MovieChat Forums > 300 (2007) Discussion > 300 underacheived

300 underacheived


This movie was too far overdone with special effects CGI, a nearly Cartoonish Persian army, and a historically inaccurate portrayal of all things Spartan and Persian altogether.

First, Spartan warriors did not parade around like male models on Abercrombie and Fitch catelogs. They were extremely disciplined in battle. They fought in Hoplite style of combat known as the phalanx: a tightly knit formation that relied on the spear and their comrades next to them protecting them with their shield. Their strength was in the unity of their spears and shields thrusting in to the enemy with the first few rows, while the others in the back helped push forward, only stepping forward if a comrade in front of them had fallen in order to take his place. Their stregth was in their discipline and unity.

Second, I've seen people criticize Braveheart and movies of the sort for the graphics that are bit lacking for today's standards. I don't necessarily mind more graphics (i.e. Lord of the Rings was fantastic), as long as they promote the telling of the story, rather than seem to infiltrate the story so much that they make a historical event appear like a cartoon. Take for example the Immortals. In the movie the Immortals were the elite fighting force of the Persian Army, basically a Doppelganger of sorts to the Spartans. They were real men, but the movie portrays them much like monsters.

My opinion is this: if you want to create an epic tale based on true events, at least make a concerted effort to maintain some reality of the event. Don't turn it in to a comic book, like the movie was based on. I would much rather see Stephen Pressfields book based on this event, Gates of Fire, adapted in to a feature film. It's main character is fictional and his life story is somewhat made up to help create an intriguing plot, but just about everything else is historically sound and holds profound respect for the contributions the Spartans made to the history of Western Civilization. Overall, Gates of Fire just has more heart than does 300, which seems to nearly fictionalize the event.

reply

I hope you know that this movie was based on a graphic novel, where the guy had a very distinct style, which was portrayed as close as possible in the movie.

So, basicaly, the movie is not a documentary, its a super hero movie.

Thor couldĀ“ve had apeared in this movie. Its not suposed to be historicaly accurate. Check out the graphic novel, its from the same guy that did Watchmen.

reply

Sadly, if the movie was done well, historically accurate, and does justice to both the Spartans and Persians, then this movie wouldnt have done nearly as well as an extremely stylized and "badass" movie about male model Spartans in their undies and red cape, killing mutant Persians.
Its sad, I know.

reply

No, I thought it was awful. There were some entertaining moments, but overall, it was just too silly and the story was lacking any real drama. It was a quintessential example of what's wrong with Hollywood movies today.

reply

Now, a big distinction I try to make is between the ideas of "good storytelling or cinema" and "historical accuracy". I don't want to discourage filmmakers from attempting to maintain the latter when making a film, but at the end of the day for me and many others it is the former that ultimately draws us into it whether it is accurate or not. For instance William Wallace was not a common man who grew into a great leader to try and free his nation and there was no such Aurelian Roman General being torn down to being as slave/gladiator who defied an emperor, but what great stories they made for. (at least in my opinion) I don't like 300 nearly as much as those films as I don't think it's on par with them in terms of story and character. But I do think that it's entertaining at least as viscerally exciting action film with genuine emotional moments here and there. And in my opinion a film should be judged based upon what it sets out to do, and whether or not it succeeds at its goals. That's all it really tries to be, and whether for better or for worse it achieves that.

Now the first thing I think that needs to be recommended is that we toss aside the notion that anyone who enjoys this movie is racist. That seems like needless shorthand to discount other peoples' opinions. That doesn't mane the film not racist in of itself necessarily, But what most fans seem to take the film is not the sentiment "F the monstrous Persians and modern day Iranians", but rather "Look at the cool courageous guys fighting against great odds and dying for something" or "look at the cool locations and action scenes". It depends on what one gravitates towards and takes from a movie. Let's face it, the film is just too fantastical and even preposterous in places to take that seriously. Heck, I would figure the only people who would be swayed by it to hate the Persians and want to kill them would probably get really confused and give up when they look for and cannot find Persia anywhere on a map. Again, that doesn't necessarily make it not racist, but I thought this was worth noting. As far as whether or not I think it is racist, I don't really know. It seems like all the big arguments from both sides have been done to death here already. On first viewing I didn't even think about it, and I still think the film is fantastical enough to the point that it hardly matters as far as it genuinely effecting the real world and people's perceptions is concerned. That being said on subsequent viewings, especially after seeing others discuss it, it's become pretty hard to completely deny as being in there to some capacity.

reply

Meh, for movie base on a comic book, this exactly what I was looking for.
It's entertained me, and that's what really matter. Of course it's just my opinion.

reply

a historically inaccurate portrayal of all things Spartan and Persian altogether.

Dude, please. It's a fvcking cartoon.

reply

It's essentially a propaganda fantasy told by Dilios hence portraying the spartans as these badass god-like figures. At least I think that's what Snyder was trying to achieve with his telling of Frank Miller's graphic novel. Persians were hence portrayed as these hedonistic, disgusting monsters and the Akadians as inferior brawlers and pansies. It's at its a heart a jingoistic, rousing story lauding their fallen king in a battle that they realistically had no way of winning anyway.

reply

This is a very well-known fact but perhaps you are unaware... 300 is a fictional take on the Spartans vs Persians fight at Thermopylae. There are various elements of this movie that are not historically accurate, so just try and enjoy the movie without taking it apart for it's historical inaccuracies, if you can. It's not meant to be a documentary, just eye-candy.

reply