Anyone see the movie 300 yet?

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:30 pm

Just got back from seeing it. I thought it was pretty good, ridicilously historically inaccurate, but nonetheless, still a good film. If you like over the top action and gore, this movie is for you.

What did you guys think of it?

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:33 pm

As a fan of Greek history I'll do my level best to avoid it.

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:38 pm

As a Persian...

Laughing

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:06 pm

If it's as bad as Alexander....... Evil or Very Mad

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:15 pm

I will try to avoid too. I saw a trailer for it and I though 'oh dear'. Alexander was pretty bad as well, but the one redeeming feature was it tried to recreate the cultures and to bring them alive in some way. Pity the script and the acting was duff.

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:18 pm

Out of all the 'Historic' films made recently IMHO Gladiator was the only decent one and even that couldn't compare to Clash of the Titans or Jason and the Argonauts

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:23 pm

Potentially, one of the greatest films of all time. I say that about every film I haven't seen yet.

As for the glaringly obvious historical accuracy... I do not care. History has always been written by the victors, so the word accuracy and history shouldn't be used in the same sentence. I'm keen for some mindless entertainment from one of the prettiest and most stylish films I've seen in a very long time. I'm very excited about it. Laughing

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:30 am

I saw it. Its not meant to be a history lesson. Great graphics, awesome cinematography and stuff. Other than some unneeded sex scenes, is pretty good.

More of a Homeric epic legend than history. thats how the movie portrays it.

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:59 am

I've never heard of it (mind you, I'm not much of a movie fan)

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:06 am

I've seen very little publicity for it beyond a couple of billboards and a newspaper article detailing the Iranian government's objections.

Side note: I saw Alexander and one major thought was - epics are not supposed to be boring! Troy was better, but still lightweight.

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:57 am

My biggest problem with 300 and alexander is the persians all look like rejects from Osama Bin Laden look-alike contests. Persian armor and helmets are really well known and easy to find info about them.

That and alexander bored me to tears, I walked out of the cinema after 45 minutes.

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:30 am

I paid for entertainment, and I feel like I got my money's worth out of it.

If I wanted to learn about historical accuracy, I'd get a degree in ancient history.

Which I did.

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:09 am

Alexander just sucked. There are only two movies in which I would've walked out of the theatres: Alexander and War of the Worlds (2005)

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 7103 Location: Yes

You have to remember that the movie is based on the graphic novel written by Frank Miller (he of Sin City fame), not on the actual historical event. If you want to see a historically accurate movie, there's these things called "documentaries" which tend to go that route. They also have interviews with professors and historian -- who, while very accurate, are quite dull and often disturbing to look at.

This is a fantastical re-telling of something amazing that happened many many years ago.

Very akin to Homer telling us about the tales of a certain king who got into lots of trouble with all sorts of fantastical beasts and creatures.

It's called entertainment for a reason.

That said, other than the fact that every Spartan looked like he came fresh from the gym (after a nice tanning and hair removal session), I enjoyed the film -- especially the digital effects.

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:42 pm

Yakuza wrote:

Other than some unneeded sex scenes, is pretty good.

More of a Homeric epic legend than history. thats how the movie portrays it.

The Spartans were famous for being raging homosexuals, young women had their hair shaved off when they got married, supposedly to resemble young boys.

Homer maintained a certain amount of accuracy about the Mycenaean culture. He described places inhabited in the Mycenean period, weaponry and customs. Homeric epics were oral traditions passed through entertainers. 300 is nothing like that.

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:35 pm

Dionysius wrote:

Homer maintained a certain amount of accuracy...

Like a giant with one eye? Or the Scylla? Or a witch who turned people into pigs?

Gimme a break.

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:42 am

Too much sloooooowwwwwww motioooooooonnnnnnnn.

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:42 am

DrBillBlaze wrote:

Dionysius wrote:

Homer maintained a certain amount of accuracy...

Like a giant with one eye? Or the Scylla? Or a witch who turned people into pigs?
Gimme a break.

No, his descriptions of warfare, armour, and religious practices. Wink

When 'Homer's' epics were composed c.800BC, elements of culture from c.1200BC were accurately included.

Divine intervention, visits to Hades, and talking horses, not so much.

As regards 300, there's a great article about its (lack of) accuracy. I enjoyed reading it but it has made me more reluctant to see the film. http://www.thestar.com/article/190493

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:30 am

Yakuza wrote:

Other than some unneeded sex scenes, is pretty good.

Since when is shagging unneeded?

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:45 am

DrBillBlaze wrote:

Gimme a break.

Also sites that were inhabited in the Mycenean period but were abandoned afterwards. Places that were important Mycenean centres that had faded into insignificance later.

The best example of Homer preserving a Mycenean detail is the Boor's Tusk helmet. Scholars didn't think it was real, just artistic licence until they ound a mycenean example. It had faded out of use by 900 or 800 BC, yet it was there in Homer.

Homer also preserved earlier poetic traditions. The Catalogue of Ships lists the forces present at Troy. It reflects a form of poetry involving lists of things that was prevelent in Boeotia. Hesiod also preserves some examples.

Baiting Guru Joined: 11 May 2004 Posts: 2163

Yakuza wrote:

I saw it. Its not meant to be a history lesson. Great graphics, awesome cinematography and stuff. Other than some unneeded sex scenes, is pretty good.

More of a Homeric epic legend than history. thats how the movie portrays it.

unneeded?

Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:51 am

Dionysius wrote:

Also sites that were inhabited in the Mycenean period but were abandoned afterwards. Places that were important Mycenean centres that had faded into insignificance later.

etc.

Even though I have a degree in ancient history, I just can't get uptight about a movie. It was entertaining.

People like you can suck the enjoyment out of just about anything.

Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:12 am

I didn't go in expecting to be taught a history lesson. I thought the movie was great with good action sequences. I'll definitely pick it up when it comes out on DVD. For anyone with the History Channel, there is a 120 minute special going around called: The Last Stand of the 300, it is a great addition to the movie, I actually watched it the night I saw the movie which was awesome. It tells the events of the Battle of Thynompalie, and tells of the Athenian navies involvement that was left out of the movie.

Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:04 am

What about the shagging though? Was that historically accurate?

Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:55 pm

DrBillBlaze wrote:

Even though I have a degree in ancient history, I just can't get uptight about a movie. It was entertaining.

People like you can suck the enjoyment out of just about anything.

I think you have misjudged. My comments were directed at how Homer had retained elements of Mycenean life in the Homeric epics. If you had studied or read up about Homer and the Myceneans you would have realised that. Someone above had compared the film to the Homeric epics.

As for sucking enjoyment out of things. It depends on how you approach it. Some will approach it as factually accurate history. If you want that, it is just impossible because all ancient history was written with a bias and you can never be sure what the historian was leaving out.

The level of pleasure in entertainment has nothing to do with factual accuracy. Gladiator was not a good film because it was factually accurate. It was a good film because the script was good, it was well acted and the director was good. Alexander sucked because the script was poor and the acting was poor. It is debatable if the director was having an off day or not.

Another point on Homer and history. The excavated Hittite diplomatic archives give evidence for a big conflict in the area of Troy that involved an Alexandros of Wilusa. Wilusa is probably the Hittite name for Troy. Also, Paris was also known as Alexander in Greek myth. But does that drag the enjoyment out of Homer, and the film Troy with Brad Pitt????

If you can't make the break between History and entertainment, then maybe your degree was wasted.

Anyone see the movie 300 yet?	View next topic View previous topic