Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Massawyrm Doesn't Worship 300 Like Everyone Else Does!!

So what your trying to say is a GREEK banged your girl by greekopa	Jan 3rd, 2007 12:09:03 PM
pussy
Lucid Dreams = AICN Term of the Week by Ernie Souchak	Jan 3rd, 2007 12:10:06 PM
I've even found myself saying it in everyday conversation and people giving me the WTF look.
Sparta Gotta E...No, I can't. by great trash	Jan 3rd, 2007 12:11:24 PM
Not in good conscience.
Still looking forward to this by Wormie	Jan 3rd, 2007 12:14:32 PM
I finally read 300 the other day and it was awesome. It was cool recognising bits from the trailer. Is there dick in this movie, though? Not that I want to see any - I'm hetero dontyaknow.
whats the point? by imageburn13	Jan 3rd, 2007 12:15:01 PM
Thanks for the honest heads up review massy, I got the same feeling from the trailer. It seemed vacant to me. Bummer that, making such a visually stunning movie with zero lifeblood is a real letdown. Oh well.
I didn't think there was that much slow motion by John-Locke	Jan 3rd, 2007 12:16:13 PM
I haven't read the Graphic Novel but I fucking loved it, not the "Best" film shown at BNAT but certainly my favourite.
Didn't we get enough loincloths and slo-mo... by Frijole	Jan 3rd, 2007 12:18:09 PM
in "The Passion of the Christ". Sweet Jesus (urp!) that got old. I have very high hopes for "300" but there's only so much slow motion I can take... I've got places to be! Let's get a move on!
This sounds okay by Dick Nicely	Jan 3rd, 2007 12:22:05 PM
But I'd much rather have seen Michael Mann's adaptation of Gates of Fire. I read a few interviews where he talked about the project, and it sounded fascinating. I'm just not a comic book kinda guy, and even though Gates of Fire wasn't a great novel, it was full of the mundanities of the story and I liked that. I thought Mann could have done a good job making it realistic instead of fantastical. Because it is an amazing story.
while visually it looks cool.. by just pillow talk	Jan 3rd, 2007 12:22:25 PM
I just can't stand slow-mo in big action films. It does not add drama to the scene for me, it just sort of takes me out of the movie. Now slow-mo of hot chicks running, now we are talking!
THE QUASIMODO SPARTAN REJECT GOTTA EAT by Pound Sand	Jan 3rd, 2007 12:31:10 PM
Great trash: I'll do it.
Thank you 'great trash' by Professor Falcon	Jan 3rd, 2007 12:40:38 PM
We only need one GOTTA EAT schmuck here on the boards.
Professor Falcon by great trash	Jan 3rd, 2007 12:45:16 PM
I was hoping that if someone beat him to the punch that he'd stop.
sounds kinda post-Ben-Hur by Spandau Belly	Jan 3rd, 2007 12:45:53 PM
and a little post-Troy, unfortunately
You know, this review is well-reasoned and... by Childe Roland	Jan 3rd, 2007 12:51:24 PM
...thoughtful in its criticisms. If it weren;t for the completely off kilter take Massa has taken on about 90% of the films he's seen recently (Ant Bully and Happy Feet leaping out at me) I'd actually be worried about 300. Don't get me wrong, it sucks that Stumbly's gone, but we knew they weren't going to do this completely straight-up, right?
I had a funny feeling by Movietool	Jan 3rd, 2007 12:56:58 PM
that 300 was not going to live up to the hype. I'll try to keep an open mind when I see it - but all the things mentioned in this review are exactly the kind of things that tend to bug me, too. And count me among those who think PJs King Kong was sub-par at best.
slow mo eh by godzillasushi	Jan 3rd, 2007 12:57:37 PM
I cannot stand slow motion sometimes. Especially the kind that skips frames. I hated it in LOTR.
A lot of people misunderstand Massa.. by Nintendo Dude	Jan 3rd, 2007 12:59:28 PM
Not that I do, or know him personally. However, his reviews are not the reach around that most other reviews on this site are. He's a criticial critic-finds points he does not like and writes about them. He didn't stand up and cheer with all the other lemmings at BNAT because he did not think the movie was good. I bet if the huge circle jerk at BNAT stopped, actually examined 300, and discussed it from an actual movie standpoint, they would come up with a few points similar to Massa's. He does not give dissenting reviews for the sake of being "cool" or "different".. He's more of a critic than most "critics" on this site.
