"300," the 2006 movie adaptation of Frank Miller and Lynn Varley's graphic novel, is something of an audience splitter. Many people, like our own Jason Vargo, loved the film; many other people, like myself, enjoyed the look of the film but longed for more substance; and still other people, like the friend with whom I went to see the movie in a theater and then later another friend and fellow reviewer for another Web site, positively hated it. All I can figure is that while "300" may not be the world's greatest movie, it does provide an opportunity for discussion, which is what film criticism is all about. So, let's get on with it, and Jason and I invite all of you to chime in with your own opinions in our Reader Comments section.
To begin, let me admit that when I first went to see "300" I wasn't exactly sure what I was getting into. I suppose I was looking forward to another "Sin City" type rendering of a comic book to the screen. In that regard, I got exactly what I was looking for. The movie definitely has a comic-book appearance.
(Incidentally, I still see graphic novels as essentially comic books, no matter that they're usually more serious and often in black-and-white. As a former English teacher, it's hard for me to see something that is mostly a series of illustrations as a "novel," with so little prose narrative involved. If there were no words at all, just pictures, would it still be a novel? Is a movie a novel? Not by traditional standards. And why am I going off on this tangent? Because the movie "300" takes a rather a nontraditional approach to filmmaking, just as the graphic novel takes a nonstandard approach to writing. Things are seldom black-and-white, even in the graphic-novel comic-book trade.)
Anyway, Jason will tell you more about the film's plot in a minute (basically, it's one, big battle sequence between a relatively small force of ancient Greeks from Sparta and about a gazillion invading Persians). Meanwhile, I'll just toss out a few random thoughts about the movie in general.
I suspect that one's appreciation for this film will depend on one's tolerance for hack-and-slash. A good part of the story deals with fighting, with huge armies clashing in battle, with people slicing off one another's heads and limbs, and with a great deal of posturing from everybody involved. It's all really quite remarkable to look at, like nothing that's been done in the same way before, and in that regard it is fascinating to watch. But for how long? The movie is 116 minutes, and it seems like about 115 of those minutes involve fighting. I suppose if you have grown up with violent video games, you'll love it; otherwise, it may become tiring.
Next, I found it hard not to like the film's appearance. It's meant to look like the Frank Miller graphic novel on which it's based, and it does. Done up a lot in the style of "Sin City," in that the filmmakers made it appear like black-and-white even though it's in color, "300" even stops and freezes a shot from time to time in order to remind one of the still frames in a comic book. It's quite effective the first few times you see it done, but add to that a healthy dose of slow-motion blood and gore and again, like much of the movie, it gets old fast.
Speaking of framing, the filmmakers also make sure that they block most of the shots the way they were in the graphic novel. We get lots of close-ups, usually with full, head-on sightings, and any number of carefully arranged group shots, usually with each frame meticulously staged and dressed for maximum symmetry.
What's more, as you know, practically the whole film was created on a soundstage, using blue screens behind the actors, the backgrounds filled in later with computer graphics, electronic matte paintings, and such. It's the same technique that worked successfully in movies like "Sin City" and "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow." It works fairly successfully here, too, allowing a relatively small number of actors to portray all three hundred Spartans and probably a few more actors to represent the limitless Persian army. There is never any real sense of reality to it, everything being rather flat and stagey, so just keep in mind that the filmmakers meant it to look like a flat, stagey comic book. The 300 Spartans marching off through the fields reminded me of Dorothy and her friends heading toward the Emerald City. Don't expect in "300" anything like the location shooting we find in Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings," despite the plethora of CGI effects in both movies.
The action is all highly stylized in "300," the actors forever striking poses and the sword strokes looking both real and unreal at the same time. The characters must, after all, remind one of comic-book creations, not actual, flesh-and-blood people. For that reason, every bare-chested Spartan seems to be wearing the same sort of breastplate that Ricardo Montalban wore in "The Wrath of Khan." Well, OK, either that or the filmmakers hired some really buffed-up actors to play the parts. Maybe a little of both, who knows.
