brilliantly observed, has perfectly realized characters, and every line rings true. And we're turning it off now and sending it back to Netflix." Sorry, that's just the way it is.

  • March 10, 2007, 6:46 a.m. CST


    by Pageiv


  • March 10, 2007, 7:07 a.m. CST

    One more thing - about Xerxes' voice

    by FluffyUnbound

    Was he SUPPOSED to sound like a Gou'ald from Stargate? That seemed like a nice genre touch to me.

  • March 10, 2007, 7:11 a.m. CST

    re politicizing 300

    by DocPazuzu

    Attempting to graft politics onto the narrative, albeit symbolically, is both extremely easy and utterly pointless. The story is a very basic tale of heroic defiance in the face of unimaginable adversity. I don't care what culture you come from, what political color you champion or what nation you call a home, EVERYONE can find something to cheer for or relate to in that kind of story. It doesn't require great depth, insight or intellectual skill to post in talkback explaining why the Spartans represent, say, America vs. the world or the developing nations vs. the West or Nazis vs. the Vast Asian Hordes threatening to genetically "contaminate" Europe. Better off just taking from the film what appeals to you the most and give up the cypher politicking - unless you want to sound like a complete tool or Captain Obvious.

  • March 10, 2007, 7:16 a.m. CST

    Look at this

    by Bono Luthor

  • March 10, 2007, 7:37 a.m. CST

    There goes your career, Rodrigo...

    by gotta eat

    You'll always be remembered as Take A Shit Guy!!!!!

  • March 10, 2007, 8 a.m. CST

    Omg this movie is RIGHT WING!!

    by Alientoast

    Wtf is with Hollywood these days? First Letters from Iwo Jima...obviously an attempt to make a statement about fanatical Islam by inventing these so-called "fanatical Japanese". We buy cars and video games from's hard enough to make the leap of faith that they are our enemy, but they also engage in suicide attacks JUST LIKE IRAQ! But then it tries to humanize them and make it seem like the entire country isnt all psycho. This is obviously some piece of fiction created by the liberals, trying to show our American presence as evil! And now this movie 300. Holy shit...they dont even invent some mythical faction of Japanese...they use Arab-themed villains! Obviously this movie is meant as some propaganda to prop up the "Army of One" ads I see on MTV between episodes of My Super Sweet 16 and TRL. Are we supposed to believe this pile of bullshit...that soldiers used to use things like swords and they had no air support? Obviously some military supported piece of garbage! We need more films that matter, like Glitter and Message in a Bottle! I mean, those are at least realistic and have no political motivation!!!

  • March 10, 2007, 8:21 a.m. CST

    First movie I've actually enjoyed in a long time.

    by Optimus Murphy

    Which sort of sucks, considering none of the absolute shit being put out this summer will be able to top it. Walking out of the theater, I couldn't help but remember doing the same after seeing The Matrix for the first time. 300 gave me that same "I've definitely seen something new, and big, and great" feeling. I've seen elements of 300 in other films, but Sky Captain just sucked, and Sin City took the visuals too far to keep me in the film. 300 pushed the envelope just enough to reach the realism of a dream you woke up from ten seconds earlier. Reality, but not. This film bodes well for those of us who've believed Hollywood films are pretty weak at encompassing all possible realities, preferring to play it safe, or most often: just fucking it up.

  • March 10, 2007, 9:47 a.m. CST


    by Alientoast

    Your skills in recognizing satire and sarcasm are lacking....

  • March 10, 2007, 9:54 a.m. CST

    Well, I saw it last night.

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    And while I still stand by my previous post above, I have to admit, it was a lot better than I thought it was going to be. Is it more style over substance? For the most part, yes. And Snyder uses ENTIRELY TOO MUCH slow motion. However, there is some heart in this film...especially in the beginning. I do feel that it tried to rise above the concept of an all out carnage flick by reaching for a serious tone amidst the surreal, almost dreamlike setting. There are some missteps along the way: the industrial music, the portrayal of Ephialtes (which seemed goofy), and the lack of characterization for Leonidas's fellow Spartans. I would have liked to have seen more of that than say the time padding slow-mo. Other than that, it's an altogether entertaining and visceral experience.<P>Just a point about the film's style: I'm not convinced that we're seeing anything new here. With the exception of some of the more intense/gory battle moments, it felt like nothing more than a cross between "The Matrix" and "Sin City". Granted the digital painting is beautiful to look at. But how many more of these graphic novel-type recreations will we see in the future? I have to wonder now if this will be the new cinematic trend, especially among younger directors.<P>Finally - not only is this film going to make an assload of cash, but judging by the reaction of the women in my theater, a lot of guys are going to get lucky after watching this film.

  • March 10, 2007, 10:03 a.m. CST

    Did anyone else think that when...

    by rbatty024

    Leonidas called the Athenians "boy lovers" it was kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. I'll bet Leonidas designed those outfits too. Sure, they're designed for greater movement, riiiight.

  • March 10, 2007, 10:41 a.m. CST

    Major Badassery

    by ThomasServo

    Just saw it last night on the IMAX, and it was the very definition of bad ass. Dialogue? Don't care. Odd, gratuitous, slo-mo sex scene? Don't care. It entertained me to no end. <p>And if there's any explicit politics in this film, it's that enemies in battle will use whatever tools of spin and propaganda they have to get the home team riled up.

  • March 10, 2007, 10:44 a.m. CST

    Films are sometimes just about being entertained.

    by Darksider

    I thought Snyder was good back when this site was calling him an MTV, tv commercial hack and other bullshit for Dawn 2004. Well, after seeing his second film I know that Snyder knows that some films are just meant to be entertainment and thats what he does. I was entertained. More directors need to do the same and stop trying to make names for themselves. Cough, ROB ZOMBIE, MICHAEL BAY, etc. cough. Feel free to insert your own hack director.

  • March 10, 2007, 10:50 a.m. CST

    i dont know how people call this movie is bad

    by white owl

    most fun i had at the movies this year. no better way to see it than a packed house. this film was the definition of BADASS. it has its strengths and its weaknesses I can admit but what would you complainers rather go see right now?! WILDHOGS? BRIDGE TO TERABITHIA?! FUCKIN PUHLEASE!! After Van Helsing, David Wenham has redeemed himself also. He, too, is badass in this.

  • March 10, 2007, 10:53 a.m. CST

    Loved the Film

    by SmapdiOverdrive

    But hated the crowd I saw it with. These teenagers two rows behind me were making gay jokes the entire time. They were being extra loud so everyone could hear how clever they are. Morons. And the damn audience was just cracking up during the first Xerxes and Leonidas encounter. Jesus Christ people he's not coming on to him, grow up! I really hate people sometimes. Other than that it was alright.

  • March 10, 2007, 10:57 a.m. CST

    The Spartans were the ancient world's Nazis....

    by Bill Clay

    If 300 Nazis held off thousands of invading Russians, would we be glorifying that battle, too?

  • March 10, 2007, 11:01 a.m. CST

    So many people are defending this film...

    by rbatty024

    by saying that it was just supposed to be fun violence. But the violence wasn't even fun, there was so much slow motion that I was bored out of my mind. I should have been pumped up when an action scene was going to occur, but I was dreading it. I should have brought a pillow into the theater. Oh, and SmapdiOverdrive, there was a ton of unintentional humor in that film. I could see it on Mystery Science Theater. The Homoerotic undertones themselves are just ripe for audience comments. God, that movie sucked.

  • March 10, 2007, 11:06 a.m. CST

    Bill Clay...

    by ThomasServo

    If the Nazis had won WW2, in a thousand years their descendants certainly WOULD glorify that battle. History is written by the winners, and that's why we, the western descendants of the Grecian people, are so happy we beat the dreaded Persians. But if western civilization had instead been founded by the Persians, I'm willing to bet we would never have even heard of the Spartans.

  • March 10, 2007, 11:12 a.m. CST

    Fun facts about those loveable Spartans....

    by Bill Clay

    The ruling class, the Spartiates, gave themselves wholly to war. At birth a boy was inspected by the elders, and if he appeared too weakly for future military service, he was taken into the mountains and abandoned to die. A child didn't belong to its parents- it belonged to the State of Sparta. At the age of seven a child was sent off to join a 'herd' of children. The toughest child was allowed to become leader and order the others about. The old men who watched over them often set the children fighting amongst each other to see who was the toughest. The Spartan children were kept hungry. They were then encouraged to steal food - sneakiness is a good skill if you're out on a battlefield. If they were caught stealing they'd be beaten. They weren't beaten for stealing, they were beaten for being careless and getting caught. Sometimes the young men were beaten just to toughen them up. If the beating killed the youth then it was just bad luck. The Spartiates were the only citizens and the only sharers in the allotment of lands and of the helots (serfs who were bound to the land). The helots farmed the land and paid part of the produce to their masters, the Spartiates. They could not be sold, but they had no legal or civil rights and were constantly watched by a sort of Spartiate secret police for fear of insurrection. Even the possibility of revolution among their serfs had to be squelched before it could become reality. To this end, the Spartan government would yearly "declare war" against its own helots; thus sanctioning their young men to kill any helot it thought necessary without incurring the blood-guilt of murder. Young Spartans would routinely spy on the helots in their towns and villages. Troublemakers were marked down for later liquidation. Even helots who showed enough leadership qualities to constitute a possible future threat were likewise assassinated.

  • March 10, 2007, 11:34 a.m. CST

    You're missing the point.

    by DocPazuzu

    The Spartans in the film 300 become the SYMBOLIC bearers of the values of the viewer - again, irrespective of that viewer's nationality, religion, politics or race. Just because the viewer gets all excited on behalf of the Spartans in 300 doesn't mean that he or she is an advocate of a militaristic society with institutionalized infanticide, slavery and absolute loyalty to a king. Another example which, admittedly, is even further removed from reality is Robert E. Howard's Conan. When he is king of Aquilonia and waging war against Nemedia and Ophir, the reader roots for him because in the context of the story and in comparison with the tyrants he opposes, he becomes the symbolic bearer of the reader's values. Conan himself is also an absolute ruler, even if he's more benevolent towards his subjects than his opposite numbers are. Nobody in his or her right mind would want to have Conan of Cimmeria ruling their country in the real world, but for the sake of enjoying the stories, we as readers place symbolic value in the character and his actions.

  • March 10, 2007, 11:36 a.m. CST

    Bill Clay

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    I'm sorry, but considering your earlier post regarding the "sub-human Palestinians", are we supposed to take anything you say here seriously?

  • March 10, 2007, 11:51 a.m. CST

    If this film is about anything...

    by blackmantis's about martyrdom. The main theme of the film is that King Leonidas knew the only way to save his people was to martyr himself and become a symbol to rally around. He knew he was going to die before he even left. I'll leave it to you to decide what relevance that has in today's world ..Politics aside, I enjoyed this film. It's not a masterpiece, but it has a hell bent, single minded quality I can admire, kind of like Rambo: First Blood Pt. 2, or Top Gun. I have enough testosterone flowing through my veins to get off on that kind of kill anything that moves macho posturing, even if it's a total fanatsy.

  • March 10, 2007, 12:02 p.m. CST

    Vastly improved from the graphic novel...

    by Frank Black

    The additional scenes with the Queen made the story stronger, the way the story was laid out was better, and the dialogue was made more realistic. I loved the book but it read like it was spoken in modern voices and the movie delivered the lines with pacing and pause that made it less comic book-ish and more real world. What I hated about it... that there were so many idiot parents who brought their children to it. WTF America? If you show this kind of adult film to your kids it is pretty likely it will have a negative effect on them. Overall, a very entertaining ride.

  • March 10, 2007, 12:06 p.m. CST

    How did this turn into a America vs Mid East debate?

    by J-Dizzle

    Stop comparing us Persians to Arabs dammit!!!! Let me make it clear: Arabs/Muslims = Arabs, Persians = white (yes! We're racially white!)

  • March 10, 2007, 12:12 p.m. CST

    What I thought!

    by eric haislar

    "I just saw a movie that'll give your eyes boners, make your balls scream and make you poop DVD copies of THE TRANSPORTER. It's called 300. I don't know what the title has to do with the movie, but they could've called it KITTENS MAKING CANDLES and it'd still rule. It's about these 300 Greek dudes who stomp the sugar-coated shit out of like a million other dudes. I have a feeling that a lot of high school sports coaches are going to show this film to their teams before they play. Also, gay dudes and divorced women are going to use screen captures for computer wallpaper. The movie takes place about a million years ago, and it's sort of like a prequel to SIN CITY . Except way less guns and cars but twice as much skull splitting. If you watch this movie and go into a Taco Bell, and say to the cashier, "I need some extra sauce packets" guess what? You're getting twenty sauce packets because your face will punch him in the brain. I can't spoil the plot because THANK GOD THERE ISN'T ONE. Just ass kicking that kicks ass that, while said ass is getting kicked, is kicking yet more ass that's hitting someone's balls with a hammer made of ice but the ice is frozen whiskey. TWO COOL THINGS ABOUT THE MOVIE AND ONE THING I DIDN'T LIKE: COOL THING ONE: HEAVY METAL DURING BATTLE SCENES Who gives a shit if the music isn't historically correct? LORD OF THE RINGS could've used some Journey. This movie has that chu-CHUNG kind of metal that you hear in your head when your shift supervisor at Wetzel's Pretzel is telling you that you'll have to stay for clean up and you wish you had a sock filled with quarters in your hand. COOL THING TWO: FOES, MINI-BOSSES AND A BIG BOSS Basically, the Greek dudes are fighting these Persian dudes, but the director, who must have a dick made of three machine guns, does it all like a video game. The Greeks fight every death metal video from the last ten years. There's wave after wave of giants, freaks, ninjas, mutants, wizards, and a hunchback who looks like he's got Rosie O'Donnell on his back. Would I have been happy if Dom DeLuise from HISTORY OF THE WORLD, PART I had shown up? Maybe, but this movie more than makes up for that glaring oversight. NOT SO GOOD THING: DUDE NUDITY ("DUDE-ITY" 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. Can't someone make a movie about naked Amazons and call it PAUSE BUTTON? My final analysis is 300 the most ass-ruling movie I've seen this year, and will probably be the King of 2007 unless someone makes a movie where a pair of sentient boobs fights a werewolf."

  • March 10, 2007, 12:14 p.m. CST

    About the Spartans

    by FluffyUnbound

    Their system of governance was pretty heinous. Their treatment of the helots was extraordinarily poor. Plato's admiration for their society taints his entire political philosophy, and probably contributes to the history of the totalitarian impulse in the western political tradition. But they were still better than the Persian empire. The Athenians also owned slaves and the economic and political status of women was so low that even free women were essentially slaves. It doesn't matter. The Spartan "mass oligarchy" and the Athenian "male citizen only democracy" were monstrous by our standards, but the Asiatic absolute monarchy that was the Persian Empire was even worse. The United States between 1781 and 1865 had slaves, too, and butchered and stole from aboriginal inhabitants of their area, too, but we were still a lot more "free" than Napoleonic Europe or Czarist Russia or Imperial China or just about any contemporary political system you could compare us too.

  • March 10, 2007, 12:15 p.m. CST

    Homoerotic? Don't think so.

    by thebearovingian

    We lived in such a screwed up culture. "OMG, there's two men talking to each other: they're gay!" "OMG, you have male friends? U R totally gay!" "OMG, 300 has an army of buff, muscled warriors running around; that movie is for gay dudes, I'm not gonna see it." I don't want to see society go to the opposite extreme but the pendulum needs to swing back towards sanity soon.

  • March 10, 2007, 12:15 p.m. CST

    Frank Black

    by DocPazuzu

    I'm with you on the issue of idiot parents. Part of the fun of growing up is breaking certain taboos and exploring uncharted and somewhat forbidden territories, like R-rated movies. Sneaking into my first R-rated films at the age of twelve would have meant nothing and not felt half as sweet if my parents had "officially" taken me to films like that earlier. The same goes for the first adult mags I ever got my grubby mitts on. If I hadn't been forbidden from exposure to these things and consequently never broken those particular taboos on my own, then the sense of satisfaction from breaking them would have been missing. Who knows what taboos I might then have sought out instead for that particular rush? I actually talked to my dad about that a few years ago and he admitted that he had forbidden me from seeing films he knew I probably could have handled just so that I could have the thrill of seeing them anyway, and thus not be curious to break other, potentially more dangerous taboos at a tender age. It's a strategy I intend to adopt myself.

  • March 10, 2007, 12:18 p.m. CST

    Perhaps, anchorite.

    by superninja

    I agree it is fruitless to try to shove it into modern political views. The Spartans by our standards were cruel - it is about a specific moment in history.

  • March 10, 2007, 12:21 p.m. CST

    And I'd like to see a real Conan movie.

    by superninja

    The first Arnie one is good, except for the Arnie part. Conan was more crafty than that. Also, the AMC Catwoman commercials are an embarassment!

  • March 10, 2007, 12:49 p.m. CST

    300 and gayness...

    by blackmantis

    Jesus people, if you're so insecure about your own manhood you can't tolerate a few shots of a man's ass and the sight of pecs and abs I think it's time to take a closer look at yourself. On a purely aesthetic level I can look at man's chiseled body and appreciate the beauty in that in a non sexual way without feeling like I want to suck a dick.

  • March 10, 2007, 12:59 p.m. CST

    It's mostly teenage males that can't handle it

    by terry1978

    Any nude shots of a male and suddenly it's "awww, dude that shit is fucking gross! Get that outta here!" Ridiculous.

  • March 10, 2007, 1:05 p.m. CST

    wanted to like it, but...

    by Shawn F.

    What passed for story and character here didn't do it for me. A lot of it was great to look at (in particular, Lena Headey), but that only takes one so far. Oh well.

  • March 10, 2007, 1:20 p.m. CST

    Mr. Nice Gaius misunderstands again....

    by Bill Clay

    I was referring to SuperZionist PhillipMarlowe and his hatred of the "barbaric" Palestinians. I'll use more quotation marks in the future to alert you to ironic statements.

  • March 10, 2007, 1:27 p.m. CST

    You can't fight for freedom when you're not free....

    by Bill Clay

    All they were fighting for was which totalitarian system would be in charge. Like Soviet Russia fighting Red China. No matter who wins, the people lose.

  • March 10, 2007, 1:41 p.m. CST

    $65-70 million estimated for the weekend

    by DirkD13"

    Holy shit, the Spartans are STILL kicking ass!

  • March 10, 2007, 1:53 p.m. CST

    RE: "I'll use more quotation marks in the future..."

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Yeah, you do that Bill. Also, please refrain from entirely missing the point about this movie from now on. While you may not approve of the Spartan's ANCIENT society (nearly all of your wiki'd Spartan Fun Facts were covered in the film), they had every right to defend it against a foreign invader/would-be conquerer. You're grasping for a moral argument and it's ringing false.

  • March 10, 2007, 2:21 p.m. CST

    Bill Clay

    by DocPazuzu

    Like I said, you're completely missing the point.

  • March 10, 2007, 2:30 p.m. CST


    by Frank Black

    That was so on the money! Discovering this stuff on our own was a rite of passage in itself and having parents expose kids to it too early (there were 5-10 year olds in the audience is sure to mess with their heads for a very long time.) These days there is no taboos to break or to seek out because kids are dropping the "F" bomb and hear more about sex than I knew at 17. Christ, I sound like an old man.

  • March 10, 2007, 3:01 p.m. CST


    by Thomas Cromwell

    Of course! Iran is farsi for 'land of the aryans'.

  • March 10, 2007, 3:03 p.m. CST

    Yeah I got a hard on for it too.

    by Orionsangels

    Only complaint is it was too short, like good sex or masturbating. I came too fast. What else is new

  • March 10, 2007, 3:09 p.m. CST

    Ancient persian soldiers

    by Thomas Cromwell

    So much cooler than Greek hoplites. There is something about an army which goes to war in bright purple. I want one of those silver masks that they wear in the film!!

  • March 10, 2007, 3:32 p.m. CST

    The best thing about Rorschach\Watchmen is

    by Rue The Day

    Chevy Chase and the Memoirs of an invisible man Fx team are getting some work again....

  • March 10, 2007, 3:44 p.m. CST


    by TELF

    They were trying to get a faithful(ish) Conan off the ground last year. It was a mix of elements from Elephant in the Tower and a couple of other younger Conan stories. It was at Warner Bros and the rumor was Peter Berg was directing (on IMDB he was doing pre on Bran Mak Morn, but it was apparently a smokescreen). I think he could do a nice job I imagine if 300 is as huge as they are all predicting WB could pull the trigger on an R rated Conan. Think about it gang, this could trigger the return of big-budget R rated action movies! Y'know like the good old days.

  • March 10, 2007, 3:45 p.m. CST

    And those Catwoman ads are shit nuts...

    by TELF

    It's like they're proud...

  • March 10, 2007, 3:47 p.m. CST

    Plagiarism is a crime Mcweeny!

    by donkeypark

    But since I know that most cheating little copycats are weasels lets have everybody head over to and read the synopsis for Shot the piano player. Then we can give you your day in court. I know it's just one tiny similarity. It would be an excusable little slip if performed by an amateur. But a proffessional writer such as yourself? A critic of other writers work? I think not. Or did you write that one too? Tsk, Tsk.

  • March 10, 2007, 4:03 p.m. CST

    Minor observation

    by Gozu

    "300" is about a small contingent of highly disciplined warriors fending off a vast army led by an Emperor who thinks he's a god and can do anything he pleases. Regardless of your view of the Iraq war, wouldn't ya know it? We were the aggressors with a vast army that has all sorts of high-tech, powerful weapons and we're being defeated by essentially tribesman well versed in guerilla warfare. Also, we're being led by a delusional ruler who overestimates his power. So yes, "300" is totally a metaphor for the Iraq War.

  • March 10, 2007, 4:51 p.m. CST

    IN REGARDS TO BringingSexyBack

    by the_shogun_gunslinger

    HAHA, yeah he needs to get used to it early on or he'll be overwheled when he finally gets to there. Chefs are this eras rock stars, lol. seriously, this movie wasnt that bad in the gore department. we've seen worse. i pride myself in the fact that i have young kids who are mature enough to be able to handle films like 300 but are still kids in the fact that theyll beg me to take them to the latest PIXAR flick. its called being well-rounded, folks. welcome to the 21st century. thanks for props btw, BSB <P> btw, i see wolvenom hasnt returned...he got pwned/served/ F'd in the A...loser

  • March 10, 2007, 4:54 p.m. CST

    Bill Clay = Hans Gruber

    by Darth_Baltar

    thus it is your destiny to fall from a tall japanese named skyscraper

  • March 10, 2007, 5 p.m. CST

    If there's a political meaning in this movie, I didnt..

    by Cotton McKnight

    see it. I frankly have no idea what those people are talking about. I had some free time yesterday and found myself in front of the gateway theater in Austin, and it just so happened that it was starting right when I got there. If ghost rider had started just half an hour earlier, I would have seen that instead. My point is, I had no affection towards this film at all, other than it looked interesting enough to see that afternoon. My opinion? It was good.. it was a little over the top, but good. I have no desire to see it again, though.

  • March 10, 2007, 5:02 p.m. CST

    oh and leonides yelling everything got a little old..

    by Cotton McKnight

    I bet that guy has to yell "SPARTA!!!" at parties from now on. "Hey man, do the sparta thing!

  • March 10, 2007, 5:17 p.m. CST

    Cotton Mcknight


    I guess you'd rather him wisper to his men ehhh?

  • March 10, 2007, 5:31 p.m. CST

    300. Gayer than Brokeback Mountain?

    by trojanwilliams

    Just to state my point of view about the film itself first. I liked the film. I thought that the script was weak in spots and some of the roles miscast but it was enjoyable throughout. Good solid action sequences, great visuals and I was never bored once. It wasn't the second coming of The Matrix like I read above but it did attempt to do a lot of new things and did quite a few of them well. I will own it when it arrives on DVD and I could only imagine how great it will look and sound in HD DVD quality. However...the film has blatant homoerotic undertones and anyone who says otherwise is just fooling themselves. I guarantee that in 10 years this film will be analyzed in film schools across the country for it's homoerotic subtext. I mean the guys are fighting battles in what are basically hot pants and capes with painted on abdominal muscles and sculpted eyebrows. It doesn't get much gayer than that. So is 300 gayer than Brokeback? Yes but that isn't a bad thing - unless you hate gay people. It just is what it is. Oh and Brokeback Mountain was my second favorite film of 2005 so don't think I am bashing the fact that 300 was very homoerotic I didn;t have a problem with it I just realized that it was there...

  • March 10, 2007, 5:35 p.m. CST

    The problem with your analysis Gozu...

    by blackmantis that King Leonidas went into battle knowing full well he was going to die, in fact that was his whole plan, die in a spectacular way in order to inspire his nation to fight off the Persians. He actually accomplished his mission, unlike senor Bush.

  • March 10, 2007, 5:36 p.m. CST

    300 as political commentary

    by colemanfrancis

    People can look for the politics of 300, but it's silly to do so. Do the noble Spartans represent the insurgents who fight the U.S. in Irag by blowing up places of worship and cafes? I find that hard to believe. Or does Leonidas represent Bush, going to war despite the misgivings of the week-kneed ninnies in the council? I find it equally hard to believe that spin. 300 is action porn interspersed with scenes of characters shouting platitudes at each other and incredibly boring bits with a queen I couldn't have cared less about. I kind of liked the movie, but that was because I found the action heart-thumpingly cool. By the queen's third appearance on the screen I knew when to take my piss break. Still, I'm curious to see what Snyder can make out of Watchmen, a movie I have my misgivings about being made. But please, can we stop with trying to apply 300 to present day Iraq?