Smokin Aces by Fing Fang Foom	Jan 3rd, 2007 01:12:36 PM
Wait...so 300 isn't good because it lacks a good story but Smokin Aces is awesome and there's barely a plot? Does anyone else thinks Massawyrm is contradicting himself with these two reviews?
I also agree that KONG was a disappointment by odysseus	Jan 3rd, 2007 01:20:36 PM
I just watched it again on Cinemax HD (for the first time since the theater in '05), and it was actually kind of... awful. Embarassing even, after PJ's LOTR truimph The T-Rex battle and the New York rampage worked, but everything else was pretty terrible -- from the dialogue, to story structure, to the acting, even the look of the film. I was kind of shocked. Sounds like 300 might have the same effect.
Massawyrm, you have written exactly one good review by Ricky Henderson	Jan 3rd, 2007 01:24:27 PM
And that was the Basic Instinct 2 review. And there was only one sentence that made that review so funny: "bobbing man-ass". Cracked me up big time. The rest of your stuff? No so much. Keep it up though. It sounds like I'll agree with you about 300 once I see it.
no contradiction fing fang... by MCVamp	Jan 3rd, 2007 01:26:37 PM
Smoking Aces set out to be a trashy, pulpy, gun-toting good time, and Massa implies that, to him, it was a success. 300 sets out to be a deep, sweeping, emotional war epic and Massa didn't think it fired on all cylinders. Seems pretty self-explantory.
I figured a review like this would come in by ewokstew	Jan 3rd, 2007 01:27:11 PM
concerning the hyper-stylized look of the film and it being too much to consume in a feature length format. Massa just confirmed it.
Sounds like fair criticism. Thanks for the by superninja	Jan 3rd, 2007 01:30:19 PM
review.
"Gotta Eat" has gotta eat by moondoggy2u	Jan 3rd, 2007 01:33:34 PM
Leave it alone, Falcon.
All the slow-mo shit... by Zarles	Jan 3rd, 2007 01:43:49 PM
...is exactly what came to mind while watching the trailer. "Is the whole movie like this?" Turns out it is. Thanks, Massa.
I AM NOT SUPRISED AT ALL BECAUSE I HATED THE TRAILER by Proman1984	Jan 3rd, 2007 01:45:40 PM
Realy go back and find my old comments. Here's what I said: the slo-mo is overrdone, CGI looks chip and the action looks obvious.
I AM NOT SUPRISED AT ALL BECAUSE I HATED THE TRAILER by Proman1984	Jan 3rd, 2007 01:45:40 PM
Realy go back and find my old comments. Here's what I said: the slo-mo is overrdone, CGI looks chip and the action looks obvious.
I'm also a story guy. by Orbots Commander	Jan 3rd, 2007 01:46:15 PM
At the end of the day when an audience forgots the visual look of a film or particular shots, what they will remember is the story, characters and themes. Remember Ridley Scott's LEGEND? That also was a visually stunning film. Dramatically compelling? Not so much.
Now that by kikuchiyoboy	Jan 3rd, 2007 01:53:13 PM
is a fuck'n review.
'not a critical reach-around' by MisterCynic	Jan 3rd, 2007 01:55:57 PM
that has nothing to do with it. i can scarcely remember two reviews in which i thought this guy was commenting on the film instead of ONLY his opinin of the film. see his narnia review, where he basically claims people that dont love it 'dont get it'. show me 2 of his reviews where he is right. youd think by the sheer odds of this sort of thing the numbers would be slightly more in his favor. but no...
But what about the SCREAMING???!!! by anchorite	Jan 3rd, 2007 01:56:35 PM
Basically, if I understood Massa correctly, 300 makes for a great wallpaper or screensaver for my PC, not for a great movie. That's exactly what I thought after seeing the trailers. All eye candy with little or no substance. And the slow-mo shit has got to stop. That, along with the hand-held, shaky camera work and in out zooms is killing cinematography today. Can't anyone just tell a friggin' story anymore? Without all the artifice of fancy edits and "kinetic" camerawork? The answer is, sadly, apparently not.
WHAT ANCHORITE? by just pillow talk	Jan 3rd, 2007 02:00:27 PM
I CAN'T HEAR YOU! TYPE LOUDER.
Proman1984 I agree with you by Kusoyaro	Jan 3rd, 2007 02:15:55 PM
It's trying so soooo hard to be HARDCORE AND BADASS RAAAWWRRRRR that it became completely fucking comical. At least, that's what I got out of the trailer.
