[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"] It sucked. Pretty images, crappy movie. Boring, cartoony, and ridiculous.
Zack Snyder's last movie, the Dawn of the Dead remake, was infinitely better. 300 was just a "style over substance" movie like The Crow, except without The Crow's likeable characters. In 300, everyone was just a freakingSuperman who wanted to die in battle. So when they really do die in battle, who gives a ****?
SaintLeonidas
um lol, do you know anything about the Spartans???
I know that Zack Snyder directed a ****y ****ing movie about them.
Ill take that as a no. Well FYI all Spartans were like that, they didnt care if they died, as long as it was to protect there home.
And what Zack Snyder did was what I expected him to due. Make a movie that literally brought the graphic novel to life. Almost page by page he tock Frank Millers vision and made it into a movie. I didnt expect anything other than some good action moive, blood, gore, and a good telling of the Battle of Thermopylea from a different point of view. I think if people had a little better understanding of what actually happened they would maybe get the movie a little more.
1) If you're gonna excuse the movie Spartans for being dramatically boring just because the real Spartans were dramatically boring, I find it that you'd do so with regards to a heavily stylized account of the Battle of Thermopylae which includes mutants and monsters.
I just think that if you're gonna take enough visual liberties in order to make it look good, you'd might as well take enough dramatic liberties to make it interesting.
2) Here's what I did today. I woke up, went to work, picked up my paycheck, ate a hamburger, took a nap, then posted on Gamespot. My challenge to you is to make an ACCURATE movie based on that story that doesn't completely flop due to the fact that it's ****ing boring.
If accuracy in movies was more important than the dramatic qualities and pure entertainment, there'd be no need for editing. You'd might as well follow some random dude around for a day with a camcorder and call that a movie.
If I want to learn about history, I open up a history book. However, when we're talking about a movie based on historical events and that portrays the whole freaking event as a damn cartoon, it just seems sort of ridiculous to defend criticism of the boring parts by saying "but...but...the boring parts were accurate!"
Whatever dude. They didn't have a problem bastardizing the story in the first place. I don't see why it would be so damn hard to make the boring parts interesting and change ther freakjing title due to the fact that they had to sacrifice a tiny bit more historical accuracy.
Bottom line: You can talk all you want about the parts that WERE accurate, the movie was still boring as hell and therefore fails as entertainment.
Likewise, it was so heavily stylized that it fails as a legitimate historical account.
At best, we're left with a movie that ambitiously tried to be two things at once, failed on both accounts, and ended up just being crappy.
But on the other hand, I will admit that it was an ambitious endeavor, and I can respect that. I didn't like 300, but Zack Snyder is directing Watchmen next. Even though I thought that 300 sucked, I still respect Zack Snyder as a director and have high hopes for the Watchmnen movie.
But 300 was crap.
Log in to comment