  • March 10, 2007, 5:42 p.m. CST

    anyone who says this film isn't homoerotic is crazy

    by slappy jones

    2 hours of guys in hotpants....big huge steve reeves style herculean warriors dripping in sweat running around trying to impale other men with their "spears" ...if you fail to see how that is gay then you probably still think in the old school terms when gay meant

  • March 10, 2007, 5:49 p.m. CST


    by slappy jones

    thats all well and good .... but what about the ones of us who thought the trailer looks awesome..were really excited and then went to see it and found it to be a boring repetitive wankfest that had nothing going for it except have one great action set piece which the filmmaker then played on a loop for two hours? with one of the painful to watch leads ever to haver graced the screen...butler is awful - IN EVERYTHING.

  • March 10, 2007, 5:51 p.m. CST


    by drew mcweeny

    What am I alleged to have stolen, you pathetic troll? <P>Because I spend my spare time reading synopses of films on the Criterion site looking for things to steal, of course.

  • March 10, 2007, 6:09 p.m. CST

    Great film

    by mparke2

    I was fully engrossed in the movie. Never once said hey this is just a fake representation of Sparta. I was amazed how fluid the movie was. *****/5

  • March 10, 2007, 6:39 p.m. CST

    Anyone interested in seeing Lena Heady do some acting

    by Subovon

    ... should check out a film called Aberdeen. ( It also stars Stellan Skarsgård, one of my favorite actors, as her father. It may not knock your socks off, but the acting is spot-on, and I thought the drama was compelling because of Lena Heady's character. She's one of those gorgeous, smart women; a born a tomboy, you know? She has a one-night stand at the beginning of the film and the way she leaves is priceless. Also of note is that since she's a European woman in a European movie, in this scene, she gets out of bed naked to get dressed and her gorgeous body isn't censored as an obscenity to God. Not like American starlets, whom after screwing all night long, magically wake up with a anti-fucking tank-top and perfect hair. Bonne journée.

  • March 10, 2007, 6:39 p.m. CST


    by FluffyUnbound

    You're pretty stupid, man. I just went to [and sat through their ENDLESS STUPID FUCKING INTRO WITH NO OPT-OUT - whoever designed that website is a stupid cunt] and read the synopsis for Shoot The Piano Player, and it's about four sentences long and completely composed of stock phrases that it would be impossible to plagiarize because they're all prior art from about a trillion other movie reviews.

  • March 10, 2007, 7:04 p.m. CST

    anyone who says this is political...

    by grendel824

    ... is blind. It's a fantasy story taken from historical fact. Just because a bunch of Spartans (who were NOT "white guys") fought a bunch of Persians, that doesn't make it the least bit logical to say it has anything to do with modern politics. Get your head out of your own rear.

  • March 10, 2007, 7:53 p.m. CST

    Zack Snyder has giant titanium balls...

    by Ohiofile

    And so does this movie. I just got back from a packed show at The Grove and all I want to do is kill something or fuck something. God, I have to get out my BBQ and cook some meat or something. Anything. To all you haters, fuck off. We've been lucky in the last few months to have some kick ass films come out like this, The Departed, Children of Men... so stop crying. Anyone who doesn't like this movie go back to Wildhogs you fuckers.

  • March 10, 2007, 8:15 p.m. CST

    Buckets of Testosterone

    by Evil Chicken

    Go to the multiplexes. Behold. What an awesome flick. Snyder is someone to watch. Miller was done justice. I’ve had doubts about how “Watchmen” will come together but I can safely say it (the property) is in good hands.

  • March 10, 2007, 8:29 p.m. CST

    a logical evolution of storytelling

    by Fabulous Freak

    As with every story, time tends to exaggerate the events that occured (just look at the bible), and make it fit within the storytellers world. A story of 300 spartans, when told enough times, is bound to be boiled down to the fundamental elements, then crammed into our view of entertainment. Given all that, I think it worked really well. It told an infamous tale in a context we (who have grown up in an age of westerns and video games) can totally apprecciate. Nothing more. When you look at it that way it is SPOT ON THE MARK of what it intended to be. I fucking loved it. PS, it is fair to consider the political paralells, intended or not. Just realise that resistance to a superior military force is nothing new, it would be an appropriate paralell to countless events in history.

  • March 10, 2007, 8:52 p.m. CST

    Oh yeah, thanks AICN

    by Ohiofile

    For starting the good word on this flick back during BNAT. With 28 mil coming in just on Friday, WB should thank you too. Fanboys get ready for Snyder's Watchmen, and Mr. Snyder, congrats to you.

  • March 10, 2007, 9:06 p.m. CST

    Way to lay the smack down Moriarty

    by gad

    Reading various reviews and forum posts everywhere there's always somebody who has his conspiracy glasses on and thinks every movie is about the white man holding down the not as white man or thinking the movie is propaganda for right wingers or left wingers. Sometimes a movie is just a movie, enjoy it or not. 300 rocks big. That's what I hope for in a movie.

  • March 10, 2007, 9:14 p.m. CST

    solid aspiration, disappointing execution

    by Mad Mick of the East

    Just get back from seeing this. I left feeling disappointed not because it wasn't good - it was overall solid - but the unrealized potential of the thing was so near you could touch it. Having thought about it, the problewm I think was this: 300 was a manly man's man movie given to boys (Snyder and to some extent, Miller) to make happen. The acting cannot be faulted - Butler and his crew got down with gusto. Trouble is, there was a lack of maturity (for lack of a better word) to the writing and direction. The gratuitous use of slo-mo and high speed seemed like a ritalin-addled freshaman had been in charge. The style seemed to be forcing the action to be bad-ass instead of allowing the badassness to emerge organically out of the otherwise great long shots of Leonidas & Co. administering a beatdown. The nonstop camera trickery had the effect of reinfrcing the barrier between the audience and the action onscreen, which is a shame because total immersin in the beautifully renedered heightened reality Virtual Studios created would have mad this an instant all-time top ten.

  • March 10, 2007, 9:18 p.m. CST

    slappy jones

    by FuzzyWhisper

    I suppose I'd say you entered the theater with unrealistic expectations. What did the trailer depict that convinced you to see the film? Which elements of the battles were boring and repetitive to you? Did you not expect to see men and beasts skewered by the hundreds from a hyper-real, dreamlike perspective? For me, the stunning choreography and over-the-top imagery building upon itself layer after layer was tremendously entertaining. The plot, though simple, is easy to invest in because it's concerned with such timeless themes as honor, glory, love and sacrifice. The actors convey all of the necessary emotion to uphold the entire illusion. 300's art style, bullet time effects, score and set pieces--hell, the cinematography itself--are fully in line with my aesthetic sensibilities. In short, the whole thing is damned cool. I'm not sure what you were looking for in 300, but for my money it's an essentially flawless realization of an inherently exaggerated, heavily romanticized warrior's tale or ancient inspirational myth. Realism is the farthest it can be from relevent to such a film, which is why its hyperbolic excesses work. Then again, if you're not into that sort of thing....

  • March 10, 2007, 9:24 p.m. CST

    Kudos to Moriarty...

    by Cotton McKnight

    I remember an era where the PTB here didn't answer accusations hurled their way- they just flat out banned the person and their post from existance. I'm glad to see you put the guy in his place the right way, Drew.

  • March 10, 2007, 9:28 p.m. CST


    by donkeypark

    It perked my memory when I stumbled across the "drunk on the possibilities" cliche. Perhaps I should have used the word cliche instead of plagiarism. You did dress that cliche up a little bit didn't you? It's not a straight lift. Just a cliche. My mistake. A writer with a bit of confidence might have said "yeah you caught me being lazy" or "I must have used a cliche that I heard or read somewhere" that would be understandable. But to get all puffed up and self-righteous about it? That's the reaction of an insecure phony. I guess I should have expected that from a critic. Isn't it okay to critic the critic? Doesn't somebody who spends their days ripping on other peoples work have an obligation to put their best foot forward? Nah. I'm a stupid troll. What the fuck do I know anyway. Twat.

  • March 10, 2007, 9:30 p.m. CST

    Slow Motion

    by antonphd

    I don't know how to say this without it sounding like a put down. If you can't appreciate the slow motion shots of this movie... you are simply missing out in the same way people miss out because they can't appreciate Opera or Rock. The slow motion shots are like ballet. If you can't appreciate them... that's too bad for you, because they are amazing. The motion. The emotion. The gracefulness. The passion. The history. The purpose. The defiance. The dominance. There is so much to the slow motion shots that you are simply missing if you think they have ANYTHING to do with ADD viewers. And, by the way, people with ADD who aren't wasting their lives making excuses for failing are the most brilliant scientists, politicians, artists, explorers... they are the people who make life worth anything for the rest of the people who are content to just live and reproduce and die. So fuck off with the fucking ADD cracks already.

  • March 10, 2007, 10:17 p.m. CST

    Why is there a Dukes of Hazzard: The Beginning banner?

    by Triumph poops!

    Actually, I know WHY it's there -- simply so Harry can make some quick and easy money off a banner ad care of Warner Bros.<p>I meant in the larger scheme of things, as we seek answers to the larger questions in life, WHY DID THEY MAKE THIS MOVIE, EVEN AS A DIRECT-TO-DVD CRAPFEST? What, was someone out there REALLY demanding to know how Daisy Duke first put on her shorts ala Bruce Wayne and the batsuit? Weren't any and all explanations about "the beginning" covered in the show? For crying out loud, it ran for 6 years and 145 episodes AND had a reunion movie AND had 3 video games AND got a big budget film only a year ago that completely DIED at the box office.<p>Oh wait, sorry, I forgot this was Hollywood we're talking about. Rule Number 1 of running a studio: Spend big bucks on a movie that utterly tanks and THEN throw even more money at it to make a sequel NO ONE has demanded. >sigh< Even as a direct to DVD film, I hate to think how that same money could have been so much better spent giving a new idea a chance.<p>Oh, as for 300, I'll see it tomorrow, but from what I'm hearing here, it sounds like I'll be ambivalent. Sounds like I'll love the visuals, but come out feeling like I just had some Chinese food and will be hungry in an hour. But for anyone interested, I would recommend the History Channel's 2 hour special "The Last Stand of the 300" that they're airing for the factual version of the tale. It's actually really good...

  • March 10, 2007, 10:17 p.m. CST

    8,850 results for "drunk on the possibilities"

    by wash

    ...on Google. So DP, you get called on being an idiot, and don't even offer a link to the mountain of writing and film criticism that you have written. For surely, if you're being such a cunt about it, you really should point to your fantastic literary output, totally devoid of common phrases!

  • March 10, 2007, 10:30 p.m. CST

    Even better the second time

    by Rindain

    Saw it at a test screening in August and loved it, and it kicks even more ass on the second viewing. Everything about this movie has "kick ass" written all over it. It's just filled with instant-classic images and dialogue. Snyder seeems to have the same knack for great movie moments that Peter Jackson and James Cameron have. Can't wait for Watchmen.

  • March 10, 2007, 11 p.m. CST

    donkeypark, you do not come off as sounding very

    by Bronx Cheer

    <p>...intelligent.</p> <p>First one nitpick: it should be CRITIQUE a critic, you illiterate winking sphincter.</p> <p>Second: I have never noticed that Mr. McWeeny "rips" on people. From what I have read of his work, he's one of the best reviewers on this site, and his reviews usually have quite a lot of thought behind them.</p> <Third: please show some respect for the words "fuck" and "twat." If you don't know how to curse properly, don't do it at all. You're obviously not Irish.</p>

  • March 10, 2007, 11:03 p.m. CST

    Haters shut yer holes

    by Anino

    The movie was awesome. Beautiful to watch--this is what movie making and moviegoing is all about. A visual knock out punch. I like the humor too, just enough to balance out the over the top balletic violence. I'm going to see it again, and I'm not the only one who will. It will make a jillion dollars. Make that "300" jillion dollars!

  • March 10, 2007, 11:03 p.m. CST

    Oh, yeah, one more thing donkeypark...

    by Bronx Cheer

    Third: Show some respect for the words "fuck and "twat." If you do not know how to curse properly, don't do it at all. You're obviously not Irish.

  • March 10, 2007, 11:19 p.m. CST

    Whoever wrote the script for Catwoman

    by superninja

    should get it Spartan-style. And is it just me or is Halle Berry not hot? She's just...boring...

  • March 10, 2007, 11:19 p.m. CST


    by drew mcweeny

    ... is Donkey Punch actually calling me a plagiarist for using the word "drunk"? <P>Dude, I repeat, that is the most pathetic attempt at a troll in the history of trolling. I used it precisely and evocatively. "Drunk on the potential of cinema to bring to life the impossible" is exactly how this film felt to me, like Snyder was giddy about what he was doing. "Okay, I'm gonna take this 5'9" Latino guy and turn him into a giant Persian Man-God. I'm gonna make an executioner with razor-blade arms. I'm going to fire 2000 arrows into Gerard Butler and make it beautiful." <P>Did you seriously go looking for another place that used the word "drunk" to describe filmmaking, just so you could come in here and wave your little Vienna sausage at me? Pshaw, wittle man. Pshaw.

  • March 10, 2007, 11:37 p.m. CST

    I saw this on IMAX today...

    by leeVSbenway

    ...and it was really, really good. I was pleased by the even-handedness and maturity that Snyder infused in the project. I wasn't very impressed with DOTD remake but this seals the deal on him, a very impressive film. And that shot of Gerard Butler standing bare-assed on the balcony gave me a stiffy.

  • March 10, 2007, 11:37 p.m. CST

    Kurt Busiek's Conan comics were pretty good.

    by superninja

    That's the type of Conan film I want to see. 300 proved at the very least that the failure of Sky Captain was a fluke.

  • March 10, 2007, 11:51 p.m. CST

    I am shamed

    by Rupee88

    Perhaps I wasn't fair saying that Moriarty was holding back with his review. He's one of my favorite writers on here...I guess I was bitching about "apologetic reviews" in general more than Mori's 300 review. There are a good number of reviews on AICN like that. But Mori's doesn't fall squarely in that category. Anyway, I regret my comment a little.

  • March 10, 2007, 11:52 p.m. CST

    Slow motion is a sign that the filmmaker...

    by rbatty024

    does not trust what's up on screen. It's acceptable a few times, but when every movement is at quarter speed, then the director just does not believe the coreography is enough. It screams, "look at this, this is important, isn't this cool?" instead of effortlessly showing the audience how fucking cool the Spartans are. Snyder did not have enough confidence in the visuals, coreography, and violence, so he had to shove it down the audience's throat. I just watched Reds the other night, and at over three hours that movie felt shorter than the two hours of slo-mo Snyder gave us.

  • March 10, 2007, 11:53 p.m. CST

    Sky Captain failed because it was unwatchable

    by Rupee88

    I love those types of movies in general, but I walked out of Sky Captain halfway through. And I looked forward to that movie for was just a piece of crap. Sin City is just plain entertaining...I haven't seen 300, but I'm glad it is succeeding. Anything to get more money in the budget for Watchmen!

  • March 10, 2007, 11:55 p.m. CST

    Yeah, slow motion is usually lame, but...

    by Rupee88 some rare cases, it is an artistic choice that works. Mostly though it is distracting and if Snyder used it multiple times, it probably didn't totally work.

  • March 10, 2007, 11:59 p.m. CST

    Sky Captain had a bad script and poorly

    by superninja

    developed characters. Jolie's character was the most interesting in her short screentime. Jude Law and Paltrow are not interesting enough to carry that type of film.

  • March 11, 2007, midnight CST

    Slow motion and violence have been bedfellows awhile

    by Bronx Cheer

    All you need to do is visit the work of Sam Peckinpah. Slow motion changes the relationship we have with the violence. Stylized violence can force us to examine the idea of violence as entertainment. Slow motion turns a battle into a ballet and can turn a bludgeoning into a strange sort of beauty. I haven't seen "300" yet, but based on the clips I've seen, the filmmakers are doing something a little (hell, a LOT) different from your typical battle-laden swordfest.

  • March 11, 2007, 12:04 a.m. CST

    It seems to me they are adapting a comic

    by superninja

    book to a movie in a very literal way. From what I can tell, that is all Snyder set out to accomplish. He made some mods like the framing device but it seems very literal.

  • March 11, 2007, 12:10 a.m. CST

    My expectation is it's going to be Cage Fight Opera.

    by Bronx Cheer

    That could be a good thing or a bad thing. I think what's most important is good props. How are those helmets? And the swords. Got enough swords? You there, make sure those sandals are quality, for pity's sake. Nothing but the best for the 300! Son, do you think you could cover up, at least a little? I think I saw your boys. Where's those damned codpieces?

  • March 11, 2007, 12:19 a.m. CST

    This film must have some kind of follow-up

    by Rogue_Leader

    IT doesn't have to be about ancient Greece per se. Just another movie of a similar theme.

  • March 11, 2007, 12:21 a.m. CST

    It was alright

    by iwontwin

    Lots of wonderful pictures, scenery chewing action, death and destruction. I liked the queen character, but there wasnt nearly enough depth in the characters, as was needed. Still, I loved the slow mo, mortal kombat kills, seeing it on imax, the armies look amazing.

  • March 11, 2007, 12:21 a.m. CST

    slo mo & rbatty024

    by darth jobu

    I think you missed the boat. I agree, too much slo mo can indicate lack of confidence, but so does quick-cutting. I always thought Jackson's quick-cutting in the Moria "they have a cave-troll" battle seemed to show a lack of confidence in what are otherwise stunning CGI visuals. There is no lack of confidence here because Zack varies the speed to let the viewer soak in the 'ballet,' as Bronx Cheer points out, and also slams the viewer with quick cut battle. His editing speed is not exclusively slow motion, but rather compliments the moment and showcases the Spartans' baddassiosity.

  • March 11, 2007, 12:31 a.m. CST

    Entertaining Movie, for the Most Part IMO

    by NoHubris

    I saw the movie tonight and it was more entertaining than I expected it to be. What I have to take issue with is the use of the word "freedom" and "free men" without an accompanying definition. Being forced to give your kid away at age seven or having to be subject to both an "oracle" and a king - though beloved - is not freedom. Yes, the Spartans were patriotic and resoundingly so, but free?...Nonetheless, I thought the message against hubris was spot on.<P>Concerning the slow-motion FX, IMO Snyder's frequent use of the device made it easier for him to reproduce and remain faithful to the visuals from graphic novel. In other words, slowing down the action in the movie allows for better/easier duplication of the frames from the comic book.

  • March 11, 2007, 12:47 a.m. CST

    RE: "they had every right to defend it ..."

    by Bill Clay

    Gaius, of course every tyrant has a right to defend his fiefdom from other tyrants. That hardly makes it a noble cause or a fight for freedom. I'm glad you enjoyed the feature length music video, though!

  • March 11, 2007, 12:48 a.m. CST

    NoHubris, that's a good point and something

    by superninja

    I considered especially if people are going to attempt to draw modern politicaly views into it, it is about a very specific idea of freedom.

  • March 11, 2007, 12:50 a.m. CST

    NO STUMBLIOS! Where's stumblios?

    by darth jobu

    Where was the 'Stumblios' bit? And the redemption of Leonidas calling him 'Stelios' at the end? Dammit! That would have provided at least some character development for the Spartan army without a doubt. Guess Stelios was relegated to "Then we'll fight in the shade" notoriety. Dammit!

  • March 11, 2007, 12:51 a.m. CST

    In other words, freedom = the ability to be

    by superninja

    a good Spartan, not to do whatever you want.

  • March 11, 2007, 12:56 a.m. CST


    by FuzzyWhisper

    "Slow motion is a sign that the filmmaker does not trust what's up on screen," eh? That's like viewing a picture painted in PhotoShop and saying, "The artist obviously doesn't trust his skill with oils." Slow motion is but a single tool at the filmmaker's disposal. Visuals tell their own story, and 300's happen to call for that one technique, slow motion, to be employed frequently. antonphd hit the nail on the head when he compared the battle sequences to ballet. In 300, the real beauty is in the carnage; how limbs fly and blood arcs just so. How would we, the viewers, be able to appreciate this if our eyes could not follow the action? Would the film really benefit from the removal of its signature look? I think not.

  • March 11, 2007, 12:56 a.m. CST

    No Hubris...

    by darth jobu

    Nice point about the slo-mo. But he did use it alot in scenes that are not in the book as well. One example I can think of is 'grimacing beheaded guy with a pony tail'. That seemed like a bit of showcase. I think the 'freedom' is relevant to the tribe, not the individual as we see it today. "Our tribe will not bow to some gold-painted jackass from 3 deserts away."

  • March 11, 2007, 12:58 a.m. CST


    by darth jobu


  • March 11, 2007, 1:13 a.m. CST

    Graphic novel imagery that moves. If sometimes slow.

    by JDanielP

    I'm with Moriarty on this, flick. And another thing. I enjoy the female form as much as the next guy. But what was the purpose of showing that early love scene, ...especially with so little dialog between them? Gratuitous, don't you think? I mentioned the scene in conversation to my wife (whom had no interest in "300") and how I felt there was no real reason for it. She responded with, "Welcome to my world."

  • March 11, 2007, 1:34 a.m. CST


    by slappy jones

    i didn't expect it to be so damn repetitive. i didn't expect to see the EXACT same shots over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again of spears impaling people..of speed ramping up and down up and down......even the (terrible) voice over was repetitive...he kept saying the same shit...and also if he was tellign the story to the armies of greece to prepare them for the battle at the end...then he wouldn;t have told them the way he didn;t make sense as that stopry for was for an audience with no knowledge of what was going on and who spartanms were..and then all of a sudden it was supposed to have been for the armies?? terrible. why are the people how loved this film finding it so hard to believe that not everyone was blown away by this film? people are acting like it was the greatets film ever made...if this is the future of film then we are all fucked...I thought people were turning against this over use of CG and greenscreen and complete fakery and now I get the feeling this is all we are going ot get. it felt like watching someone else play a video game for two hours. It was too fake for me to be engaged....I know all films are fake but nothing felt real in any of this....i mean with all the blood evaporating it was taking me out of the film all the time.. .I found most of the acting to be painful....i really don't need to be told what it means to be a spartan ever again thats for sure....everyone raving about lena heady??just cos you want to fuck her doesn't mean shes a good actress...she's awful. a total film for butler well the thing is i like him but he cannot act. at all. watching them together was like witnessing a perfect storm of bad 300 fnas are really quite awful. moriartys review is postive. he liked it but even that is not good enough for you. you will not settle for anything but proclaiming it a are worse than browncoats, trekkies, ringers and star wars fans whatever the fuck they call themselves combined......a new cult has risen..i present to you SPARTANS - a new breed of fucking whiners.

  • March 11, 2007, 1:36 a.m. CST


    by slappy jones

    It was there to make sure we realised the king was straight....because outside of that one scene the only way this film could have gotten any gayer is if they had gotten george michael to perform the theme song......

  • March 11, 2007, 3:32 a.m. CST

    SPARTANS! TONIGHT WE DINE... in the living room.

    by samsquanch

    when the DVD comes out. <p> Saw it tonight, it was mantastic. Made me gay for like, a minute. <p> Add to Friends- great name, loved the post.

  • March 11, 2007, 3:36 a.m. CST


    by Orionsangels


  • March 11, 2007, 3:59 a.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    Since wolvenom didn't return, feel free to regard my posts on the matter as a reply to yours.

  • March 11, 2007, 5:15 a.m. CST

    300 is beautiful...

    by nonsensical

    ...prolly one of the most beutiful films I have seen in forever. I felt the same way after seeing City of Lost Children, but moreso. This film is absolutely amazing. Much of the Graphic Novel is there and there is more. Yes, there is slow motion as I'm sure you've heard, but it adds to the sheer beauty of this film. Anyone who tries to make current political connections in this film is an idiot. Plain and simple. This film is based on history... it's what happened... more or less. <p> <p> If you haven't seen this yet. Go. If you have seen this and loved it as much as I did. See it again. See it in IMAX. See it on a DLP screen. Find some way to enhance the experience of this film as best as you can. <p> I've said it once, I will say it again. It is totally worth it.

  • March 11, 2007, 5:23 a.m. CST

    Oh yeah...

    by nonsensical

    Hey Yackbacker, how've you been? Have you seen this yet? It didn't seem like it in your posts... in fact it seemed like you might pass on this. <p> Mistake. <p> From what I gather on this board you and I have similar tastes in films. This may seem like it will loose its charm in a year, but you will also regret not having seen this in a theater in a year if you don't go. If you are all hyped out, and you're expectations have dropped then you will really enjoy this film. <p> It's really beautiful and it's something to be enjoyed artistically. Especially if you liked the imagery in the Graphic Novel. <p> Please see this, if you don't like it then feel free to rip me a new one. I can take it, but I wouldn't wish anyone I know who likes the same films I do the misfortune that would come from their missing this film. <p> However, if you do see it and plan on seeing it once, then see it in the best possible place you can. IMAX or on a DLP screen. Something to really enhance this film as an experience. I gurantee that if you wait to see it at home it will not be the same.