Critics should have a list of likes/dislikes accompany by ejcarter9	Jan 3rd, 2007 02:22:17 PM
each of their reviews. For instance, if Massawyrm listed X3, Casino Royale and Serenity in his likes column and Superman Returns and Borat in his dislikes column, then I would know that I could respect his review and you would know that you could dimiss it without even bothering to read it.
I completely agree, Anchorite by moondoggy2u	Jan 3rd, 2007 02:27:25 PM
That whole greengrass technique thats used during action scenes really pisses me off, nowadays. How is it that Lawrence of Arabia had a completely locked down camera throughout the entire film and was still able to depicta more convincing and thoroughly enjoyable combat/battle? I'll tell you why--talent. All those fancy shmancy MTV zooms and shakes do is disguise the director's inexperience and/or inability to film said scene correctly. Hell, thats what actors and plotting is for, last time I checked, anyway.
Stretch that single image or concept into 2 hours by Guy Gaduois	Jan 3rd, 2007 02:33:11 PM
and it gets overwrought. Story matters. Superman Returns = overwrought. Shorten it by 40 mins, not so much. 300 - remove slo mo, shorten by 23 mins = much improved. Maybe it's because of the increase in ticket prices that studios think we need more quantity of film, when what we want is quality. Massage with release doesn't have to take 5 minutes. Sometimes 48 seconds is even better. Am I right??
Thx, Greekopa by Toby___Wong	Jan 3rd, 2007 02:38:33 PM
Your comment was the funniest comment of the day.
GATES OF FIRE by BranMakMorn	Jan 3rd, 2007 02:39:55 PM
Make it so.
I actually agree with anchorite too... by lionbiu	Jan 3rd, 2007 02:56:35 PM
...the shakey cam is fucking irritating (basically destroyed batman begins for me) and this whole style over substance is really destroying cinema. I love beutiful visuals, but if there is no story to go with it than what is the point? 300 from the beginning looked like a visually stunning movie with ham-fisted performances and little story....this review confirmed my fear. I will probably still check it out, but just like Sin City I will probably leave dissapointed.
that's a good, thoughtful review by eraser_x	Jan 3rd, 2007 03:01:22 PM
The objections raised sound like serious problems! Namely: (1) too much slo-mo, (2) wife-at-home battle-interruptus, (3) under-establishing the cause for otherwise improbable superhuman toughness, etc. Massawyrm is a good reviewer, even if he's consistently slightly overly self-conscious. (See, e.g., his embarrassing intro to his 2006 Top-N list.) I'm guessing Massawyrm is a young guy. I think Massawyrm will grow out of his self-consciousness and become an even better reviewer.
A Lucid Dreamer Makes A Dream Lucid by tonagan	Jan 3rd, 2007 03:01:41 PM
If you keep throwing around terminology that just sounds cool, you're gonna poke someone's eye out.
Leonidas's wife... by Prankster	Jan 3rd, 2007 03:16:31 PM
Was, historically speaking, a fairly powerful and interesting woman. It's Frank Miller's typical mysogyny that reduced her to a peripheral character. If they've chosen to give her more to do, I can hardly find fault with it.
This Is What Frazetta Sees When He Masturbates by HostileOrganismX	Jan 3rd, 2007 03:22:22 PM
And when Miller did this project, do you think he INTENDED to promote the idea of going to War with Iran? Just saying--
300 to WATCHMEN by J Skell	Jan 3rd, 2007 03:25:48 PM
Looking forward to the film, but really glad to get this point of view. I thought it was incredible footage in the trailer, but it seemed kind of vacant. I'm back to being really worried about WATCHMEN. 300 is a great comic and love it, but WATCHMEN is the f'ing holy grail. It's funny I was worried with Greengrass getting the visuals right when he was going to do it, and now I'm worried about Snyder getting the nuances and story depth correct. I'm confident it will have a great look and from interviews he really does seem to understand what makes the book tic, but understanding and execution are two different things.
Just when you think Massa is straight up gay by YackBacker	Jan 3rd, 2007 03:29:36 PM
He tells you he didn't like the Greco-Roman male skin-flick. What's your bag, kid? You're one interesting motherfucker, that's for sure.
Massa Dream -1 man and a million cocks he'll tak'em all by greekopa	Jan 3rd, 2007 03:46:11 PM
fag
John Woo's penchant for too much slow-mo by CreasyBear	Jan 3rd, 2007 03:53:53 PM
pushed me over the edge. The Matrix slowed things down too much, too. Keep things moving!