Which brings us to the film's lead, Gerard Butler, as the Spartan King Leonidas. Was there ever an actor to star in such a string of high-profile pictures with audiences still not being able to recognize his face? I'm willing to bet that even after his doing "Lara Croft: The Cradle of Life," "The Phantom of the Opera," "Beowulf & Grendel," and "300," most movie buffs wouldn't recognize Butler's countenance from a studio still. Not that he isn't a good actor; he proved that to my satisfaction in the little Scottish film "Dear Frankie." No, in "300" he mainly gets to do what most of the other actors in the film do--flex his considerable muscles. But because the actor plays a character with no discernable personality and because the actor wears a full beard throughout the film, who would know it was Gerard Butler? Incidentally, in several scenes the actor's Scottish accent shows through more prominently than in others, reminding one of Sean Connery and the fact that producers had considered Butler for the role of the newest James Bond.
In the end, I'd rate the movie's graphics an 8/10 and its plot and characters a 5/10, rounding out to about a 6/10 overall score from me. The rating at the conclusion of the review is an average of Jason's and my scores combined.
"Our arrows," says a Persian, "will blot out the sun."
"Then," responds a Spartan, "we will fight in the shade."
To begin, let me admit that when I first went to see "300" I wasn't exactly sure what I was getting into. I suppose I was looking forward to another "Sin City" type rendering of a comic book to the screen. In that regard, I got exactly what I was looking for. The movie definitely has a comic-book appearance.
(Incidentally, I still see graphic novels as essentially comic books, no matter that they're usually more serious and often in black-and-white. As a former English teacher, it's hard for me to see something that is mostly a series of illustrations as a "novel," with so little prose narrative involved. If there were no words at all, just pictures, would it still be a novel? Is a movie a novel? Not by traditional standards. And why am I going off on this tangent? Because the movie "300" takes a rather a nontraditional approach to filmmaking, just as the graphic novel takes a nonstandard approach to writing. Things are seldom black-and-white, even in the graphic-novel comic-book trade.)
Anyway, Jason will tell you more about the film's plot in a minute (basically, it's one, big battle sequence between a relatively small force of ancient Greeks from Sparta and about a gazillion invading Persians). Meanwhile, I'll just toss out a few random thoughts about the movie in general.
I suspect that one's appreciation for this film will depend on one's tolerance for hack-and-slash. A good part of the story deals with fighting, with huge armies clashing in battle, with people slicing off one another's heads and limbs, and with a great deal of posturing from everybody involved. It's all really quite remarkable to look at, like nothing that's been done in the same way before, and in that regard it is fascinating to watch. But for how long? The movie is 116 minutes, and it seems like about 115 of those minutes involve fighting. I suppose if you have grown up with violent video games, you'll love it; otherwise, it may become tiring.
Next, I found it hard not to like the film's appearance. It's meant to look like the Frank Miller graphic novel on which it's based, and it does. Done up a lot in the style of "Sin City," in that the filmmakers made it appear like black-and-white even though it's in color, "300" even stops and freezes a shot from time to time in order to remind one of the still frames in a comic book. It's quite effective the first few times you see it done, but add to that a healthy dose of slow-motion blood and gore and again, like much of the movie, it gets old fast.
Speaking of framing, the filmmakers also make sure that they block most of the shots the way they were in the graphic novel. We get lots of close-ups, usually with full, head-on sightings, and any number of carefully arranged group shots, usually with each frame meticulously staged and dressed for maximum symmetry.
What's more, as you know, practically the whole film was created on a soundstage, using blue screens behind the actors, the backgrounds filled in later with computer graphics, electronic matte paintings, and such. It's the same technique that worked successfully in movies like "Sin City" and "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow." It works fairly successfully here, too, allowing a relatively small number of actors to portray all three hundred Spartans and probably a few more actors to represent the limitless Persian army. There is never any real sense of reality to it, everything being rather flat and stagey, so just keep in mind that the filmmakers meant it to look like a flat, stagey comic book. The 300 Spartans marching off through the fields reminded me of Dorothy and her friends heading toward the Emerald City. Don't expect in "300" anything like the location shooting we find in Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings," despite the plethora of CGI effects in both movies.