  • March 11, 2007, 6:34 a.m. CST


    by Wave Motion Gun

    As a parent, you are well within your right to raise your child any way you want. That said, you are well within your right to take your 9 year old to the midnight screening of an adult film and then let him take the following day off school. It's a free country, so you go for it. But don't come in here and try to make it sound like what you did was a good idea. That's just silly.

  • March 11, 2007, 8:01 a.m. CST

    Slo-mo, the voice over and other matters

    by FluffyUnbound

    I really, really appreciated the slow mo. The poster who mentioned LOTR was on the right track. LOTR couldn't be rated R, but had to be violent. The only way to accomplish that is to film scenes of violence but then edit them in such a way that the audience isn't allowed to actually SEE it. And this isn't limited to PG films, either; PG films just have the best excuse. Gladiator also used frenetic editing to disguise the fact that it wasn't really willing to be about what it, you know, was about. The slow-mo in 300 often seemed to be employed not only as an artistic choice, but also to say, "Yes, we are indeed filming a scene about the legs being cut out from under a Persian light infantryman here. We are going to confirm that by making sure that everyone in the audience has plenty of time to notice it." It was the director's declaration of independence. It also highlights the effects work instead of covering up for it. And Slappy, I don't think you're right about the voiceover. In the type of poetry being shown here [and that's why Wenham lives - to be the poet] it would be extremely common for the speaker to revisit well-worn themes that everyone in the audience knew. There would be stock phrases and stock openings and it wouldn't surprise me at all if half the campfire tales told by Spartans started out with the backstory behind Sparta's warrior culture. Especially when the intent of the poet THE WHOLE TIME was to compare the killing of the wolf during the rite of passage ["This proved he was a Spartan," to the wounding of Xerxes ["This PROVED ONCE AGAIN he was a Spartan!"] and to bookend the story with those two images. It was actually a very neat little storytelling device and considering how much criticism this film has taken for not having a story, I was surprised to see it done so well.

  • March 11, 2007, 8:48 a.m. CST

    Another thing I'll praise 300 for:

    by Optimus Murphy

    The MTV/Michael Bay editing made no appearance in this film. Perhaps why the ADD crowd found the slo-mo so distracting. To be honest it was fucking refreshing to not have a director edit his way out of actually showing the story, with shots measured in tenths of a second combined into minute-long, mind-numbing stretches. The slo-mo worked in 300 because it gave the audience time to appreciate the visuals and the action, which was all done to replicate the art of the source material. There was always something to look at besides, what was going on at the center of the shots.

  • March 11, 2007, 9:22 a.m. CST

    Shogun is bonding - A good idea

    by gad

    Dude who spends some quality time with his son is a good idea. They'll both remember it long after any memory of the one missed day of school. Folks who judge other folks - pretentious and priceless.

  • March 11, 2007, 9:43 a.m. CST

    Modern parents and the_shogun_gunslinger

    by TheGoodDoctor

    I've never posted anything on one of the AICN forums, but I feel like doing so now. I generally peruse a board because it's usually entertaining to see people get their hackles up over things as trivial as film (not to say that there aren't important and perhaps even life-changing/life-affirming films in existence. Not my point.). What I want to address or actually who I want to address is the_shogun_gunslinger. First of all, please know that I am a parent, so this is not an uneducated comment. I'm also a physician (neurologist/infectious disease/emergency medicine), so I feel more than a little qualified to speak to the issue from a professional perspective as well. Sir, you realize that the onus of being a good parent is fully on your shoulders (and that of your wife is she is alive and "in the picture", so to speak). To say that a nine year old boy is mature enough to watch a film like 300 is tantamount to mental and emotional abuse of the child. Your understanding of a child's mental development is severely wanting. The likely reason that your son responded as he did (as you attribute his "maturity" in scenes where others giggled) is because his mind is not developed enough to full appreciate and perceive the weight of the content. There is no possibility, no matter how advanced the child, that a nine year old is mature enough to handle decidedly adult content (so named for good reason). As adults we are able to filter out the reasoning behind the gore and the ethical/moral choices in the cinematic performances. Your boy doesn't have that capability. I feel quite certain that if you respond here you will somehow find a way to make your parental actions seem laudable and appropriate. Sir, they are not. What you did was purely and simply....wrong. You are clearly part of a generation of parents who do bewildering things with and to their children and are completely oblivious to the fact of harm. I see people like yourself on a daily basis in my hospital. I don't believe it makes you a bad person. I just believe it makes you a poor parent. My sincere hope is that you and others like yourself will reevaluate what you do and make corrections before you harm your child in ways that won't be clear for years. I encourage you to do your own research and find out what is truly appropriate for a nine year old mind. My comment isn't constructed as a way to belittle. It is meant to condemn. And to shame. What you've done is worthy of both. Feel free to rail away. I've heard all the possible replies that you can formulate. I'm no better than you. I'm just bound by an oath - "to do no harm." Would that all parents were as well.

  • March 11, 2007, 9:50 a.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    Well said. Well said, indeed.

  • March 11, 2007, 10:30 a.m. CST

    The euphemistically named 'gooddoctor'

    by gad

    You know, at least in the Middle Ages doctors were also barbers so amid all the malpractice you could at least get a haircut from them. Would you be one of the 'every doctor' who said for years that newborns don't feel pain and so despite the bloodcurdling screams of pain and terror would refuse to give babies any pain inhibitors when performing circumcisions? Overeducated yet underinformed and unwilling to use common sense unless it's previously taught to you but ever willing to provide their opinions as if it were gospel. Movies are pretend, make believe, the violence in this movie is pretend and make believe. Cartoonish if you will and highly stylized. If we were talking about realistic, sadistic violence as in some of horror movies I would agree with you but this in not in that league. And there are laws about who gets into a R rated movie so presumably somebody thought about an appropriate age where children can distinguish between real and make believe. If it was life and death and real violence that caused harm then all our best serial killers and most of our prison population would be the children of farmers. But that's not the case is it? Spending time with your child in my opinion is a good thing and a tonic against bad child rearing. Getting and taking advice from you, a neurologist/infectious disease/emergency medicine doctor is the logical fallacy of appeal to false authority. You aren't a child rearing specialist, you aren't a child pscyologist or a pediatrician or any of the professions with the qualifications to speak authoritatively on child rearing. You probably couldn't even give a good haircut.

  • March 11, 2007, 10:53 a.m. CST

    Dear General Anxiety Disorder...

    by TheGoodDoctor

    Yes, spending time with one's child is a good thing. Fishing, hiking, going to the library, building a fort, making a cake, watching The Andy Griffith Show, learning constellations, playing baseball or attending a game, and/or just sitting and talking all come to mind. Watching 300 together doesn't fall into that category. Your tonic does not equal mine (nor that of many). I make no apologies for a patriarchal medical modality in this case. After all, it is the case of fatherhood that is the point. And you'll notice that nowhere did I bring up the correlation between watching violence and acting out. You did. I don't believe that model, nor was that my point. You read in something that wasn't there. As to qualifications I spent spent six years working at a pediatric hospital working exclusively with children. Overeducated? Without question. "Underinformed?" No. Additionally, I give a mean bowl cut.

  • March 11, 2007, 11:15 a.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    Your posts are full of nothing but contradictions. My favorite is, of course, this wonderfully fatuous statement: "Folks who judge other folks - pretentious and priceless," a statement which is then followed by nothing but judgmental opinions of others, in this case TheGoodDoctor. You seem to have no problem with showing kids violence in films as long as it's "pretend and make believe" or "cartoonish". Yet you try to sound sensible by adding that "sadistic, realistic" violence is a no-no. The idiocy of that statement betrays that you view the capacity of children and adults to differentiate between the two to differ only slightly, if at all.

  • March 11, 2007, 11:20 a.m. CST

    The Good Doctor is just talking common sense.

    by superninja

    Rare on AICN, I know. Now go back to your regularly scheduled lack of ability to reason properly! :)

  • March 11, 2007, 11:25 a.m. CST

    No, rubensreviews. I'm just old. (heh,heh)

    by JDanielP

    I may be getting old... but I ain't dead. Again, I really do enjoy the female form (cue whistle). And as part of my education as an artist, I've enjoyed illustrating the female body with the aid of various nude models. There's nothing more beautiful than a woman's visual line. However, from a story perspective, that early love scene didn't have any more purpose than the obvious. And as an older movie-goer, I'm harder to satisfy. I would have preferred more dialog between them to establish their bond, ...and then give us a couple of eye-pleasing camera shots of her disrobing, ...say if she was obviously saddened while also showing her love for the man, as she leans against a column. The camera shot(s) and character movements can be arranged to show both the necessary emotion and please the human eye. What I can I say? I like visual artistry in movies. But I like movies that make me feel. And I want both, whatever the genre.

  • March 11, 2007, 11:26 a.m. CST


    by FluffyUnbound

    Look, I have no doubt that you mean well and that your statements reflect a solid grounding in current childrearing theory. But essentially you are making a moral judgment, and that's just not your department. "Developmental experts" have a problem with mission creep and I think that's what we're seeing here. You may not realize it, but your profession has since about the 50's gradually placed itself in the position of making huge numbers of ultimately purely ethical and political judgments while mislabelling them as medical. The distinction between a preteen kid who likes to play war and a preteen kid who likes to weave baskets is fundamentally a moral one and not a developmental one, so back it up a little, OK? To believe what you're saying, we have to believe that there was a time when all male children were insane, and I just don't see how we can believe that. I have an eight month old boy and because reading is my "thing" I have devoured a considerable amount of so-called child development material and except for the height and weight charts it's all crap. You could actually say it's DANGEROUS crap since most of it seems to be informed by the desire to raise a generation of pussies. And the space occupied by our disagreement ["Is it pussydom or is it sound development?"] may be a cultural dispute, it may be an ethical dispute, it may be a subjective dispute, it may be a political dispute - but it sure as fuck ain't a medical dispute.

  • March 11, 2007, 11:30 a.m. CST

    I don't think he made a medical arguement.

    by superninja

    He did make a moral/ethical one and has seen the results of bad parenting in his field. Why are you taking your Dr. Spock reading out on him?

  • March 11, 2007, 11:43 a.m. CST

    You forgot Buzzcut - everyone can give the buzzcut

    by gad

    I was not aware that six years of giving Tylenol and Dimetapp qualifies you as a child rearing specialist. Rearing children would entitle you to an informed opinion but unlike Jesus, anything you say can't and won't be held up as gospel. No matter how many degrees you wave out in front of you. And again, there are laws to address your concerns. Movies are rated and people are allowed in based on those ratings. If you think you know better there's Congress over there, have fun. Funny thing you mentioned The Andy Griffith Show, there is the lauded episode dealing with Opie and the slingshot and him killing a bird and the consequences of that. An offscreen powerful death with infinitely more power than 2 hours of graphic novel styled cartoon deaths in 300 and requiring more of a serious discussion with your children than 300. And of course the Bridge at Terabithia was much more problematic to deal with since the death and anguish was more powerful and infinitiely more immediate than seeing cgi elephants fall over a cliff. You take your child fishing you might be explained why you think it's okay to kill fish, you take them hiking you might have to explain the dead animal you might see and if you take them to a baseball game you might end up discussing doping or that fight that just erupted on the field or in the stands. In short, fatherhood involves living life, bonding with your child or children, explaining the world around you and teaching them what you know.

  • March 11, 2007, 11:49 a.m. CST

    I doubt anyone is afraid of teaching their children

    by superninja

    life and death lessons a la Opie. That is actually useful information. 300 is in large part about the total depravity of warfare and making it look cool.

  • March 11, 2007, 11:53 a.m. CST


    by gad

    Well you know, I'm always ready for a flamewar when someone comes in under cover of authority and gives their opinion. My opinion is X and believe me because I'm an authority doesn't work unless you're an authority and even then it's suspect. As for the difference in violence, gratuitous violence that is sadistic and designed to sexually arouse through sadism is different in my opinion. That's my opinion, I think there are differences and variations and you can't say it's all the same. That's just my opinion. And are you a doctor too or do you just play one on AIC?

  • March 11, 2007, 11:54 a.m. CST

    My personal opinion is that the best thing you

    by superninja

    can do for your children is teach them classical logic (since our schools won't) and to use their mind and not just their emotions, and to not expose them too much to modern crapola. They'll get around to that on their own. If you get them a taste for the good stuff early, hopefully that will always remain with them. Junk in, junk out, you know?

  • March 11, 2007, 11:56 a.m. CST

    Gad, I have a question for you. Just how do you

    by superninja

    think someone becomes addicted to sadism to begin with? Most addictions are gradual.

  • March 11, 2007, 11:57 a.m. CST

    I used to substitute teach a few years back...

    by rbatty024

    and as an opener to a class of third graders I asked them what they're favorite movies were. Almost all of them were R-rated. Some of the standouts were South Park: The Movie and The Bride of Chuckie. It's funny, because the government can try and regulate as much as they want, but when it comes right down to it there are just bad parents out there.

  • March 11, 2007, noon CST


    by gad

    I couldn't agree more. IMO. And what FluffyUnbound said as well. Well said and well reasoned.

  • March 11, 2007, 12:01 p.m. CST

    rbatty, and the side effect is that the government

    by superninja

    unfortunately, will be stepping in as more parents fail, whether they are wanted or not, since we gave them that inroad to begin with.

  • March 11, 2007, 12:01 p.m. CST

    Is Bugs Bunny (etc.) ok for toddlers? Probably not.

    by JDanielP

    I love those classic WB cartoon characters. And for my toddler son to see them un-cut, I never gave it a second thought. That is, until I saw a character get clunked over the head with (name your object) and the boy was just starring at the television tube, taking it all in. (And then it was back to educational programming.) As a 4th grader, ...sure, watching Bugs Bunny and Daffy, etc. seems like great laughs. (It was for me.) But as a toddler? I don't think so. (And by the way, I might allow my son to watch "300" when he is 16 ...or go by the restricted rating of 17.)

  • March 11, 2007, 12:02 p.m. CST

    Let me ask you something, gad...

    by DocPazuzu

    ...Let's say you talk to your hypothetical nine-year-old about sex and love and make sure he understands the difference between "real life" sex, most common between two people, and the "stylized" orgy scenes common in run-of-the-mill porn or the "cartoonish" sex of tentacle-rape hentai. Would it then be okay for him to watch Cum Guzzling Anal Sluts Part 7? And if not, why not? And please, try to come up with something more substantial and subjective than the ratings board and writing to Congress. Just because you are in your legal right to take a nine-year-old to a hard R flick, doesn't actually make it right automatically.

  • March 11, 2007, 12:04 p.m. CST

    $70 Million weekend.

    by AllPowerfulWizardOfOz


  • March 11, 2007, 12:07 p.m. CST

    Fluffy et al

    by TheGoodDoctor

    I did not make a medical argument. I AM making a moral/ethical one. Thank you for not seeing the difference. Some of you continue to sidetrack the main issue. A nine year old at 300 is not advisable. That's the beginning and end of my point. Is it possible to get someone less than seventeen years of age into an R-rated film? Clearly, it is. It is a question of something that is lawful, but not expedient. Again, as the gentleman above pointed out, I'm speaking more from a common sense standpoint than anything else. It's clear now that my point will most likely be misunderstood by several here ad infinitum. I'm reminded of my late father's words - "There's nothing like a good debate. And THIS is NOTHING like a good debate.". ;-) Postscript - I wonder if Opie and Leonidas have ever appeared in any forum or conversation simultaneously before. One has to love the internets.

  • March 11, 2007, 12:12 p.m. CST

    Frank Miller & People Who Worship Him...

    by Professor Krapp

    ...need to get over it. Miller is nothing but Mickey Spillane without the cleverness. And I'm a little tired of writers flaunting their fetishes. You can almost count the number of times the writer masturbated during the creation of the script.

  • March 11, 2007, 12:12 p.m. CST

    The Good Doctor, the crowd around here is

    by superninja

    distrustful of authority in general (seems to be a geek hallmark), so saying that you are a Dr. and have some kind of authority naturally immediately gets the hackles up. ;) That said, I think there are some interesting studies on repeated exposure to video games that show they are very problematic and 300 is basically along the same lines as are many movies these days.

  • March 11, 2007, 12:14 p.m. CST

    The only thing the government can do in this case...

    by rbatty024

    is offer voluntary parenting classes in high school and community colleges. I've worked with kids of all ages for the past few years, and there are some really messed up parents out there. Even when they try to do well, they just have no common sense.

  • March 11, 2007, 12:15 p.m. CST

    Professor Krapp, I agree with you about Miller.

    by superninja

    Overrated and loves to celebrate man's depravity and brutality. Works with Sin City and 300 in its way, does not, in my opinion, work with Batman and Superman (DKR) except as smartassery.

  • March 11, 2007, 12:17 p.m. CST

    Actually, rbatty, what they are doing is saying

    by superninja

    that they will be the gatekeepers for what children are taught and not their parents. Which of course works only if you completely agree with them.

  • March 11, 2007, 12:36 p.m. CST

    I agree that Congress shouldn't try and limit...

    by rbatty024

    access to movies, videogames, or music because that's the parents role (even if they don't do a tremendous job of it). I also think one of the problems is that the ratings system is seriously fucked up. It makes no sense that a movie that drops the "F-bomb" twice gets that same rating as 300 or Kill Bill or Eyes Wide Shut. It's completely arbitrary.

  • March 11, 2007, 12:37 p.m. CST


    by gad

    The only thing I know for sure is that movies sure didn't cause sadism or create serial killers or pleasure killers or any of the evils of the world. But society does deem fit to protect us from X rated movies by rating them and making them harder to acquire or see. Not really but you know what I mean. Society decides to make some things harder to get including cigarettes and alcohol and R rated movies. I think movies like Hostel should have an X rating as well. There's a judgment, a line drawn all the time and I just think Hostel type movies belong on the other side. I mean if society wants to protect us from watching adults have sex it seems fair to me that they don't easily feed sexual predation or sexual sadism by making movies with images easy to make or sell. I don't know what makes sadists or what triggers predators but on the chance that glossy sadism porn can be a part of that then make it hard to get and regulate it so it can't get popular. That's just my opinion on that. Personally what I do with movies like that is not see them of course, and take note of who made them and starred in them and don't watch or pay for anything those folks do.

  • March 11, 2007, 12:53 p.m. CST

    Good points, superninja and darth jobu...

    by NoHubris

    RE: Spartans promoting a particular "idea of freedom" and it being "relative to the tribe."<P>Both remarks speak volumes.

  • March 11, 2007, 12:57 p.m. CST

    Superninja is right about Sin City and 300

    by NoHubris

    They are almost counterparts. Miller actually refers to Leonidas and the 300 in the intro to the graphic novel SIN CITY: THE BIG FAT KILL.

  • March 11, 2007, 1:04 p.m. CST

    Well now you admit to a personal moral argument

    by gad

    I'm sure you expected to come in here calling yourself a self described 'gooddoctor' and have everyone kowtow to your personal opinion disguised under the cloak of false authority. When you are called on it you get back up on your horse and huff how it's not a good argument since you're not winning it. And your arguments weren't misunderstood, they were anticipated and countered. Your hubris notwithstanding, you didn't come in here making a moral/ethical argument. You came in saying what a brilliant doctor you are how that validates your opinion. Opinions are fine, lots of us have them. Degrees are fine too, lots of us have lots of degrees as well. Big whoop. The law says you can take your kid to the movie if he's 6 and older so I'm thinking the line is somewhere around there depending on the child.

  • March 11, 2007, 1:15 p.m. CST

    Thanks gad

    by FluffyUnbound

    The GoodDoctor ABSOLUTELY came here in here and offered his expertise on the basis of his medical position. He specifically said [not once but twice, in distinct posts] that his position was what qualified him to offer an opinion, he specifically said that the other poster's kid's reaction was a function of his brain development, and he specifically claimed that the child had been the victim of mental and emotional abuse as a result of seeing the movie because of its "adult content". When called on the fact that he's using authority in one field to claim authority in another, he says, "Wha' happened?" and claims we didn't understand him. Typical.

  • March 11, 2007, 1:17 p.m. CST

    Movie rocked! F the haters.

    by R.C. the "Wise"

    Sure it wasn't a masterpiece of acting but it was pure entertainment. And let me tell you, (Age and demographics were surprising 16-76; about 40% women some hot,...some not, dudes were a mix of geeks, jocks, middle-age Belushiesque guys, and just guys with their buds) everyone in the theater dug the hell out of it. I recommend seeing it in digital. Very impressive

  • March 11, 2007, 1:18 p.m. CST


    by rbatty024

    I have to take issue with the assumption that just because the law says you can take a 6 year old to an R-rated film does not make it right. The reason the law isn't more restrictive is because government does not want to interefere with the parent's ability to descern. It's the law not interfering with your personal right to raise your child, not a moral carte blanche to take your kid into any film you want. You yourself said that you would not take your kid to see Hostel. That's you making a discerning parenting decision without government interference, which is what the hands off attitude is trying to accomplish. It is not however, saying it's all right to take all 6 year olds into any R-rated film. Don't look towards the government to say what's right about raising your child, look to your common sense.

  • March 11, 2007, 1:27 p.m. CST

    Hey Mori...

    by genro

    I never asserted conspiracy because I know it's business. What you have a problem with is people knowing your business. When AICN hooks up Nunziata with Del Toro, Gordon/Levin, you create the conflict of interst, not me. When you praise a totally unfaithful Watchmen adaptation and then get called on it by those of who have also read it, you raise the doubt, not me. I will concede that I was unfair to your review en totale, but lines like "not that there's anything wrong with that", are blatant backpeddles, whether conscious or not. IMO, stricly IMO, the review reads like you were conflicted. As a writer, a working writer, you know the script was barely more fleshed out than a treatment. But Snyder's a good dude, and his TV comercial background shined through with some great money shots, so it gets a pass. For a guy who's been getting praised for his reviews for a number of years now, (and I am one who has done it), this leaves *a lot* on the table. Especially when I have to consider that you are as big a Milius Conan fan as I am. BUT - the Rorshach image on opening weekend reeks of collusion. Sorry, dude. Maybe you had no say in it going up, but, to paraphrase the Templar, someone chose poorly. So it's not 300 I give a damn about, it's Watchmen. I knew 300 would do well, (not 70M well), because every college dude I know wanted to see it. But 300's success was the only guarentee for Watchmen, less Gordon/Levin strike out again and watch the rights revert back to WB, which *some people* wanted to see happen. It ain't now. So when it comes to Watchmen, accept the fact that people like me are going to be calling AICN/CHUD out on it every step of the way. Gerard Butler as Ozymandias? A fanboy pic of Rorshach? Snyder's adaptation of 300 and what it means for Watchmen? It's The Watchmen for fuck's sake! If *this* film doesn't deserve intense scrutiny, then what exactly is the point of AICN?

  • March 11, 2007, 1:40 p.m. CST

    Speaking of Hot Women

    by gad

    Oh my god, in line on Friday there were beautiful women everywhere. I was chatting in line with a beautiful greek woman who was excited to be there and excited to be greek. I'm glad there's a trend of beautiful women going to see 300 RC. And as AllPowerfulWizardOfOz mentioned -70 Million for the weekend. So all the eye candy won't just be on the screen when I go see the movie again. FluffyUnbound - your argument was spot on and clearly stated, wish I'd thought of it.

  • March 11, 2007, 1:42 p.m. CST

    o.k fluffybound fair enough

    by slappy jones

    how about that the voice over was just fucking terrible then? this film was hilariously awful...and the laughs just keep on coming for me at how seriously some people have taken this film...its great. you know how people have complained about where films are heading in the future.... looking like everything will be CGI and films starting to look like video games etc etc..well the future is here.I normally hate the "looks like a video game" argument but this really really did...i could not engage with anyone or anything because it all looked too fake...some of the of the worst effects i have seen in a long time. and to the people who say the slow motion was great and is better than the fast cutting style etc etc etc while I agree some films certainly do over cut the action watch 300 again and watch what some of the characters are doing in the background..running around doing nothing...not attacking anyone just running randomly all about the place...because of the slow motion you can see them not attacking the main characters because if they did it would have been all over very quickly.....I also love how all the blood evaporates...'poof' just that a spartan thing? is that straight from millers book or is that hgistorical fact that peoples blood evaporated back then??

  • March 11, 2007, 1:47 p.m. CST

    but to be honest

    by slappy jones

    the bad things I pointing out about this film are the reasons I ultimately liked the definitely fell into the so unbelievably fucking bad its great category for me...

  • March 11, 2007, 2:04 p.m. CST

    Absolutely Gorgeous to watch

    by Anino

    Some people will criticize anything, and that's fine, it's a free country. And yeah, I'd take on a million Persians to defend that freedom. ANYWAY--what a beautifully crafted piece of art. I was swept away and blown away--and the overall awesome-ness of the shots more than glossed over whatever critics found less than up to their pretentious standards. THIS! IS! what movie making is all about. This is what moviegoing is all about. The $$$ say it attracted a huuuuuge crowd--and repeat viewings will attest to it's satisfying appeal, and will reflect in the figures in weeks to come. Mark! My! Words!

  • March 11, 2007, 2:11 p.m. CST

    Re: The box-office for this film

    by wash

    Biggest March opening ever, and it's R rated to boot. Congrats Zack...hopefully we'll get a nice R-Rated version of Watchmen with minimal studio interference.