I don't care - I'm smearing Salvia on my dick by Doctor_Sin	Jan 3rd, 2007 03:56:49 PM
And gonna munch on popcorn when I see this shit. 2+ hours later, as I awake from my violent, sweaty, hallucinogenic throes, I shall look back on it as a damn fine film.
Yea.... by Traumnovelle	Jan 3rd, 2007 04:07:22 PM
...I had this same thought for a long time now. I thought for a minute I was just being cranky and crotchety and trying to 'go against the grain', but nah, it was warranted. It looks hollower 'n shit.
Movie critics should not be A.D.D. sufferers by zekmoe	Jan 3rd, 2007 04:23:46 PM
I sometimes wonder how the great movies of 20 or 30 years ago would fare given a chance today. Probably not well. Too Boring and not enough car crashes or dailog every 2 seconds. Here's a cure. Turn off MTV or anything that cuts quicker than once every 5 seconds and watch and listen. And maybe you'll be transported to another place of wonder and story. Sin City was perfect. But the A.D.D. among you probably were too busy checking email on your cell to notice.
absolute bollocks by jrbarker	Jan 3rd, 2007 04:24:47 PM
terrible review
Massa is NOT a geeky Kool-Aid drinker by BobParr	Jan 3rd, 2007 04:25:56 PM
unlike every other reviewer on this site. Good job actually adressing the substance of the film. This director is also going to do "Watchmen". You know he'll fuck that up.
I love artistic imagery but I dislike too much slow-mo. by JDanielP	Jan 3rd, 2007 04:36:15 PM
I'm not a fan of John Woo and the like.
On CGI by way of moondoggy2u's comments by Larry of Arabia	Jan 3rd, 2007 04:38:59 PM
Lawrence of Arabia was able to have a locked camera and amazingly compelling war scenes because they had hundreds and thousands of actual people running over the dunes. Today films have 50 real people and tens of thousands of weightless dummies behind them. With CGI you look at the screen and see thousands and thousands of people, but in the back of your mind you comprehend the fact that they have been duplicated hundreds of time each, or the people don't seem to be moving quite right. Practical FX works better than digital FX in realistic movies. We accept Spider-man not moving correctly because he is a fantasy; we disconnect from movies that pretend to be real when they don't seem real to our brains. Ask today's great directors. Spielburg. Scorscese. Tarintino. Eastwood. I'd wager Del Torro would rather direct a real army of 500 for a realistic scene than a CGI army army of 500. Maybe I'm wrong though. If I am, I apologise to the directors above for misrepresentation and destroying the spellings of their names.
STUMBLIOS by ivehadsex	Jan 3rd, 2007 05:00:22 PM
From everything I'm reading on the net here, that Stumblios storyline this guys is lamenting is pretty stupid. His name is a nickname for stumbling in formation. SO what was so great about this storyline then?
Mysawrm is right. It's gorgeous but hollow by s0nicdeathmonkey	Jan 3rd, 2007 05:02:39 PM
and when it isn't hollow, it's simply homoerotic and slightly fascist.
The speed of film is like the highs and lows of music. by JDanielP	Jan 3rd, 2007 05:08:57 PM
Everyone has their own artistic tastes... but I generally prefer a visual mix of such highs and lows. Look at Mel Gibson's "BRAVEHEART" (which is probably as close as anyone has ever gotten to how I would film action, myself). Just look at how Gibson used slow-motion in the entire film. It was a beautiful addition to the film's emotional power.
I just LOVE the way by Sepulchrave	Jan 3rd, 2007 05:17:28 PM
that the fanboys here use the phrase 'good review' to mean a review that they agree with, and 'bad review' to mean a review that they don't like. Point in case; Anthony Lane writes good, fucking GOOD reviews in the New Yorker every few weeks. He loves things I hate and he shits all over anything that smells faintly of mindless fun, or homoerotic circle-jerks like this thing, but his reviews are always PURE GOLD as pieces of writing.
Oh and this still looks like TROY crossed with by Sepulchrave	Jan 3rd, 2007 05:18:21 PM
THE CELL. And it's gay as hell.
