That's correct, the ninja zombies. How any one can fail to find something enjoyable in "300" is beyond me. It's a classic and quite possibly generation defining like "Star Wars".
Exactly! The film was never about historical accuracy, it was about adapting a comic book onto the big screen. Having said this, the film did leave me feeling a little annoyed with the blatant hatred of the disabled and deformed it had going on. As the film progressed I was left feeling more than a little uncomfortable by that.
Unfortunately, that is a pretty good representation of Spartan society. Children who were deformed were left on the slopes of Mt Taygetos to die. It was quite annoying that they tacked on the Braveheart-esque stuff about freedom and justice, because Sparta was about as totalitarian and unpleasant a society as you can possibly imagine.
In all fairness, they actually made him look like a gigantic, 8-ft-tall bitch. And I kinda liked that. I'm no historian. And I won't dispute for one instant that it wouldn't hold up to historical scrutiny. But the whole asexual god king thing worked for me. I thought he made a good adversary. I really enjoyed the movie. (But then, I really liked Troy too. Sorry Slip.) As I said, I'm no historian. And I know my historian pal isn't even planning on seeing 300, as he'll undoubtedly resent it. But it's good, stylistic fun. I enjoyed the fight choreography, the visual imagery, and yes, the chest-thumping, over-the-top manliness. I'll go on record (again) as saying that I don't like the liberal use of the term "warrior" that we see so often here. But, by the gods, in its proper context, I'm a sucker for a good (or even not-so-good) look at a warrior culture. Stuart
The disparity you highlight though is part of what makes the hatred of disfigurement cause me discomfort. The Spartan culture was: 1. Homosexual (Typically) 2. Totalitarian 3. Prejudiced against the deformed Two of those things where completely reversed to fit with modern western views (Well Frank Millers views anyway) But one of them remained and was practically portrayed as being on a level with the reversal of the other two. If you where going to rewrite history to make the Spartans more heroic, why was the message of "ugly = bad" left there so clearly. Having said this, I could be reading to much into the film, it is after all basically a popcorn movie.
because you'd be amazingly disgusted how prevelant that idea is today. although, within the film. it did highlight that they were about perfection. and because leonitus was kind to efialtis, it portrayed him as just alittle more human.
Exactly. Just look at most hollywood films. Most hero/heroine characters in action films are played by really good-looking actors/actresses, as opposed to the bad guys who you could pick out of a crowd because they overtly look evil. But as you've said, it IS an action film, which are generally always completely black and white. They aren't watched for subtle plotlines/character development, but more for scenes like Leonidas hurling a spear into 2 people and then slicing off another guy's leg in slow-motion. Which was awesome :woo:
That's COMPLETELY false. Good action films do have plot and character development. Look at films like the Die Hard or the Indiana Jones movies just to name a few. Those have three dimensional characters and tight plotlines, not to mention quality acting. Being an action film doesn't preclude a movie from being cohesive and quality.
Well, it's not so much that action films and the art of good storytelling are mutually exclusive, but more that a lot of action films don't exactly have stunning storylines because that's not really what people watch them for. I don't think people watched films like Ong Bak because they really wanted to see Ting get the head back. Yes, I agree that there are lots of good action films with excellent plots and character development but it's not really what the genre is renowned for.
Ong bak good god that was terrible, he looks like a little boy that would blow over in a stiff breeze.
Well, I would say that 300 ranks up there with Gladiator, but it doesn't surpass it. (Let the lynching begin)
I'm not really convinced that it was. At least on the surface of things, the hunchback was rejected by Leonidas not because of his appearance, but because of his inability to lift his shield high enough to maintain formation. Granted, there's a subtext there I suppose. But on the surface, it was more a statement about the whole being greater than the individual and that difference wasn't a question of aesthetics, but functionality. That doesn't make it more palatable, mind you. No disagreement there. But while his captain reacts negatively to the hunchback's appearance, Leonidas gives him an audition that he fails. Besides, seems to me that more effort was made to emphasize the "beauty" of the main villain Xerxes than the Spartans. Yeah, they're buff. But Xerxes was clearly intended to be beautiful in contrast to their roughness. Stuart
Actually, Sparta and most of ancient Greece was homosocial, not homosexual. There is a difference. Ancient Greek culture was actually not very tolerant of homosexuals despite the prevalence of the homosocial convention known as paederasty.
