Feb. 15, 2011, 7:40 p.m. CST
Bitches Boycott AICN.
Feb. 15, 2011, 7:42 p.m. CST
Feb. 15, 2011, 7:43 p.m. CST
Feb. 15, 2011, 7:45 p.m. CST
Right up there with Mission Impossible 4 and Die Hard 5. Actually, it might even be under those two.
Feb. 15, 2011, 7:48 p.m. CST
by Judge Briggs
Feb. 15, 2011, 7:51 p.m. CST
Feb. 15, 2011, 7:54 p.m. CST
Fuck yeah he does, needs to sequel that shit asap. As far as him on this Xerxes movie, well, as long as the comic Miller is doing kicks ass and they base it off of that real well, should be fine.
Feb. 15, 2011, 7:55 p.m. CST
Feb. 15, 2011, 8 p.m. CST
I like his British underworld flicks. They're a lot of fun. Though I wasn't so crazy for Gerard Butler in Rock n' Rolla. Needed somebody else for that part.
Feb. 15, 2011, 8:07 p.m. CST
THIS IS SPARTA!!!!!
Feb. 15, 2011, 8:07 p.m. CST
Sherlock's success was strictly on Downey Jr's shoulders. With his wave of leading man status, thanks to Johnny F. His take on Holmes was a generic piece of shit. I have no faith in Mr. Madonna.
Feb. 15, 2011, 8:16 p.m. CST
by kanye west
Garrison was scissoring that ass.
Feb. 15, 2011, 8:25 p.m. CST
by Stereotypical Evil Archer
Feb. 15, 2011, 8:26 p.m. CST
Most impressive thing about him these days is his ego.
Feb. 15, 2011, 8:37 p.m. CST
by Ye Not Guilty
Feb. 15, 2011, 8:37 p.m. CST
looks like vignettes of badass straight from my imagination. giant samurai with gattling gun and WWII bombers up against dragons? i'm so sold it's retarded.
Feb. 15, 2011, 8:50 p.m. CST
by D o o d
these are all terrible words!
Feb. 15, 2011, 8:51 p.m. CST
the reason being: "Why had no one ever done the Battle of Thermopylae in true grand style before?" It is still the greatest moment of hand-to-hand combat on this planet, and will probably never be equalled. Even conservative historians placed the odds at 50 Persians to 1 Spartan. And the Spartans killed off *all* the Immortals, they weren't any left. That's what sank Xerxes ego. WB would be much wiser to do the Peloponesian Wars between Sparta and Athens, rather than go backward in time.
Feb. 15, 2011, 9:13 p.m. CST
Fair warning, y'all. I'm not talking metaphorically. I'm dead serious and you wish you had the stones to enjoy this movie as it was meant to be.
Feb. 15, 2011, 9:14 p.m. CST
I meant by my girlfriend.
Feb. 15, 2011, 9:16 p.m. CST
and also not on some bullshit pedestal about movies and can still be entertained by some monkey garbage. I love me some monkey garbage. esp when it involves some promising insane action.
Feb. 15, 2011, 9:21 p.m. CST
by Andrew Coleman
I hate these obvious losers that come and hate on this movie. It's made for people like us. Ritchie is bad ass but I want him to avoid the sequel to 300. That movie was utterly horrible. Only people who like it are frat guys who beat each other off while watching it. Unlike hater nerds on here who have pathetic lives and hate on literally everything I like Snyder and Ritchie. I'm also excited for SH2 and Sucker Punch.
Feb. 15, 2011, 9:27 p.m. CST
Feb. 15, 2011, 9:30 p.m. CST
i'll be there opening night, cause I consider snyder to be one of the best directors out there, everything he does is gold (seriously name a badmovie he directed)
Feb. 15, 2011, 9:38 p.m. CST
A Direct To Video movie. I've heard a lot about this movie yet have managed not to see any footage or pics, then the other day I was at my favorite BBQ joint when I saw a trailer to what I though was some gay SYFY TV movie. Then the SUCKER PUNCH title came up and I nearly shat in my pants. "This is what everyone is talking about?! This is supposed to be fucking awesome?!" Give me a break... Movie looks so fucking awful.
Feb. 15, 2011, 9:38 p.m. CST
by D o o d
to be honest, Zak Snyder is the new Michael Bay. His films are generally a mess of tosh! All the slow-mo imagery is just bullshit. It doesn't show style or even taste. There is good sci-fi and there is bad sci-fi. Without seeing it, I can comfortably put this in the bad section with confidence! Give me a well made movie with great cinematography any day.
Feb. 15, 2011, 9:44 p.m. CST
You're right it does look like that. The CGI is utterly awful.
Feb. 15, 2011, 9:44 p.m. CST
How can anyone NOT think of that when they hear that name? I use it as an exclamation of surprise' "Well....Scissor me Xerxes!", akin to "By Zeus beard" or "Great-Granmother's Spatula!"...
Feb. 15, 2011, 9:51 p.m. CST
we arent gonna get a mech suit fighting a biplane anywhere else, folks. so thanks Snyder for letting me see that crazy awesome shit realized on the big screen
Feb. 15, 2011, 9:51 p.m. CST
Let's remember that most of that war consisted of Sparta surrounding Athens and starving them out. While that might make for great drama, action....not so much.