  • March 11, 2007, 2:12 p.m. CST

    Nice to hear that there were hot women in line gad.

    by mrfan

    Did you try to hook one up with your nine year old son or just wait till the movie was over and hit a titty bar instead?

  • March 11, 2007, 2:15 p.m. CST

    I'll admit that I'll probably rent this thing...

    by rbatty024

    after it comes out on video, because it would be the perfect movie to make fun of. The only thing that kept me going was the unintentional humour. The Captain's son and the "fight in the shade" guy should have gotten a goddam room.

  • March 11, 2007, 2:16 p.m. CST

    "the $$$ say it attracted a huge crowd"

    by slappy jones

    why do people always need to back up their enjoyment of something by pointing out how many other people enjoyed know nickleback have the biggest selling rock album out at the moment right??? so therefore nickelback are awesome??have faith in your feelings and opinions....stop trying to justify your love of it by pointing out how popular it is or much money it has is fine that you like it and that is great.....just because something is popular will not change the fact that the film was fucking ridculous. gloriously so but ridiculous nonetheless

  • March 11, 2007, 2:16 p.m. CST

    And Again...

    by drew mcweeny

    ... what business am I supposed to have with Gordon/Levin, Genro? I've been upfront about any conflicts of interest I have, and this isn't one. I've never done any business with them, and I have no conflict at all. I've liked films of theirs and hated films of theirs, and been frank about both. <P>And I still like Hayter's script. If this is a disagreement over whether or not a script is good, then it's extra-shitty of you to have to ascribe an ulterior motive to negate my opinion.

  • March 11, 2007, 2:32 p.m. CST

    Titty Bar? Nine Year old son? Mrfan you okay?

    by gad

    Ah, you're funny. I've never been to a titty bar Mrfan. Never felt the need to go. What do they have there I can't get and don't already have? Seriously, why do you go to them? And I don't have a nine year old son and I wasn't trying to pick anyone up. You know, sometimes conversation, chatting with actual people is a good thing. Adult behavior, try it sometime. What I can't observe that there were beautiful women someplace? And rbatty024 - I absolutely agree. Just cause it's legal for a six year old to be at the movie with their parent doesn't mean it's right. I don't know any six year olds who would be mature enough to understand that the movie is make believe. But society puts limits sometimes cause there are complete idiots who shouldn't be allowed to breed and that's who those laws are for. You need to take a test to drive but not to have children and you know how many bad drivers there are. And I wouldn't go see Hostel myself let alone take any child to see it. :-)

  • March 11, 2007, 2:36 p.m. CST

    Just finished reading Watchmen...

    by Johnno

    And I have to agree that there's no way a 2 hour or even a 3 hour film might ever meet expectations. Even with genius people behind it, it could be an outstanding film, but it will never satisfy the comic fanboys. The only way you'd accomplish this is take the damn book to Japan and get some good anime studio to do a 12 or 24 episode run. They've shown that they can adapt manga panel for panel to animation and don't scare away from mindfuck endings. Only way possible... but I'm still looking forward to a live action movie adaptation.

  • March 11, 2007, 2:42 p.m. CST

    Slappy Jones you missed the point

    by Anino

    before you jump all over a statement, read it in context. I was qualifying a prediction by saying SUBSEQUENT repeat viewings will show it's a movie people enjoyed. The initial $$$ only show that it attracted a huge crowd--it in NO way shows that a movie is good. A lot of lame movies open HUGE, but it's the repeat viewings that ATTEST to it's appeal.

  • March 11, 2007, 2:46 p.m. CST

    It was ok.

    by Max Agave

    Man I was really looking forward to this, and I liked it, but not much. There were things that bugged the hell out of me. 1. Narrator. I don't need to be told the guy went into a bloodrage after seeing his son die, I can see the bloodrage very clearly. I can see just as clearly Leonidas putting down his helmet and shield, so I don't need the narrator to tell me. Shut up, Faramir! 2. The girl. If there was ever a movie that doesn't need a woman after the first act, it's 300. But they kept her anyway and her stupid sub plot that ground the movie to a halt too many times. It's the biggest last stand battle in history and we have too many chances to catch our wits. We NEED to catch our breath or action becomes impossible to pay attention to, but catching your breath and catching your wits are different. The movie should have and could have become more and more desperate as 300 became 275 and so on. Watch Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker to see what a difference it makes when you remove the girl in the first act so she can't drag the rest of the movie down. 3. Not enough action. Really, it wasn't enough. Action scenes were just scenes, not set pieces. 4. Not enough FX. Honesty, so much trouble to make good CG models of rhinos and elephants, to use them for 10 seconds. Sometimes that works, but when the rhino leads the charge, 10 seconds is a real letdown. 5. Light-heartedness. The Spartans weren't going to lose, they were going to WIN. They lost because they were betrayed, not because the odds were impossible. Bullcrap, they're supposed to fight DESPITE impossible odds. So there's a HELL of a movie in 300 somewhere, it just got hobbled by its problems. Owell, lots of other movies to try this year.

  • March 11, 2007, 2:47 p.m. CST

    and another thing

    by Anino

    What the hell is wrong with backing up one's enjoyment with the enjoyment of others? It means that there's a common appeal to something. The appeal of seeing a movie in a theater BESIDES the giant screen, is that some people enjoy the community experience. A crowd enjoying something, for some people, enhances the experience. We're a societal and communal species--we like to surround ourselves with people that enjoy the same things. An opening weekend of $70 million is just an empirical gauge that COULD be interpreted to reflect that societal common enjoyment phenomena.

  • March 11, 2007, 2:54 p.m. CST

    Gad... Please Clarify

    by DeeJay

    Gad... in most U.S. cities, it's perfectly legal for a parent to expose their child to 2nd hand smoke or a laundry list of vulgarities for 12 hours out of the day, but does that mean that doing either is "okay?" Honestly, if people are fans of what looks to be a fantastic bloodbath of a movie, that's their business. However, fantasy or not, is it your belief that a 9-year-old child can process a film such as "300" in the same manner as a 30-year-old adult? If not, then what significance do you give the said processing difference(s)? I recognize your contrariness with the Good Doctor, but am still trying to glean your core argument (other than what seems to be your belief that kids view real violence differently from that of fantasy violence) from your posts.

  • March 11, 2007, 3:02 p.m. CST

    Gad... Just Read Your Most Recent (?) Post...

    by DeeJay

    ... so, since you don't seem to agree with taking a 9-year-old to see "300," were you simply being contrary with the Good Doctor, or was there some larger point you were getting at?

  • March 11, 2007, 3:11 p.m. CST

    Watchmen does not just require a faithful

    by superninja

    adaptation. 300 is easy to translate literally (I'm not attempting to say it doesn't take craft). Watchmen will be enormously more difficult. There is a lot of standing around and talking, by people in bright superhero costumes. The image of Rorschach was heavily stylized like Dick Tracy, understanding it is just a teaser image. Watchmen is not supposed to be cool, it is deconstructive and mean-spirited towards its characters.

  • March 11, 2007, 3:13 p.m. CST

    "Shut up Faramir!" LOL

    by Anino

    Funny stuff. I actually didn't mind the narration. I could have done without it, sure--but like I said, the overall visually breathtaking aspect to the movie was enough to gloss over that bit for me. The narration had it's function, which was to establish the storytelling as a flashback, told from the point of view of a survivor. In fact, I even saw it as a nod to the 'legendary' nature of the story, an epic that is subject to the oral tradition (damn it don't snicker). Ancient tales were handed down by verbal accounts around a fire, and the narration had that quality to it. As for the Queen--I didn't see her as unnecessary either. She was pretty to look at, sure--but it emphasized a historical characteristic of Spartan women--they were strong and as tough as the men. The line she said about coming back on your shield is a reference to the bravery and self sacrifice EXPECTED in their culture, reinforced by the women. It also showed that the Spartans were fighting to keep their women from becoming enslaved by foreigners. A sympathetic and strong Queen Gorgo provides that. Now, if you were unsatisfied by what 300 could have been, read "Gates of Fire" by Steven Pressfield. It is rich with character development, and lush in it's detail of battle, you practically smell the blood and guts--so much so that when a character dies, and dies gloriously, you feel the loss and you feel the pride in their death.

  • March 11, 2007, 3:17 p.m. CST


    by slappy jones

    it still makes no difference to me how many people liked was ridiculous.

  • March 11, 2007, 3:21 p.m. CST


    by Anino

    And that's fine Slappy that you found the movie ridiculous. And you may be in the minority, which of course makes you intellectually superior, or bitter, or dissatisfied--or whatever. Or honest. That's fine Slappy. Free country right? In the end that's what the forums are for--express your like or dislike, disgust or pure awe of something. You come off as elitist though--and that's fine--we that liked it come off as ridiculous to you--THAT'S fine too. However, I believe that a lot of intelligent people enjoyed this, and we differ from you. Is that all right?

  • March 11, 2007, 3:22 p.m. CST

    The plot thins

    by TheGoodDoctor

    To address the issue of what point I actually raised (once again), let me state that the point was always a moral/ethical one. It was not medical. I base much of my thought process on medical fact and knowledge because that's what I do. However, look at my original post. I stated to Shogun, "what you did was simply.....wrong." That's a moral/ethical judgement made. I didn't say anything about a pathology or allude to any possible healthcare sequella for the child. I simply made the point that it isn't appropriate to take a nine year old to see a film like 300. Gad, I recognize that you and Fluffy will continue to be contrary (as DeeJay suggested). I have no problem with either of you thinking you've won an argument or bested me (which clearly is your premise, Fluff). If that's what you take away from this discussion that's perfectly okay with me. Also, Gad the username was chosen with a bit of literary irony. Some here will get it. Others won't.

  • March 11, 2007, 3:27 p.m. CST

    All you need to tell the 9 year olds is

    by Anino

    Guns don't kill people. Spears and scorpion shaped arrowheads kill people. And that it's very dangerous to run around with very sharp objects.

  • March 11, 2007, 3:33 p.m. CST

    how can you not watch this movie if T.A.S.G is it

    by Mr_X

    i can tell he's not the tpe to take a dump in a porcelean toilet, more a hole in the floor guy for this film

  • March 11, 2007, 3:37 p.m. CST

    I don't get it they LOST!

    by EvilWizardGlick

    I just watched a History channel documentary in the 300. Well they actually were NOT 300 only 300 Spartans, the combined force was about 7000 and after they get flanked what was left of the 300 and about 1000 Thespians remained. <p> The documentary claimed themiscles (sp?) was the real barins behind the campaigned and waged an equally effective naval battle during the land battle <p> In the end Athens was still burned and everyone died. So nothing was really gained except a great story. <p> But the story had more to do with tactics and flaws with the Persian approach than actual valor. <p> I assume there was no Spartan assfucking before battle in the movie. <p> I'm not certain if watching the History channel documentary first will bias one. I prefer historically accurate film. But this is a comic so liberties will be taken.

  • March 11, 2007, 3:37 p.m. CST


    by Anino

    I think the Seattle Post-Intelligencer described him best by saying Xerxes looked like "Rupaul attacked by a stapler". Should we open up a debate and say the movie is anti-gay by showing the main bad guy as, well, the gayest thing since gay came to gay town?

  • March 11, 2007, 3:39 p.m. CST

    Hey, what was up with the Goat in the orgy scene?

    by zillabeast

    Seriously lol......

  • March 11, 2007, 3:44 p.m. CST

    Evilwiz...about historicity and 300

    by Anino

    You're right--literary license is always taken in any film version of history. If you want a history lesson, read Herodotus or yeah, watch the History Channel. As for Spartan ass-fkking, there's no historical basis for that. It was more likely practiced among the Athenians. A lot of Greek soldiers practiced homosexuality, but not every greek city-state was prone to that. During the time of Leonidas, there wasn't one unified Greece. One thing they didn't show about the Spartans was that they all had long hair, and before battle the soldiers used to comb each others' hair...which might seem just as gay as backslamming. Nonetheless, their martial nature and bravery was never seen as effeminite in any way. And sure, they 'lost'--but the Spartans held the Persians off long enough for the Athenian navy to come in and defeat the Persians. The 300 Spartans all died, but to them, it wasn't really a defeat--they sought a 'beautiful death' which is common in their culture, and in the end, their story is one of immortality--they are remembered as heroic and glorious, and not the Persians.

  • March 11, 2007, 3:45 p.m. CST

    The following contains material from a previous post...

    by Zeke25:17 well as some new stuff. (Here's the new: it's quite ironic that as many different video games are doing their best to look like movies, here comes a movie that does its best to look like something for the PS3. As a game, I'm sure it would succeed far better than as a film. Now, here's the old, original headline being "Yeah, all that spurting blood looks real purty...")...and it also makes Sin City look like fucking Shakespeare. Face it: the story is paper thin, coulda been told in ten pages; and every time Xerxes spoke, I kept thinking of some cheap-ass slow-down-the-voice effects guy who probably watched Saw one too many times and thought an artificially deepened voice was like real cool and stuff. For all of that, Butler did credibly, Wenham was solid as always, Headey was hot (but Xerxes's "ho"s were hotter), and visually, sure, there were several cool moments. But overall, it's two hours of eye candy for anyone who gets off on the stupidity of excess bloodletting. (Any asses comparing this to Kill Bill, which intentionally parodied the violence into a cartoon; or any of the LOTR films, need to have what passes for their heads hollowed out and used for fucking waste baskets.) God of War on the PS2 had more substance than this.

  • March 11, 2007, 4:02 p.m. CST

    Read a history book, anino

    by Drcool975

    The Spartans were the original NAMBLA. And fuck them and their fight for freedom any way. Their form of institutionlized slavery was especially cruel and oppressive. They'd had a fucking open season on Helots and hunted fellow human beings. There is nothing admirable about this cruel, savage and inhuman culture. Maybe 1000 years from now there will be a film based on the heroic efforts of the 9/11 hijackers and their fight against tyranny and oppression with them making the ultimate sacrifice, blah, blah, blah. The fact that that overrated douchebag hack thinks the Spartans are worthy fo glorification despite the horrific, inhumane conditions tehy imposed on their conquered subjects just shows that he hasn't written anything good or decent since the first Dark Knight.

  • March 11, 2007, 4:04 p.m. CST

    max aglave, you like the sound of your own voice

    by firstislast

    Seriously, the woman should have been killed off at the start? Like there wasn't enough manflesh in it for you or something? Fact is they made the womans role larger in it and it worked just fine. The biggest cheer of the night in the cinema I saw it in was when she got her revenge and whispered into his ear as he got what was coming to him. Seems pretty pathetic of you to complain that there was a strong woman in the film (a strong woman married to a strong man? How dare they). Gotta get in check with your own emotions there I think... The film rocked, simple as that, a very beautiful thing that I thoroughly enjoyed. And the voiceover was almost exactly like the 'voiceover' from the comic book. I loved it, it was campy, macho and very cool. So, errr, shut the fuck up basically.

  • March 11, 2007, 4:07 p.m. CST

    yackbacker elitism

    by firstislast

    is it just me or is there more and more people like that dude that just think these amazing films we're privelidged enough to see are just soooooo below them? I find it quite depressing that all the do is find fault in things before they see them and only grudgingly allow themselves to enjoy something. Its men with swords killing other men with swords. He probably hates the concept of Transformers because it's full of transforming robots fighting each other. Ugh, i hate them....why do they even watch movies?

  • March 11, 2007, 4:11 p.m. CST

    My own thoughts...

    by xsi kal

    In my theater, people openly laughed at xerxes. I understand he was probably effeminate to contrast the machismo of the spartans, but it seemed to go a bit far when people had difficulty taking him as a credible threat, (even knowing history).<br><br> I also thought the wife plot was terrible. It did not make a whole lot of sense, given that she accomplished absolutely nothing, (and HAD to accomplish nothing, for the central conceit of 300... the narrator being the sole survivor of the 300, spreading the tale of their sacrifice, and thereby gathering an army to avenge them). I understand they needed to extend the story a bit, provide relief from constant battle scenes, and do something to bring in women viewers (beyond the metric ton of naked men), but I felt that thread of the story failed.<br><br> Having said all of that, I still enjoyed the hell out of the movie.

  • March 11, 2007, 4:12 p.m. CST


    by Anino

    You have some good points but don't accuse me of not reading a history book. Quote me chapter and verse that say the Spartans were the original NAMBLA--accounts of Sparta were written hundreds of years after Thermopylae so you can't say for sure EITHER way whether they were practitioners of man-boy love or not. It's more likely that the man-boy love stereotype was reinforced by the Roman empire that sought to discredit the manliness of the culture they conquered. IN FACT the term for Greek, in Roman culture was synonymous with homosexuality...not so much as a reflection of historical accuracy, but moreso a common practice of effeminizing your opponents--ESPECIALLY in cultures that were as martial as the Greeks and Romans. Yes, you're right about the practice of slavery in the ancient world. But in context--as much as we today find it cruel and barbaric, slavery was just as normal as Starbuck's is to us. If you bother to read history books, as you accuse ME of not doing, you'll understand that nearly 100% of the ancient world WORLD-WIDE practiced slavery. And I'll agree with you that there is nothing admirable about slavery, and 'open season on Helots"--in fact Hitler admired the Spartans. But I will, at the expense of being hypocritical, say that the theme of defending your nation, your families against outside oppression, to the point of sacrificing your own life, is very much admirable--and it is NOT uncommon throughout history to elevate self-sacrifice to the level of admirability.

  • March 11, 2007, 4:18 p.m. CST

    Thank You ThomasCromwell!

    by J-Dizzle

    I became a little irate when people compared the premise of 300 to the current West vs Mid East situation. I thought to myself, "self, if Spartans represent America then the Persians repres- HEY ASSHOLES! GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!"

  • March 11, 2007, 4:20 p.m. CST

    One other comment...

    by xsi kal

    My wife, (who also enjoyed 300), shared my views on the queen plot. She felt that it was an attempt to show that the Spartan women were as willing to make sacrifices for Sparta as the men... but that it came across like she was basically naive and impotent, (her killing of the traitor not withstanding). <br><br> The only other scene I can think of that played poorly in the theater was the king/queen sex scene... which just seemed to come too soon and last too long. At least there were breasts involved though. :)

  • March 11, 2007, 4:21 p.m. CST

    xerxes was MEANT to be laughed at

    by firstislast

    he was so far up his own ass with his total belief he was a god instead of a man. That's kinda why he looked so stunned at the end when he was injured. He was MEANT to come across as some ancient decadent Liberace, I always thought that was pretty obvious. I was laughing at his campiness all through the film, that was pretty much why he was there, wasnt it??

  • March 11, 2007, 4:25 p.m. CST

    Comparing 300 to today's mideast conflict

    by Anino

    Is another example of the press trying to make a story where there is none. Frank Miller's graphic novel was written decades before today's conflict, based on a event that took place thousands of years ago. 300 is what it is, a film about men with swords and spears against a bigger group of men with arrows and swords and rhinos. And for what it is, I enjoyed the heck out of it. But if people want to be historical about who's who--the Persians occupied what is ancient is 7 feet tall, and Ahmedinijad is 5 foot 2. They've come a long way. Now, for those looking at a subtext--I can understand that. Here's Queen Gorgo trying to urge the Senate to support a surge in troops, while the Senate tells her that her husband is engaged in an illegal war and should be tried as a criminal when he gets back. I won't go as far as saying the Iranians are bribing Nancy Pelosi. But there--the speculations are out there for what they're worth. That being said, see 300 if you want to see Men's Fitness magazine, sword and sandal edition. You'll get your money's worth.

  • March 11, 2007, 4:34 p.m. CST

    I love the story and the comic

    by Cameron1

    It's about purity, how Leonidas is the purest form of commitment and sacrifice and pushing yourself to the limit day after day, it's a fascinating look at just how ruthless you have to be with yourself to achieve your ultimate peak, quite a brilliant idea really. I think it's terribly unfair to say that you shouldn't look at this film politically, or that if you do you are some sort of ass. That's clearly not the case and it's clear that Miller injects his politics into his work even if it's just the background. Sme of the best bits of The Dark Knight Returns are the news and opinion shows. THere's plenty of stuff in this story that could be an allusion or comment on where we are today. I prefer to take it as a more mythical story myself because I adore all the Greek Myths and Legends. Looking forward to this film immensely

  • March 11, 2007, 4:36 p.m. CST

    Yeah, Xerxes was meant to be laughed at...

    by rbatty024

    so was that speech the Captain gave at the end, the terrible acting, the ridiculous orgy, the overused narrator, and the absurd amoutnt of homoeroticism (note, I'm not making fun of homosexuals, I just think the film was unaware of how homoerotic subtext). Sure, all of these were supposed to be funny. In fact, 300 is a goddamn comedy.

  • March 11, 2007, 4:41 p.m. CST

    People that see politics in this

    by Anino

    No,they're not asses for doing so. It's a movie about a Greek city state with a Senate, and a military--of course people will read politics into it...however, what I find idiotic is the assertion that Frank Miller was making some kind of commentary on today's conflict--must be some psychic or futurist that Frank Miller to have been so astute decades ago. Zach Snyder seemed very surprised when the reporters baited him with questions about whether Bush was Leonidas or Xerxes. He just said it was a great story and he did what he could to adapt the graphic novel onto the screen. One can read politics into anything the way one can read Nostradamus' quatrains and infer that Superman will invade Canada. People will read what they want into things, and sometimes, common themes in stories may mirror current events uncannily. It makes for good discussion--but it's rendered ridiculous when people say Frank Miller was making a commentary about today's events when he wrote this thing decades ago.

  • March 11, 2007, 4:44 p.m. CST

    Yup, I won the argument

    by FluffyUnbound

    You directly state in your first post that you're speaking from a professional perspective. But since you've decided to dial it back and you NOW say that your medical background is irrelevant and you're simply making a moral claim, hey, I can accept that. And I can further completely dismiss your claim, since you've provided zero basis for it, and without your professional credential to hang it on you're just some dude on the internet with an opinion. Let's look at the "adult content" in the film: there's some sexual content, some nudity, and violence and gore. For 99% of humanity's history, only the very wealthiest people had housing with private rooms, and the overwhelming majority of children as a result throughout history spent their childhood evenings watching their parents fuck. Also, subsistence agriculture was the economic basis of the lives of 99% of the population until comparatively recently as well, and that meant that most children routinely witnessed and participated in animal slaughter, which certainly had to provide them with more dramatic scenes of violence and blood than anything in a movie. So I have to wonder - were all of these children, the overwhelming majority of humanity that has lived to date, the victims of emotional and mental abuse? Come on people, look past your extremely narrow and parochial middle class perspectives.

  • March 11, 2007, 4:44 p.m. CST

    Deejay - legal and ethical issues in diagnosis

    by gad

    Well let's see. If you've taken your 9 year old to see The 300 I assume you made a decision based on your child's maturity. That's the assumption that the law has made and it's good enough for me absent any other information. As for the so called and self described 'gooddoctor' I would say that first of all I have problems with him talking with the voice of authority over something he is not qualified to talk about. That he made a huge point of making sure everyone knew he is allegedly a doctor proves that point. That he continues to post under the name of 'TheGoodDoctor' shows he is continuing to try to talk under the color of authority which he doesn't have. If you notice doctors on tv or radio are very careful in providing opinions about specific people and in providing diagnosis of people that they haven't examined. There are legal and ethical issues involved and a doctor can get in serious trouble. The 9 year old boy, what state does he live in? Is the alleged doctor licenced to practice in that state? We've already established that he is not qualified to provide the kind of diagnosis that he offered. That seems like malpractice right there. The physician oath to do no harm is likewise breached. You'll notice that you never see doctors actually talking the way this alleged doctor is talking. Is the alleged doctor, since he's diagnosed the child in a physician/patient relationship? Is there an implied or express contract, I don't think he could claim lack of liability under a Good Samaritan law. You know a doctor, a real doctor is supposed to protect a patients autonomy, avoid fraud or duress, protect patients as human beings. In short, everything 'thegooddoctor' is failing to do. The only doctor like characteristic he seems to have is an arrogance and a superior attitude. That's my problem with this guy.

  • March 11, 2007, 4:47 p.m. CST


    by DeeJay

    BSB... I think most of us are addressing the *general* belief that taking a 9-year-old to see "300" is not a good parental choice. While Good Doc's earliest comment was directed specifically at Shogun (and I admire the defense you offer as a friend), it was Shogun who put this topic out for public debate. Harry's father previously took some parental skills flack for his post-Columbine comments here at AICN, just as Steve Irwin was publicly called on the carpet--- not necessarily at AICN--- after involving his infant child in one of his acts. I don't think anyone questions the care that Shogun, Mr. Knowles or Mr. Irwin have/has had for their children. However, when you throw questionable public behavior out on this forum, it usually leads to open season (for better or worse). However, in the spirit of your post, how about we all call a truce on this topic?

