| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Mr Savoir Faire |
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 21:54:59
Overall, I enjoyed it. The stylized action was entertaining. The dialogue was so-so, but better than expected for this type of film.
My problems with the film: sex/oracle scenes were completely unnecessary, dialogue was cheesy in places (especially those involving the queen), and the historical inaccuracies of the persians attacking with rhinos and elephants, Leonidas not rotating the front lines, and the size of the Persian army and the fact that all the greeks left. Actually 700 greeks stayed behind, for a total of 1000 non-retreating forces.
Anyone else seen it? |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Sean |
Posted - 04/04/2007 : 02:17:47
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
It was doing well in the 250 earlier this week but it dropped out very quickly when the negatives and middling votes started coming in. I don't really get the system personally. Anyone want to explain a "true Bayesian" estimate in layman's terms?
I just had a look at the Wiki entry on Bayesian probability and am none the wiser. 
But I did test the formula (shown at the bottom of the Top 250 page) to see what it does. A movie needs 1300 votes in order to be considered for Top 250 inclusion, and the formula skews the score back towards the average vote for all movies on the site (6.7) for those movies with a low number of votes. So, a movie that has received only 1350 votes will have it's score 'dragged' back towards 6.7, this is done to reduce the probability that a small number of people could skew the score towards an extreme level. But, by the time a movie has received plenty of votes (e.g., 100,000) this skewing will become insignificant. Hence the Top 250 score for a movie with only a few thousand votes may be 0.3 or so lower than it's movie-page score, whereas the score for something like Pulp Fiction with over 100,000 votes doesn't vary from it's movie page score. Overall, the purpose of that formula is to 'stabilise' the Top 250 somewhat.
But, that forumla won't have a huge effect on the Top 250 score. The non-counting of 'non-regular' scorers will have a much more significant effect, I'd guess. This is presumably in addition to the filtering they do right from the beginning on scores (i.e., filtering out the scores of perceived 'score wreckers') or those who've only scored a handful of movies and can't yet be relied upon.
They don't publicise precisely what kind of filtering they do on raw data in order to stop vandals from trying to wreck the system with 'tactical scoring', as they state here. So, overall there's data filtering done initially prior to their "weighted average" being calculated for each movie, then more filtering done before a movie can be considered for the Top 250, then finally it's adjusted with the formula mentioned above to smooth the final score further to allow for different levels of voting and give a little more weight to those movies with more votes. Get it? |
| Shiv |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 12:41:44
My appetite is whetted. I just saw a TV review which made me want to see it even more...but my online DVD service doesn't have it yet I'm renting the 1962 film instead |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 13:58:31
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Well, they also spoke Ancient Greek back then, not English. So I think that if they can use English words (a great deal of which have bases in Latin, not to mention much newer languages), I don't think it really matters.
As i said it was only really a minor glitch that they could have easily avoided.
And again I loved the movie. |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 12:06:52
quote:
Originally posted by M0rkeleb
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
So the only minor minor flaw is that very ealy on Leonidas is told he cannot face the Persians as it is Auguat, I presume it would be too hot at the end of the summer to wage battle.
But the name of the month August was first used five hundred years later in rome by Augustus Caesar.
As I recall, the reason for going to war had nothing to do with weather but because of some kind of religious observance.
Ah it'd been a long time since i studied that era. Thanks |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 13:58:08
I mostly enjoyed it, but the acting is indeed very weak and the lip service paid to having emotional elements is a waste of time. I did not often mind the lack of realism, but in the scene where they fight one type of warrior after another, it is just ridiculous. The next type of soldier seems to be queueing patiently for the Spartans to dispatch the type in front. Any 300 men could kill thousands if they only had to deal with twenty at a time! The "boy lovers" remark did annoy me quite a lot, since in my limited understanding this was a general feature of Ancient Greece. Since the film places us on the Spartans' side, any of their views really are views endorsed by the film. Its pro-war stance is also not what I would consider ideal in this day and age. |
| GHcool |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 06:30:45
For any of you parents who might not want to take the kiddies to 300, you can be glad that a PG-rated version has been created by someone with too much time on their hands. |
| damalc |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 03:40:14
i saw this film last night and i've got a lot to say. hope i don't put anybody to sleep. SPOILERS COMING.
i really liked it. two big factors probably accounted for much of my enjoyment. first, i didn't expect to like '300.' it was one of those green screen films, like Sin City and Star Wars eps. 1-3, in which the actors had no environment to react to. it was also adapted from a comic book series that i'm really fond of, so it just needed a big step, not even a jump to surpass my expectations. second, i think the virtual environment i usually despise worked well this time.