Feb. 15, 2011, 9:53 p.m. CST
1) I love Ritchies movies! He's got a great style. 2) Whatchmen was fantastic! 3) All the fucking bitching that is pervasive within these Talk Backs is just sad. All the Absolutes hurled about. The absurd opinions of who's talented. It is just stunning the negative energy you put out. What are you proud of in your lives? What do you have to show for all your vaunted opinions. You are cruel with no redeeming value.
Feb. 15, 2011, 10:05 p.m. CST
Feb. 15, 2011, 10:07 p.m. CST
Feb. 15, 2011, 10:18 p.m. CST
but you're right. Why would anyone want to see the exact same story from the POV of the side that was demonized in the first movie? There are so many other kickass stories from Greek myth/history that deserve this "baroque" OTT treatment. A proper version of the Iliad is first off the top of my head. Someone bankroll THAT movie!
Feb. 15, 2011, 10:29 p.m. CST
... of Cyrus the Great, the founder and first Emperor of the ancient Persian Empire. He is still revered today by millions as a great and wise ruler. He freed the Hebrews from captivity in Babylon and established a legal code that ensured the rights of the diverse citizenry of his empire that was unheard of by the standards of ancient times.
Feb. 15, 2011, 11:11 p.m. CST
...saw TRAINSPOTTING and said to himself, "This far -- NO FARTHER!" While Danny Boyle has left no genre untouched, Ritche has stayed in his little box. The best thing about SHERLOCK was the score. It was neat. RDJ and Jude Law had some okay chemistry. The detective work functioned like magic, which I always find a bit cheap in detective films. And it could have been directed by anyone. So Ritche. Feh. I was vaguely interested in XERES, so I continue to be vaguely interested. I liked WATCHMEN and GUARDIANS. I was surprised how much I liked GUARDIANS. I feel like it sits of a piece with other stuff I loved as a kid -- LEGEND and NEVERENDING STORY and THE LAST UNICORN and NIMH. Stuff that had some teeth to it. I hope the kids who would be moved by it got to see it. Or maybe they don't make kids like that anymore. The alleged reaction to SUCKER PUNCH is a bit sad. I like Snyder as a director. I'm okay with monkey fun, but I had hoped for intelligent ape.
Feb. 15, 2011, 11:24 p.m. CST
by frank cotton
Feb. 16, 2011, 12:14 a.m. CST
Danny Boyle IMO is one of the best of this so-called new crop of young blood "auteurs" that are so hot right now. It's important for directors to be versatile--one of the best ways to develop a signaature voice to a body of work. He should be given the chance to do a bombastic historical epic next, not Ritchie. Sherlock Holmes was fun in the theater but any impressions I had evaporated from my mind as soon as I left. Score was fantastic, bizarre, and memorable though. You are sure right about that.
Feb. 16, 2011, 12:44 a.m. CST
People who like crap
Feb. 16, 2011, 1:10 a.m. CST
by Happy Killmore
Have you seen "Sucker Punch"? "No". Then FUCK YOU!!! I HATE dipshits on this site hating movies they haven't seen. Fuck off, stupid asshole!
Feb. 16, 2011, 1:18 a.m. CST
by Happy Killmore
So... "Watchmen" was bad simply because of Nixon's nose? Wow. That's just stupid.
Feb. 16, 2011, 1:21 a.m. CST
by Happy Killmore
Okay. So what was so bad about "Watchmen"? What, exactly, made it "crap"? I'd like to know. And please, be long winded and disertative. Thank you.
Feb. 16, 2011, 1:28 a.m. CST
All his movies are awesome. He has a perfect record. You guys need to get your Ga'Hooles checked.
Feb. 16, 2011, 1:34 a.m. CST
by Happy Killmore
I haven't seen any of the following movies but they ALL SUCK: Spiderman, Captain America, Green Lantern, Sucker Punch, Battle Los Angeles, the next Pixar movie, Thor, Transformers, anything by George Lucas or Steven Spielberg, anything by JJ Abrams, anything by Joss Whedon, all foreign films, all films in general. Anyway, I hate them ALL for I am an AICN Talkbacker. I hate EVERY movie covered yet I come here every single day, several times a day, to post how much I HATE movies that won't come out for months for that is my creed. P.S. I REALLY hate Scott Pilgrim
Feb. 16, 2011, 1:45 a.m. CST
There are too many fucking cunts on this site like darth_hideous who should have a grenade stuck up their ass and the pin pulled. These cunts will never be satisfied and will never be done sucking shit out of their own asses while spewing haterade. Cunts like them should die! Fucker thinks Snyder's Watchmen was crap. Fucker should have his balls cut off.
Feb. 16, 2011, 1:54 a.m. CST
by Shady Drifter
... with a touch of Brokeback Mountain. Directed by Guy Ritchie. I smell awards :-) I didn't mind 300 whilst watching it, but I'm not really much into over-stylised films unless there's a great story and some soul put into it. I did like Sin City - that had a good mix of visuals and emotions (also thanks to a great cast). Most other films of the sort barely grabbed my attention. I quite liked Watchmen but feel it could have been so much better.
Feb. 16, 2011, 2:04 a.m. CST
by D o o d
everytime I mention to someone who liked it that I just didn't get it's boring narative and long winded slow-mo nonesense. They always say the same thing. "Read the Graphic Novel because it's amazing" Now I'm not doubting for one second that the graphic novel is of the highest calibre of work, however, why should I read it to understand the movie. Shouldn't the movie stand on it's own two feet..? Watchmen as a movie from the perspective of someone who didn't read the graphic novel, was confusing rubbish. Why the blue guy had his cock out is still beyond me! It was most certainly style over content, and the style was not that stylish either! Just to add another thought. It's very healthy to voice opinions whether it be positive or negative.