  • March 11, 2007, 4:57 p.m. CST

    just saw it in IMAX

    by oisin5199

    Certainly enjoyed it, but not especially mind blowing. Of course, great visuals. The only time anyone cheered at my viewing, ironically enough, was not in any of the badass battle scenes but when the Queen gets her revenge. I took my 14 year old to see it - it's not anything he hasn't seen in video games (and the sex was pretty tame, in my opinion). It's not like the violence was a shockingly over the top as Sin City, where I was laughing I was so freaked out by it. Frank Miller may not have intended social commentary, but I can certainly see how easy it would be to read politics into it. An illegal war against a Persian state, freedom isn't free, the UN - I mean council - debating over it, the queen appearing before the Congress - I mean council, asking for a troop surge. It's there if you want it. But you could easily see the Persians as decadent, overconfident Americans if you wanted. I just thought it was interesting that the Persians were just all about otherness - they were black, Asian, hispanic, vampire, demon, circus freak. And they did know how to party! TASG was very interesting as Xerxes. I loved the height differential when he's standing behind Leonidas. Anyway, I hope Snyder can up his game in the character dept. for Watchmen as these were mostly flat characters, but that's what served the movie.

  • March 11, 2007, 4:59 p.m. CST

    oh yeah, and watching the History Channel

    by oisin5199

    for actual history is pretty laughable. Those docs are so biased and often inaccurate, it's not even funny. If you were paying attention, the point was that their valiant loss inspired Greece to unite its warring nation states together to fight Persia. Thus, the birth of democracy, yada yada yada.

  • March 11, 2007, 5:04 p.m. CST

    Re Firstislast

    by Max Agave

    No, the woman shouldn't have been killed, just have her part finished. She served her function in the first act, it was after the first act that she become a bore. We can see her at the end too, need something to tie up the movie, but seriously, does every movie HAVE to have a woman? You really managed to misquote me. It didn't bother me that she was strong, it bothered me that she was a token. Past the first act, she served no function relevant to the 300 Spartans. She's in the movie JUST to have a woman in the movie, which is tokenism. Is that respectful to women? Is a woman always necessary? Would you complain if a movie removed the MEN and let the women at it? If there was ever a flick, or even part of a flick, that just doesn't need a woman, it's everything past the first act of 300. btw, strong women are a turn-on for me, I love a girl who's stronger than I am :)

  • March 11, 2007, 5:06 p.m. CST

    Yeah, but the fact is that both sides can represent

    by superninja

    everyone from a political perspective given human history, which is why it really only represents a specific point in history when it comes down to it.

  • March 11, 2007, 5:28 p.m. CST

    RE: "Yackbacker Elitism"

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    firstislast - you should prepare yourself for some "Yackbacker Ownage".

  • March 11, 2007, 5:32 p.m. CST


    by DeeJay

    Gad... I appreciate your response. Following your argument, is it not fair to say that none of us are qualified to make legal arguments (unless you work in the field of medical malpractice), as we don’t have said credentials? Also, as there doesn’t look to be a widely accepted measurement for a person’s maturity, should we not also dismiss your reference to a parent’s belief about their child’s maturity? After all, that same argument has been made in a number of cases where parents have allowed their early-teen daughters to marry men in their 40’s. In any event, I respect your issue with anyone coming to AICN with what you perceive as a condescending attitude, but would you agree with cutting a first-time poster some slack in that regard? After all, it seems that you’re both actually in agreement, as far as the larger issue is concerned.

  • March 11, 2007, 5:40 p.m. CST

    To Gad and Fluffy

    by TheGoodDoctor

    I'm just curious. Are both of you parents? If so, would you take your nine year old son or daughter to see 300? Why or why not? Would you allow the same child to see Pulp Fiction (another stylized, graphic, yet clearly a non-realistic film)? Why or why not? And Gad? I've stated what my qualifications and background are (whether you feel it gives my opinion credence or not is irrelevant to me). What are your qualifications to argue your position? Parental experience? Experience with children from a psychological format or otherwise? I still stand by my original point that taking a nine year old to 300 is bad parenting. I'd be willing to bet that most parents in this forum and most parents that you and I both know collectively would feel the same.

  • March 11, 2007, 6:15 p.m. CST


    by gad

    A legal and medical malpractice discussion on talkback. Who'd have thought it. Well, I guess we could dismiss my assessment about a parent determining the maturity of a child. The law makes the determination by the letter of the law that no child under six shall be allowed in R rated movies unless accompanied by a parent. That's pretty straight forward. It doesn't even matter legally what your reasoning is for taking your child with you to that movie. Maturity level has nothing to do with it. You could argue that the ratings are wrong and plenty of people do argue that but if you take your six year old right now to see 300 you're getting in, legally. Heck, I saw some babies there as a matter of fact. As for maturity level, I don't think that half of the people they let into that movie could have passed a maturity test. As for the not qualified to make legal arguments, well you know, if I presented myself as someone who had graduated from law school and knew something about law and under the color of authority made my opinions then there'd be a problem. Again it's liability issues and just a stupid thing to do. I presented possible legal arguments and I'll leave it at that. My opinion. Do I have a problem with someone saying Joe Blow is nuts for bringing his child to an R rated movie - no. Do I have a problem with someone claiming to be a doctor and saying to Joe Blow that he's mentally scarred his child? - oh heck yeah. But I was done with this argument a while back. I've been hanging around the house making sure my son's plane got him back to school.

  • March 11, 2007, 6:16 p.m. CST

    Basic Psychology tell us...

    by Johnno

    Children are always in a stage where they learn and retain information and imitate actions or roles of their parents or people on TV etc. TV and film plays a big part in influencing their lives. Will watching violence and sex make them into violent and buggery people? Not necessarily. Does watching stuff like that at a young age definately influence them? A resounding yes, whatever it may be doing, it's definately doing something. So really parents, think before you do... Sure watching 300 couldn't hurt nobody, but on the other hand it very well could despite how involved a parent you are. You could try and drive a car over the speed limit sometimes if you want to, but that doesn't make it a good idea. Simply put, better safe than sorry. Because you could just end up with that statistical kid who might go off the deep end due to environmental factors.

  • March 11, 2007, 6:36 p.m. CST

    "You can try and drive a car over the speed limit"

    by IndustryKiller!

    Umm i'm not sure your speeding analogy quite works here Johnno. Considering that often speed limits are ridiculously out of whack. being a sentient human being, I take in traffic, road conditions, and my knowledge of the terrain when I decide the rate of speed of which I drive. People who always obey bullshit little state laws and who think they are there solely for our own good annoy the shit out of me. It's a suckers deal. Speed limits (the speed allowed, NOT their actual existence) and speeding tickets are often there to allow the state and insurance companies to pilfer money from people. Saying it's not a good idea to drive above the speed limit makes you sound like kind of a pussy (thats what radar detectors are for). Kind of like saying that watching 300 could push a kid "off the deep end". WHat are you a soccer mom?

  • March 11, 2007, 6:43 p.m. CST

    $70,025,000 in 3.1 days WELCOME BACK THE "R" RATED HITS

    by Mace Tofu

    We need more R rated action movies. This is good news for WATCHMEN : )

  • March 11, 2007, 7:03 p.m. CST

    300's R rating has little to do with its $ucce$$

    by Anino

    They could have given this a PG13 rating and it would still draw the crowds in--they had a highly successful ad campaign, and promised a visual product that escapist moviegoers haven't seen before, or done in that way. You might compare it to other sword and sandal epics, or to Lord of the Rings--but it was touted as groundbreaking, and a visual feast. Whatever the draw was, it wasn't the "R" rating. I'm sure that if you did an exit survey, you'd get a very VERY small percentage of viewers saying they went to see it because it was rated R. They'd probably say they wanted to see something action packed and epic--sure, there are scenes that wouldn't be in there if it were rated PG13, but there's a fallacy in thinking putting an R on something will make it monetarily successful--the figures don't show that trend. The top grossing films in the past tend to be PG or PG13. Yes, 300 broke box office records--but I think it corresponds to several other variables (marketing especially) and the story it promises to tell.

  • March 11, 2007, 7:16 p.m. CST


    by nonsensical

    I'm okay, I have been ill lately, but I'm okay. <p> Oh, and firstislast, Yack doesn't hate the concept of Transformers. He, like me, does hate that such a proven "I like it when things 'splode!" director is at the helm missing the mark and departing so far off the Transformers concept and characterization that should have served as a strong foundation for the upcoming film that carries the Transformers name. <p> I've said it before. The only thing this particular director understands is that he has cars that can transform into giant robots serving as his catalyst for "making things 'splode". He doesn't get that the characters, which happen to be from a robotic race that uses transformation as a tactic for blending in are the driving element in this film. He fails to see that the Cybertronians (particularly the Autobots) should be the characters with which the audience should be making the emotional connections and that the human counterparts are the supporting characters that help the Cybertronians acclimate to their new surroundings. <p> Instead we get a director who accepted a script about a boy and his first car that happens to transform into a robot. <p> Now the thing about the Transformers that seems to be forgotten by just about everyone is that they are ROBOTS in Disguise. That means that they are Robots that TRANSFORM into cars, jets, tanks, or whatever in order to conceal themselves. They should look more like the Robots that they are first and foremost. Instead in Bay's version they are VEHICLES that transform into robots. <p> DAMNIT! I was done talking about this. The point is that Yack isn't an elitist and doesn't hate the concept of Transformers, but like me hates that the concept is being so horribly mishandled and misinterpreted. I'm okay, I have been ill lately, but I'm okay. <p> Oh, and firstislast, Yack doesn't hate the concept of Transformers. He, like me, does hate that such a proven "I like it when things 'splode!" director is at the helm missing the mark and departing so far off the Transformers concept and characterization that should have served as a strong foundation for the upcoming film that carries the Transformers name. <p> I've said it before. The only thing this particular director understands is that he has cars that can transform into giant robots serving as his catalyst for "making things 'splode". He doesn't get that the characters, which happen to be from a robotic race that uses transformation as a tactic for blending in are the driving element in this film. He fails to see that the Cybertronians (particularly the Autobots) should be the characters with which the audience should be making the emotional connections and that the human counterparts are the supporting characters that help the Cybertronians acclimate to their new surroundings. <p> Instead we get a director who accepted a script about a boy and his first car that happens to transform into a robot. <p> Now the thing about the Transformers that seems to be forgotten by just about everyone is that they are ROBOTS in Disguise. That means that they are Robots that TRANSFORM into cars, jets, tanks, or whatever in order to conceal themselves. They should look more like the Robots that they are first and foremost. Instead in Bay's version they are VEHICLES that transform into robots. <p> DAMNIT! I was done talking about this. The point is that Yack isn't an elitist and doesn't hate the concept of Transformers, but like me hates that the concept is being so horribly mishandled and misinterpreted.

  • March 11, 2007, 7:16 p.m. CST


    by nonsensical

    I'm okay, I have been ill lately, but I'm okay. <p> Oh, and firstislast, Yack doesn't hate the concept of Transformers. He, like me, does hate that such a proven "I like it when things 'splode!" director is at the helm missing the mark and departing so far off the Transformers concept and characterization that should have served as a strong foundation for the upcoming film that carries the Transformers name. <p> I've said it before. The only thing this particular director understands is that he has cars that can transform into giant robots serving as his catalyst for "making things 'splode". He doesn't get that the characters, which happen to be from a robotic race that uses transformation as a tactic for blending in are the driving element in this film. He fails to see that the Cybertronians (particularly the Autobots) should be the characters with which the audience should be making the emotional connections and that the human counterparts are the supporting characters that help the Cybertronians acclimate to their new surroundings. <p> Instead we get a director who accepted a script about a boy and his first car that happens to transform into a robot. <p> Now the thing about the Transformers that seems to be forgotten by just about everyone is that they are ROBOTS in Disguise. That means that they are Robots that TRANSFORM into cars, jets, tanks, or whatever in order to conceal themselves. They should look more like the Robots that they are first and foremost. Instead in Bay's version they are VEHICLES that transform into robots. <p> DAMNIT! I was done talking about this. The point is that Yack isn't an elitist and doesn't hate the concept of Transformers, but like me hates that the concept is being so horribly mishandled and misinterpreted. I'm okay, I have been ill lately, but I'm okay. <p> Oh, and firstislast, Yack doesn't hate the concept of Transformers. He, like me, does hate that such a proven "I like it when things 'splode!" director is at the helm missing the mark and departing so far off the Transformers concept and characterization that should have served as a strong foundation for the upcoming film that carries the Transformers name. <p> I've said it before. The only thing this particular director understands is that he has cars that can transform into giant robots serving as his catalyst for "making things 'splode". He doesn't get that the characters, which happen to be from a robotic race that uses transformation as a tactic for blending in are the driving element in this film. He fails to see that the Cybertronians (particularly the Autobots) should be the characters with which the audience should be making the emotional connections and that the human counterparts are the supporting characters that help the Cybertronians acclimate to their new surroundings. <p> Instead we get a director who accepted a script about a boy and his first car that happens to transform into a robot. <p> Now the thing about the Transformers that seems to be forgotten by just about everyone is that they are ROBOTS in Disguise. That means that they are Robots that TRANSFORM into cars, jets, tanks, or whatever in order to conceal themselves. They should look more like the Robots that they are first and foremost. Instead in Bay's version they are VEHICLES that transform into robots. <p> DAMNIT! I was done talking about this. The point is that Yack isn't an elitist and doesn't hate the concept of Transformers, but like me hates that the concept is being so horribly mishandled and misinterpreted.

  • March 11, 2007, 7:38 p.m. CST

    Fine, Mori...

    by genro

    <p>You, Drew McWeeney, have no known business with said people. So from here on out, any info coming from the Watchmen production I'll take it as a "scoop" provided by some mysterious insider. Because AICN is not a business that needs original content to draw traffic. No money, nor business connections, is made from having this audience or name recognition. And no production gains anything by having coverage on AICN. I should consider AICN a digression on your way to accredited screenwriter and understand it had nothing to do with launching said career. In fact, AICN and CHUD should be considered charity.</p><p>I'm not levelling charges of illegality, at anyone. I'm saying business is business and no one does anything out of the goddness of beating heart, especially in the movie world. You gave 300 a pass, so be it. We'll know the reality when the Watchmen work begins. Hopefully, I'll be dead-fucking-wrong and Snyder will have a sold script with top-shelf cast and an approach that makes everyone sit back and take notice. But I didn't see Jeph Loeb's name attached, anywhere.</p>

  • March 11, 2007, 8:24 p.m. CST

    Give it up gad.

    by mrfan

    Taking a child to rated R movie is just bad parenting. You made a mistake. Plain and simple. How hard is it to admit that? What happened? Did the babysitter cancel at the last minute? If you cannot find a sitter then don't take them. You made them. Act responsible. Nothing you say can change that. Funny how you complain about the ignorance of other parents yet you seem to fall into the exact catagory that you diss. It is funny to see how many parents whine when they cannot go to the movies opening weekend. They have to drage their babies or children to it simply because "it" has to be seen right away.

  • March 11, 2007, 8:26 p.m. CST

    Gobots, Trolls and maybe even a bit 300

    by gad

    Ya, that Gobot double post came out of nowhere. That's a movie I hope is going to be good. That other guy reminds of a Triumph the Insult Dog video I saw on you tube where some other puppet with a guys hand up his arse and for some reason hostile to the other dog did an ambush video and tried to get over on Triumph. Pretty sad. If Moriarty or Harry or anybody writing for this site has greater ambitions well then good for them and good luck with that. Nothing to be grumpy and upset about.

  • March 11, 2007, 8:27 p.m. CST

    rbatty is spot on...FUNNIEST FILM OF THE YEAR

    by slappy jones

    the fact that there are folks denying the overwhelming homoeroticism is cracking me up....the film was a laugh riot from beginning to end...the narration was awful, characters were non existant, the fights repetitive, the acting atrocious, the killings boring and the dialogue was beyond belief...I loved every gay minute of it. gloriously ridiculous...the best is how seriously some people are taking me in about 6 months when this film has already dated you will all feel a little silly how serious you took it...

  • March 11, 2007, 8:36 p.m. CST

    Mrfan - medication time ?

    by gad

    What are you on again? Cause you need another dose. To paraphrase Struther Martin, 'what we have here is a failure to communicate.' I never said I had taken anyone to see the movie and if I did I wouldn't bother defending it to you. Totally different arguments going on. But your vote on who gets to go to R rated movies is noted. I mean, if there was voting on this site.

  • March 11, 2007, 8:37 p.m. CST

    This would have been more fun...

    by SG7

    ... had it not been for the row of highschool punks in front of us in the second to last row on the left. One was this fat cow that insessantly giggled, particularly during the nudity. This was in Redmond WA at Bella Botega on Satruday nights 7:30 showing. Why am I noting that? Becuase maybe one of those little kid highschool trust fund eastside yuppie spawn tools will read this and tell the fat cow to shut up next time, as hearing it from complete strangers didn't seem to work. I'll watch again on DVD.

  • March 11, 2007, 8:40 p.m. CST


    by SG7 need to let the haters hate and ignore them. They are just a manifestation of John Gabirels Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. You can't fight them, they are as old as the net.

  • March 11, 2007, 8:41 p.m. CST

    Funniest Film of the Year?

    by Anino

    Oh yeah, the producers are laughing alll the way to the bank on this one. Is that why film critics are poorer than film producers? Critic: Your film sucks! Producer: Your take home pay sucks! Sure, we'll have the art vs commercialism argument till the cows come home, and that $$$ don't mean an Oscar. But the real geniuses HAVE to be the marketing department. Look, the bottom line is, quality products make money if they are marketed properly. If people feel they've been duped into watching something "ridiculous", then word of mouth and non-existent repeat viewings will be reflected in a drop of revenue. I think 6 months from now, even a year from now when DVD sales and international sales figures come in, I think the bean counters and investors won't feel "silly how serious" they took this venture. Anyway, that being said, 300 was awesome for what it was. Silly or not, 6 months from now, some of these talkbacks will be long forgotten and Spartans will be a reinvented household name.

  • March 11, 2007, 9:02 p.m. CST

    Screen violence vs. screen violence

    by FluffyUnbound

    I figured I would return to the thread just to say that I just watched this week's Rome, and there's a scene where Titus Pullo bites a guy's tongue out of his mouth, and that ONE SCENE was more disturbing than this entire film. So how bad can 300 be? Not as bad as a TV show. So let's forget about the whole violence thing.

  • March 11, 2007, 9:05 p.m. CST

    Better than troy, as good as gladiator

    by iwontwin

    Too much slomo makes slomo less triumphant. I wish they would have spent more time showing how leonidas ruled as a king, rather than jumping quickly to the threat upon them. Yes the end battle was anticlimactic...instead of focusing on minor skirmishes throughout, I would have loved to see one huge battle, such as in lord or the rings TT,ROK. I had major problems with the dialogue, but I love it when at the signature lines of the movie! TONIGHT WE DINE IN HELL!!!!!!!!

  • March 11, 2007, 9:12 p.m. CST

    DocPazuzu & others

    by the_shogun_gunslinger

    i dont want to give the impression that taking my 9 year old son to see 300 is "cool" i was simply retorting to someones comparison of the film to the feeling they had from braveheart. i will say however that kids are much smarter than most people think. not to mention my kids have matured quickly due to certain family situations (im actually their stepdad) and trust me, taking a 6, 8 and 11 year old under your wing at the age of 22 isnt easy...for the record my wife is 28 and married young, crazy koreans)but we have always tried to keep our kids open minded to things in the world. they still love kiddie stuff like Spongebob and anything to do with talking animals *sigh* but its also nice to be able to sit down as a family and enjoy something more challenging like the good the bad and the ugly, akira, trigun (family fave) the matrix, V for Vendetta not to mention the countless horror flicks theyve grown fond of, they actually like to be scared, go figure. i think everyone here would be suprised at how bright kids can be when youre open with them. as for my son missing school, he has straight A's and hasnt miised a day in ages and i wanted to treat him to a premiere and some quality time together, sue me. anyways, i dont regret it at all and im proud of my kids and how theyve turned out.

  • March 11, 2007, 9:12 p.m. CST

    btw, thanks BSB

    by the_shogun_gunslinger

    you're my boy,'re my BOY :p

  • March 11, 2007, 9:15 p.m. CST


    by TheGoodDoctor

    So Gad, we seem to have finally agreed on one point. I stated it as "lawful, but not expedient" and you stated it in a little more verbose fashion. So, yes those who set standards say that, technically, a parent could take their five year old to see Full Metal Jacket. Is that a good idea? In my mind, no. So, "lawful, but not expedient." I'm going to tip my hand a bit here (possibly regrettably given some of the comments directed at me here today) and tell you one of the main underlying reasons why I commented today and why the issue is what it is for me. In 1979 I was 8 years old. My father, on average a great parent did something that affected me adversely for years. He took me to see the movie Alien. I, too, was a mature child for my age. I enjoyed most of the movie, but ultimately it scared the hell out of me. As years went by I wondered why he took me to see that movie. It was R-rated. Granted, info about film wasn't so readily accessible then (i.e. - you couldn't log on to IMDB and find out what the actual content was). Still, he could've seen it beforehand and judged whether it would be a good idea. He could've taken me home after seeing the content on screen. Instead, he deemed it acceptable to my mind and experience just as Shogun did with his child. It took me many more years to come to grips with why he did something that really upset me at the time. I never told him when I was eight that it scared me because I wanted to save face in front of my father. Again, other than this instance he was an exemplary father. I forgave him and we talked about it years later. We had a beer and a laugh. That was during my third year in med school. He passed away almost three months later. So, it basically boiled down to a question of "why did you do that, Dad?" It was a question that itched and gnawed at me for a long time. I'm glad I had the opportunity to talk with him about it. Maybe Shogun's kid will have the same problem. Maybe not. All I know is that as parents we make choices that forever mold parts of our children. Ultimately, they are all we have. I would give up my practice, my abilities and my life for mine. I'm sure you would for yours and I'm sure Shogun would for his. So, one last time, from someone who cares very deeply for people on a fundamental level (and that includes you)......taking a nine year old to see 300 is bad parenting. Taking an eight year old to see Alien is bad parenting. Forgivable? Completely. I just see that one instance of my father's behavior becoming normative in current society. And it bothers me. It bothers me a lot. As a physician I often find myself saying and doing unpopular things. I say things that sound high-handed or callous or perhaps come out wrong. The reason that I say and do what I do is because it's all I know and ultimately, I care about people. I truly want to help people and if that help is indirectly to a nine year old boy that I'll never even know, in the form of telling his father that I think his choice was wrong, I'll do it. And I'd do it again. You don't have to agree with it, or like it, or even listen to it. At this point I'd much rather shake hands and offer to buy you a drink. I don't think amends get made in a place like this though. Anyway....there it is.

  • March 11, 2007, 9:28 p.m. CST


    by the_shogun_gunslinger

    kinda funny because all of them love the Alien, especially Aliens (not too keen on 3 or 4 tho) not one nightmare, just countless hours of playing an imaginary gam involving a space marine, an alien and my youngest daughter as Newt, haha. the key word is "imaginary", but i can see if a child is not used to exposurfe like that, alien would scare most 8 year olds shitless. remember, every kid is different.

  • March 11, 2007, 9:42 p.m. CST


    by GibsonUSA Returns

    Since talkbackers here are writing novels, mine shall be two sentences. This movie rocked hard!

  • March 11, 2007, 9:44 p.m. CST


    by the_shogun_gunslinger

    i need to proof read more often, that last post was horrid....edit button? please?

  • March 11, 2007, 9:51 p.m. CST

    Having huge muscles is "gay"??

    by GibsonUSA Returns

    So what's not gay, being fatass nerds like yourselves?

  • March 11, 2007, 9:54 p.m. CST

    No, having huge muscles is NOT gay

    by Anino

    But having huge muscles, GOOD shoes and a name like "Scott" is.

  • March 11, 2007, 10:05 p.m. CST


    by antonphd


  • March 11, 2007, 10:06 p.m. CST

    I'm good with that

    by gad

    That's an excellent reason for having your opinion and I respect that. I don't think anyone here doesn't respect that. Much better than 'because I said so'as a reason. And Alien was the one movie that scared the crap out of me as well. I got no beefs here.

  • March 11, 2007, 10:11 p.m. CST

    Critics vs Producers

    by antonphd

    Critics are good for one thing and one thing only: ad space. I'll take word of mouth or internet reviews from AICN(which are at least coming from people who actually like to watch movies) over a film critic review anyday. The saying shouldn't be 'those who can't do teach' rather it should be 'those who can't get a real writing job are film critics'. But then again... people who read critics to take them seriously are not film lovers either. So. I guess it doesn't matter that film critics are scavengers.

  • March 11, 2007, 10:18 p.m. CST

    critics vs producers

    by Anino

    Of course there's a place for critics in the pantheon of film--yes, ad space is one...and those that don't do, teach, or critique film--well, that's us here on the talkbacks right? But we can take it an altruistic step further and say we're the critic-voice of the everyman (and woman) demographic that buy the $10 popcorn combos and fill the seats.

  • March 11, 2007, 10:22 p.m. CST

    or maybe

    by Anino

    We here in talkbackville are dumber than critics because we praise or trash a film, and we don't get paid to do so...unless we're doing this at work. Which I'm sure most of us are.

  • March 11, 2007, 10:44 p.m. CST


    by radjac33

    Did anyone find it funny that TASG sat on a thone for pretty much all of 300. posted this in the BSG thread now i'm posting it here.