He may be right... by PantherMatt	Jan 3rd, 2007 05:21:33 PM
But of course I won't know until I see it. Of course, while this review is rather well written, and Massa certainly clearly explains what he doesn't like about the film (and I appreciate that), I do not think this is a fair review. Here's why: He didn't review the film! He reviewed the film AS COMPARED TO THE SOURCE MATERIAL. And that may work for y'all who've read the book. I haven't. I love Frank Miller (that's why I'm interested in this), but I could not give one leaping shit if some guy, who I didn't even know was mentioned in the book, isn't in the movie. Nor do I care if some character, who I also didn't know was in the book, has an expanded role. What I want to know is: how did the movie work? And if Massa, or Mori, or whomever, cannot separate themselves from their own visions of the material enough to simply review the film as a standalone entity, then maybe they shouldn't review the film at all. I do recognize the comments about the visual delights, and the over-use of the slo-mo as being legitimate critical comments. the rest of the review, though? Not relevant.
LEGENDARY PICTURES needs a hit- they GOTTA EAT! by YackBacker	Jan 3rd, 2007 06:02:27 PM
They have not had a huge profitable movie yet, save for BATMAN BEGINS, which did well, but was by no means a SPIDER-MAN performance. So, let's go down LEGENDARY PICTURES' recent slate: SUPERMAN RETURNS (not a huge profit-maker), LADY IN THE WATER (poor performance at the box office) WE ARE MARSHALL (flop) ANT BULLY (flop) BEERFEST (not a moneymaker). If 300 does not make bank, I'm telling you, that's bad news for LEGENDARY and WARNERS.
I'm ashamed to admit it, it's a horrible sin, but... by Killah_Mate	Jan 3rd, 2007 06:16:32 PM
...I'm a visual kind of guy. Yeah, I should burn in hell for this sin. But at least it seems I'll get some enjoyment out of the movie.
You've lost me, Wyrm by Immortal_Fish	Jan 3rd, 2007 06:38:11 PM
So the trailer is an actual representation of what we should expect. That is good. Yet because it is a mostly moving painting ala overuse of slo-mo, this is bad. If this makes it more like House of Flying Daggers and this is bad to you, then this good to me. You complain that the movie departs from historical accuracy, yet Miller himself departed from Historical accuracy in the source material. Not understanding where you're going here. Stumblios being a goner, I hear you. That's certainly a Crying Shame. However, is the arc of Leonidas's wife really injected to cater to women if it has been 'Franked up'? Many women believe Miller objectified women in Sin City (odd, considering how noirish charicature was the whole point), yet I don't see that being a draw for them in 300. What I ultimately want to know that every review I've read has managed to avoid is this -- how does it compare to Braveheart? That was a gruesome film about a testosterone fueled war that still managed to hit major beats with most women. Is 300 comfortably within that barometer?
i hate him.... by the_shogun_gunslinger	Jan 3rd, 2007 06:54:36 PM
Massawyrm...i just...hate him...i cant explain it, but theres just something not right about him...anyways, fuck you, i'm seeing it anyways
a few comments... by caravaggio	Jan 3rd, 2007 07:23:04 PM
My buddy an I were lucky enough to see a screening of 300 a few months back over at the Pacific in the Valley, LA. My friend got the tickets from some guy who works for a Test Screening company. I was told that it was the first screening of the flick in front of an audience and some of the FX were not completed and some of the score was not completed, but it was mostly done. So, I guess what I'm saying is- I saw it. Harry, I think Massawyrm's review was positive, just nit picky. Just a few comments on Massawyrm's review. "Virtually every shot in this film that does not have dialog in it is in slow motion. It is a 2+ hour slow motion music video generally retelling Frank Miller’s classic retelling of Leonidas and the 300 Spartans." I never once thought that there was too much slow-mo. The slow mo scenes look more like the freeze frames of the comic. It's in no way shakey like Batman Begins, or frame droppy like Gladiator. It's like nothing you've ever seen. I loved seeing lots of the battle stuff in slow mo. There's so much going on in the action I doubt that you could even tell or apprciate lots of the battles and FX without the slow mo effect. And it was less "slow mo" and more time remapping. There's this incredible scene where Leodonas fights like 30 dudes - one super long take, not cuts as the camera follows along him while he cuts and hacks, grabs weapons off guys that he slices up, pulling off crazy combonation moves. The action is so dope. "Stumblios is gone. Now, to anyone that hasn’t