Feb. 16, 2011, 2:16 a.m. CST
by DC Films
I remember him planning it, with the likes of DeNiro interested. Then Swept Away happened. Looks like he may be on a post-Madonna comeback. Good luck to him.
Feb. 16, 2011, 4:21 a.m. CST
by Righteous Brother
allways, and I mean allways say something about 'the blue guy' and his cock. First thing his name is Dr Manhatten. Secondly, he was naked because he was so powerful and godlike he'd lost touch with his own humanity, so wearing clothes is a triviality, that he didn't need to bother with. This doesn't have to be specifically stated in the movie to make sense, its called subtext, and if you were paying any attention or had an ounce of sense you would have been able to work it out for yourself. As for people who understand the film, and still don't like it. Well I've got no truck with them, its a subjective matter.
Feb. 16, 2011, 4:52 a.m. CST
Oh, he can't survive being cut in half? That's his problem!
Feb. 16, 2011, 5:15 a.m. CST
"Another sequel/prequel no one asked for" How i agree with you. If this Xerxes movie would be a proper historical movie, i would dig it. But since it's an adaptation of a comic book by the same author that put Tolkien trolls and orcs and inspired a movie that put armoured elephants and rhinos in the battle of Thermopylae and fucked history in the ass, my enthusiasm for this movie is less then enthusiastic, if you know what i mean. Hell, if i have to think about this throughly, the only ancient history movie set before the roman empire that has the most accurate portait of those times is Oliver Stone's ALEXANDER. how about that? Personally, i think that movie is terribly underrated.
Feb. 16, 2011, 5:32 a.m. CST
His work on that film was exemplary. And, having read what Miller intends to do with Xerxes, I'm excited to see what the 2 men create.
Feb. 16, 2011, 5:32 a.m. CST
by Righteous Brother
I guess you could argue that, as the story of the Battle of Thermopylae is being recounted round a camp fire, everything is being exagerrated for effect, the size of the elephants, the ferociousness of the opponents etc. My favorite version of the story is Gates of Fire by Stephen Pressfield, Michael Mann was attached to the project for a while but it never came to be mainly due to 300 which is a shame. And I know I'm putting myself in the line of fire here but I really like Oliver Stone's Alexander, I've even got the 214 min Final Cut of the film.
Feb. 16, 2011, 6:29 a.m. CST
Yes, even if we go for the most conservative estimates, the ration of GREEKS for persians at the thermopyale puts it as 1-40. But this numbers are deceiving. In the battle, Xerxes never comited the full numbers of his army, simply because he couldn't. Due to the nature of the terrain. The battlefield was a bottleneck between a tall mountain wall on the left and the sea in the right. And the greeks had a small wall to help their defense. So, everytime Xerxes comited his troops, they matched in numbers with the greek contingent. The greeks advantage was that, due to their defensive tactic, they had the advantage of the wall, and that they used armour and large shirld that created a true shieled wall. The persian troops were equiped with their usual persian countrements, meaning, light or no armour and short spears. The greek tactics was always favouring static positions and armour and long spears, and the persians favoured movement (due to the large plains of their homelands) thus they had light or no armour and short spears. So, everytime the persians mett the greeks, they did it at a disantantage. The notion that the greeks faced a huge amount of persinas in a fight and kicked all their asses is bullshit. Each time they met in battle, and they were about 3 times in five days, the numbers matched at the front. The greeks advantage was their armour. The greeks disavantage was numbers, but not in the way most people think. I explain below. By the end of the battle, about 10,000 persians died. compared to the about 2,000 dead greeks, sound slike the persians got ythe rought deal. Until we realise that the greek army was about 5,000 to 7,000 men, and the persian army, even at it's most conservative estimates, was about 150,000 to 250,000 men. This means that the battle of Thermopylae only costed in lives only about 5% of the whole persian army. The problem for the persians, and for Xerxes, wa snot the casualties, but the 5 days wasted at Thermopylae. Those five days were enough to evacuate Athens, and thus frustrate Xerxes' main goal. Xerxes knew that if Athens fall, the rest of Greece would too. All others would compromise and accept being part the persian empire. Inclusing the spartans. Specially the spartans. Many years after the persian wars, and when athens and sparta fought for dominion on the Peleponese, the spartans accepted persian gold and ships to wage war agaisnt athens. it serves persia's interests, to weak athens's presence and influence on the greek cities in asia minor. By the way, the spartan fame of being unbeatable in battle is vastly overrated and erroneous. The spartans had no more sucess in battle then the other greeks. And in the end their influence in greece was terminated because of a battle they lost ot the thebans. Like many Holywood hacks beloved by AICN, the spartans rided more on prestige and propaganda based on one glory moment in their history then anything else.
Feb. 16, 2011, 7:17 a.m. CST
and since suckerpunch looks like a 15 year old moron put it together the studio has every right to worry. Shoulda been a made for youtube movie and not have any real money dumped into it.