  • March 11, 2007, 10:56 p.m. CST


    by Zarles

    Great flick. It was like watching a painting come to life. If the Academy doesn't recognize this one for Cinematography or Visual Effects, Gerard Butler should be allowed to cut all of their heads off with the tip of his four-foot dick. Mori's right, though - while it isn't the greatest movie in the world in the way of dialogue or plot, it MORE than makes up for it with raw emotion. Well worth 8 bucks and a Saturday afternoon. That's all movies really are, remember?

  • March 11, 2007, 11:13 p.m. CST

    Why Didn't Somebody Tell Me It Was Gay?

    by Professor Krapp

    I don't mind that, but I could have brought my gay friends to the movie. They would have loved all that rippling male muscle. At least it would have distracted them from how stupid the movie was. I didn't have that. And for the guy who says this was as good as Gladiator - I'm fucking speechless. I can't even insult you, I'm so stunned.

  • March 11, 2007, 11:16 p.m. CST

    wow gibsonusa you're the coolest

    by slappy jones

    i just wanna hang with you...I bet you are totally like rad and that you like totally "got" 300 man.....

  • March 12, 2007, midnight CST

    these 'gay' comments crack me up

    by Anino

    If you were in the midst of them 'gay' spartans and made comments like the ones we've read here--well...SLICE...there goes your head.

  • March 12, 2007, 12:03 a.m. CST

    Um, Excuse, Me, NO

    by Professor Krapp

    Homosexuality was rampant among the Spartans. If I was among them and made a gay comment, they'd bend me over and do me like a little schoolboy. There was a heck of a lot of buggery going on among those gladiators.

  • March 12, 2007, 12:07 a.m. CST

    Anino: *inspite of* does not equal because of

    by wash

    re: the R Rating - Jeeze, way to miss the freaking point. People are hailing the numbers because it means that R rated big budget movie is still capable of bringing in huge crowds. Not BECAUSE of it's rating necessarily, but in spite of. The studios seem reluctant to use it these days except for cheap horror movies/thrillers/dramas etc.

  • March 12, 2007, 12:11 a.m. CST

    um, excuse ME

    by Anino

    You know there's buggery in prisons, but would YOU dare call any of THEM gay? I think it was the same in Sparta--they practiced buggery but they weren't gay...or wouldn't be called that to their faces.

  • March 12, 2007, 12:13 a.m. CST


    by Anino

    read my post carefully. I was saying that the R rating doesn't have anything to do with the huge numbers 300 raked in. Please read carefully next time before sounding sanctimonious. End of lesson. See you next time girls.

  • March 12, 2007, 12:17 a.m. CST


    by drew mcweeny

    Love how you still want to stick that in there. "You have no known business." No, dipshit, I have no business with them. I've never done business with them. And you saying it as many times as you can muster still doesn't make it so. <P>Oh, no! Someone invited us to take a look at something! Therefore our opinions are tainted forever! <P>Problem is, that's been demonstrated repeatedly on this site to not be the case. I've seen pieces of things early and been interested, then hated the final film. Getting a behind-the-scenes look at something hardly ruins my ability to judge the final product. <P>If it's really such a problem, you always have the option of not reading it. But that's not really what you want, is it? You want to be a prick and cast aspersions, and you want to do your best to imply some sort of horrible corruption and collusion. <P>Bottom line... you're wrong, and since you know you are wrong, you choose to deal in empty innuendo instead of fact. "No known business." What an asshole.

  • March 12, 2007, 12:23 a.m. CST

    Hey Moriarty

    by Professor Krapp

    Don't let this Genro asshole bug you too much. His cat died and now he has nothing to have sex with, so he's kind of testy (pun intended.)

  • March 12, 2007, 12:29 a.m. CST

    dang mori

    by the_shogun_gunslinger

    you seem to gettn a bit defensive. at least youre not being accused of raising a devil child by taking ur kid to see the film, haha. fuck these guys tho, seriously.

  • March 12, 2007, 12:49 a.m. CST


    by JDanielP

    I'm not a HUGE fan of this flick, "300", though I admit that it's quite the moving art piece. (It was ok.) I mentioned in a previous posting how I felt about the early sex scene, despite my great appreciation for the female form. (I have to agree with talkbacker "xsi kal" on that topic.) But I loved "SIN CITY", which is one of my personal favorites. So I just wanted to say that... for the first time in years, I'm getting REALLY excited because of where Hollywood is (finally) taking us. Because of movies like the STAR WARS prequels and SKY CAPTAIN and SIN CITY and Peter Jackson's KING KONG, ...and 300, ...we are going to reach that new milestone. For some people, that may've been one of those movies I just mentioned. But for me, it's going to the SUPERHERO flick that we haven't seen, yet. The one that raises the bar like no other. And I promise you that it will be a movie that will use the techniques used in "300", with a style all it's own. For me, I believe THAT movie could be the recently anounced JLA movie. If someone like Peter Jackson makes "JUSTICE LEAGUE of AMERICA" (or perhaps a world marketed "JUSTICE LEAGUE") with inspiration (perhaps from artist Alex Ross or other talented sequential artists), ...if someone with Peter Jackson's talent makes such a movie with an epic story, ...a story with as much attention as "KINGDOM COME", ...well, a glorious day that will be. It would have the potential to be the new STAR WARS, if you get what I'm saying. But then, maybe that flick I'm looking for will be the "AVENGERS" flick, based on Marvel's characters. All I'm saying is, ...that day is soon coming. No way it will be more than 20 years away. But I'm predicting... depending on how hard the studios are pushing for it... that audiences the world over will LOVE a movie AGAIN like no other, ...which will be a reminder (to some) of 1977 and the release of the original STAR WARS. It's coming, folks. Maybe it will be one of James Cameron's flicks. Maybe it will be from the director of "300", in getting a surprise shot to interpret Frank Miller's "THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS" ...or even something Frank Miller directs, himself. But I'm guessing it will aim for the same audiences of the STAR WARS movies, with a PG or PG-13 rating. It's coming, folks. And it can't get here soon enough. And I bet it's here by 2015. So, Hollywood, ...the race is on.

  • March 12, 2007, 12:56 a.m. CST

    Anino - you read MY post

    by wash

    Again, you are just missing it. Hilariously. Or just read the subject if you're lazy.

  • March 12, 2007, 12:59 a.m. CST

    Leonidas IS Leonidas

    by Aust1n

    Anyone who takes a movie based on something that actually happened, which is faithful in its retelling of that event, and then claims that somehow it is intended to support or re-enforce their own simplistic political ideologies is a fool. The Iraq War is not the Battle of Thermopylae. The Battle of Thermopylae is the Battle of Thermopylae.

  • March 12, 2007, 1:06 a.m. CST

    Correction: Warner Bros. announced "JUSTICE LEAGUE"

    by JDanielP

    ...not JLA (as in "of America"). My bad.

  • March 12, 2007, 1:24 a.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    Thanks for confirming your age at 22. I actually had you pegged as being somewhere in your mid-twenties judging by your position.

  • March 12, 2007, 1:31 a.m. CST

    Wash, I read your post

    by Anino

    And I understand your point, and the difference between "in spite of" and "because of". (rolling my eyes). The original context of the whole conversation was a reaction to a comment that said "Welcome back the R rated action movie!". You're missing my point entirely and hilariously so. The fact this "R" rated movie made megabucks shouldn't be de facto encouragement to make more R rated movies, but to make more movies that people want to see. I get the point, YOU get the point--but producers won't get the point. They won't understand the "in spite of" point--they'll take it as license to make crap that's rated R and expect to duplicate the success of 300. They are blind to the basic fact that an R restricts the scope of the audience. The reason THIS movie made more money (yes, in SPITE of the R rating) is that most people that don't go to the movies for most of the year DID go out to see this one. The story, the visual was the draw--and THAT'S the point that producers are going to miss, and they'll fall back into their monetarily illogical ways of churning out more R rated crap--they won't recognize that 300 is the exception to the conventional wisdom. Now you might want to re-read this before jumping all over it, self-righteousness in tow.

  • March 12, 2007, 1:41 a.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    While there is no doubt as to the historical accuracy of the points you made about most ancient civlizations, applying them the way you do to modern, western sensibilities is a specious argument at best. There are certain cultures in the world today (some tribes in New Guinea, to name a few) where, for example, the forcible induction into sexual practices of the tribe's young boys is conducted collectively by a group of male elders. For them this is an ancient, hallowed tradition but in most countries in the West similar practices will send you to prison for a very long time. One could argue that in the context of that particular culture, it's natural and poses to no harm, but very few Western parents would buy that argument from a child molester who would defend himself in that way. Some of the practices of ancient, albeit western, societies are as alien to our modern western sensibilities as the contemporary cultures I just described. Are/were the children of those cultures mentally disturbed? Probably not, but I'm pretty sure that similar practices with children in modern western societies is inadvisable at best, and potentially quite harmful at worst. As you yourself allude to, it's all about cultural context, whether temporally or geographically speaking.

  • March 12, 2007, 1:45 a.m. CST

    The US is not Sparta!

    by HellKing

    These Spartans in the movies were badasses! Americans always whine about how the other side conducts its part of the war. Does that sound like Spartans? The US always tries to tell other countries how big of a military they can have so just in case the US has to fight them, they know they can beat them. Does that sound like Spartans? Americans whine too much to be Spartans.

  • March 12, 2007, 1:48 a.m. CST


    by the_shogun_gunslinger

    actually i got married at 22 and am now 23. and yeah maybe my parenting skills are somewhat derived from my age. im also the oldest of 4 by 7 years so i think that might have helped too.

  • March 12, 2007, 1:52 a.m. CST

    later all

    by the_shogun_gunslinger

    gonna crash out. later dudes and dudettes...if there are in fact "dudettes" on here lol

  • March 12, 2007, 2:46 a.m. CST

    btw, the Queen was NOT token and parenting thoughts

    by oisin5199

    SPOILERS: She was integral to the story and theme throughout. The film makes a very big deal about Spartan families and the mother's sacrifice and the woman's honored role in society (well, sure it was for being baby machines, but still), and it's usual war theme about those who must carry on in the face of loss. Plus the fact that her scene where she kills the asshole who raped and betrayed her was awesome. And to weigh in on the 'taking kids to r-rated movies thing' - being responsible means thinking for yourself and not just blindly following rules for their own sake. A responsible adult will research the film, know what they're in for, and judge based on the child. Some children can handle it, some can't. Every kid is different and there's almost no parenting rule out there that applies equally to every kid. There are certain kids I know that I would never take to a movie like this, where others it would be no problem. Also, all violence is not created equally. I was much more disturbed by the violence in History of Violence (but in a good way) than other much more violent films. It's all about how it's presented and what weight it's given. 300 is comic book, video game violence. I really don't think it's going to warp anyone's mind.

  • March 12, 2007, 4:03 a.m. CST

    "Precisely and Evocatively"

    by YokoTits

    A "stunningly beautiful..poem of war" sounds like a political statement to me. Romanticized war imagery is pro-war imagery ("... fluid and beautiful. I’m amazed at how violent the film is"). Now, not every war film is propaganda. Nothing's glorious about "Children of Men" for instance, or "Born on the Fourth of July." But Moriarty's contradictions betray his bias. Dismissing "300" as "propaganda" is "giving it more heft than I think it actually has." Then, in the very next sentence he describes the film as "a tragedy disguised as a sword-and-sandals epic." Is any tragedy a tragedy without "heft"? Ignoring conservatism in media only allows conservatives to make the ridiculous claim that they have no voice in media ( A politically conservative film isn't necessarily a bad film, but noting a director's politics is part of having an active interest in cinema. That Moriarty refuses to think about this film is unfortunate ("It’s not an intellectual experience"). That he also alludes to the film having a depth he refuses to elaborate on is even more unfortunate ("I don’t agree that it’s all surface and no [substance], as many critics have said so far"). A review should be heftier than this. By the way, Moriarty has a writing partner. It takes TWO people to write this shit? It takes two people NOT to think about "300"?

  • March 12, 2007, 4:07 a.m. CST

    I Hope I've Earned Some Defensive Moriarty Bitching

    by YokoTits

    Wittle man, what now?

  • March 12, 2007, 4:34 a.m. CST

    Where the hell is the Rome talkback!?

    by RedJester


  • March 12, 2007, 4:41 a.m. CST


    by drew mcweeny

    I don't mind at all if you disagree with my position on the film. That's something I never mind. I don't "ignore" conservatism in film because I don't mind it, much like I don't mind liberalism in film. I personally don't have to agree with every film's political position to enjoy them as films. <P>As I said, I think people who want to project a political argument onto the film certainly can and will. I just choose not to because it doesn't scare me or work me up to any particular extent. <P>Disagreement isn't bitching. And genro wasn't disagreeing with me... he was accusing me of something that isn't true. I certainly feel well within my rights to speak up when someone does so. <P>And my writing partner is for film, not for these reviews. Just to be clear.

  • March 12, 2007, 4:44 a.m. CST


    by drew mcweeny

    Look, you know what's up because you've been here for a long time, and because you actually comprehend what you read. You and I don't always see eye to eye, but your opinion is obviously sincere, and you've spent enough time asserting that opinion that I know you are who you say you are. I would hope that anyone who's read me long enough would be able to figure out the same about me. <P>Or you can troll. Like genro. <P>*shrug*

  • March 12, 2007, 5:07 a.m. CST


    by BannedOnTheRun

    Can you dig it!

  • March 12, 2007, 6:04 a.m. CST

    Moriarty . . .


    Most the guys egging you on are just trying to touch the hem of your garment. Because you rock and their lame. They just want the attention of the great man. But I'd really like to know how you get to |br| your posts so you can have distinct paragraphs. Is that only for superusers? <br><br>Or can I do it? No?

  • March 12, 2007, 6:09 a.m. CST

    I Can! I Can!


    Is it just me, or did this not use to work?<br><br>Now, that rocks. <hr>Can we do horizontal rules? That would even be cooler. BTW, 300 is clearly a political statement, as the resemblance between Leonidas' waxed and chiseled pectorals is identical to Bush's. And who can forget when Dick Cheney went murderously mad on the battlefield after theDemocrats killed his son? Plus, we all know that Ted Kennedy had his way with Barbara Bush back when Bush Sr. was trying to drum up support for Gulf War 1. <br><br>And is it just me, or was the blood splatter a little fakey-fake? Looked like it was done with a globular particle generator in Adobe Premiere or something.

  • March 12, 2007, 6:20 a.m. CST

    Moriarty as Shill


    I just think that's bullshit. What's a lot more likely is that trolls and envious wannabes want to see conspiracies where there are none.<br><br>You can be friends with someone, and that might help you understand the work better, but isn't going to make you like a steaming bowl of crap.<br><br>One could just as easily, and probably with more accuracy, say that wannabe critics who think Moriarty or anything other AICN critic are on-the-take, so to speak, are jealous, projecting, one of Moriarty's many jilted lovers . . . but probably just jealous.<br><br>And, rather than the simple explanation that an AICN critic liked something you didn't, people often seem to prefer to assume that if someone doesn't agree with their position (say, Moriarty likes a movie that they think sucks), then there is some sort of conspiracy going on. The election was stolen! It's a cabal! The New World Order! We're all gonna have barcodes tatooed on our foreheads!<br><br>Hey, I've got an idea for all the folks who think the quality of AICN reviews are tarnished (and, look, I'm not a big fan of Harry's reviews, I'll just be honest--not because I think he's in bed with the studios, but because I don't like how he reviews movies) . . . you start a better filmgeek site featuring reviews with integrity and everyone will just flock to it. I'm sure of it. That's my half-penny of wisdom on the subject.

  • March 12, 2007, 6:24 a.m. CST

    300 video game will it include Butt Pirates?

    by EvilWizardGlick

    Will the pre-battle assfucking be a part of the 300 video game? I can see it as a time trial with Leonidas motivating his men individually during the time limit. This follows the previous mini game the search for lube. <p> I imagine a line of Gay Spartan toys coming out soon. All rippling muscles oiled and leathered. Each would have a removable cod piece and butt hole allowing them to snap together in a bath house conga line.

  • March 12, 2007, 6:26 a.m. CST, of course there are PAID promotionals

    by EvilWizardGlick

    DUH, people get paid off to promote certain things. It doesn't matter if it is access or cash. It still happens. <p> Haven't you ever wondered why there are only CERTAIN talkbacks and not others? <p> Paid in full baby, paid in full.

  • March 12, 2007, 6:28 a.m. CST

    Screw Gladiator, MUSA was much better.

    by EvilWizardGlick

    How does it compare to MUSA?

  • March 12, 2007, 6:31 a.m. CST

    Naked Women are so Gay . . .


    And this movie was full of them. Also, printed words are gay, and there was a bunch of them at the end of the movie. And building walls out of your enemies is so gay. And guys having sex with women, which happened repeatedly in the movie, is ultra-gay. What a gay movie. And talking about how gay a movie is is so gay. What a gay talk-back. <br><br> And by "gay", I mean, "happy and carefree", you homophobic bigots. Jeeze. Have you no love of the language? Or at least a strong, manly attraction to the language?

  • March 12, 2007, 6:35 a.m. CST



    Paid promotionals: payola is always possible, I guess, but I certainly don't see any sign of it at AICN. Cuz I'm sure Harry could rack up trying to create buzz for crap movies, instead of talking about his domestic life or the struggles of his tedious childhood. But I see no reason to think the AICN guys aren't straight-up all the way. I'd be more prone to suspect the playah haters in the TBs before Moriarty, for a jillion reasons.

  • March 12, 2007, 6:58 a.m. CST

    70 mil!

    by Dazzler69

    Great movie!

  • March 12, 2007, 7:41 a.m. CST


    by stlfilmwire

    I hope Snyder doesn't do the Sky Captain thing with The Watchmen. With THe Watchmen, I want grit. Give me Scorsese with caps. Keep the "graphic novel look" out of Watchmen. Don't give me Sin City or Dick Tracy. Give me grit.

  • March 12, 2007, 7:56 a.m. CST

    My Persian friend's only comment was...

    by Kid Z

    ... "What's with all the piercings... they didn't look like that back then!" I asked if she thought it made Iranians look bad and her comment was no, it's too cartoony to be taken seriously... she was more upset that there were no actual Iranian/Persian actors playing any Persian characters, but then there were no actual Greeks either. I enjoyed seeing Miller and Varley's art brought to life, though, but the flick kinda wears you out after awhile.

  • March 12, 2007, 8:53 a.m. CST

    Film execs are shocked by the numbers?!

    by Anino

    Film execs were expecting this to open in the mid-30 millions and were surprised that it more than doubled that. The reasons they lowered there expectations were the lack of a marquee name (A-list) front man and a relatively unproven blockbuster director. HELLO?!!! These film exec types really crack me up. I think we as fans would have predicted a humongous opening weekend WITHOUT the luxury of highly paid prognosticators and useless demographic studies. They pour all this money into stupid sequels and think that just because Clooney or Pitt are in it that it will be a wise return on their investment. When it comes down to it, movie goers want to see a good story told, or a story told good. LOTR had unknowns for the most part and who ever heard of Peter Jackson before that except for the diehard movie geeks? Film execs are so out of touch, that a pleasant surprise like 300's 70million dollar weekend is wasted on them, and they don't deserve to take credit for it. Props to Frank Miller, to Zach Snyder--and the producers churning this out at $64 million--a fraction of what today's overblown silverscreen shite usually costs.

  • March 12, 2007, 9:01 a.m. CST

    some people in here sure like to talk about themselves

    by firstislast

    Seems people cant enjoy a movie these days without these dumbells telling them why they're wrong to enjoy something they just spent $20 seeing. Since when did these guys become the cinema-nazis? And really, who cares if they hate something we like? I had a ton of fun watching it and i'm going to watch it again on IMAX on thursday and i'll get it on HD DVD when it comes out at the end of the year too. Because I enjoyed it. I'd recommend the people who are spending large amounts of their spring break telling us why we're stupid for liking it, dont watch it again (if you've watched it at all). Cunts. and taking a 9 year old to an R rated movie is illegal, no matter how much "he" liked it. And how does that 23 year old know the kids he's now taking care of don't have nightmares? My parents let me watch all kind of crap growing up, from The Exorcist to Last House on the Left and I had nightmares about spinning heads for years, but I never told my parents about it, and looking back, it was pretty shitty of them to show me films aimed at adults, if for no other reason than I couldn't appreciate them for what they were. I mean, this guy's 23, he's still a kid himself for fucksake. His immaturity is probably why this baby-making breeding machine he's hitched up with is with him because she knows she can milk his ass for a few years till he wises up

  • March 12, 2007, 9:20 a.m. CST

    this film

    by monkeybrow

    sucked balls....made "dukes of hazzard" looking like the works of Jane Austin

  • March 12, 2007, 9:27 a.m. CST


    by FluffyUnbound

    Yeah, I know. I used pretty extreme examples. I've just recently started to get annoyed with the parade of "experts" who say, "OMIGOD if you give your kid a toy gun he will turn into Jeffrey Dahmer!" and "Oh noes! A tit! Your kid will be a sex criminal!" It's all such BS. And I wish people would stop all the sob stories about how their parents didn't love them because they let them see a "scary" movie. I was 10 years younger than my next oldest sibling, so every book and movie present in my house was completely age-inappropriate, and I think I benefitted from it. If there had been a person around who wanted to say, "Oh noes, you're too young to read that or watch that!" I would have laughed in their fucking arrogant face.

  • March 12, 2007, 9:29 a.m. CST

    And Anino

    by FluffyUnbound

    I don't think this film would have done as well if it was rated PG. The film would not be "itself" if it was rated PG. It would be a cowardly and niggardly shadow of itself. So I think ultimately if the film continues to do well there WILL be a relationship between its R rating and its success.

  • March 12, 2007, 9:35 a.m. CST

    Oh, and Yokotits wins the prize for worst logic

    by FluffyUnbound

    The film portrays a particular war as heroic, so that means the film is pro-ALL WARS, huh? Don't you realize how stupid that makes you sound? Dos that mean that the guys who made "The Longest Day" were pro-invasion of Grenada? And when Spielberg made "Saving Private Ryan" it meant he was making a pro-French and Indian war movie? What a maroon.

  • March 12, 2007, 10:05 a.m. CST

    Monkeys gotta throw feces - Trolls gotta troll

    by gad

    Seeing trolls troll is about as funny as going to the zoo and seeing the monkeys throw their crap. It's funny for a minute but it's the same exact thing over and over again so you move on. Monkey/troll is stuck in it's same behaviors. Now if Mori gets his script looked at for a minute longer than somebody else because he's who he is - more power to him. More than likely though it hurts him to be known and his only real advantage is knowing who to talk to or who to send a script/treatment to. And if your beef is that he has access and that's unfair, well you know I don't remember Johnny Carson, David Letterman, John Stewart,Jay Leno or Rex Reed becoming movie stars and they have had huge access. Mori still has to come up with the goods and be extrememly lucky and a million other things have to go right. Even then some monkey/troll is going to be screaming and throwing feces all around. If Mori writes a bad review - pimping something that's crap, you know everyone here will be on him like a cheap suit. So what's the problem?

  • March 12, 2007, 10:06 a.m. CST

    Parenting, or lack of it

    by Lost Prophet

    I have never had this R rated experience with kids in the cinema as I am British and a 15 or 18 certificate means just that- if you are not provably 15 or 18 then you shouldn't be able to get in-you can, obviously as many ticket sellers either don't give a fuck or are stupid- one of my fondest memories is sneaking in to see the re-release of Reservoir Dogs (when it was still banned) when I was only 13-but really it should be possible to keep kids out. <p>However, I cautiously agree that taking a child to an 18 rated film is indeed shit parenting. The reason I cautiously say this is that the BBFC are going to rate this as 15- which leads me to think that the violence in it can not really be that bad. I have no problem letting a child over a certain age (not 9- that is too young, I mean 11+) watch some 15's as they tend to be tame as fuck. In fact, there are even some 18's that I would let some young-ish kids watch (for example, Heathers is rated as an 18-laughably- and for the life of me I can't see why), I think it totally depends upon the film and the child- the two are interlinked, a mature child may be able to deal with the violence in this, but not in Hostel, and an immature child will cry at South Park, never mind this. <p> Really, my complaint is selfish. I don't ever want to be surrounded by other people's vile spawn when I am watching a film. And I don't want the world to be filled with sadist fucks who were overexposed to violence at a young age when not emotionally equipped to handle it. Really, common sense must be the way forward. <p> I could drone on about the difference between an active and passive experience, and why the same is not true with video games but I can't be arsed. <p>That was all typed as a cynical 28 year old, Sorry

  • March 12, 2007, 10:13 a.m. CST

    someone brought a baby to the showing i saw

    by firstislast

    No really. A screaming fucking baby.

  • March 12, 2007, 10:17 a.m. CST

    why was heathers an 18?

    by firstislast

    Well walking into a school and shooting people and making it look cool MAY let an impressionable 7 year old think that would also be hilarious to try with daddys secret gun that's under his bed. And replacing a drink with poison.

  • March 12, 2007, 10:26 a.m. CST

    that's not what I meant firstislast

    by Lost Prophet

    I am well aware that "Adult Content" automatically bumps up a rating, and Heathers has certainly got that- what I meant was that it is not particularly extreme, and there are more violent, more brutal films that are every bit as styalised as Heathers that receive a 15. <p>and you knew it, don't be so pedantic. <p>Fuck's sake I am not talking about letting a toddler watch it, I just meant that in comparison to much of what is rated 15 it really is rather tame. <p>I'm not alone in this opinion (at least I hope not), and I did say that I wouldn't let the hypothetical 9 year old that everyone has been arguing about watch it.

