300

I join you in your lament.

The nature of man and whether we could even manage to live in a state with total freedom has been debated for 1000s of years. I'd probably go with no, sadly. You've got to weigh it up and decide whether having restrictions on some of your "freedoms" is worthwhile, providing it allows you relative liberty on the rest.

I'd say that's a reasonable position, but it has a huge problem in that it assumes the State to be healthy, efficient and benevolent (to say nothing of the troublesome words like Truth or Justice) in how it brings about Laws that may restrict, but ultimately allow one to be quite free. I don't personally think such a State exists, and I'm not convinced it ever could.

Its far too idealistic to believe in no laws; however, the proliferation of laws, rules, standardization etc, by contemporary culture, is just out of control. I too, know of no solution , nor am I optimistic of manking finding one. For now, I will grab a beer, and pop a movie into my dvd player, and try to forget about it all.
 
I join you in your lament.

The nature of man and whether we could even manage to live in a state with total freedom has been debated for 1000s of years. I'd probably go with no, sadly. You've got to weigh it up and decide whether having restrictions on some of your "freedoms" is worthwhile, providing it allows you relative liberty on the rest.

I'd say that's a reasonable position, but it has a huge problem in that it assumes the State to be healthy, efficient and benevolent (to say nothing of the troublesome words like Truth or Justice) in how it brings about Laws that may restrict, but ultimately allow one to be quite free. I don't personally think such a State exists, and I'm not convinced it ever could.

Its far too idealistic to believe in no laws; however, the proliferation of laws, rules, standardization etc, by contemporary culture, is just out of control. I too, know of no solution , nor am I optimistic of manking finding one. For now, I will grab a beer, and pop a movie into my dvd player, and try to forget about it all.
 
I saw it, and it was amazing - but the movie can easily be summed up by these three words:

Torso's, Titties, and Corpses.
 
The movie was mediocre at best. As previously mentioned the whole film seems to function on a latent homo-erotic theme. Not that I have any problem with that, but I just find it amusing when thinking of certain friends of mine who think the Spartans in the film are the definition of supreme male heterosexuality.

The film had some decent aesthetics but I don't think the whole blue screen approach worked quite as well as in Sin City for example. I think the film would have benefited from filming on certain locations showcasing truly epic vistas that weren't wholly CG.

I'd probably give it 6/10 if I were to review it; its enjoyable purely as throwaway entertainment and nothing more.

Edit: I also found the dialogue quite atrocious and the occasional nu-metal riff playing in certain battle scenes completely out of place.
 
Everyone who managed to deduce a serious message from that movie really needs to cap themselves, right now, and do us all a favor. And if I hear one more person bitching about historical inaccuracy...

As an adaptation of the comic book, as a film, and as entertainment, it's quite a success. The alternate story line (with Gorgo) was an addition that worked, but could have been cut for a tighter and -in my opinion- better movie experience. I guess they wanted something in there to keep the chicks happy? I dunno. It seemed sort of like sticking slow passages Opeth-style into a thrash metal song, or tacking narration onto a porno.

The slow mo was neccesary, since the director didn't opt for the Bourne-Supremacy goddamn-this-camera-is-jerky-what-the-hell-is-going-on approach to action. Without it, there's no dynamic element to the action, and no sense of... well, of what the hell is going on.

Stylish, fun cinema.
 
Fair points. Historical inaccuracy is a lame charge for a film that was never meant to be a faithful rendering of an event. Furthermore, can we even trust anything Herodotus said to begin with?

I'm fine tweaking 300 as a course element as we speak. I've set an internet clip that dubs "it's raining men" over the trailer and an interview with Gerard Butler that claimed if he wasn't Scottish and the script not yelled, it'd have been a homo-erotic comedy as required reading/viewing. It's a fascinating chunk of cinema for reception studies to stick its teeth into.
 
Fair points. Historical inaccuracy is a lame charge for a film that was never meant to be a faithful rendering of an event. Furthermore, can we even trust anything Herodotus said to begin with?

I'm fine tweaking 300 as a course element as we speak. I've set an internet clip that dubs "it's raining men" over the trailer and an interview with Gerard Butler that claimed if he wasn't Scottish and the script not yelled, it'd have been a homo-erotic comedy as required reading/viewing. It's a fascinating chunk of cinema for reception studies to stick its teeth into.

haha. Its a good segway into a homosexuality in ancient Greece lecture--abs and pecs and glutes galore.
 
It was not so much Muslims as feminists. That said, both groups misread the movies intentions, as the representations of both sides (while obviously OTT) were reasonably sound.
 
The slow mo was neccesary, since the director didn't opt for the Bourne-Supremacy goddamn-this-camera-is-jerky-what-the-hell-is-going-on approach to action. Without it, there's no dynamic element to the action, and no sense of... well, of what the hell is going on.

There are plenty of ways to achieve dynamic action sequences without handheld cam shots or slow motion. Motion and tension can be created through editing as easily as through technical artifice. Watch The Seven Samurai sometime to see how this can work in the hands of a master.
 
^ I do want to see that movie, usually old school movies are the best of the bunch (especially these days).