Feb. 16, 2011, 7:39 a.m. CST
I especially liked it when the ED-209 from Paul Verhoeven's Robocop fought the giant samurai from Terry Gilliam's Brazil. If this is what passes for an idea in Snyder's head (I'm guessing lots of anime and Funyuns factor in as well), he hopefully won't be introducing any original concepts to Superman.
Feb. 16, 2011, 7:42 a.m. CST
And righteousbrother is correct. The point of the story, which seems to have escaped many of the film scholars on these talkbacks, is that it is NOT history. It's a legend being told to boost morale.
Feb. 16, 2011, 8:06 a.m. CST
Feb. 16, 2011, 8:19 a.m. CST
I heard about the Michael Mann's project, i wish it could had happened. As for the idea that 300 is a propaganda type of tall tale told on a campfire in the eve of a big battle, that was my take and my attitude toward the movie when i went to see it. And the fucking movie fucked it up. There's shit in the movie that simply cannot be accounted by a firecamp tale. It starts with the rhino. I could almost accept the war elephant. It's stretching that such a provincial chap as the usual spartan would even guess to know how an elephant would look like. Maybe he could had heard of them in the rare instance where some idiotic trader would venture going to sparta and told some story about north african elephants found in Carthage, or if the guy had been in India. But a rhino? A fucking rhino? There would be no way in hell a spartan could even dreamof the existence of such a creature. No way. So, that already fucked up the movie's proposition of it being a tall tale in a campfire. And then there is the stuff about the cenes of intimancy between king Leonidas and his queen Gorgon. What, Leonidas or Gordon told the dude their bed escapades? Give me a break! That shit that's in the movie is just there because that imbecillic childish juvenile idiot of a director put them in the movie because he though it was "cool". There's no logic or though that went to that movie, just a bunch of "cool shit" thrown in without any second thoughts to it.
Feb. 16, 2011, 8:23 a.m. CST
Whoever thinks this is the case has clearly not read anything related to the comic or movie. Making the above "suggestion" would be pretty stupid, although Eastwood managed to do pretty much the same thing with Flags of Our Fathers/Letters from Iwo Jima. Xerxes is about Xerxes rise to power, and I believe, features the Battle of Marathon, not Thermopylae.
Feb. 16, 2011, 8:26 a.m. CST
by David Cloverfield
It's not like there are thousands of people who think that's how it happened. Of course it fucked history in the ass, that's what it set out to do. Tell a legend - a legend, by definiton is no history. This could be cool too, although I didn't care for Sherlock Holmes (The new BBC series mops the floor with the latest movie.)
Feb. 16, 2011, 8:29 a.m. CST
by Righteous Brother
There's little doubt in my mind, that the idiot director put those scenes in the film, because he thought they were 'cool', he also probably thought they were 'awesome' too.....as for the rhinos and stuff, I have to tell myself they're in there because its a campfire story. I wonder whether Zack Snyder will change his style at all for Superman, or whether it'll be a cg overload - it'll be interesting to see.
Feb. 16, 2011, 8:33 a.m. CST
by David Cloverfield
or remake, or sequel, or prequel, or mequel, or bequel. That should be good enough reason to be curious, and not dismiss it from an at least interesting trailer that told you nothing about the story. For once I don't know what to expect and I'm thankful for it.
Feb. 16, 2011, 8:34 a.m. CST
When I first heard Zack Snyder was doing a "women in prison" movie, I thought, "Fits like a glove." I actually liked "Watchmen" (and it's only through Snyder's involvement that it wasn't set in present day and didn't have a happy ending, no shit), but hated "300," and thought this would be a smaller project where he could finally get back to his roots making fun, trashy pics like "Dawn of the Dead," but with some of his newer aesthetic excesses. Like I was expecting ultra slow-mo catfights in the showers or a crazy ass riot scene at the end. And it's a period piece? Like now we're talking some Russ Meyer shit. Then I saw the concept art and trailer and while some parts look kind of cool, for the most part it looks and sounds like an X-Box game that rips off "Brazil" and "Mech Warrior." Which would make sense if it was a modern day kid in a mental hospital who's obsessed with video games (maybe that's the case, in which case, vomit), but some chick in the 50's? Fuck off.
Feb. 16, 2011, 9:14 a.m. CST
by Happy Killmore
First, tell me what you didn't like about "Sucker Punch"? Was it the acting? Maybe it was the pacing? Possibly the story? We just don't know so please, share... As far as me watching "Scott Pilgrim" goes, I've never seen it. It didn't look like my kind of movie. Due to that fact, I did not waste my time (I make over $150 an hour as a "professional 'retard'" you know) posting about a movie I might not like but have never seen unlike some who apparently have a lot of free time on their hands. As far as being a "fag", who's the "retard" here?