read the comic, this won’t feel like there’s anything missing – but rest assured, there is. Pretty much the best character arc in the whole comic. Gone." I'm not positive, I mean I read the comics when they came out, and I have the single issues in a long box somewhere, but isnt Stumblios the same guy who says THEN WE WILL FIGHT IN THE SHADE? I think that quote is in the trailer. Long hair, kind of a long face, younger looking. That guy's in the movie a bunch. I remember a part where he fell down in the comic, and ya that's not in the movie- but I didn't miss it. Concidering how much of the movie is STRAIGHT out the comic, it's a pretty small thing to cry about. "But even worse than that is the storyline that just reeks of studio involvement. You ever wonder what Leonidas’s wife was up to while her husband was away at war? Because you’re gonna find out." So they took out like a 2 pages of the comic, and they added a whole nother chapter. She's hot. Got to have like 10 minutes for the ladies. And also she's really hot. Don’t think that Massa is complaining about a pretty girl crying on a bed looking out to a full frank miller moon. Those scenes she's in were great. They really showed the political side of the conflict. "But I’m a story man. And that’s where 300 sadly runs off the rails. Until next time friends, smoke ‘em if ya got ‘em. Massawyrm" Let me just answer this quote by quoting your glowing review of the piece of crap domino vomit inducing edited/ snatch wanna be(without the comedy), Smokin Aces. "I mean, plotwise it’s pretty much as thin as they come, just one step above Crank in how much time they dedicate to anything resembling a plot." So you're a story man? But you are not much of a plot man. "Your Webmaster shall blot out the SUN!" - Massawyrm "Then we will fight in the shade." - Stumblios(from 300 the comicbook....and also from 300 the movie)
JDanielP by BadMrWonka	Jan 3rd, 2007 08:39:16 PM
"which is probably as close as anyone has ever gotten to how I would film action, myself" that actually made me laugh out loud, alone in my apartment. thanks buddy. I look forard to when you, yourself, have the chance to film action. oh man, that's good stuff.
King Kong was at times boring and was way too long. by iamnicksaicnsn	Jan 3rd, 2007 09:07:16 PM
THERE, I said it. And the dinosaurs weren't anywhere near as scary as the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park.
Spartan Women are a fascinating subject..... by Jimmy Jazz	Jan 3rd, 2007 09:09:26 PM
for a movie. I never read the original graphic novel (I am not Frank Miller's biggest fan), but the addition of Lena Headey's character sounds interesting. Be assured, the Spartan Women were probably the most independant and powerful women in the ancient world. There is no need to add any anachronistic Politically Correct nonsense. Since the Spartan men were constantly away at war, women basically ran the place. The mysogynst Athenians (who basically shuttered their women away) were constantly scandalized by the openess and toughness of the Spartan woman. I cannot see how this is anything but an asset to the film.
Please, no more slow motion! by Ironmuskrat	Jan 3rd, 2007 09:19:36 PM
I can't wait for a director to fulfill my dream of seeing a movie filmed in x2 speed with subtitles. So I can watch it in half the time like most movies I watch these days at home.
Slow-Mo is the New shakey cam by Mace Tofu	Jan 3rd, 2007 09:23:13 PM
Slow -Mo plus shakey cam = This shit is getting old. Yeah 2 hours of slow-mo could get really old but I'll have to wait for the flick to see for myself. fingers crossed : )
Too much slow-mow, huh? by rbatty024	Jan 3rd, 2007 10:11:16 PM
Kind of reminds me of my chief criticism of The Matrix: Reloaded. The opening shot of Trinity firing bullets while falling from a skyscrapper is easily the most boring action scene imaginable. 300 looks like a rental.
Actually, Shaky cam shots, locked off shots, zooms by ewokstew	Jan 3rd, 2007 11:01:44 PM
all have a place if used correctly. It's not the camera technique. It's the Hollywood "new toy" mentality. When they get a new toy they play with it until it breaks from overusage then wonder why it's not cool anymore.
You can bank on one thing regarding 300 vs. WATCHMEN... by Triumph poops!	Jan 4th, 2007 02:20:54 AM
IF 300 actually does get a slew of lukewarm reviews like this once it debuts and IF it does underperform or only modestly well at the box office, you can bet that somehow, someway there will be a parting of the ways behind the scenes and WATCHMEN will be looking -- yet again -- for a new director. Such is the law in Hollywood...
If everyone keeps comparing this to "Shit City"... by JackPumpkinhead	Jan 4th, 2007 05:33:07 AM
Does it mean that this film is an unwatchable puddle of puke, too?
