was the movie as good as u expected?? im seeing it 2morrow, what rating would u give it?

I thought it was pretty good. I was thinking it would be like Troy but with a lot more computer graphics and action but its different. I haven't seen Sin City and have never read a graphic novel. Hard to explain.

Some parts were pretty intense. In the first battle a line of Persians smash into the line of Spartans and feels like you are in the battle. Pretty emotional stuff. Defintiely suggest seeing this one in the theater. A lot of guys were walking out and looked like they were going to cry.

Hockey Playa said:

was the movie as good as u expected?? im seeing it 2morrow, what rating would u give it?

Click to expand...

It was good but not awesome, around 7/10 could have been WAY better.

Pros:

- Awesome fight sequences.
- Excellent filming.
- Decent acting / costumes. Spartans are actually believable cuz they're all ripped.
- CG/stunts were pretty good.
- Nudity used appropriately.

Cons

- Minimal historical accuracy, ex. messenger suppose to kill himself not become king.
- A little too much fillers, could have done it in 1 hr and 30 min not 2 hours and 30 min and they could have added an epic fight sequence at the end. They chose not to and they didn't even add an explination/importance of the battle for the war.
- Dialogue is pretty melodramatic weird for a SPARTAN.

WTF Trojan? Disrigard the above poster he doesn't know WTF he's talking about.

Yeah, Spartans. Sorry. I got it crossed with my example of Troy.

Real Spartans wouldn't have been all that ripped, so no, Its not that believable but good for the movie.

Hockey Playa said:

was the movie as good as u expected?? im seeing it 2morrow, what rating would u give it?

Click to expand...

The movie was good, but it wasnt what i had in mind.

Awesum battle scenes, tooooo much fiction for a movie based on a factual event.

The spartans pump you up.

and like always they made persians look no where like persians ( they made the king look black ) and wierd monsters were in the movie...like i said toooo much fiction.

Overall i give it a solid B

I thought it was lame, two hours of dudes dressed up like He-Man to stick each other with spears, one-dimensional characters, and all kinds of mistakes. Although cgi-blood flies everywhere, no dead body leaves a pool of blood. Hacking thousands of people to death should leave rivers of blood, yet they do it for days on a pristine white beach. I also feel like they copied everything they could to put the plot together. They took the fields-of-wheat scene from Gladiator (both of which were shot with modern gmo wheat), the masks from Scream for the 'immortal' Persian bad guys, and several story lines from different world religions. Xerxes made me feel like I was watching MacGuyver on the Stargate tv show.

But back to h&f, yes, every guy was built like a He-man action figure. My gf loved it.

Celadus said:

Yeah, Spartans. Sorry. I got it crossed with my example of Troy.

Real Spartans wouldn't have been all that ripped, so no, Its not that believable but good for the movie.

Click to expand...

Oh my bad nevermind, but ya REAL SPARTANS would look like that since they start their training at age 7 and have military service till their 30s. Also they only keep the babies with most potential to become a warrior so weak ones are left... NOT THROWN into a pit. All they do is train for war, it's like doing cardio everyday and then eating a healthy diet only meats, veggs and fruits, non of them were BIG/JACKED like Arnold they were just cut and had some muscle.

Fake blood was horrible in the movie, it looked like flies and the blood splatter didn't get onto any of the spartans or the grounds. It would have been sick if there was a river of blood at the end. Some parts were really fictional like the guy with crab hands. Natural born persians are suppose to look a little tanned they're not black... just tanned. I still think it's kinda sucky that the persian king was metrosexual or homosexual. He actually fought in the battle in real life.

Went to see it last night and some of my friends commented how the guys were wearing makeup to make their abs and chest look more ripped then they actually were. Not to say that they weren't in shape, just that I think they made those guys look better then they were. Either that or everyone in sparta was ripped out of their mind and everyone from persia was deformed and hideous.

As for the movie i agree with whats been said above, the movie was very cool yet very 1 dimensional. Their was very little of a storyline to the film. No mention of why they went to fight or why it was important. Most of the time was spent on hacking away, not on charecter development at all. The dialogue that was there was often cheesy.

well it's a movie about a war, you can't really expect much of a storyline
though i agree that character development was pretty crappy, you don't really feel anything when anyone dies.

I liked it.

The plot sucked, it wasn't accurate (I researched a bit after seeing it), and there were some boring parts. BUT it was pretty much 2 hours of ripped mother fvckers beating the sh1t out of a massive army. Historically correct or not, it was bad ass! Which is why it recieves 2 donjuanjovi thumbs up! :woo:

I didn't go into that movie expecting for a thrilling plot, or accurate recreation of the battle of thermopylae. I went in expecting to see 1800 abs and a whole lot of blood and pain. Which I got.... So I'm happy. :rockon:

well...most of the complaints so far (lack of plot; grotesque historical inaccuracies) should be directed at the original Frank Miller comic / graphic novel, which the director apparently followed quite slavishly. i hope to catch it this week, with very low expectations. pretty clear that it's almost straight-up ficiton.

