300- Zach Snyder's new ride

It was good. However, I was getting really pissed that the narrator had to explain every F*cking happening onscreen.. jeeze.
 
I'm kind of torn about this movie. On the one hand, I hate CGI. I just hate it. It still doesn't look good (besides a rare flourish here and there) and I'm thinking about it half the time I'm watching the movie (90% of this is just made in a computer). On the other hand, I know there will be a day when it WILL look real, and movies like this push the medium closer to that reality. But I just can't get past how fake this all looks. It's like Sky Captain on crack.

For those of you who have the same problem with CGI, did this movie make you forget all that? Or am I likely to go in there focusing on the computer generated images the whole time?
 
It was good. However, I was getting really pissed that the narrator had to explain every F*cking happening onscreen.. jeeze.
Click to expand...

I actually liked some of the narration; sort of made it keep its comic book feel. Some of the narration also added to the epicness of it.

Overall I thought the movie was very good action-wise but didn't live up to LOTR. They shouldn't really be compared but that's the only movie of this type that I personally find better than it.
 
I thought it was amazing. Except for the stupid CG wolf. THey never get wolves right. They are always so over exaggerated.
 
Sven said:
I thought it was amazing. Except for the stupid CG wolf. THey never get wolves right. They are always so over exaggerated.
Click to expand...

\Actually, that's EXACTLY what the wolf looked like in the graphic novel, so in that way they weren'rt exaggertaed at all.
 
I don't have a problem with things looking fake, as long as they look fake in a consistent and original way, which this does. I'm only distracted by CGI when it tries to look completely real and fit into a real looking world but fails. 300 has such a deliberately stylized comic book look to everything that the CG doesn't stick out for me.
 
To me is seemed like a movie that wasn’t well written, and kinda mediocre in general except for the way it looked. Didnt feel like i waste my money tho.
 
Just saw it tonight, I thought it was alright. Enjoyable, but I got bored about halfway through and started looking at it technically. I thought the action scenes were well done but there were some atrocious flat closeups. The CG was good in parts and bad in others. Some of the writing was really cheesy, and unintentionally homoerotic. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :)

Thematically I thought it was pretty simplistic. This film ripped off from Gladiator and Braveheart. It didn't really cover new territory, but it wasn't bad either. I liked the setup and wolf in the beginning. And I agree with an earlier point that there was too much voiceover at certain points.

I think the Spartan storyline is great, but I think every character lacked in dimension. Sure it's based on a graphic novel, but Batman and even Spiderman are fully fledged characters that you sympathize with.
 
Yeah, I'm throwing my hat in on this one. It's a mediocre movie and will quickly be forgotten. If you're in the hunt for something purely kinetic and violent with no character development or story, then this is the movie for you. If you want anything out of your movie other than that, I'd stay away. There were some cool shots, but overall I found the cinematography rather predictable. The shots were beautiful yet hollow. I think the CGI had a lot to do with that. And I felt that the battle lacked scope because of the setting. The very thing that made the battle so epic was also it's weakness. People couldn't get around people to really fight. Everybody was crammed in. The backgrounds (rock) didn't feel epic. So it lacked something for me.

And the dialogue was really bad. Everybody talked in sound bites. To their credit, I truly believe these are the hardest movies to write. Harder than Chinatown or American Beauty or Heroes Of Iwo Jima. Because you have to make everybody seem really tough and hard and at the same time make them real and make us care for them. That's not easy.

Anyway, I give this a C-. Sure did make a lot of money though. And of course, that's all Hollywood cares about.
 
mcgeedigital said:
True that! Just saw it and loved it! I will be going to see it again several more times.

I encourage anyone who wants a more realistic accounting of the battle of Thermopylae to read Gates of Fire by Steven Pressfield.

EXCELLENT BOOK!
Click to expand...

+1

Gate of Fire is an awesome book!
 
Isaac_Brody said:
Thematically I thought it was pretty simplistic. This film ripped off from Gladiator and Braveheart. It didn't really cover new territory, but it wasn't bad either. I liked the setup and wolf in the beginning. And I agree with an earlier point that there was too much voiceover at certain points.

I think the Spartan storyline is great, but I think every character lacked in dimension. Sure it's based on a graphic novel, but Batman and even Spiderman are fully fledged characters that you sympathize with.
Click to expand...
Batman and Superman were comic books. 300 is a Graphic Novel. Didn't go beyond one book.

Didn't see any bad CG, only stylized shots that matched the Graphic Novel. Just as well, the VO's were directly tied to the subject matter they were pulled from.

That said, and I don't watch football, it felt like a series of football games that gave me one team to root for. I liked it, I didn't love it. As far as Content, I think Frank Miller's SIN CITY's got more to tell.
 
Shot on FILM?!

Shot on FILM?!

Isaac, how did 300 rip off of Gladiator? Maybe Braveheart, but with Gladiator, I see similarities only in terms of the setting and time period. Although the political aspects of both films are similar, I'll give you that.

Is it true that every shot in the film has been in the comics (LATER compiled as a graphic novel)? Or did the director add some shots in the film that may not have appeared in the comics, but would help to tell the story? In other words, is the film shot-for-shot the same?

If you check out IMDB Technical, you'll see that 300 is shot on FILM.

Sin City was shot digitally (so was Sky Captain I believe), yet 300 managed to pull all this off with film... Someone once told me it wasn't possible, that it was just a whole lot easier if done digitally. I never understood his reasoning, because once a film is processed digitally, it's done with -- besides, ALL films need to be "digitized" to be edited -- how is this any different with films like Sin City or Sky Captain? How would digitial cameras "make it easier"? I think the fact that 300 is shot on film proves this point of mine. I could be wrong.
 
Isaac_Brody said:
I think the Spartan storyline is great, but I think every character lacked in dimension. Sure it's based on a graphic novel, but Batman and even Spiderman are fully fledged characters that you sympathize with.
Click to expand...

Isaac, with Batman Begins or Superman, the films were based on those franchises, the comics as a whole -- they were about the superheroes, whereas 300 is based off of one graphic novel/issue, where there weren't thousands of pages to develop the characters in the movie. The director even deviated from Millers comics to tell more about the battle the king's wife had to face back home (Godon is her name?) to add depth to the story and characters. But in the end, the director decided he wanted to base the film off of the book -- a direct translation of it. I'm not saying it's the right decision, not saying it's wrong either, but it's just my reasoning why the film itself lacked "depth".

One can argue that you shouldn't critique a film based on what you think it should do, but on what it had saught to do. Based on this philosophy, I think 300 did a good job of placing the pages from the comics directly on film, it's original goal. Not sure if this makes for a "good movie" though...
 
Thank goodness Iranian state cinema and television never depict other cultures or nations or societies, in a less-than-100-percent-positive light.

Don't Iranians have comic books any more (haven't been there since 1978)? Can't their government distinguish between history, and wildly stylized mostly-fictionalized portrayals of it...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top