Yeah, totally thought the by LightninBolt	Jan 4th, 2007 06:45:25 AM
Yeah, totally thought the slo-mo and acting looked awful. For what it's worth... www.solaceincinema.com/2006/12 /12/300-spartans-1-opinion/
Sin City was alright, this looks awful by LightninBolt	Jan 4th, 2007 06:46:04 AM
Yeah, totally thought the slo-mo and acting looked ropey from the trailer. For what it's worth... www.solaceincinema.com/2006/12 /12/300-spartans-1-opinion/
Reviews by David Assholehoff	Jan 4th, 2007 08:44:34 AM
Ya know, I dig Massawyrm's reviews. In fact I look for his opinion above anyone here. Um, ok, enough ass-kissing. We all know seeing a movie is an experience. The lead in to seeing a movie effects the experience as much as the popcorn. A super hot ticket babe makes most so-so movies decent. Seeing it with a hundred raging movie geeks wasnt enough to make him like the movie. Take that for what it's worth and dont rag on the guy for a couple of his personal closet movies. We all have a few we like that we KNOW suck ass. Some of us pull our tv's into the closet, a la Signs, and watch them alone and enjoy them. Keep up the good work Massawyrm.
Harry didnt like it either. by Omegaman	Jan 4th, 2007 09:41:32 AM
I know he said he did, but you could tell he was actually disappointed but still felt like he had to give it a good review. This is going to be one of those kind of movies where youre suppose to think its cool and stuff and the visuals are amazing and everything but its really just a pretentious overblown bore. At least thats the impression Im getting. Style over substance. Maybe a better desription would be style over story.
Hey Anchorite by Captain Mal	Jan 4th, 2007 09:50:48 AM
Sly Stallone can still tell a friggin' story without all the look-at-me camerwork. Swear to god, with the exception of the black-and-white nonsense at the end of the film, the old-school camera work in "Rocky Balboa" impressed the hell out of me. I was watching the film thinking, "Holy crap--this actually looks like a movie!"
BadMrWonka, it's unlikely. And JDanielP gotta EAT! by JDanielP	Jan 4th, 2007 10:12:22 AM
Sure, I don't expect to ever get a shot unless I create one for myself. The problem is the fact that one must depend (so much) on others to make a movie happen. (A stop-animation home movie won't cut it.) As to my comment about "BRAVEHEART" feeling close to my own personal vision, in how slow-motion was used to heighten emotions and make them more powerful, ...I simply feel close to that kind of vision. That's how I feel slow-motion becomes quite powerful. And at the same time, I'm still interested in "300" ...as I feel slow-motion CAN be used to push a particular kind of artistry. However, in most cases, I dislike an abundance of slow-motion. I feel that there must be good reason for it. If there is no real emotion and/or power behind the artistry of such imagery, than it just becomes a slow moving painting, so-to-speak. And on top of all this, I think that any artist can understand what I'm saying, here, ...in that an artist can feel a kinship with the visual style of a particular director, ...or in how a specific movie is filmed. And also, I'm actually glad that people can enjoy a laugh at my own expense. I just wish I had a REAL opportunity to prove them wrong.
I'm torn. Massawyrm is a good WRITER, but ... by Ringwearer9	Jan 4th, 2007 12:14:44 PM
... his good writing has directed me to a couple of Bombs (in my mind) one of which was Aeon Flux. Not that I can't see, in hindsight, the elements he appreciated in that film, but I don't know what to make of him. His distaste for King Kong endears him to me, and the trailer for 300 looked pretty bad to me, what with the overdone slo-mo and circling cameras, and the WWF style shouting. But if what some of you are saying is true, that the slo-mo simply allows intricate fight choreography to be more easily appreciated by an audience, I don't see this as a problem. I LOVED Matrix Reloaded's use of slo-mo to highlight particularly neat moments in fight scenes. (Trinity's fall in slo-mo is awesome). So, congrats, AICN, for once again confusing the issue so completely that I'll have to go see for myself. Wait, that has ALWAYS meant, in the past, that the movie was a stinker! In my experience, the universally reviled movies often contain unappreciated gems of entertainment, while the unviversally praised ones tend to be mediocre lowest-commen-denominator panderings. The "controversial" movies here tend to be artistic abortions that some manage to forgive, and some don't. I'll be waiting for DVD.
