I just saw the movie "300"

With the way the world is today, it's no wonder that people can take an amazing movie and find something that they think is an underlying message in it. ::)
 
Persians aren't necessarily black. The Persian Empire was centered in the Middle East, with a small part of North Africa and a very small portion of Greece. Not to mention, as stealth pointed out, the movie wasn't trying to be accurate an accurate portrayal of the events that happened.
 
Islam didn't even exist in 480 BC. And, for the record, Persians are not Arabs and Arabs are not Persians. They are distinct and separate ethnic groups.
 
SpartanEvolved said:
Oh yeah, this movie was very racist. The Persians were portrayed as completely evil and cruel, as well as monstrous in appearance.
Click to expand...

To clear it up (after just seeing the movie) SOME of the persians were black. Some of them were chinese. Some of them were mongolian. Some looked middle eastern. The persian empire consisted of many nations. The greeks at the time were all greek (thus, mostly caucasian through olive-tone skin).

It was not racism. And it could not have been otherwise being that there were very likely no blacks in greece at the time. And if they were, they were not greek citizens that would have been serving in the greek military.
---------------------------------------------

Overall, I thought that the movie was pretty solid. It made a good story. Some parts seemed fantastic, the stuff of legend, BUT, that's exactly what it is based on!

And there are some sex, semi-nude scenes, which along with the gore did warrent the R rating. The "drunken adolescent girl" acting as the oracle, was representative of some practices at the time (i.e. the oracle of delphi).

The battle scenes were, of course, amazing. The cinematography did remind me of Sin City, but, it was Frank Miller's work.

I wouldn't say it's the best movie ever made. But, it's certainly a pretty solid war/action type flick. Very good overall.
 
Just saw this movie. I didn't think much of it. It wasn't anything trivial like the "cartoony" styles or the inaccuracy that bothered me either. I just thought it was a fairly messy, poorly structured film. Many of the combat scenes were random and I'd say any scenes that didn't include aimless fighting were either Gladiator-stealing senseless political chat or soft you-know-what ::). I honestly don't know how some of you can admire this movie as much as you say you do, especially when you compare it to other action epics such as the Lord of the Rings trilogy (especially the Fellowship) or Gladiator. Well, it was better than Troy at least. As for racist undertones? I didn't get any sort of hints at that, I barely even saw any black Persians.

8) SAM360
 
Samamir360 said:
Just saw this movie. I didn't think much of it. It wasn't anything trivial like the "cartoony" styles or the inaccuracy that bothered me either. I just thought it was a fairly messy, poorly structured film. Many of the combat scenes were random and I'd say any scenes that didn't include aimless fighting were either Gladiator-stealing senseless political chat or soft you-know-what  ::). I honestly don't know how some of you can admire this movie as much as you say you do, especially when you compare it to other action epics such as the Lord of the Rings trilogy (especially the Fellowship) or Gladiator. Well, it was better than Troy at least. As for racist undertones? I didn't get any sort of hints at that, I barely even saw any black Persians.

8) SAM360
Click to expand...

lol 300 blows lord of the rings outta the water. I don't have to sit there for 10 hours through 3 movies to get beginning to end. The battle scenes in 300 blew any battle scenes from any movie outta the water as well. I guess being the greatest movie of all time will always make it have some haters out there. :p
 
Samamir360 said:
Just saw this movie. I didn't think much of it. It wasn't anything trivial like the "cartoony" styles or the inaccuracy that bothered me either. I just thought it was a fairly messy, poorly structured film. Many of the combat scenes were random and I'd say any scenes that didn't include aimless fighting were either Gladiator-stealing senseless political chat or soft you-know-what ::). I honestly don't know how some of you can admire this movie as much as you say you do, especially when you compare it to other action epics such as the Lord of the Rings trilogy (especially the Fellowship) or Gladiator. Well, it was better than Troy at least. As for racist undertones? I didn't get any sort of hints at that, I barely even saw any black Persians.

8) SAM360
Click to expand...

I personally think it's on par with the LOTR trilogy as far as cinematics and style go. And I feel the fight scenes are way better than Gladiator's. Like I said in an earlier post, the dialog wasn't much but everything else made up for it. I don't know how you saw the fight scenes as random, but if you did, then you did. Great movie but not one of the greatest in my opinion. Definitely in the top 50 for me. Maybe 20.
 
300 is the best action movie I've seen in a while. I think that LOTR has a better storyline, but the fight scenes in 300 are just un-comparable. Great fight scenes, poor plot. But the fight scenes outweigh the poorness in the storyline. It would be great videogame, in my opinion.

~Jack
 
Jack said:
300 is the best action movie I've seen in a while. I think that LOTR has a better storyline, but the fight scenes in 300 are just un-comparable. Great fight scenes, poor plot. But the fight scenes outweigh the poorness in the storyline. It would be great videogame, in my opinion.

~Jack
Click to expand...

They didn't falter in storyline if you paid attention to the movie. I knew exactly what was going on the whole time.
 
Strubes said:
They didn't falter in storyline if you paid attention to the movie. I knew exactly what was going on the whole time.
Click to expand...

I did pay attention to the movie. It's really easy to follow, but that doesn't mean it was great. The dialog got a little repetitive and the storyline kind of dragged towards the midpoint. I personally wanted to see more fighting and less talking.
 
Strubes said:
I didnt say you didn't follow the story...nor did I say the story made it great.
Click to expand...

But you did say it didn't falter if you paid attention. Which is why I said that I did pay attention and still felt it faltered. Even though I didn't use the word falter.

I never said that you thought that it was the story that made it great. Jack and I were just dissecting the movie and only speaking about the story and what it brought to it. That's when you came in and said the story didn't falter. Which we both disagree with.
 
Ah gotcha. I guess It's jus the way I preferred the movie. Where-as you wanted less talk more action. I preferred less story, more action. It didn't need a story in my opinion...it was simple. Persians were coming to conquer their land. There wasn't really much else that you coulda added to it.
 
Strubes said:
Ah gotcha. I guess It's jus the way I preferred the movie. Where-as you wanted less talk more action. I preferred less story, more action. It didn't need a story in my opinion...it was simple. Persians were coming to conquer their land. There wasn't really much else that you coulda added to it.
Click to expand...

I agree. It doesn't need a story but personally it's what kept me from calling it one of the greatest movies ever. Which I want to do but I just can't.
 
They're thinking about making a sequel to "300"....I think if they do it'll be about 95% action which is cool with me. haha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top