The action is all highly stylized in "300," the actors forever striking poses and the sword strokes looking both real and unreal at the same time. The characters must, after all, remind one of comic-book creations, not actual, flesh-and-blood people. For that reason, every bare-chested Spartan seems to be wearing the same sort of breastplate that Ricardo Montalban wore in "The Wrath of Khan." Well, OK, either that or the filmmakers hired some really buffed-up actors to play the parts. Maybe a little of both, who knows.
Which brings us to the film's lead, Gerard Butler, as the Spartan King Leonidas. Was there ever an actor to star in such a string of high-profile pictures with audiences still not being able to recognize his face? I'm willing to bet that even after his doing "Lara Croft: The Cradle of Life," "The Phantom of the Opera," "Beowulf & Grendel," and "300," most movie buffs wouldn't recognize Butler's countenance from a studio still. Not that he isn't a good actor; he proved that to my satisfaction in the little Scottish film "Dear Frankie." No, in "300" he mainly gets to do what most of the other actors in the film do--flex his considerable muscles. But because the actor plays a character with no discernable personality and because the actor wears a full beard throughout the film, who would know it was Gerard Butler? Incidentally, in several scenes the actor's Scottish accent shows through more prominently than in others, reminding one of Sean Connery and the fact that producers had considered Butler for the role of the newest James Bond.
In the end, I'd rate the movie's graphics an 8/10 and its plot and characters a 5/10, rounding out to about a 6/10 overall score from me. The rating at the conclusion of the review is an average of Jason's and my scores combined.
"Our arrows," says a Persian, "will blot out the sun."
"Then," responds a Spartan, "we will fight in the shade."
"300," the 2006 movie adaptation of Frank Miller and Lynn Varley's graphic novel, is something of an audience splitter. Many people, like our own Jason Vargo, loved the film; many other people, like myself, enjoyed the look of the film but longed for more substance; and still other people, like the friend with whom I went to see the movie in a theater and then later another friend and fellow reviewer for another Web site, positively hated it. All I can figure is that while "300" may not be the world's greatest movie, it does provide an opportunity for discussion, which is what film criticism is all about. So, let's get on with it, and Jason and I invite all of you to chime in with your own opinions in our Reader Comments section.
To begin, let me admit that when I first went to see "300" I wasn't exactly sure what I was getting into. I suppose I was looking forward to another "Sin City" type rendering of a comic book to the screen. In that regard, I got exactly what I was looking for. The movie definitely has a comic-book appearance.
(Incidentally, I still see graphic novels as essentially comic books, no matter that they're usually more serious and often in black-and-white. As a former English teacher, it's hard for me to see something that is mostly a series of illustrations as a "novel," with so little prose narrative involved. If there were no words at all, just pictures, would it still be a novel? Is a movie a novel? Not by traditional standards. And why am I going off on this tangent? Because the movie "300" takes a rather a nontraditional approach to filmmaking, just as the graphic novel takes a nonstandard approach to writing. Things are seldom black-and-white, even in the graphic-novel comic-book trade.)
Anyway, Jason will tell you more about the film's plot in a minute (basically, it's one, big battle sequence between a relatively small force of ancient Greeks from Sparta and about a gazillion invading Persians). Meanwhile, I'll just toss out a few random thoughts about the movie in general.
I suspect that one's appreciation for this film will depend on one's tolerance for hack-and-slash. A good part of the story deals with fighting, with huge armies clashing in battle, with people slicing off one another's heads and limbs, and with a great deal of posturing from everybody involved. It's all really quite remarkable to look at, like nothing that's been done in the same way before, and in that regard it is fascinating to watch. But for how long? The movie is 116 minutes, and it seems like about 115 of those minutes involve fighting. I suppose if you have grown up with violent video games, you'll love it; otherwise, it may become tiring.