  • March 12, 2007, 10:41 a.m. CST


    by Lost Prophet

    Strangeco is right- get a fucking babysitter (there are ugly, competent ones) and don't ruin my night with crying brats. (Not that you'll be able to get them in) <p> Just out of curiosity, why has the argument been about the content of films, and not the fact that the shit parenting extends to letting said spawn stay up until all hours of the day or night? <p>I'm looking forward to this on the 23rd.

  • March 12, 2007, 10:48 a.m. CST

    Wow IndustryKiller!

    by Johnno

    You took a simple allegorical phrase of driving over the speed limit and deconstructed it to involve all these legalities that never occurred to me other than using it as an example of general safety. Way to think outside the box! You must be a real liberal parent! Say, do you also happen to teach your kids at an early age about sex from that infamous 'little black book'? What do they think about fisting and water sports? That's some real living on the edge there man! If wanting to be a concerned parent who doesn't take chances with their kids until they're the right age for specific material makes me a pussy, then for their sake, so be it...

  • March 12, 2007, 11:02 a.m. CST

    Keeping kids out

    by Frank Black

    The answer in America is simple. The theaters should have showings that are enforced 17+ showings only so we adults don't have to hear screaming babies and talking children. America's attitude and lack of love and respect for cinema is appalling. (Why even offer full screen DVDs now that nearly everyone has a widescreen tv? Cropped edges = shit!) Hollywood's greed has poisoned the general public's attitude towards movies and going to the movies has become such a rare occurrence for me and my wife because it isn't just poorly behaved children in adult films that is a bother but adults who have no manners spoiling it for everyone. If you talk during a movie it should be legal for an usher to come down and punch you in the face until you see spots and taste your own blood.

  • March 12, 2007, 11:53 a.m. CST

    VCR's Ruined The Theater Experience....

    by Mr. Profit

    The fucking idiots who talk during a movie do this because they are used to rewinding the movie to catch what they missed. They carry this habit with them to the theater. And someone bought a baby with them to the theater this weekend to see 300, and the baby cried. But at least the Mom rushed the kid out of the theater as soon as he opened his mouth. But what was worst than a crying baby? The stupid little bitches who sat a couple rows in front of me, who took self pics of themselves during the movie. Nothing like being blinded by the flash of a future cock juggler's camera. Fuck Myspace....

  • March 12, 2007, 11:56 a.m. CST

    don't you have anything better to do sweaty?

    by just pillow talk

    stop posting that crap.

  • March 12, 2007, 12:32 p.m. CST

    the movie is going to change all movies

    by caravaggio

    70 mil, no stars, no locations- be ready for copy cats

  • March 12, 2007, 1:06 p.m. CST

    Hey Wolvenom, Im with you man.

    by Hyphin

    'Shogun_gunslinger" was, and this is OBVIOUSLY my and apparently your opinion, way off base treating a 9-year-old to a '300' midnight screening. Slinger, before you start shooting the customary 'good parent' FUCK OFF's at me, try looking at it this way (and REALLY, try to ACTUALLY understand that I would rather TALK to you than argue and swear). Can you say Desensitization? Or perhaps Apathy? The truth is, NO, seeing the things 300 has to offer (which are sometimes QUITE beautiful and inspired) will not 'hurt' you child in any way that you would see the next day. He probably WONT start talking about blood and guts and how he likes them...that would be very strange. However, being exposed to things like the, granted, hyper-stylized gore of 300 with desensitize him, I think, to violence. That would become 'not so bad', once he has seen a few film/images like it. He might see death on TV, in the news, and it JUST MIGHT not phase him as it would if he was NOT desensitized. I am not saying it WILL happen, only that it definately is a seriously possiblity. Again, I am not trying to tell you you are a bad parent, though, I guess it looks like that. I am just telling you that I think that there is more to thinking about it than just saying 'Whats wrong with spending time with my son?'

  • March 12, 2007, 1:13 p.m. CST

    by the way BringingSexyBack

    by Hyphin

    very funny.

  • March 12, 2007, 1:31 p.m. CST


    by PwnedByStallone

    Pull my finger.

  • March 12, 2007, 1:37 p.m. CST

    It was just aiight

    by kilik777

    Nothing spectacular or ground breaking. No it had nothing to do with the current political situation. Save your money and support a better movie like Zodiac and just wait to rent this on dvd and crank up the volume.

  • March 12, 2007, 2:14 p.m. CST

    okay, i need something explained to me...

    by Zeframillen

    and i know this isnt the right talkback, but i keep hearing people refer to "take a shit guy" from lost. how did he get the name TASG? i must've missed that ep. someone please explain.

  • March 12, 2007, 2:17 p.m. CST

    finally, something to see in the theatre

    by and thats the origin of that

    300 was fun and exciting, and it's always great to see a comic movie done right. it's also nice to see a movie in the theatre. there has been nothing but shit released so far this year.

  • March 12, 2007, 2:58 p.m. CST

    Sure Zeframillen

    by Hyphin

    TASG was coined basically because one character, who's real name I have actually forgotten, funny enough, due to his new nickname, is always seen to be, 'taking a shit'. For instance, when Locke and Sayid found the TV hatch (the one with all the TV monitoring the different stations) he came out of the washroom after flushing the toilet and startled everyone. In a later episode, last one I think, he was introduced after having come back from some corner of the beach carrying a role of Dharma issue toilet paper on a stick. One inferes that he was 'taking a shit'. It really is very quite clever and the actor might feel a mixture of sadness and accomplishment at having received a name from us TBer. Also, the actor who plays TASG ALSO plays the inexplainable King Xerxes in the film 300.

  • March 12, 2007, 3:32 p.m. CST


    by GibsonUSA Returns

    To build on what someone said, why the F*CK to people bring little screaming babies to the theater?? You're ruining the experience for over 100 people at the same time, you inconsiderate a-hole!! While I was watching Rocky Balboa, right when Rocky was about to cry during that emotional scene, this baby was screaming its head off! Ruined it! The mom takes the baby out of the theater room and you can see everyone breath in relief, but then 5 minutes later she brings it BACK, STILL SCREAMING!! GET THE F*CK OUT OF HERE YOU FOOL!!<BR><BR> Second place in most annoying is giggling girls...the ones who giggle loudly at the most inappropriate times. Like during a horror movie or a thriller when the scene is building up....all you hear is giggling! They giggle to relieve their nervousness....I wanna smack them to relieve my frustration!! Third place most annoying is the fat chick that talks bolding commenting on the movie while it's "OH! THATS SO FAKE!"...and just keeps talking in loud volume throughout. Someone beat her ass!

  • March 12, 2007, 3:36 p.m. CST


    by Lost Prophet

    that's funnier than anything you ever wrote when masquerading as Brokebackcowboy. <p>By the way-did you know that BSB is the evil propoganda wing of Murdoch's empire in the UK? (I forget what it is short for but it is generally referred to as B SKY B)<p>I meant to point that out to you last time,but forgot. <p> Named himself (admittedly coincidentally) after a right wing news channel *shakes head and chuckles*. Going now, hope you have a suitably abusive retort for tomorrow's work time.

  • March 12, 2007, 4:17 p.m. CST

    does anyone ever tell the talkers to shut up in cinemas

    by firstislast

    or do you all just kinda roll your eyes and look back at them angrily for a few seconds? I personally tell them to shut the fuck up, it works wonders.

  • March 12, 2007, 5:17 p.m. CST

    LOL @ firstislast I tell

    by SyxxShooter

    LOL @ firstislast I tell them to shut the fuck up if they are far enough, that way they don't know who said it. I know, I'm a coward sometimes. Other times I give them a look... As for the movie, 300. Great. Grand. Wonderful. Literally. I still wonder why the fuck people are still talking shit about it.

  • March 12, 2007, 5:25 p.m. CST

    loved it...and Stelios is the 2nd best character...

    by lynxpro

    Of course, for those of you who have watched the series *Hex* on BBC America (or SkyTV in the UK), you would already be familiar with the actor who portrays Stelios; he portrays Azazeal (sic) on *Hex*. Awesome flick!

  • March 12, 2007, 5:28 p.m. CST

    the Spartans weren't proto-Nazis...

    by lynxpro

    For those of you screaming Nazism on the part of the Spartans, take a friggin history book. Nobody compares them to the Nazis in academia. Academia deems the Assyrians as the so-called "proto-Nazis" for their prohibition against mating with non-Assyrians, using the skin of the dead for decoration, and putting their prisoners on pikes and lighting them on fire for night light in their camps.

  • March 12, 2007, 5:37 p.m. CST

    Xerxes reminded me of Serpentor mixed with Ra...

    by lynxpro

    And when I say "Ra" I mean from the *Stargate* film. Effeminate acting, but deep supernatural voice.

  • March 12, 2007, 5:45 p.m. CST

    I Thought I Enjoyed 300, but . . .


    Lynxpro wrote this: "putting their prisoners on pikes and lighting them on fire for night light in their camps." And I realized I didn't see anything like that in 300. And now 300 is a little disappointing. Where's a movie about the Assyrians?<br><br> BTW, history lessons cost money, you out-of-touch, ultra-rich plantation owner. Some of us have to work for a living, so comparing everything to Nazis is all we've got. Heck, when I was a kid, we had to compare everything to the local high school ROTC. We couldn't afford Nazi metaphors. Mr. Fancy-pants.

  • March 12, 2007, 5:56 p.m. CST

    by lynxpro

    Wikipedia is free and your friend. Now do some research with you, prole.

  • March 12, 2007, 5:57 p.m. CST

    with it...

    by lynxpro

    AICN needs a comment editing function. Moreso like Slashdot, and less like the one on Digg that rarely works...

  • March 12, 2007, 6:56 p.m. CST

    $70 mill to breed copycats

    by Anino

    Sad, but true--and it's the Hollywood way. Like I've said in a previous post, for the most part studio execs don't get it. They see the figures, they see the demographic studies, sure--but they'll handpick what they think brought in the big bucks, and try to MacDonaldize or Starbucksize it--franchise it, duplicate it by the numbers. They miss the freaking point almost everytime. I really believe what drew crowds in this weekend was the promise of a story told in a visually splendid way. And (no spoiler needed if you read history) since none of the 300 survived, there is no hope for a sequel to 300 (unless you want to watch 2 hours of them "Dining in Hell", yelling PASS! THE! SALT!). They're scratching their heads indeed, wondering why Alexander was a flop (with a big name director and a bankable star), and 300 with it's B-List Scottish lead and B (promoted automatically to A-List) director made a killing (and will continue to do so). Studio Execs really need to put themselves in the shoes of the viewers sometimes, and not make committee decisions from above. They need to ask themselves, what makes Joe Average and his girlfriend want to dish out the dollars and go see a flick? If they come across a story and say, "I wish someone would make that into a movie"--then I think they'd be on the path to righteousness. We don't want TV show remakes and inane sequels. We want to see creativity and originality. And decapitations, and pierced rhinos.

  • March 12, 2007, 7:02 p.m. CST

    Spartans weren't proto-nazis?

    by Anino

    That's debatable. I think the comparison is lopsided, personally--but what brings it about is the fact that Hitler admired the martial thrust of the Spartan society. Hitler thought the Spartans were cool. The Spartans were no saints, by our standards today--they practiced slavery, and child murder. But one can point to several other ancient cultures that performed inhumane acts of barbarism that was considered societal norm to them, exceeding if not equalling the cruelty of the Nazis. Singling out the Spartans is easy to do, but inaccurate. Lynxpro's right.

  • March 12, 2007, 8:21 p.m. CST

    About the Bush-Leonidas comparisons

    by Anino

    Though comparing 300 to the current conflict are silly, they're inevitable. And if you're from the Left, you'll say Bush is Xerxes, if you're from the right you'll say the Persians are the terrorists...the Persians occupied what is now Iran, so that comparison is geographically apt--ideologically--that's the debate. What a better comparison would be, would be Alexander's campaign to conquer the East...he faced the same issue we face with Afghanistan...a misunderstanding of tribal warfare and culture. In fact, the same author that penned the oft-mentioned "Gates of Fire", Steven Pressfield just came out with a novel about Alexander called "The Afghan Campaign" or something like that. That being said, I couldn't help but read politics into the movie myself, as much as I didn't want to: hmm, Queen Gorgo urging an anti-war senate to authorize a troop surge...and being told her husband is conducting an illegal war and would be subject to criminal prosecution should he return...maybe you don't want Leonidas to be Bush, but Theron is definitely Pelosi and Murtha.

  • March 12, 2007, 8:50 p.m. CST

    Please With the Political Comparisons!

    by Professor Krapp

    Give me a break! This movie isn't written well enough to be anything beyond a Blood and Thunder flick. It has the narrative sophistication of a Conan movie. It was pure eye candy and totally homoerotic, but its depth goes no further. That's why I am ultimately disappointed. I like to connect on a more emotional level with the protagonists, ala Braveheart or Gladiator. I felt nothing for these artificial looking people running around in their artificial looking surroundings. But I really enjoyed the artifice, it was gorgeous and exciting to watch.

  • March 12, 2007, 9:10 p.m. CST

    An Iranian official has something to say about the film

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

  • March 12, 2007, 9:12 p.m. CST

    im done trying to explain myself

    by the_shogun_gunslinger

    so im simply gonna say "fuck off". <P> oh, and firstislast, bringing a 9 year old to an R rated movie is not "illegal" you moron. its illegal to bring them to an NC-17 rated film. do some research. and to be honest i could give less than half a fuck if my son becomes desensitized to slow mo shots of people people being run over by rhinos and stylized CGI blood. besides the R rating, i defy you to tell me what was so bad about this film? id i say i let them watch ANY R rated film? of course not! have my kids seen Irreversible? Ichi the Killer? Videodrome? Cannibal Holocaust? NO! they havnt and wont for years because regardless of what you impulsive fuckheads think, we do have boundries. wow...someone take my kids away, they saw a movie full of hyper-cartoony stylized violence and CG wolf shadows getting impalled.

  • March 12, 2007, 9:14 p.m. CST

    God of War

    by antonphd

    Maybe this would get a God of War film. I know the creator of the game made the game to be as close to feeling like playing in a film as possible. And the sequel just released this month. And I hear it's the best game even made for PS2. The God of War creator has a public blog. Hmmm... I wonder if he's thinking about 300 this week? :)

  • March 12, 2007, 9:25 p.m. CST

    Professor Krapp, it's ok

    by Anino

    Your exasperation is understandable. I'm sure the producers had no inclination to make any kind of political statement with the film, they were simply adapting a graphic novel written decades before today's conflict. But there is nothing wrong with using any film, story, or TV show as a launching pad for other types of discussion. The comparisons for the most part are silly, but it's hard not to chime in. It's a discussion board after all. You want to express your emotional connection to the protagonists, go right on ahead. Other's will read global warming into The Fantastic Four when it comes out. Who cares--let the discussion and counter discussions commence. What DID irritate me, though, was when the press tried to bait Snyder and Miller into saying there was some kind of pro American or anti-American message in the movie. He was pretty taken aback by such a non-seqitir. But the discussions have started, and in a forum everyone's free to pick it up, ignore it, or trash it.

  • March 12, 2007, 9:38 p.m. CST

    Thank You, Anino

    by Professor Krapp

    for your solace. I understand where you're coming from. My intention is not to quell the comparisons, but to provoke passionate discussion. I understand that anybody can read anything into any medium if they are so inclined. But personally I find the political comparisons tend to give the movie more intellectual weight than it really has. Don't misunderstand me, I enjoyed the movie and will buy it on DVD. I was hoping it could be the film that marries the technolody of Sky Captain and Sin City with a more human story. Admittedly I never read the graphic novel. Either way, this film didn't do that. As the techniques evolve and become more effortless, more attention will probably be given to story. Blah blah blah, bless you all, the Professor has spoken.

  • March 12, 2007, 9:56 p.m. CST


    by Mad Mick of the East

    im just sayin... did Leonidas bite Xerxes' tongue off then throw an axe thru his buddy's skull? did he pick peaches from his tree before he clipped him? did he buttfuck the slave-woman for talking yang to his wife? FUCK NO HE DIDNT!!!! THIRTEEN!!!!!!!

  • March 12, 2007, 9:57 p.m. CST

    BSB left for good reason: MonoBoob

    by Bronx Cheer

    Read his comment carefully and you'll notice that she only had one breast, and not because of cancer, but because she is one of a rare breed, genetically-altered embryo who are all born female, and all born with one solitary boob in the middle of their chests. There was a male strain of this project, but they scrapped it because the males ended up with 47 penes (yes, that's the proper plural of penis) and 94 testes pouched in 47 scroti.

  • March 12, 2007, 10:33 p.m. CST


    by rikpepe

    Crow doesn't taste so good? Can't admit you were wrong? Moriarty's review is dead balls on. This is a visceral experience not an intellectual exercise. The message was way too simple for some to get. People were willing to die for something greater than yourself, look at the USA's own revolution and it's Civil War. You just want to hate it for hate sake. IT IS A MOVIE!!! This is what movies are all about. Just what do you think is a good movie? GWTW? great Godfather? great Bill & Ted's excellent Adventure? Best 2 star movie ever made! Pretends to be nothing but silly. It's the Cinema Fool! It's the "GOLD RUSH" great. Well arguing with a fool soon proves there are two.

  • March 12, 2007, 10:38 p.m. CST

    Not Political? Dont you believe it..check this out

    by darth jobu

    The Iranians are defamed!

  • March 12, 2007, 10:40 p.m. CST


    by darth jobu

    Sorry, Mr Nice Gaius, honest mistake duplicating your post. That does give me a better idea how tiny url works thought. Joel

  • March 12, 2007, 10:45 p.m. CST

    maybe its been said,

    by wilsonfisk89

    (this might be spoilerish?) but it was fucking gnarly when the spartans and persians first clashed shields. One of the best parts. As a big fan of the novel however, I felt like the wife sub-plot was more than unnecessary, but it took too much away from the battle as well. Slowing the battle down with the silly wife plot points heavily comprimised the danger and scale of the battle. And i agree with the people that said the v.o. was excessive, especially with the same 'this is sparta, because this is sparta, blah sparta, fart sparta...) All in all though, it was pretty beautiful and awesome. Visually impeccible.

  • March 12, 2007, 10:50 p.m. CST

    thank YOU prof krapp

    by Anino

    On hoping that state of the art visuals would marry with a more human story, I'll play devil's advocate and say there's a contradiction in there somewhere. The very nature of the other-worldly visuals may lend itself more to over the top (even comic) acting and detached emotion. We're basically watching a moving graphic novel. But who knows, the highly stylized visual style may, in the future become more commonplace, that human emotion will blend in just fine without it seeming incongruous or out of place. I think the theatrics, the yelling, the over acting worked well for what it was--and I wasn't expecting a Godfather I level of character development. The visuals were the draw, and even a good story and good acting would have been drowned out by them. I disagree that making political comparisons gives 300 more gravitas than it is due. I think people that are given to political comparisons are smart enough to see through the shallow, simplistic storyline of 300, but nonetheless, as most political junkies are, take advantage of any buzzword or buzz-film of the moment as a starting point for any agenda. One could say "Butter Pecan" and political junkies will say "filibuster" or "safety net". Any discussion board will bring someone's political two cents worth. It won't mean that Pumpkinhead 4 is equal to 12 Angry Men.

  • March 12, 2007, 10:57 p.m. CST


    by wilsonfisk89 perfect would that be? How utterly mind blowing? It would be a cinematic opus, as well as every fanboys dream come true. Miller's story is serious, serious genius, arguably the greatest Batman tale in any media. The thing is already an epic movie in print! Can we as fanboys and movie fans, make this shit happen somehow? Start a website or campaign or something? Rodriguez would probably love the opportunity and it would have to be a money maker for Warner with a comparitvely low budget right? I remember Wizard casting Ed Harris as Bats, and I think Tim Curry as the Joker years ago. The possibilities are endless...

  • March 12, 2007, 11:02 p.m. CST

    Iranian official lashes out at Hollywood movie "300" fo

    by wilsonfisk89

    Wow. haha, wow.

  • March 12, 2007, 11:37 p.m. CST

    that yackbacker dude refers to himself about 18 times

    by firstislast

    "i" get bored listening to people tell everyone else how important they are. That dude just likes the sound of his own voice, in "my" opinion

  • March 13, 2007, 12:19 a.m. CST

    um, Add to Friends

    by Anino

    The Jews? Are you kidding me? Do you PERSONALLY know any neocons that would actually SAY that or are you projecting a caricature of neocons you've bought into? But yes, 300 holding off hundreds of thousands is very inspirational and historical has become synonymous with military victory despite being outnumbered...hey wait--You just made your own point--the Israelis DID beat back several nations pitted against them in the six day war. You're a genius!

  • March 13, 2007, 12:23 a.m. CST

    Saying Yack is elitist just shows you are a

    by superninja

    newbie. I bet you hate it when people have elitist attitudes towards newbies! Bwahahah....

  • March 13, 2007, 12:25 a.m. CST

    Who wants a DKR movie when they BARELY got

    by superninja

    Batman right? DKR is a joke at the expense of Batman and comic book fans. Miller cannot write superheroes, he can only write assholes and caricatures.

  • March 13, 2007, 1:12 a.m. CST

    hey yack

    by the_shogun_gunslinger

    havnt seen ya in a while.kinda think ur offbase about millers stories tho. you cant deny that sin city is some good ol fashion noir. i will say that the dark knight strikes back was complete and total shit. DKR on the other hand is one of my all time favorite comic stories. <P> ps i hope i havnt talked about "my" opinions too much in this post :P

  • March 13, 2007, 1:46 a.m. CST

    My 3 favorite books of all time are.....

    by JDanielP

    ....The Dark Knight Returns and Batman: Year One (both written by Frank Miller)...and Kingdom Come. However, I agree with talkbacker "the_shogun_gunslinger", ...that The Dark Knight Strikes Back (by Miller) was crap. What a waste of paper.

  • March 13, 2007, 1:55 a.m. CST

    I liked it, but it wasn't a homerun...

    by Zardoz

    It was a good movie, but not a GREAT MOVIE!!! (and I'm very disappointed.) Visually, the film was stunning: the design, the cinematography, the action were all top-notch. But, I was a little frustrated with the tone thoughout much of the pic. (In my IMAX screening, which was sold-out btw, there were a few un-intentional laughs in several scenes) It just seems like the whole pic was over-the-top, and not always in a good way. (Gerard Butler was spot-on, though) And, dare I say it, was it TOO slavishly literal in its adaptation of the source material? I didn't much care for the addition of the Queen's scenes; I don't think it was necessary, unless it was merely from a marketing standpoint. (But the payoff when she killed Dominic West was worthwhile, I'll admit) Ultimately, it was very fun and pretty to look at, but, it was sadly all sound and fury signifying nothing. I trust Mr. Snyder will do much better with Watchmen, a film that needs to be PERFECT in every way...(and just so you know where I'm coming from, I really, really liked his Dawn of the Dead re-make, fast-moving zombies and all!)

  • March 13, 2007, 8:20 a.m. CST

    Spot on review. I could not

    by Leatherneck11527

    Spot on review. I could not agree more. A colleague came into my office yesterday morning to tell me he had seen the film. We spent ten minutes talking about how poetic it was, in the style of a Greek tragedy. I am so happy for Frank Miller and all those connected to this movie.

  • March 13, 2007, 9:21 a.m. CST

    glad to see this is still raging

    by Lost Prophet

    Are you sure you're not Brokeback in disguise, BSB? You have a lot of the same stylistic tics that he had. <p>Breasts on Sky? in some films, but not on the general tv programmes-

  • March 13, 2007, 9:51 a.m. CST

    Snyder doing Watchmen..?

    by workshed

    Bad news. First he trashes DotD with his appalling zombie baby and downright plagarism of 28 Days Later and now this piece of hammy crap. I never thought a director would be susceptible to the casting couch in the 21st century but something fishy id going on to let this hack make movie on the budget he's getting.

  • March 13, 2007, 9:51 a.m. CST

    Snyder doing Watchmen..?

    by workshed

    Bad news. First he trashes DotD with his appalling zombie baby and downright plagarism of 28 Days Later and now this piece of hammy crap. I never thought a director would be susceptible to the casting couch in the 21st century but something fishy is going on to let this hack make movie on the budget he's getting.

  • March 13, 2007, 10:57 a.m. CST

    I wouldn't be upset with 300 doing so well...

    by rbatty024

    in the theatres except for the fact that it means Snyder is definitely going to get The Watchmen. In fact, except for Watchmen there are actually some good things to come out of 300's success, even if it was pretty crappy. Maybe Hollywood will stop shying away from R-rated films and perhaps there are going to be more comic book adaptations outside of the tights and cape arena. However, all of this is offset by the fact that Snyder just isn't smart enough to handle The Watchmen. As I noted in my earlier post, waaay up there, he just didn't understand the complexity of a genuinely uncomplex comic book, so there's no way he's going to understand The Watchmen. I hope he comes to his sense and realizes he just won't be able to handle it and gives up. All the studio sees is money, so they're not going to care one way or another.