remember, the film is shown not necessarily as it happened but as a narrative to rally troops for the next battle. this wasn't a history lesson, but Dilios' adaptation. so when he recounts the legend of the hot gates, Xerxes is nine feet tall with a THX voice; and a volley of arrows did block out the sun; and every Spartan looked like he'd been on a strict regimen of pilates; and the warrior-king slew dozens, nay hundreds, without a scratch, before dying at the moment of his choosing. that's how legends go, and how much larger is this legend after 2,000 years?
i'm no apologist and if it was silly to you, i get it, but it worked for me.
i've read where people compared it to the current US-Iraq situation. there are some obvious matches: the westerners who claim to love freedom against the dictatorship from the middle east but this tale is older than the New Testament. and by the way, those who fought in the name of freedom owned slaves. i do think the filmmakers added some elements but he takes shots at both sides. i think Queen Gorgo appears in maybe three frames of the graphic novel and the Theron character is completely new. i think their discussions of the wisdom of Leonidas' war and his arrogance are equally aimed at supporters and detractors of our contemporary war.
but, i've been told, 'if you go looking for something, you'll find something.' people on both sides are going to interject their views on everything that comes down the pike. people tried to say 'sw: attack of the clones' was a comment on the war. 'well why did it come out now?' that's how long it takes movies to get made. Frank Miller's graphic series came out in 1998. he started publishing 'Sin City' stories several years before that. i'm not sure when 'Red Dregon' was first published but it was years before it was made. and remade again.
there was one line that caused quite a stir in the books but is kind of easy to miss in the movie. Leonidas calls the Athenians "boy lovers." the debate went on for months in letters to the series about the statement's accuracy, the Spartans' hypocrisy, and whether Miller is a homphobe. according to what i've read, and i believe it, homosexuality was practiced in ancient Sparta and there were lovers among the warriors, which theoretically made them even fiercer fighters. that's left out of the movie 300, of course, but i think Miller's response was that was a sign of Leonidas and Sparta's arrogance, and an attempt to insult the Persian messenger.
or maybe he just fucked it up.
(i didn't plan to talk about this but the more i think about it as i type, '300' had some real homophobic elements. more later. that may change everything.)
one of the best images of the film to me was when Xerxes comes off his throne and uses the backs of his servants as stairs. but near the end of the film Leonidas kneels, so that a Spartan soldier can step on his back to launch an attack. i love that symbolism.
i'm fascinated by the whole concept of the Spartan culture, so singularly driven. i recommend the book "Gates of Fire" by Steven Pressfield for broader take on the Battle of Thermopylae, or just a good read. and i'll be renting "The 300 Spartans" again soon.
boy, that was rambly, but i said i had a lot to say.
bottom line, '300' gets 4 fwifs from me. |
| MM0rkeleb |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 17:43:41
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
So the only minor minor flaw is that very ealy on Leonidas is told he cannot face the Persians as it is Auguat, I presume it would be too hot at the end of the summer to wage battle.
But the name of the month August was first used five hundred years later in rome by Augustus Caesar.
As I recall, the reason for going to war had nothing to do with weather but because of some kind of religious observance. |
| demonic |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 13:42:57
It was doing well in the 250 earlier this week but it dropped out very quickly when the negatives and middling votes started coming in. I don't really get the system personally. Anyone want to explain a "true Bayesian" estimate in layman's terms? |
| Sean |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 04:09:16
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Haven't seen it, but it gets a very good score at IMDb (8.1, and the lowest subset score is 6.9) so that's all the recommendation I need. 
Yeah, I think that was what pushed me to see it most of all. I was shocked that it got such a high score. I don't think it deserves a place on the Top 250 films of all time list, but I could conceivably see it on a list of the top 250 action films of all time.
It'll probably drop over time. Commonly for a cult movie (or any highly-anticipated movie) those who know they're gonna love it before they've even seen it are the first ones to see it and the first to score it so it starts with a pretty high score. Then, over time, more 'discerning' viewers see it and score it more harshly. I'd guess it'll settle around 7.6 or so.
Note that even though it's 8.1 and above the level needed to get into the Top 250, IMDb haven't given it a Top 250 rating. I think this is because many of the scorers who gave it 10/10 haven't scored enough other movies at IMDb for their votes to be treated seriously. |
| GHcool |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 01:46:08
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Haven't seen it, but it gets a very good score at IMDb (8.1, and the lowest subset score is 6.9) so that's all the recommendation I need.
