"300" may not be the most sophisticated war epic to hit the big screen, but with its series of mesmerizing tableaux and extreme graphic violence the film unquestionably succeeds in dazzling its audience. In other words: Watching "300" is like watching a video game that plays itself.
Set in 480 B.C.E., "300" recounts the fate of King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) of Sparta, as he led three hundred of his men to battle the superior Persian army of Xerxes the Great (Rodrigo Santoro). The battle was fought at Thermopylae, where Leonidas and his outnumbered soldiers struggled to block the only route through which the enemy could pass.
Setting new standards in the field of computer-generated effects, director Zack Snyder (who co-wrote the screenplay with Kurt Johnstad and Michael B. Gordon), cinematographer Larry Fong, film editor William Hoy, and the film's visual effects team used blue screen technique - through which actors are filmed in front of a blue screen before the addition of CGI-created backgrounds - to assemble glorious, nail-biting battle scenes. As a plus, the omnipresence of sepia mixed with blue and red provides the war epic with the appropriately gloomy mood.
Those who enjoyed Snyder's 2004 remake of ‘Dawn of the Dead" already know that he's a dab hand at quick cutting and fast-paced filmmaking. But this time, Snyder combines his energetic style with a substantial number of spectacular slow-motion sequences depicting every detail of the battle's ferocious brutality. In fact, "300" is packed with decapitations and severed body parts, but considering that the film is based on a graphic novel co-written by Frank Miller (with Lynn Varley) its degree of violence should not surprise anyone.
Apart from the battle sequences, however, "300" has little else to offer. A subplot - involving Leonidas's wife, Goro (Lena Headey), fighting against political discrimination - falls flat, while the focus on the Spartans' refusal to surrender fails to spark any significant interest.
On the other hand, Gerard Butler stands out as the King of Sparta - the Scottish actor's best role yet. Butler fully conveys Leonidas's fierceness and sacrificial beliefs even though the screenwriters have failed to supply him with coherent lines. Sentences like "Madness? This is Sparta" or "This is where we fight! This is where we die!" made this reviewer look for a game controller so as to skip the dialogue bits.
Although "300" lacks the storytelling flow of Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez's adaptation of Miller's "Sin City", Zack Snyder's epic works just fine as a brainless blockbuster. Indeed, the visuals alone are worth a trip to the theatre.
GRADE: B-
Comments
! commented, on March 27, 2007 at 1:25 p.m.:
I don't care how pretty it was (and man, it was pretty) ... it was downright offensive - culturally, historically and intellectually. Blockbusters are just entertainment, true, but they don't have to be so brutally brainless as to make me want to kick the screen everytime someone on screen reminded me that freedom isn't free. And that this is Americ ... I mean Sparta.
Surely they could have debuted all these fancy new film skills in a more worthy blockbuster spectacular, not something that will have been forgotten by the end of the year. can think of at least 6 blockbusters off the top of my head from this past year that ruled. At least. In fact, had you not reminded me with this review, I would have already forgotten I had seen it at all. For realz.
Stuart commented, on March 27, 2007 at 5:46 p.m.:
I'm so tired of everyone saying that they were offended by this movie. I don't know if I've ever seen a more BASIC movie ever made. It is exactly what it is. Everyone wants to read all these things into it, that its homophobic, or its a representation of the war in Iraq, when all it really is is 2 hours of mindless fun. Fun that is not preachy. I don't mean to sound old, but this is like movies they used to make, only gorier and with better effects.
Franck commented, on March 27, 2007 at 6:57 p.m.:
I agree with you Stuart, and comparing it to actual events is already too much thinking. And if it's historically inaccurate, people should blame Miller's graphic novel in the first place. And all the talk about freedom could really mean anything. It could serve as a plain encouragement to the soliders to go into the battle, for instance. And I am sure that not only American soldiers were told to fight for freedom or that freedom is not free. But...that's already stepping far beyond what this movie really is about.:)
! commented, on March 28, 2007 at 12:22 a.m.:
nonono ... I was offended by how simple and dumb it was.
and yeah, like movies they used to make ... in the 80s. Earlier than that we get some high quality big guns.
But I disagree that Miller doesn't use politics, mostly because I was subjected to reading a sh!t ton about them around the time of Sin City.
For eg:
After never fully believing in patriotism and the U.S. flag, Miller discusses how the events of 9/11 shaped his newfound belief in patriotism and the flag. In discussing 9/11, Miller says, “I draw and write comic books. One thing my job involves is making up bad guys. Imagining human villainy in all its forms. Now the real thing had showed up. The real thing murdered my neighbors. In my city. In my country.” Miller adds, “Patriotism, I now believe, isn’t some sentimental, old, conceit. It’s self-preservation. I believe patriotism is central to a nation’s survival.”