Cap'n Mal, I haven't seen the new Rocky yet... by anchorite	Jan 4th, 2007 12:18:05 PM
I look forward to it, though. Maybe I'll get to it this weekend, now that the holidays are well and truly over. Thanks for the reassurance. I'm glad that someone out there is still able to tell a story without over-reliance on cinematographic trickery. Yes, I just made that term up. Cinematographic trickery. Hmm...it has a nice ring to it. Anyway, thanks again!
And about the slo-mo helping with the action ... by Ringwearer9	Jan 4th, 2007 12:22:54 PM
... we saw one example in the trailer, of some guy walking up and down in front of an African King, or whoever he was, while the camera swirled around, and we waited for this guy to kick this African into the hole waiting just behind him. The fact that you knew he was going to kick the guy into the hole from the first frame means that all that camera swirling and spinning served no real purpose. I mean, the only surprise I got was when the obviousness of the coming kick into the well turned out to be true! Hey, he really did kick that guy into that well! So, I'm inclined to give Massa the benefit of the doubt on this, and a big "Nice Try" to the Plants who tried to undermine his review with BS about battle choreography.
So what about the nudity? by minderbinder	Jan 4th, 2007 01:09:04 PM
Seriously, so who gets naked in this?
I'm guessing... by Optimus Murphy	Jan 4th, 2007 05:45:08 PM
I should watch the movie before I go read the novel? Any advice one way or the other on that? I liked Sin City visually, but everything beyond Marv made me yawn. If the story and characters don't work in 300, it's not like it'll be a total loss for me either.
Why does Massawyrm .... by Freefinger	Jan 5th, 2007 05:40:30 AM
...still do these? He's always so full of himself. He needs to stop posting his stuff. Hell I liked the first post "So what your trying to say is a GREEK banged your girl" - LOL... I didn't even read this review or the Smokin' Aces because I want someone who gets movies to write something about them. Of course you can tell what's going to happen in 90% of the movies, that's our reality, there are no major studio that want to take chances all the time on twists and suprise endings, it doesn't pay the bills. But Massawyrm commenting on movies is like asking Tim Burton to do an essay on blockbusters like Ocean's 11, wans't perfect, but still so freaking entertaining, yet he would stir the crap out of it because it's not a Goth looking crap and Clooney doesn't look so pale that even zombies would say "dude, get some sun". Massawyrm is like a failure version of Burton, he doesn't look at what the movie is first of all, how it was sold to the public, and what kind of story it is before writing anything about it.. I haven't read anythign of him since Happy Fett (Which from his view wasn't about Penguins, but more or less about religious statement and trying to fuck up kids to get them to hate all religion excpet the one they were trying to push the shit out of).. For crying out loud... Dancing penguins in an animated feature... 300 isn't going to be the movie most people expect, it's a Frank Miller storyline, he's got a weird way of delivering things, look at Sin City. And if you're going to do his stories, then you might as well try to keep close to what he does, make a weird movie with different kind of filming techniques and storylines that will play with you from begining to end. When Miller says it's complete crap, then it'll be complete crap. If you aren't a fan of Miller then don't see this one, you'll probably hate it. And we have to keep in consideration that making a movie vs. the comic book, something can change in the process or things can be taken out because of time issues so it can't be perfect.
The action's too slow! The action's too fast! by half vader	Jan 5th, 2007 06:59:13 AM
Why can't they ever get the action jusssssst riiiiiiigggghht? Geez, you guys. And geez Ringy. I'm wearing a raincoat to this movie. "Thith ith THPARTA!" Who does he think he is? Daffy Duck?
Maybe he just doesn't like things by guys named Miller. by half vader	Jan 5th, 2007 07:03:16 AM
Yes that was truly stupid, but I had to get rid of it before it ate my brain. Freefinger - "Happy Fett"? So he finally got over his father's death in that arena?
Happy Fett... by Freefinger	Jan 6th, 2007 12:01:46 PM
Yep... typos are great aren't they... But I would like to see a movie about "Happy Fett".... Imagine that, they had a second clone raised by the original Fett, but he was too happy to be included in the wars, so they sent him off to "Boogey Doodie system" where he joined a circus. When he heard about the arena thing, he became the biggest bounty hunter in the "Doo Doo Batta System". Well... he was the only bounty hunter there so he was the best for sure.. would be direct by Mel Brooks.
waa waa slow mos are stupid waa waa by white owl	Mar 10th, 2007 05:28:51 PM

Talkbacks

Massawyrm Doesn't Worship 300 Like Everyone Else Does!!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks