So "300" is only at 60% on RottenTomatoes.com

[Mallow]

great movie, how can you go wrong with 4-5 decapitations?

 

[IEC]

After watching it opening day, I think it was decent. Certainly could have been much better but overall a good film adaptation of the graphic novel.

 

[Sid59]

great movie .. im glad the women were anatomically correct.

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: JungleMan1

Originally posted by: TehMac
Well its just one of those irksome things. Like, we don't mind the enhanced parts, but don't go flaunting around males in loin cloths. It looks really homosexual, and yes, that is a bad bad thing.
That and it doesn't even look cool.

As the guy right below you said, the men wearing loincloths is historically accurate. Even if it wasn't, this is Hollywood we're talking about, and flaunting mens' sexuality sells every bit as well as womens'; just look at Brokeback Mountain. I guess you wouldn't want to see anything you could see by looking in the mirror after you get out of the shower though, that would be terrible.

I, for one, do mind the enhanced parts because it is completely stupid to combine over-the-top supernatural CGI elements with a movie based on a comic book which is (apparently very loosely) based on a historical battle. They could have just made cool CGI renditions of normal battle scenes. Makes me want to wait for a World War II movie with slimy disco-dancing octopuses and midget pirates from outer space as Axis soldiers.

No, no, NO! It would NOT be historically accurate. The painting is ARTISTIC rendition, painted in 1814 by JAcques-Louis David, and is in barely accurate at all. The Spartans boasted about their armor, as their bronze armor, as well at their bronze coated shield, were integral parts of their famous phalanx formation performed by Spartan hoplites. In Spartan pottery of the time, men were depicted nude or scarcely clothed because the Spartans were also proud of their bodies, but in no way did they claim to fight almost naked on the battlefield.

The reason the armor is irksome to me and not the giant elephants or crazy creatures the Persians possessed is because those fantasy like creatures were derived from rumors, myths, and legends about the monstrocities the Persians had acquired throughout the lands they had conquered. However, the loincloth warriors comes from art that I believe is misused in the film.

Still, it was fun to see their partially CGd muscles as the ran.

Like I said before, good movie.

 

[mercanucaribe]

The movie felt too small. They never showed 300 Spartans or big battles. Only the big Persian army, and then "zoomed in" fight scenes. If I wanted to see that I could have stayed home and done instances in WoW.

 

[Malfeas]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but did they show the other 4000 allied greek troops that were there the first two days of battle? Or the 1000 Thesbian troops that also stayed behind to make a last stand with the Spartans?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: TheChort
I'm not reading this thread because I haven't seen this movie yet, so sorry if this point has already been made...

Not that it ruined much, but I was trying to watch this movie without any preconceived notions of it. I would have appreciated it if the OP hadn't put the whole 60% info in the title. :frown:

Meh...I think the whole 60% thing is silly because most of the negative reviews were either over the top (e: cross between gay porn and a recruitment film) or worried about historical accuracy in a movie that is based on a comic book from the same guy that did Sin City who was inspired by another movie about the battle that wasn't exactly 100% historically accurate.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and sometimes an action blockbuster bloodbath film is just an action blockbuster bloodbath film.

 

[classy]

I loved it. Those 300 were some bad @ss m'fers This is SPARTA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
King Leonidas is the man.

 

[Jadow]

Saw it, thought it was pretty good. Can't wait for THE GRINDHOUSE!

 

[Reckoner]

According to Rotten Tomatoes, 300 has done over $70 million on opening weekend thus far. That's ridiculous!

Edit: It's also a record for the month of March

 

[GoingUp]

I liked it. It was a hell of an action flick.

 

[Bateluer]

I saw 300 this morning. Awesome movie, definitely going to buy it on DVD when its release. Badass, if not very realistic portrayal of Spartan fighting tactics.

 

[JoPh]

saw it at imax today. was sweet on that screen.

 

[PrinceofWands]

LOVED IT. Probably because I was able to take it for what it was. Well, that and Kelly Craig is probably in the top 3 or 4 most beautiful women of all time. *droooooooooool*

 

[thegimp03]

Saw it this afternoon...awesome movie

 

[whistleclient]

good movie but i liked Zodiac better

 

[Svnla]

Saw it this afternoon. A decent action movie.

A few comments: (SPOILERS)

1) The Oracle, remind me of The Matrix somehow. I almost said "Mr. Anderson"..LOL
2)Why there were some ugly <face> women in Xerex's harem?
3) I refer the description of the Persian king like Alexander movie than in this movie
4)I am no military tactical expert but why the Persian army didn't use their massive arrows the same time when they used the explosive charges? <Spartans shields were down>
5)Spartans used the shields to cover their body so well, why did they abandon that tactic and ran to attack at the end?

Overall, the movie was worth the admission price <$5.25 martini price>. The scence with the Queen met the lone Spartan remind me of Gladiator movie. She is hot, slender, long hair, and perky tits FTW.

 

[jpeyton]

5)Spartans used the shields to cover their body so well, why did they abandon that tactic and ran to attack at the end?

They were surrounded and lost their strategic advantage once the Persians discovered the goat path. It was either A) sit there huddled in a circle and wait to be swarmed by bodies and swords on all sides or B) make an offensive move and go out in a blaze of glory.

 

[zinfamous]

I love the Irony of 98% ATers who had determined this to be the greatest film ever made before it was even released; and now in response to the review that labels this film as a sexually ambiguous, gay recruitment film, the average comment on here is "I don't care what those diots say; I'm still seeing it!"

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
I love the Irony of 98% ATers who had determined this to be the greatest film ever made before it was even released; and now in response to the review that labels this film as a sexually ambiguous, gay recruitment film, the average comment on here is "I don't care what those diots say; I'm still seeing it!"

umm ... have you read any of the people's opinions in this thread who actually saw the movie?

 

[archiloco]

loved the movie, great cinematography, effects, mood, fighting scenes, also nice how they said that they saved democracy in this world as we know it back then. really makes you think what if..........

 

[RagingBITCH]

I liked everything, but the storyline could have been better developed. Same with some of the characters. Overall - 8.5/10 for me though :thumbsup:

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: zinfamous
I love the Irony of 98% ATers who had determined this to be the greatest film ever made before it was even released; and now in response to the review that labels this film as a sexually ambiguous, gay recruitment film, the average comment on here is "I don't care what those diots say; I'm still seeing it!"

umm ... have you read any of the people's opinions in this thread who actually saw the movie?

yeah...and they make me not want to see the movie at all. paraphrased from someone earlier: "so what if it doesn't have a plot? you get what you pay for: violence, blood, boobies, etc..."

this is why Hollywood is incapable of making decent movies these days; on an average basis. The film-going audience that producers market too have gotten dumber, and show an extreme lack in taste. So...why would I want to pay $10 to see something without a plot? This is asinine. Thank you, "young, dumb males" of the world for giving us Vin Diesel, Tom Cruise, and their ilk.

 

[maximus maximus]

Watched it yesterday..

I thought it was a mix of
1) Kill Bill (so much blood and gore)
2) Gladiator (the fighting spirit is almost the same)
3) Lord of the rings (the evil creatures and enemies etc)
4) Braveheart (the hero does not kill the villian, but his death inspires many to fight).

Overall, it was an entertaining movie. I got my $10 worth and I was happy.
I absolutely loved the lead character (the spartan king) and the screenplay.

Overall, I would rate it 7.5/10.

"Spartans.....prepare for glory."

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: zinfamous
I love the Irony of 98% ATers who had determined this to be the greatest film ever made before it was even released; and now in response to the review that labels this film as a sexually ambiguous, gay recruitment film, the average comment on here is "I don't care what those diots say; I'm still seeing it!"

umm ... have you read any of the people's opinions in this thread who actually saw the movie?

yeah...and they make me not want to see the movie at all. paraphrased from someone earlier: "so what if it doesn't have a plot? you get what you pay for: violence, blood, boobies, etc..."

this is why Hollywood is incapable of making decent movies these days; on an average basis. The film-going audience that producers market too have gotten dumber, and show an extreme lack in taste. So...why would I want to pay $10 to see something without a plot? This is asinine. Thank you, "young, dumb males" of the world for giving us Vin Diesel, Tom Cruise, and their ilk.

aaah okay, so you take 1 person's opinion out of over a hundred and just go with that one. gotcha.