Next, I found it hard not to like the film's appearance. It's meant to look like the Frank Miller graphic novel on which it's based, and it does. Done up a lot in the style of "Sin City," in that the filmmakers made it appear like black-and-white even though it's in color, "300" even stops and freezes a shot from time to time in order to remind one of the still frames in a comic book. It's quite effective the first few times you see it done, but add to that a healthy dose of slow-motion blood and gore and again, like much of the movie, it gets old fast.
Speaking of framing, the filmmakers also make sure that they block most of the shots the way they were in the graphic novel. We get lots of close-ups, usually with full, head-on sightings, and any number of carefully arranged group shots, usually with each frame meticulously staged and dressed for maximum symmetry.
What's more, as you know, practically the whole film was created on a soundstage, using blue screens behind the actors, the backgrounds filled in later with computer graphics, electronic matte paintings, and such. It's the same technique that worked successfully in movies like "Sin City" and "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow." It works fairly successfully here, too, allowing a relatively small number of actors to portray all three hundred Spartans and probably a few more actors to represent the limitless Persian army. There is never any real sense of reality to it, everything being rather flat and stagey, so just keep in mind that the filmmakers meant it to look like a flat, stagey comic book. The 300 Spartans marching off through the fields reminded me of Dorothy and her friends heading toward the Emerald City. Don't expect in "300" anything like the location shooting we find in Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings," despite the plethora of CGI effects in both movies.
The action is all highly stylized in "300," the actors forever striking poses and the sword strokes looking both real and unreal at the same time. The characters must, after all, remind one of comic-book creations, not actual, flesh-and-blood people. For that reason, every bare-chested Spartan seems to be wearing the same sort of breastplate that Ricardo Montalban wore in "The Wrath of Khan." Well, OK, either that or the filmmakers hired some really buffed-up actors to play the parts. Maybe a little of both, who knows.
Which brings us to the film's lead, Gerard Butler, as the Spartan King Leonidas. Was there ever an actor to star in such a string of high-profile pictures with audiences still not being able to recognize his face? I'm willing to bet that even after his doing "Lara Croft: The Cradle of Life," "The Phantom of the Opera," "Beowulf & Grendel," and "300," most movie buffs wouldn't recognize Butler's countenance from a studio still. Not that he isn't a good actor; he proved that to my satisfaction in the little Scottish film "Dear Frankie." No, in "300" he mainly gets to do what most of the other actors in the film do--flex his considerable muscles. But because the actor plays a character with no discernable personality and because the actor wears a full beard throughout the film, who would know it was Gerard Butler? Incidentally, in several scenes the actor's Scottish accent shows through more prominently than in others, reminding one of Sean Connery and the fact that producers had considered Butler for the role of the newest James Bond.
In the end, I'd rate the movie's graphics an 8/10 and its plot and characters a 5/10, rounding out to about a 6/10 overall score from me. The rating at the conclusion of the review is an average of Jason's and my scores combined.
"Our arrows," says a Persian, "will blot out the sun."
"Then," responds a Spartan, "we will fight in the shade."
To begin, let me admit that when I first went to see "300" I wasn't exactly sure what I was getting into. I suppose I was looking forward to another "Sin City" type rendering of a comic book to the screen. In that regard, I got exactly what I was looking for. The movie definitely has a comic-book appearance.
(Incidentally, I still see graphic novels as essentially comic books, no matter that they're usually more serious and often in black-and-white. As a former English teacher, it's hard for me to see something that is mostly a series of illustrations as a "novel," with so little prose narrative involved. If there were no words at all, just pictures, would it still be a novel? Is a movie a novel? Not by traditional standards. And why am I going off on this tangent? Because the movie "300" takes a rather a nontraditional approach to filmmaking, just as the graphic novel takes a nonstandard approach to writing. Things are seldom black-and-white, even in the graphic-novel comic-book trade.)