Yeah, I think that was what pushed me to see it most of all. I was shocked that it got such a high score. I don't think it deserves a place on the Top 250 films of all time list, but I could conceivably see it on a list of the top 250 action films of all time. |
| Sean |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 01:05:36
Haven't seen it, but it gets a very good score at IMDb (8.1, and the lowest subset score is 6.9) so that's all the recommendation I need. |
| bife |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 00:32:31
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Stupid
My problems with the film: sex/oracle scenes were completely unnecessary
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
All the half naked women
Now I do love living in Singapore - but not when I'm watching movies. Great film, but hardly a glimpse of female flesh from where I was sitting |
| demonic |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 22:02:47
Right with you Downtown. I thought it sucked.
I'll attempt to explain why a little more fully than that though. I guess my biggest problem was that fatal duo of dud script and weak acting, combined with an over-reliance on striking imagery to gloss over the narrative flaws. It did look very nice, but I was never overawed in the way I was during the LOTR trilogy. Not once.
Gerard Butler stuck with his Scots accent, which seemed particularly strange next to David Wenham's awful forced English accent (what an awful narration too! Clearly tagged on, describing exactly what you are looking at - "ahh, the seagulls were hovering overhead...") - best not to mention the surviving child of the early Persian attack with his blatant American accent. This sums up how people were cast entirely for their look and not for their abilities. Butler and Wenham clearly had the basic physique and inclination to spend months in the gym and that got them the parts. Shame they couldn't have gotten some actors with a bit more charisma to match the epic storytelling. Butler's bellowing of trailer friendly soundbytes was unbelievably tiring.
I enjoyed the first attack of the Persian Immortals as it was the first time you saw some of those arrogant Spartans getting a kicking and the only time Leonidas showed some genuine concern for his safety as the LOTR Orc rip-off very nearly finished him off, but that really was about it. It was the only action scene that had any excitement, because it was the only one where you felt there was any danger at all. The extreme fantasy elements were the only time there was any fun to be had - the Orc man, the metal faced ninja Immortals, the fat chap with the bladed arms, rhinos and elephants being, well, pathetic actually- the Persian army had some colour and some blatant campness (nine foot Xerxes has extensive make-up, gold speedos and a digitally enhanced voice, ooh sailor!) which was quite good fun - definitely a relief from the buttock clenching and back slapping of our heroic 300 drunk on testosterone. The domestic and political scenes were even less interesting - again, script (dull) and acting (dry).
Perhaps the stupidest moment though is the death of the Captain's son. These are the finest warriors in the Western world, clearly demonstrated and reiterated in every bit of dialogue in the preceding hour, only for him to be dispatched by a lone horseman. Has this paragon of soldiery suddenly gone deaf? Can't he hear the horse coming, or hear his father bellowing that there's danger? Can't he, or for that matter his similarly adept companion stood next to him, use his finely honed reflexes to defend himself? Apparently not. Perhaps he should have been thrown off the cliff with the other defective children when he was born for being quite so useless.
None of that really matters though because I didn't feel anything at all - not sorry for his death or pity for his father because their thin characterisation and the generally shallow emotional content made it impossible to really care about any of them. That finally is the disaster of this film - telling a story of a key moment in civilisation, and a gripping and compelling one at that, and making it no more involving than a mildly entertaining picture show is a disappointment of Persian army proportions.
Something struck me as I left - the final credits - a 3D exploration of silhouette comic panels was so much more stylistically interesting and imaginative that the whole movie I wish they actually made a gritty and bloody animated film instead - gone all the way in bringing the comic book to the screen. Cast brilliant voice actors and the physicality doesn't matter. I think that is a movie I would have been impressed by. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 20:01:11
quote:
Originally posted by Rovark
I'll be buying the DVD when it comes out ( all the extras version ) and all I can say to anyone who didn't like this is " WHY DID YOU GO IN THE FIRST PLACE?, WHAT THE ---- DID YOU THINK YOU GOING TO SEE, DID THE ADVERTS NOT GIVE YOU A HINT OF WHAT IT WAS ABOUT??????
I expected to see a mindless action movie with a bunch of tough guys talking about how honorable it is to die or whatever, and that's more or less what I got.
I just didn't expect it to be so boring and crappy. Were there no decent ACTORS available that had the physique they needed, forcing them to settle for models instead? And how many times do we need to hear different versions of the same inspiring speech? |
|
|