  • March 13, 2007, 12:09 p.m. CST

    Anchorite, Mori...

    by genro

    <p>Anchorite - What you stated no one affiliated with this site has ever written. Believe me, I've been coming here longer than you and even before Mori's existence.</p><p> Mori, You want to make this personal, feel free. I could care less. I congratulated you on the birth of your son and the Masters gig because they were great personal accomplishments, and I'll do so on future events. But what you write here is not a fuckin entry in your diary. I have yet to see a MySpace page get a pull quote on a movie poster. I don't know how many blogs carry advertisers or have shot pilots. And if you collect a check from AICN or write-off anything related to it, than it's a business.</p><p>So you think I insulted you by saying "Mori, like all of AICN/CHUD, are in waaayy too deep with Snyder's Watchmen producers". OK, fine. I should have written "Mori, via AICN", but when did you become a separate entity from AICN? Are we now going to deny that AICN knows these dudes pretty damn well? Am I supposed to forget you were the guy who broke Snyder on Watchmen? Am I suppsed to believe MEG got set up on its own? Be as pissed at me as you want, call me whatever name makes you feel good, but sometime, because you're a moral dude, you're going to realize the conflict is yours.</p><p> What I don't understand about this site is how obstinate you guys are to admitting there's connective tissue between you and some things you cover. If, like Anchorite suggests, everyone knows this, than what's the big deal?</p>

  • March 13, 2007, 12:19 p.m. CST

    Sparta? No. An expert assesses the gruesome new epic

    by Bill Clay

    History is altered all the time. What matters is how and why. Thus I see no reason to quibble over the absence in 300 of breastplates or modest thigh-length tunics. I can see the graphic necessity of sculpted stomachs and three hundred Spartan-sized packages bulging in spandex thongs. On the other hand, the ways in which 300 selectively idealizes Spartan society are problematic, even disturbing. We know little of King Leonidas, so creating a fictitious backstory for him is understandable. Spartan children were, indeed, taken from their mothers and given a martial education called the agoge. They were indeed toughened by beatings and dispatched into the countryside, forced to walk shoeless in winter and sleep uncovered on the ground. But future kings were exempt. And had Leonidas undergone the agoge, he would have come of age not by slaying a wolf, but by murdering unarmed helots in a rite known as the Crypteia. These helots were the Greeks indigenous to Lakonia and Messenia, reduced to slavery by the tiny fraction of the population enjoying Spartan "freedom." By living off estates worked by helots, the Spartans could afford to be professional soldiers, although really they had no choice: securing a brutal apartheid state is a full-time job, to which end the Ephors were required to ritually declare war on the helots. Elected annually, the five Ephors were Sparta's highest officials, their powers checking those of the dual kings. There is no evidence they opposed Leonidas' campaign, despite 300's subplot of Leonidas pursuing an illegal war to serve a higher good. For adolescents ready to graduate from the graphic novel to Ayn Rand, or vice-versa, the historical Leonidas would never suffice. They require a superman. And in the interests of portentous contrasts between good and evil, 300's Ephors are not only lecherous and corrupt, but also geriatric lepers. Ephialtes, who betrays the Greeks, is likewise changed from a local Malian of sound body into a Spartan outcast, a grotesquely disfigured troll who by Spartan custom should have been left exposed as an infant to die. Leonidas points out that his hunched back means Ephialtes cannot lift his shield high enough to fight in the phalanx. This is a transparent defence of Spartan eugenics, and laughably convenient given that infanticide could as easily have been precipitated by an ill-omened birthmark. 300's Persians are ahistorical monsters and freaks. Xerxes is eight feet tall, clad chiefly in body piercings and garishly made up, but not disfigured. No need – it is strongly implied Xerxes is homosexual which, in the moral universe of 300, qualifies him for special freakhood. This is ironic given that pederasty was an obligatory part of a Spartan's education. This was a frequent target of Athenian comedy, wherein the verb "to Spartanize" meant "to bugger." In 300, Greek pederasty is, naturally, Athenian. This touches on 300's most noteworthy abuse of history: the Persians are turned into monsters, but the non-Spartan Greeks are simply all too human. According to Herodotus, Leonidas led an army of perhaps 7,000 Greeks. These Greeks took turns rotating to the front of the phalanx stationed at Thermoplyae where, fighting in disciplined hoplite fashion, they held the narrow pass for two days. All told, some 4,000 Greeks perished there. In 300 the fighting is not in the hoplite fashion, and the Spartans do all of it, except for a brief interlude in which Leonidas allows a handful of untrained Greeks to taste the action, and they make a hash of it. When it becomes apparent they are surrounded, this contingent flees. In Herodotus' time there were various accounts of what transpired, but we know 700 hoplites from Thespiae remained, fighting beside the Spartans, they, too, dying to the last man. No mention is made in 300 of the fact that at the same time a vastly outnumbered fleet led by Athenians was holding off the Persians in the straits adjacent to Thermopylae, or that Athenians would soon save all of Greece by destroying the Persian fleet at Salamis. This would wreck 300's vision, in which Greek ideals are selectively embodied in their only worthy champions, the Spartans. This moral universe would have appeared as bizarre to ancient Greeks as it does to modern historians. Most Greeks would have traded their homes in Athens for hovels in Sparta about as willingly as I would trade my apartment in Toronto for a condo in Pyongyang.

  • March 13, 2007, 1:02 p.m. CST

    In the book at least Miller mentions the Athenian...

    by rbatty024

    navy taking out a good deal of the Persians, but they're not given anything in the movie.

  • March 13, 2007, 1:50 p.m. CST

    Xerxes' pad...

    by Laza-rus

    featured some of the nicer sets of tits I've seen on a four-story IMAX screen. I would mind having the job of the guy who approves the tits for display. Tiity-inspector, hmm.

  • March 13, 2007, 4:28 p.m. CST

    all the anti semitics in here should be stifled

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    but - anchorite - would you agree (with chomsky) that israel is a militarized arm/offshoot of the united states? - and its "policies" reflect as such - would this observation be considered anti semitic?

  • March 13, 2007, 5:12 p.m. CST

    I'm not going to touch the Israeli thing

    by oisin5199

    No, that's not the beginning of a rude joke. But I think Anchorite's assessment of the film is correct. The hero archetype is a good way to put it. Myths and history are reconstructed and retold all the time, whether they are ancient Greek, biblical stories or war stories. The retelling of a myth definitely says more about the storyteller and his/her context than about the original source (so that's maybe an argument for contemporary connections). And one more comment about the kids and R-rated movie issue. Some people are saying 'it's illegal.' Which is pretty freakin' funny. MPAA ratings are suggestions - they are NOT laws. You can't be arrested for taking a 9 year old to see an R-rated film. But you can be ridiculed on a talkback.

  • March 13, 2007, 5:39 p.m. CST


    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    israel is full of u.s. citizens and their military is stocked with u.s. rockets - the general attitude is "if anyone fucks with israel, theyre fucking with us, and theyre in deep shit" - which is fine - it makes sense considering the way "things" turned out - for better or worse (depending on who you ask) - but dont kid yourself - there are no "free" elections - vote the wrong way in certain parts of the world and you get spanked by the players with the biggest guns - and to anino and addtofriends - a lot of "neocons" are jewish - so ive heard some iranians are pissed about this movies depiction of the ancient persians - interesting - i wonder how this measures up to their outrage over the sex slave trade that still flourishes over their - i can picture a mullah in the presidential suite of the hilton smoking some black tar and getting blown by a slave while watching a bootleg of 300 on his laptop - and being offended by the movie

  • March 13, 2007, 6:30 p.m. CST

    Bill Clay...

    by DeeJay

    ... after reading your post (as well as having some conversations with friends who have a markedly better understanding of Greek history than myself), I've reached a particular conclusion. It’s my hope that the MPAA one prevents certain films from using the terms "history," "historical fiction," "based on true events" and a plethora of similar descriptors. I say this because the common practice of embellishing and liberally altering past events, in this genre, has taken on mammoth proportions. It’s reached the point that some filmmakers simply make things up because they supposedly look cool. I don’t care if those movies are made and simply billed as action, romance or virtually any other genre. My issue is with the implication that these movies are based on any more truth than was the case with Terminator 2. They don’t even need to have complete truth in advertising (phrases such as “fictionalized history” or “an abuse of true events” would be more precise). I’d just like it if they would simply stop misleading audiences in this regard. If not, come 2016, we’re going to have 18-year-olds walking around saying that they “know” there were once monsters in the Persian army, after having flunked-out of their high school world history classes.

  • March 13, 2007, 6:53 p.m. CST

    shut the fuck up everyone

    by firstislast

    just agree that you're all wonderfully clever and your opinions mean something and move on. Cunts.

  • March 13, 2007, 7:01 p.m. CST

    Yack, I actually like Miller's work on a certain level.

    by superninja

    What I've read of it. Taken as what it is. I don't like DKR, for instance, as a superhero story, though. He is just dressing up his views in superheroes, same as with 300 which is Super Spartans.

  • March 13, 2007, 7:08 p.m. CST

    Millar's views seem to me to be very reptilian about

    by superninja

    the human condition. He's kind of like the Verhooven of comic books.

  • March 13, 2007, 11:15 p.m. CST

    bringsexyback are you effing kidding me???

    by Anino

    You've obviously swallowed Jimmy Carter's book hook line and sinker about Israel. Calling it an apartheid state is an insult to REAL victims of apartheid. Did you know that Arabs have MORE civil liberties in Israel than in ANY other country in the middle east? There's a disinformation campaign to continuously paint Israel as a racist nation, as the new nazis (funny that the thrust of the campaign comes from the Palestinians, most of whom were Nazi collaborators in the 40's)...but hey...just like Xerxes, you have one two many staples in the face of your logic. Too many facts to school you on, but you can start with Alan Dershowitz's book "The Case for Israel" and Stephanie Gutman's "The Other War". You seem a lot smarter than to just buy the anti-Israel propaganda when it's spoonfed to you. Oh. 300 rocked the house. Over and out.

  • March 14, 2007, 12:07 a.m. CST

    Beowulf & Grendel - $68,820 total world Box Office

    by antonphd

    Whoever has distribution for this film need to re-release it and in more than TWO fucking theaters and it will score at least a good 10-20 million. It may be an indie epic and it isn't going to make 100 million, but it's worth more than fucking $68,820. I was lucky enough to see it here in Seattle and I loved it. I'm so glad Gerard Butler is finally a fucking movie star. About goddamn time. Now I can see films with my 3 fav actors: Butler, Craig and Owen.

  • March 14, 2007, 12:20 a.m. CST


    by lynxpro

    Uhm, dude, the reason why people call Israel an apartheid regime is because that regime won't allow the refugee Palestinians (what is it now, 2 million souls?) to return to their country that they were evicted from. Israel won't allow them back because if it is "one man one vote" then they would be outnumbered and Israel would revert to being "Palestine" simply due to democratic demographics. And thus keeping them out in order to prevent such an election translates into being an apartheid regime. I mean, up until the end of the last decade, Israel didn't want a separate Palestinian state to exist until they figured out that if they incorporated the occupied territories into Greater Israel within two generations they'd be outnumbered in their own country and thus began the process to set up an independent Palestinian state in "reservation" fashion. That's the criticism. Slander Jimmy Carter all you want to when he was greatly responsible for peace between Israel and one of its most bitter know...Egypt. Of course, the best way to peace for Israel/Palestine - although neither side would agree to it - would be to have a joint "secular" country and everyone spoke English. But then if it were "secular" then what is now Israel wouldn't try to pass anti-Christian legislation in the Knesset, which is a little juicy nugget than NeoCons and the Religious Right "Left Behind" crowd conveniently fails to point out to their followers here in the States...that as well as the number of Palestinians who actually are Christians and not Muslim. Oh wait...probably because those Palestinians are the "wrong" type of Christians since they belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church. My bad!

  • March 14, 2007, 12:23 a.m. CST

    now, can we please talk about 300?

    by lynxpro

    This is about the Greco-Persian smackdown, not about the ancient Hebrews and their Hercules wanna-be dude who lost his powers when he got one of those "other cuts" instead of going to SuperCuts.

  • March 14, 2007, 12:33 a.m. CST


    by Anino

    You're right that we should go back to talking about 300. But before we're simply historically wrong on the history of Israel and Palestine. There's no room in thist talkback for all of the details--but before you respond I highly recommend you read "The Case For Israel" which BY THE WAY wasn't written by a neocon OR some Religious Right "Left Behind" guy--it's written by a paragon of the left, and a brilliant law professor named Alan Dershowitz. I disagree with his politics, but he's right on (and well researched) on Israel and it's history. It sets a lot of the record straight, putting the myth that's been accepted as 'conventional wisdom' next to well documented scholarship. Besides, if Israel is to be criticized for how they treat the Palestinians, then why isn't the same criticism laid at the feet of Syria and Egypt when they kicked the Palestinians out of their countries? Everyone--I apologize, here's the obligatory 300 reference: Israel is outnumbered by the world media when it comes to the truth, and they're getting slaughtered in the media war. Jimmy Carter couldn't be more wrong. There's a reason that members of his own center are resigning over the misstatements in his anti-semitic book.

  • March 14, 2007, 12:53 a.m. CST

    speaking of 300

    by Anino

    I wonder how the news media today would cover the Battle of Thermopylae? I've seen those medieval specials done in a documentary style, interspersed with interviews of medieval characters...I think one for ancient Sparta and Persia would be interesting...with field reporters for the Xerxes Cable Network (imagine the fashion segments on that channel!).

  • March 14, 2007, 1:15 a.m. CST

    War for Southern Independence?

    by lynxpro

    No, dude....the name of that was "The War of Northern Aggression". Heh.

  • March 14, 2007, 1:44 a.m. CST


    by Anino

    As much as I enjoyed 300, I think what a lot of people were looking for was a good emotional connection to the soldiers--the way it was done in "Glory"...another ill fated gallant rush.

  • March 14, 2007, 4:42 a.m. CST


    by the_shogun_gunslinger

    with all this jew-hating i smell some bannings, especially in a Mori-thread. cant you all just take a fuckn breath? who the fuck cares if this movie makes Iranian/Persians look bad? i for one dont give half a shit about what some ppl did ages ago, seeing how it doesnt effect my view of them today. half of the retarded masses that flock to the theatre arent going there for cultural enlightenment, at least not for a movie like this. <P> bottom line, the action was awesome, the cinematography was amazing and you all got to see some happy, be proud. <P> at least all this bickering earned us a visit from TOTAL FUCKING DESTRUCTION, haha

  • March 14, 2007, 10:29 a.m. CST

    President Imadinnerjacket

    by lynxpro

    I think that was one of the funniest things I read recently online...President Imadinnerjacket of Iran...

  • March 14, 2007, 2:56 p.m. CST

    for what it is and its purpose...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    this movie is great - it never pretended to be a historically accurate depiction of the events it dramatized

  • March 14, 2007, 5:30 p.m. CST

    Jimmy & Shogun...

    by DeeJay

    I would respectfully note that one can't "dramatize" events that never happened. Considering that the official website for the film uses the phrase, "... a ferocious retelling of the ancient Battle of Thermopylae" I find it fair to say that this movie pretends to be accurate. The last I checked, “dramatization” didn’t include adding 2 feet to a person’s height or creating species that never existed. That kinda’ goes past dramatization, and into the territory of lying. For goodness sake... some historians have debated the accuracy of the *title*, saying that there were at least 1,000 soldiers fighting (and not 300). One could argue that this is not the only instance in which such ethics were employed in film marketing, and that would be fair. However, to say that it doesn't "pretend" to be historically accurate would not jibe with the manner in which Warner Brothers has promoted the movie. Shogun... while I agree that most don’t go to films for “enlightenment” I would think that most anthropologists, historians, sociologists and psychologists would refute your notion that your (or my) thoughts about past civilizations aren’t affected by true historical events, or how they’re portrayed throughout media. I’d also go so far as to say that I hope your question about Iranians and Persians is rhetorical. Still, I recognize that we don’t share the same standards for rating movies, and that’s fine.

  • March 14, 2007, 5:38 p.m. CST


    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    everyone keeps nitpicking descriptions and certain phrases - its just a silly over-the-top action movie - as such its great - im not offended by its historical "retelling" of history or its choices in depiction - those who are have a choice in seeing it or not - just like i choose not to see movies i think look like theyd be stupid, like hostel or saw

  • March 14, 2007, 5:49 p.m. CST

    "...its just a silly over-the-top action movie..."

    by DeeJay

    Jimmy, on that one, you'll get no argument from me. I also agree that people have a choice as to whether they'll go see it. Finally, I think that people have as much a right to sing its praises, lambast it, or offer an opinion that lies within those two points on the continuum.

  • March 14, 2007, 5:59 p.m. CST

    i agree

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    they also have a choice in how much energy they choose to waste getting worked up over what they read into it - i think this movie is a lot of things, but i dont see it as the best excuse to get into heated name-calling debates on things like the israel/palestine conflict or current u.s. policy - but - everyone is looking for an excuse to vent

  • March 14, 2007, 6:17 p.m. CST


    by DeeJay

    ... do you think this talkback would've lasted +5 days had it not gotten off track a few times? :-)

  • March 14, 2007, 6:26 p.m. CST

    good point

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    i gotta admit i keep coming back to read it - but should it have lasted 5 days?

  • March 14, 2007, 6:55 p.m. CST


    by DeeJay

    ... you're right. This topic doesn't warrant that much energy. I'm going to stop, now.

  • March 14, 2007, 9:08 p.m. CST


    by the_shogun_gunslinger

    if any historian gets his panties in a bunch over this movie then he has no soul. this isnt supposed to be accurate by any means and i think thats pretty obvious. its based off a comic book and you dont hear people bitching about the fact that Metropolis and Gotham City cant be found on a real map.

  • March 14, 2007, 10:02 p.m. CST

    "Greek people with Scottish accents"

    by Bill Clay

    I spit up my coffee when I read that. Good one!

  • March 14, 2007, 11:03 p.m. CST

    I have stayed quiet but...

    by tile_mcgillus

    This is ridiculous. The Iranian government has basically said this movie is "fighting words". Absurd. Here is a funny notion. It is narrated by a dude telling the story to other soldiers. Campfire stories have ALWAYS been entirely accurate! Right? <br> I am pretty sure, people left the theatre believing that Xerxes was 9 feet tall and employed a 800 lb sword handed executioner. Give me a fucking break. Anyone who any consider this historically accurate is a fucking douchebag and shouldn't be allowed to vote. That simple. <br> The motherfucker is trying to rally the troop against 3 to 1 odds. <br> Oh and another thing. The Iranian government is saying the Spartans were portrayed as the good guys. What the fuck? Last time I checked they were baby killing, child abusive, war mongers and rapists. Right? And the persians were sexual deviant monsters. SO were the fucking Spartans. The mystics and the hunchback seemed to come from Sparta. Fucking selective viewing assholes. I quit the world.

  • March 15, 2007, 12:36 a.m. CST

    Funny Iranians, Funny Historians

    by gad

    Isn't it silly hearing some absurd reports that some Iranian government folks are all upset about the graphic novel/comic book adaptation movie as being a slander against Persians? Didn't you just laugh out loud when you read some writer or history professor reveal the shocking information that the movie 300 wasn't 'historically accurate?' A comic book adaptation of an event over 2000 years in the past made into a stylized costumed action cartoon movie and people arguing about it not being historically accurate and how damaging that is. Damaging to what? Nobody knows history anyways, heck there was just a news report saying that religious people don't know anything about their religions. I of course blame the decline of religious education on the movies and on 300 in particular. Next thing you know they'll say that Ninjas can't fly or Rocky wasn't the heavy weight champion.

  • March 15, 2007, 11:49 a.m. CST

    Time Magazine's review of 300's "gayness"

    by Bill Clay

    Spartans are the tough guys, the bully boys, the warrior class, fighting and dying for other Greeks who may lack their mettle. Leonidas chides the Athenians as "those philosophers and boy-lovers." Yet the movie is totally gay, a romp in Homer eroticism. Male body worship abounds; the actors, who seem pumped up on Hellenic growth hormones, hardly need shields or swords. Their pecks are their breastplate; their tumorous abs are their body armor. (Thee closing credits list two "personal trainers to Mr. Butler, so I guess the muscles aren't all CGI.) They boast and tease each other about their physiques, which to me sounds like flirting. At times these ancient bodybuilders look like their own statuary, heroic and sometimes headless. Even the Spartans' nobility is homoneurotic. They rhapsodize about "a beautiful death," and figure in military hagiography somewhere between Wagner's Siegfried and the Third Reich's S.S. (I mean that in a nice way.) "It's an honor to die at you side,"one officer says toward the end to Leonidas, who replies, "It's an honor to have lived at yours." If this movie dialogue were between a man and a woman, I guarantee the audience would spill their popcorn in giggle fits. But the crowd I saw 300 with suffered all this strained seriousness in respectful silence. In his last battle, Leonidas gets an enemy arrow in each tit, and soon he's Xerxes' pin cushion. The image may remind you of Saint Sebastian in a medieval painting, or Toshiro Mifune in Kurosawa's Throne of Blood. To me it recalled some of the more extreme photographs of Robert Mapplethorpe. I know nothing of the sexual orientation of Snyder or Miller. And I'm not criticizing, only describing, 300's iconography. But I'm surprised by the movie's broad appeal to the movie block of young American males, many of whom still use "gay" as the second-worst slur, and can still see homosexuality as something to laugh at or fear. Maybe the success of 300 will encourage other, better, directors to make dead-serious movies on ancient-history subjects. And maybe, then, we'll hear kids come out of the theater burbling, "I loved that movie, man! It was totally gay!"

  • March 15, 2007, 2 p.m. CST

    a 'retelling'

    by oisin5199

    If that term doesn't spell it out, I don't how it can be made clearer. This is a STORY, a myth, a tall tale. It's not a freakin' history lesson.

  • March 15, 2007, 5:32 p.m. CST

    Shogun, Gad, & Ois...

    by DeeJay

    I tried to step away from this dialog, but I see that some refuse to tolerate such an act. Shogun... I'll leave your comment about "souls" alone, but must ask for some clarification. Are you stating that entities such as Marvel and DC comics have claimed the stories of Superman and Batman to be based on real life? Ois... the very phrase "retelling history" is internally contradictory. It's either history or it's not. This is why the phrase "revisionist history" is pejorative. Furthermore, if "300" isn't true history, why market it in such a manner that one *knows* people will believe it to be true? Mind you, several years back, there were countless people who thought "The Blair Witch Project" had *really* happened. This was due to the manner in which it was marketed (many of these people never chose to see the movie), so the defense of false marketing really doesn't have any grounding in the way things really go down. Gad... since there are numerous kids that think ninjas can fly, and some people have claimed that "300" was actually marketed to kids, in fact, your argument actually supports some criticisms of "300." The difference is that kids grow out of the flying Ninja stage due to adults denouncing their acceptance of such a false idea. In contrast, many of AICN’s "300" supporters have already agreed that the average person doesn’t understand the true events referenced by this movie, which would imply that the average person is not positioned to recognize that many scenes are indeed totally fabricated. If "history" wasn't in play here, am I to understand that the creators have gone on record and labeled this film "myth," "fiction" and "not to be taken seriously" in response to the recent criticisms? If not, why haven't they? Listen, if you can convince me that 95% of the viewers who saw "300" knew that it was completely fallacious in its portrayal of history, I’ll leave this alone. However, I haven’t seen any evidence of that. Instead, there have merely been philosophical arguments that people "shouldn't" believe it to be true, and I simply disagree with the idea that such arguments have any true value.

  • March 18, 2007, 3:38 a.m. CST

    300 VS HARRY !!!

    by raj abbas

    Hey Harry Big Fan Of Your Fukin Reviews, Where Is Your Take On 300 Underwear Models With Spears & Swords & Ugly Speeches. That Are Too Good For Game Freaks like us. Remember The Glory days of golden axe. PHAAALEEZZZ post your review of 300. Harry.

  • March 18, 2007, 7:27 p.m. CST


    by WoodyStiffer

    People are comparing Leonidas to Bush? That's pure bullshit. Leonidas was protecting his own land against an INVASION. Leonidas and the persians would be better compared to the Iraqi insurgents fighting the American INVADERS (Persians).

  • March 18, 2007, 10:06 p.m. CST

    historical accuracy

    by hbkdoms69

    there WERE 300 spartans at the battle...and yes there were more than a thousand other troops in the battle who were told to leave when the spartan king found out that their position had been compromised...only 300 remained along with 700 thesbians who stayed on their own accord...not historically accurate yes but fairly close. as far as the number of persian troops, modern estimates put the number at about 200-300 thousand fighting forces as well as a navy of about 500000 more troops as well as another 200000 in support troops...that puts their total army at about one million...again the movie may gloss over the very specifics but it still stays fairly in line with the data we have. its a campfire story basically so get over the historcal inaccuracies and just enjoy it

  • March 20, 2007, 10:50 p.m. CST


    by WoodyStiffer

    BTW - the movie kicked all kinds of ass.

  • April 8, 2007, 9:23 p.m. CST

    Republicans and Spartans rule!!!

    by wackie chan

    It was nice to see the white dudes as good guys again... Its been a while since hollywood did one of those stories.

  • Sept. 10, 2007, 12:07 p.m. CST

    it was decent...

    by just pillow talk

    It wasn't memorable for me, but okay. It had some cool looking scenes, but it was no Conan the Barbarian.