Feb. 16, 2011, 9:31 a.m. CST
by u.k. star
300 Like many have said and like the film itself shows, it's an exaggerated, campfire propaganda. If you believe the giant War Rhinos and War Elephants negate this somehow I suggest maybe you watch again. The scene with the wolf spells out the non factual nature of the tale; nut what it also does is show a difference between that animal's description and that of the "creatures" sent out during the battle. The wolf is described in detail, size colour, eyes; the Rhino & Elephant are simply "creatures from hell" (or whatever the actual description is. They aren't called giant rhinos or a big boulder with tree trunks for legs and massive white horn on its nose. Sure we, the movie audience, get to see a visual of the "battle" but the soldiers around the campfire have the joy of putting their worst nightmares there instead. As for the sex, firstly as sex was a big part of being a "real man", back then (look at the behaviour of Zeus &co if you doubt it) then you'd expect that whether the storyteller knew the details or not. Also since when do films / plays /TV shows shown from a main character's perspective only ever show us things that the character actually saw? Even when straight factual, let alone exaggerated prop! I saw a film like that once, totally first person; the camera was the protagonist’s eyes throughout the movie. It didn't work. You always see things that the storyteller / protagonist couldn't possibly have seen or known, rarely is that an issue or does it have to be explained, as in classic Star Trek double The Menagerie pt. I & II. Sherlock Holmes:- I happen to like Ritchie. I think he has talent, but that he needs good stories or his directing style crashes a bit. Love Lock #stock, Love Snatch, Rock 'n' Rolla was cool and I hope for a sequel. Ah but Sherlock Holmes...*sigh*. I wrote a review for that film and called it Sherlock Dooby Doo. If you've seen the film you know why. The plot was basically an up-scaled version of Old man Jenkins scaring the townsfolk into thinking there's a ghost so he can steal gold or whatever (say an Empire!). Downey Jnr. and Law were great together, Mark Strong is rapidly becoming a favourite of mine and it was mostly well shot, but dear oh dear; I know Scooby & the Gang are "detectives" but basing a Sherlock plot on Scooby Doo is stretching it. Also that scene where we go from that American lady taking about 30 seconds to get around the corner and into a carriage, to Holmes taking about 30 minutes to follow her across what feels like half of bloody London and catch her as she enters the same carriage, What WAS That About!?!?! Ok, hype, it wasn't 30 minutes but it was far, far too long. Not a fan, but I trust this and the other problems (running up to the unfinished Tower Bridge, when there was plenty of time to get anywhere else because?) for the next movie. But it will have to have some stunning reviews to get us to spend precious babysitting hours on a cinema trip to watch it. "No one asked for" Like the "no true fan", or the "everyone who has read the..." comments I'm reading more and more in reviews and talkbacks these days I'm getting slightly irritated by critics telling me what films people asked for. Apart from the fact that films get made because people choose to make them and not usually because ANYONE asked for them, I should think the millions of people who loved 300 would be fine with another film in that universe, as long as it matched (closely at least) the quality’s (whatever they were) of the other movie. I don't care what the source of any movie is, book, TV show, previous movie, remake, technically new idea, all that matters is that it be good. Good entertainment or good quality, just good. I don't like the restart of Spider-Man, I didn't see a need (outside of it saving Sony millions of $ in actor / director fees); same goes for X-Men first class, but as long as they are good then so be it. It's done; they are being made so let's hope it's good. Finally Sucker Punch looks very odd, and I fear that it may suffer the same fate as Mr Pilgrim; it will look too odd, too niche for mainstream audiences to go see it. Of course Scott Pilgrim was excellent, and always looked so to me. Sucker Punch may not be so good. But here's the question, of those who are saying with a certainty that Sucker Punch is rubbish, how many of you have actually seen it? If not how do you know it is crap? How do you know it isn't great, just ok, or dumb, but dumb in the way that is very entertaining?
Feb. 16, 2011, 9:52 a.m. CST
But Scott Pilgrim DID suck. To be precise, it sucked Donkey dick while Michael Cera cradled the balls. That doesn't make me a hater, just an honest person.
Feb. 16, 2011, 9:59 a.m. CST
The trailer looked wild, interesting, and put it firmly on my "looking forward to" list. That said, Nordling glossed over the report. WB isn't just worried about Sucker Punch. They're downright sick to their stomach over it, or, more to the point, over the same director handling Superman. Why? Because it has been received VERY poorly by the test audiences they've shown it to. Not "a few tweaks here and there will fix it" poorly, but "total clusterfuck" poorly. Seriously, I'm rooting for SP to be new, fun, and awesome, but, if test audiences can be believed, it's anything but. And that scares the shit out of WB, because they don't want to have to worry about/replace the director of Supes at this stage, because if the cameras aren't rolling soon they'll miss their 2013 deadline and the rights will revert back to the families of Seigel and Schuster. So any delays on Supes at this point are a financial crisis for WB. (Plus, word is they're not at all happy with the third act of the Supes script as it is).
Feb. 16, 2011, 10:21 a.m. CST
Its really scary. White supremacists REALLY love it, especially the ragingly closeted homophobes.
Feb. 16, 2011, 10:29 a.m. CST
And a box-office hit. Now that's a depressing state of affairs.
Feb. 16, 2011, 10:36 a.m. CST
by Happy Killmore
Well said, sir. You win.
Feb. 16, 2011, 10:58 a.m. CST
I don't know to what extent can a filmmaker change his style. I have seen very talented filmmakers be able to pull that. Snyder is not a very talented filmmaker. And as i said before, i just don't buy the capfire story approach to the movie because there wa sno way the teller of the tale could know all the stuff that's in the movie, like the rhinos and the spartan royalty bed shennigans.
Feb. 16, 2011, 11:05 a.m. CST
... so much so that it took until nowdays to get a more realistic picture of what really happened. The battle as know until recently wa smore legend then history. Only today we can know part of the real history. and all that shit about "printing the legend" stuff, that was put in that movie, THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALENCE, is not as a validation of "this is how things should be" but as lament that "sadly, that's how things happen most of the time, and the truth is the first to be sacrificed". So all that romanticism about printing the legend crap can all get fucked in the ass.