Anyway, Jason will tell you more about the film's plot in a minute (basically, it's one, big battle sequence between a relatively small force of ancient Greeks from Sparta and about a gazillion invading Persians). Meanwhile, I'll just toss out a few random thoughts about the movie in general.
I suspect that one's appreciation for this film will depend on one's tolerance for hack-and-slash. A good part of the story deals with fighting, with huge armies clashing in battle, with people slicing off one another's heads and limbs, and with a great deal of posturing from everybody involved. It's all really quite remarkable to look at, like nothing that's been done in the same way before, and in that regard it is fascinating to watch. But for how long? The movie is 116 minutes, and it seems like about 115 of those minutes involve fighting. I suppose if you have grown up with violent video games, you'll love it; otherwise, it may become tiring.
Next, I found it hard not to like the film's appearance. It's meant to look like the Frank Miller graphic novel on which it's based, and it does. Done up a lot in the style of "Sin City," in that the filmmakers made it appear like black-and-white even though it's in color, "300" even stops and freezes a shot from time to time in order to remind one of the still frames in a comic book. It's quite effective the first few times you see it done, but add to that a healthy dose of slow-motion blood and gore and again, like much of the movie, it gets old fast.
Speaking of framing, the filmmakers also make sure that they block most of the shots the way they were in the graphic novel. We get lots of close-ups, usually with full, head-on sightings, and any number of carefully arranged group shots, usually with each frame meticulously staged and dressed for maximum symmetry.
What's more, as you know, practically the whole film was created on a soundstage, using blue screens behind the actors, the backgrounds filled in later with computer graphics, electronic matte paintings, and such. It's the same technique that worked successfully in movies like "Sin City" and "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow." It works fairly successfully here, too, allowing a relatively small number of actors to portray all three hundred Spartans and probably a few more actors to represent the limitless Persian army. There is never any real sense of reality to it, everything being rather flat and stagey, so just keep in mind that the filmmakers meant it to look like a flat, stagey comic book. The 300 Spartans marching off through the fields reminded me of Dorothy and her friends heading toward the Emerald City. Don't expect in "300" anything like the location shooting we find in Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings," despite the plethora of CGI effects in both movies.
The action is all highly stylized in "300," the actors forever striking poses and the sword strokes looking both real and unreal at the same time. The characters must, after all, remind one of comic-book creations, not actual, flesh-and-blood people. For that reason, every bare-chested Spartan seems to be wearing the same sort of breastplate that Ricardo Montalban wore in "The Wrath of Khan." Well, OK, either that or the filmmakers hired some really buffed-up actors to play the parts. Maybe a little of both, who knows.
Which brings us to the film's lead, Gerard Butler, as the Spartan King Leonidas. Was there ever an actor to star in such a string of high-profile pictures with audiences still not being able to recognize his face? I'm willing to bet that even after his doing "Lara Croft: The Cradle of Life," "The Phantom of the Opera," "Beowulf & Grendel," and "300," most movie buffs wouldn't recognize Butler's countenance from a studio still. Not that he isn't a good actor; he proved that to my satisfaction in the little Scottish film "Dear Frankie." No, in "300" he mainly gets to do what most of the other actors in the film do--flex his considerable muscles. But because the actor plays a character with no discernable personality and because the actor wears a full beard throughout the film, who would know it was Gerard Butler? Incidentally, in several scenes the actor's Scottish accent shows through more prominently than in others, reminding one of Sean Connery and the fact that producers had considered Butler for the role of the newest James Bond.
In the end, I'd rate the movie's graphics an 8/10 and its plot and characters a 5/10, rounding out to about a 6/10 overall score from me. The rating at the conclusion of the review is an average of Jason's and my scores combined.
"Our arrows," says a Persian, "will blot out the sun."
"Then," responds a Spartan, "we will fight in the shade."
No comments:
Post a Comment