You guys should take it easy... I saw it tonight, sure it wasn't amazing, but I'm not trying to pick holes in it either. I didn't expect much, and got more than I expected. On the whole it was a good way to spend 2 hours with the gf. She liked it, I liked it.

Sure there were inaccuracies, but fyi guys, its a FICTIONAL story and they never mentioned anywhere that the story they told was going to be accurate. So all you lamers who are asking for details and credibility, chill out and take it for what it was.

As for the physical part of it, those guys looked pretty cut. I don't know how they managed to get that physique in such a short time.

This thread is being created in order to merge parts of discussion not related to fitness from the "300 Spartan Training" thread in H&F.

By the way, it was an awesome movie.

i watched the premier midnight showing when it first came out. I personally like action movies like this regardless of those fictious characters the persians had. Hell, you never know, they could have had scary ass monsters like those back in the day...

I thought the cinemantography for this movie was amazing. It was really gritty and color scheme of the feel was perfect. Not historically accurate but come on did anyone who saw the trailors or read the previews really expected it to be such? Made by the same person who wrote sin city as off the wall that graphic novel, you'd have to expect he wasn't going to be making some thing for the history channel.

I did some research (I'm also a history minor) and the movie 300 was based of an actual battle called the Battle of Thermopylae.

There were in fact 300 Spartans, however, in addition to these forces, Lionidas also had around 700 Thesbian soldiers and another 6,000 soldiers from the various Greek City States. All in all, Lionidas commanded around 7,000 (not including the troops who were also waging a simultaneous sea battle with the persians) troops until the third day of fighting when he dismissed all but 1,400 soldiers who fought and died to the last man. What I'm saying is, there was never "300 against a million". Best estimates put the Persian Army at about 200,000 strong. We still have to give them props though because it was still about 7,000 vs. 200,000. And Lionidas troops did inflict devastating casualties on the Persian Army (about 20,000).

Lionidas was in fact betrayed (although its highly unlikely that the traitor was a mutant hunchback). Which brings up my next point. While I thought the movie was entertaining, it reminded me too much of Lord of the Rings or something. They had too much weird **** going on in the movie ("The immortals", mutants with blades for hands, A giant, troll looking creature, on chains, levitating oracles, a quasimodo wannabe, Matrix style fighting, etc.)

So in a nutshell...
1. The events were extremely accurate.
2. The statistics were exaggerated slightly.
3. The characters were complete bulls.hit.
4. The movie was still entertaining.

I loved it.

Only thing I didn't like was the music. I mean I liked it.. I just wish they would have busted out some heavy stuff during the fight scenes, like some Trivium or something. Haha.

Celadus said:

I thought it was pretty good. I was thinking it would be like Troy but with a lot more computer graphics and action but its different. I haven't seen Sin City and have never read a graphic novel. Hard to explain.

Some parts were pretty intense. In the first battle a line of Persians smash into the line of Spartans and feels like you are in the battle. Pretty emotional stuff. Defintiely suggest seeing this one in the theater. A lot of guys were walking out and looked like they were going to cry.

Click to expand...

what a bunch of girls

I normally hate steroided physiques passed off as just simply strong dudes, but I thought it was totally appropriate here. The Spartans looked like superheroes compared to the other Greeks, and I thought it worked. Still, the distended steroid abs were kinda gross, especially in the slow motion running.

My favorite part was the gratuitous sex scene near the beginning..what did it add to the movie to show the queen getting it from behind? Not that I was complaining

Re:

What we have here is another gross misunderstanding...

The movie "The 300" was adapted from Frank Miller's comic book, just like "Sin City" was adapted from Frank Miller's comic book as well. As beef with historical accuracy or inaccuracy should be taken up at the "source", not the messenger that this movie actually was.

IMO, and I'm more liberal than most on movies, it was a great movie and a fun movie going experience. Taking it for what it was, it was awesome. They didn't show the Spartans as invincible, and they glorified their impending deaths by demonstrating that to a Spartan is honorable. The opening scenes work to build up how powerful and strong Leonides is, and there's enough back story back in the city to not keep it slow (i.e. politics). Knowing the end and know how it comes about, I went to see the movie for what it was...the battle, the spartans, Leonides. I had my expectations in line with what the movie was about.

Most people would have known, either viewing history or Frank Miller's books or word of mouth that the Spartans die, so anyone who is disappointed about that didn't know jack diddly squat. Therefore, you got to see the battles and the Spartans and the strength that they portrayed. EVEN if they were over the top....still....300 spartans fought and died and knew they were going to die, and still did it anyway. Can anyone say the same of themselves here and now? I'm glad they sensationalized it. They should. An act of courage such as self sacrifice deserves such glamorization.

It's hollywood, feel lucky they didn't call Tyler Durden in so they could swoop the feminine crowd, too. The chosen actors were great, as it allowed them to develop unique roles, instead of type casting former actors.

If you liked Sin City...
If you enjoy history...
If, when you were watching LOTR III, you just wanted the epic battle..

Then this movie is for you.

This is right up my ally for movies, and Ill be buying it on DVD to replay over and over.


A-Unit