Feb. 16, 2011, 11:19 a.m. CST
A movie that depicted a very acurate portait of what happend in that battle would be one of the best ever war movie ever made in the history of cinema. Instead what we got with 300 was one of the dumbest most retard shit ever made in the history of cinema.
Feb. 16, 2011, 11:20 a.m. CST
In that we are in total agreement. What a great series that is.
Feb. 16, 2011, 11:23 a.m. CST
Some geek girls of today have th same rferences as the boys. But in 19FUCKING50S?? No way! If ever a girl would had a fantasy world back then, it would be populated with unicorns, princes, talking animals and rainbows all over the fucking place, and the villain would be a witch that would look like mother, stepmother, granny, a teacher or the bully bitch from school.
Feb. 16, 2011, 11:23 a.m. CST
You want historically accurate, you wind up with Ridley Scott's Robin Hood and Antoine Fuqua's King Arthur. The movie never pretends to be based on a true story, and in fact doesn't even say ANYWHERE that its based on real history. Its up to those who are interested to discover it for themselves. While it would be great to see a historically accurate version of the Battle of Thermopolye, I'm happy to see a suped-up comic book interpretation of those events. There's a place for both historically accurate and romanticized interpretations in movie history.
Feb. 16, 2011, 11:33 a.m. CST
I must say that I wasn't impressed at all with that movie. I didn't like it one bit. I did like Kick Ass quite a bit however. Sucker Punch looks to be more toward the Scott Pilgrim side of things, but I only briefly watched a trailer of it, I could be wrong.
Feb. 16, 2011, 11:40 a.m. CST
by Olsen Twins_Fan
Hahaha! Best response I've seen to some troll dildo.
Feb. 16, 2011, 12:17 p.m. CST
"But in 19FUCKING50S?? No way! If ever a girl would had a fantasy world back then, it would be populated with unicorns, princes, talking animals and rainbows all over the fucking place, and the villain would be a witch that would look like mother, stepmother, granny, a teacher or the bully bitch from school. " Unfortunately, the premise contradicts itself since there's no way some girl from that era would be able to conjure figments of imagination so highly advanced.(Samurai Mecha?!?) on the surface, it looks like Zac's "Pan's Laberynth". I like Snyder's films but this one, I may have to forgo seeing in the theaters.
Feb. 16, 2011, 12:19 p.m. CST
Feb. 16, 2011, 12:22 p.m. CST
Oh noes! A girl from that era wouldn't know what a samurai mech was! True, but way to be a creativity killer. I'd much rather have something historically inaccurate that be told "no" over and over again.
Feb. 16, 2011, 12:45 p.m. CST
by Ryan Vaux
Feb. 16, 2011, 12:58 p.m. CST
"Audiences won't sit still for two hours of realism! They want war rhinos and giants and lobster-men!" Ugh...
Feb. 16, 2011, 1:06 p.m. CST
300 sucks? and watchmen? you saw 300 right..right? it was pretty wicked! and watchmen?! did you see the directors cut? it was awesome!
Feb. 16, 2011, 1:40 p.m. CST
by D o o d
and Watchmen, like I said earlier, is just a mess of a movie. It doesn't know what it wants to be so it tries to be everything. A Jack of all Trades and a Master of None!
Feb. 16, 2011, 1:50 p.m. CST
"You want historically accurate, you wind up With Ridley Scott's Robin Hood" Who says i don't? "The movie never pretends to be based on a true story" Except for the fact that the fucking battle actually happened. "While it would be great to see a historically accurate version of the Battle of Thermopolye, I'm happy to see a suped-up comic book interpretation of those events." You content yourself with very little. there's people in Holywood who make millions and are filthy rich from the gillibility and too-easy-to-please attittude of such as yourself. "There's a place for both historically accurate and romanticized interpretations in movie history." Yes, there are. But about the second, there's two ways to do it: The right way, and the retard stupid shit way. 300 is the later. If you want a good example of the later, pick up a book and read SALAMMBO.
Feb. 16, 2011, 1:57 p.m. CST
"A girl from that era wouldn't know what a samurai mech was! True, but way to be a creativity killer" No, that is not a creativy killer, it's a bullshit killer. Zack The Hack Snyder is not showing any creativity with SUCKER PUNCH whatsoever. He's pulling shit out of his ass, and putting it in a context that makes it retard beyond description. Retard. Stupid, Imbecillic. Very fucking dumb. If Snyder ha a signature, that's it, total stupidity for the sake of a demented idiotic notion of "cool". If Zack The Hack Snyder was truly creativ,e he would pull a Terry Gilliam like in TIME BANDITS, and created a fantasy world which ahd some contract and made sinse to the reality of the character as she lived in the real world. Mech Samurai and p+sycadelic WWI trench warfare scenarions is not the stuff that a young girl in the 1950s would had inher minagiotory allucinations. That's just a whhole pile of bulshit. In case youn hjaven0't learn this yet, even fantasies have to have a logic them them other then just a dumb interpretation of rule of cool. Your old times self would know that as a amtter of fact. How the hell you today can't is just bloody weird beyond words. I'm not recognizing you, man, i just aren't.