There's no need to read too much into it, true, because its a timeless tale that repeats itself over and over and over and over and over in history. But ... come on! you don't say "freedom isn't free" in this day and age without knowing what immediate connotation Americans will associate with the phrase. Just like the meanings of phrases such as "shock and awe," "ground zero" and "the decider" have changed over the past decade. This is not an observation of the political left or the political right - its just part of our modern cultural language. Even the magical tale of the Wizard of Oz was a political allegory that used symbolism that would resonate with readers of the day - its a key function of art - so I wouldn't discount the possibility entirely just because you don't want it to be there. And I can't believe that a director, even of a movie this dumb, wouldn't realize that. But then again my best friend in high school didn't realize people would judge her in a specific manner for putting a rainbow sticker on her first car. So ... maybe.
Also I'm a history major. I'm allowed to be pissed. Next week we can hear from some figure skaters whose passions were belittled by "Blades of Glory".
Oh. And I'm a girl.
300 = LAMES.
Stuart commented, on March 28, 2007 at 3:41 p.m.:
First of all, I want to clarify that I loved the simplicity of this movie. I also want to clarify that I am not a mindless moviegoer. I hate the schlock that Hollywood throws into theaters year after year. However, I can't help but occasionally love a movie that's only purpose is to show an audience something that they've never seen before, like 300.
And yes, of course, moments like the Queen saying "Freedom isn't free" are attempts to connect the movie to real world events, but I do not believe this movie is in any way overtly political. 300 is not some rip-roaring, go-get-'em, American adventure that ends with a flashcard telling us to "Buy War Bonds." It is a comic book. It is a mindless action movie.
But going back to the whole rip-roaring American adventure movies of the '40s, I do like that this kind of hearkens back to those. There's no moral ambiguity here. There are no anti-heroes. There are clear cut lines between good and evil (much like the ORIGINAL Star Wars films). I think that this is mainly the reason why the American film-going audience has responded to this movie. It is like Spider-man in 2002. Would that movie been half as successful is it hadn't come out when American needed a hero most? Not just any hero, but a hero they could relate to? Would this movie be as successful as it is right now if America wasn't in need of self-less heroes to come and set things right?
Certainly, 300's more modern touches are an attempt to relate to a modern film-going audience. And, yes, even though the facts have been fudged in this movie, it is still a very compelling story. It is also a story, like a fairy tale or biblical parable, that can be adapted to fit the needs of the time. I feel like 300 has been updated to meet the demands of today's individual, not updated to make some statement about global policy.
! commented, on March 28, 2007 at 7:46 p.m.:
Oh I know you're not a mindless movie goer, we're serious movie goers, which is why arguing about the mindless movies can be such fun (for me. right now. at least.)
But Spiderman isn't (completely) mindless! I loved the comic book adaptations of Spiderman and X-Men (I even loved X-Men 3, even though on a production level it totally sucked), but I only enjoyed Kevin Spacey and Parker Posey out of Superman ... and I walked out of the Fantastic Four (really, how'd it get a sequel?) So right there are examples of four simple stories, two done well and two done poorly.
We're not disagreeing, really - I thought 300 looked awesome while I was watching it - I giggled in delight at the visuals the whole time, really. And Thermopyle is one of the greatest stories western culture has ever had. But I still think "the demands of the public" and "the statement its making" cant be extracted from each other. They are one in the same. True, its hardly a political film in the way V for Vendetta was a political film - but there is a level of subtext that should be recgonized (not about a specific global policy, but the themes of patriotism and sacrifice)as both universal and applicable to modernity. Its EXACTLY like Star Wars. And Star Wars never really did it for me, either.
It just wasn't a complete exciting blockbuster experience for me in the same way V for Vendetta (albeit too political) or Casino Royale (albeit too long) excited me to death. Though really, I really should be loving 300 waaaaaaaaaaay more than X Men 3 - its kind of embarassing I dont. What's up with that?
So, in conclusion, we mostly agree about 300 (I'm conceding that it isn't an overtly political film, and I was being deliberately snide more than anything else in my first post about the politics) its just a film of a genre you guys enjoy and me, not so much?
Fair arguement? No? A little? Middleground? Come on'!
P.S. - have you guys seen the new trailer for 28 Weeks Later? I have such hopes.
And on that note, I'm out.
Stuart commented, on March 29, 2007 at 1:51 p.m.:
I agree with pretty much everything you just said, even your statement on X-Men 3 (I'll never understand why I like that movie). Yes, there is a definite theme of patriotism and sacrifice, and maybe that is a little strange in a time when hardly anyone in the country agrees with the current state of affairs.
Oh, and about 28 Weeks Later... the trailer had me until it went all zombie-y. I thought it looked pretty interesting until it tried to be scary. Too bad no one involved in the original movie has anything to do with this one. Oh, wait, I think Danny Boyle is an executive producer or something. Still, looks kind of like a cheap cash-in to me.
Amanda commented, on April 3, 2007 at 12:04 p.m.:
I saw this movie last week. It was different in both context and image. Hands down, one of the best I've seen this year.