Feb. 16, 2011, 1:58 p.m. CST
Feb. 16, 2011, 2 p.m. CST
Indeed. What makes me laught so much about 300 is in theirdesperation to not by gay, they made the movie even more gay. Which, in a way, is apropos, considering that the culture of Sparta has homosexuality institutionalized. But the homosexuality of ancient Sparta was not like the limp-wristed faggot gay assery that is seen in 300.
Feb. 16, 2011, 2:04 p.m. CST
I noticed you left out King Arthur, which is a movie you've railed against in the past and completely proves my point that historically accurate doesn't automatically mean "better".
Feb. 16, 2011, 2:06 p.m. CST
Then you could rail against the use of rhinos and elephants. But it didn't. Since its a fantastical legendary interpretation (and based on a comic book), your complaints about historical accuracy are moot.
Feb. 16, 2011, 2:19 p.m. CST
I miss the Dallas's captain.
Feb. 16, 2011, 2:22 p.m. CST
Because your way would be no samurai mech suits or no 1950's setting because its not believable to have the two together (its impossible for someone to dream of the future I guess). But then again, we're talking about a movie that is NOT supposed to be believable from the get-go.
Feb. 16, 2011, 2:24 p.m. CST
"If Zack The Hack Snyder was truly creativ,e he would pull a Terry Gilliam like in TIME BANDITS, and created a fantasy world which ahd some contract and made sinse to the reality of the character as she lived in the real world." That statement is a bit nonsensical.
Feb. 16, 2011, 2:27 p.m. CST
I enjoy movies that entertain, and I can be entertained on many different levels. I don't get my panties in a wad because a comic book movie that never professed to be realistic in the first place ends up being historically inaccurate. I may as well get pissed that a comedy doesn't have enough drama in it.
Feb. 16, 2011, 2:32 p.m. CST
Care to comment on what exactly limp-wristed faggot gay assery is, Asimov? Because something tells me you have no fucking clue. A soldier is by definition the exact opposite of "limp-wristed".
Feb. 16, 2011, 3:20 p.m. CST
Rewatch TIME BANDITS again and see how the earlier scens and a final scene in the movie COMPLETLY relates to the fantasy stuff. I saw the movie last week, you know? How long have you not seen it? Because your coment is telling. And again, i'll say that the stuff in SUCKER PUNCH about a 1950s GIRL dreaming uop about robot samurai mechas is complete stupid nonsense. If anything, it's you whoa re having a problem. Ther eis absolutly no way that a middle class girl in the 1950s subusbia americs would had a fantasy world with rabot samurai giant mechas. No fucking way! That's modern fantasy shit stuff, not the 1950s! Again, allow me to stress this poing: 1950S GIRL! Are you understanding it hnow? If not yet, go read about how was live in the 1950s, and how things were regaring the culture of boys and girls and how COMPLETLY DIFFERENT they were, with the only thing in common being a liking for Rock'N'Roll. When they say a wholenew generation was born from rock'n'Roll, that's not figurative, that's literally, because how many guys and gals got laid due to that music. but in everything else, the fantasy world of guys were completly different and alien from the gals. Culturally, girls and boys migth as well been form different planets. Qwhy you think the exprssion "Men are from mars, women from venus" came about? Snyder's girl fighting giant samurai robot mechas is just bulslhit he pulled out of his ass without any rhyme of reason. It's just complete dumb shit pulled about of the ass. And makes a huge difference. "I enjoy movies that entertain, and I can be entertained on many different levels." So do I, More then you can imagine. More then can you. I'm the guy who loved CASSHERN an TOKYO GORE POLICE. In theory, SUCKER PUNCH would be a movie totally made for me. But there is one level that fails completly to entertain, and that's the level of retard fucking stupid ass bullshit. A level which, it seems, is now cool for the AICN and it's geeks to indulge in and make unphamtomable excuses to justify. Since the blind gushing acceptance of Jar Jar Abram's SHIT TREK that this place has made a turn for the retard that's beyond compreention. Aparently dumb shit is the new black in here.
Feb. 16, 2011, 3:23 p.m. CST
First: a strategist of the stature of Julius Caesar would never have lost a single foot solider, had he led the Persian army. The Greeks didn't have archers, Xerxes did. All he needed to do was to create a protected column--by lining up elephants, stacking shields three or four deep, for example--and with a single column of foot soldiers, protected by his archers, calmly scale the Photian Wall. Caesar would have built a protective wall, but then he did that to demoralize his enemies (see the conquest of Germany). The point is: the Spartans had a superior weapons technology in long spears and bronze shields, but their range was limited. Persians expected a hale of accurately placed arrows to do most of the damage; foot soldiers just cleaned things up. Xerxes --like Delios tells us--was fixated on only one kind of victory, and that's why the Persians were stymied.
Feb. 16, 2011, 3:27 p.m. CST
Robots and Samurai were known in literature and film in the 50's, so why is it so far fetched that anyone could dream about a fusion of the two? It's kind of difficult for anyone to say what would happen in an era you didn't live in. Maybe it wouldn't be a COMMON thing for girls to imagine, i'll give you that, but to say there's no way that could have happened....sorry, there's no way you could know that.
Feb. 16, 2011, 3:28 p.m. CST
"Care to comment on what exactly limp-wristed faggot gay assery is, Asimov?" You watched the movie, right? So, where is your doubt? The movie compeltly fails to depcit the spartans were. Adnisntead we have this mockery of macho maleness that looks more like a buinch of gap adds kids decided to dress like ancient greeks but with roman facial hair. The movie 300 is gay ebyond belief, and the movie completly fails to depict how the spartans were. The spartans were homosexuals, yes, but they weren't the gap ad pretty boys the movie has. That 300 mannaged to make actors who actually have manly feature like Gerard Butler and Michael Fassbender and turn them into gap adds is fantastic. Nothing is gayer then that. There's nothing that Zack the Hack can't turn into complete fail. And spartans weren't soldiers, they were warriors. There was no soldiers back then, that's a much more modern invation dating to the organized armies like the roman army, which invented the notion of professional combatant on a regular state payment, aka, soldier.
Feb. 16, 2011, 3:32 p.m. CST
Feb. 16, 2011, 3:36 p.m. CST
"So do I, More then you can imagine. More then can you." You've proven that's extremely doubtful.
Feb. 16, 2011, 3:38 p.m. CST
You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. And I pity you sometimes.
Feb. 16, 2011, 3:39 p.m. CST
Because so far you're flailing and failing. Note I never said comedy *can't* have drama in it, just that it would be fallacious, ignorant, and arrogant to demean a comedy for not having more aspects of another genre in it. To have it make more sense for you, maybe I should have said "It'd be like me criticizing a comedy for not having enough HORROR in it."
Feb. 16, 2011, 3:41 p.m. CST
If you look good, you're a GAP model, and if you're a GAP model, you're a limp-wristed faggot, no matter how many Persians you kill onscreen. Asi, you make zero sense.
Feb. 16, 2011, 3:45 p.m. CST
Just like a limp-wristed faggot would. --AsimovLives
Feb. 16, 2011, 3:51 p.m. CST
I can't believe people are moaning that 300 isnt accurate when it is clearly not supposed to be. Now your allowed to not like that, but for fucks sake accept the movie is not supposed to a historically accurate account, you wanted one that was, and thats the problem here. 300 is a film, not real life, or even a documentary, and i think it has a whole bunch of problems, but looking to trash it for not being something it has clearly not intented and set out to be from the start through to finish is just such a epic waste of time & words i can't get my head around it. Yes white suprmeasits love that movie. So do members of the Taliban along that lines of thinking. Why? There probably not as rasict as the white supremasists, so they can see past the skin colours and races through to the message of the movie. Along these lines, the only thing i think needs a grilling is what Miller is trying to say with the hunchbacked fella. Everyone is really quick to prove a point in their heads that this is gay and therefore should be seen as a joke or shit, but no one seems so comfortable approaching the fact you could see Miller as having an inherant mistrust of crippled/disabled people Frank Capra could only dream of getting away with visually. I'll bet thats cause alot of you fuckers buy into that notion and secretly acknowledge it.
Feb. 16, 2011, 3:51 p.m. CST
is what i meant to say
Feb. 16, 2011, 3:53 p.m. CST
NOT GODDAMN PARAGRAPHS!
Feb. 16, 2011, 4:43 p.m. CST
Snyder is the guy who puts cool shit on the screen and says: "have fun, guys. here's some cool fights and some tits and guess what? it's gonna be hard R like the good ol days and in slo-mo so you can soak in the tits and gore. See you next tuesday bitches." and for that i am deeply pleased he exists in the film world. it doesnt make him the best choice for stuff like Watchmen (even though i liked it quite a bit) or Superman, but when he makes shit like Sucker Punch or when he did 300 i'm all for it. Keep on keeping on and show us where the fun is
Feb. 16, 2011, 4:49 p.m. CST
Feb. 16, 2011, 5:03 p.m. CST
by David Cloverfield
See. The series is so good, not even a total nutjob could dislike it.
Feb. 16, 2011, 5:11 p.m. CST
by lucky slevin
lock stock and snatch are fantastic.. and revolver sucked my nuts dry too. but this is entirely different than his usual genres. like a science experiment by a alien hunting expert. should be interesting.
Feb. 16, 2011, 7:25 p.m. CST
by D o o d
however, everything else Guy Ritchie did was pretty much turd. The reason for that is that the real talent was Mathew Vaughn! Without Vaughn Ritchie is just a substandard director!
Feb. 16, 2011, 7:28 p.m. CST
As the go-to guy for adapting comics, I like the guy. I've honestly never seen a director go to such lengths for 'fan service' in their work. I think his fault lies in that he spends so much energy into fan service that his characters suffer. Watch the commentary on the Watchmen BD to see what I mean here. Layer upon layer of dense lush detail straight from the comics, detail you might not see unless you were looking for it, but if you do look for it, Snyder put it there. And the blue dong was there to make you feel even more inadequate next to Dr. Manhattan. Only the Cuttlefish of Cthulhu is more frightening to the male ego. 300 looks suspiciously like a studio cash grab based on the success of Sin City. That said, I think it succeeds more than it fails. As a Frank Miller adaptation, I think Snyder succeeded very well. As d. vader said, it doesn't claim to be based on true events. It claims to be based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller. As a history nut, there are some aspects that drive me batshit (lack of the naval battle). Besides, without it we would likely not have the superior Spartacus series. My rubbish opinion, all of it.
Feb. 17, 2011, 3:52 a.m. CST
by David Cloverfield
Not much left to say.
Feb. 17, 2011, 10:28 a.m. CST
The first word that came to mind was, "failure." We will see.