|
a white rabbit -> RE: *** MOVIE 300 - REVIEW *** (3/12/2007 8:38:07 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Warfare1
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dave Briggs
My reason for wanting to see this movie is explicitly for the cinematograpy and graphic imagery. After all this is a movie "based on" a graphic novel (comic book) which in turn is "based on" an historical subject. And from what I've read and seen it is "loosly" based on history (as many historical movies are). But I don't want to see it for any history lesson nor am I expecting any great dramatic performance or stunning screenplay. Based on all the hoopla and previews, what seems to be the primary focus of the movie is the visual presentation. I find the technology of movie making, specifically cinematography/sound, as interesting if not more so than the story/acting aspect. That's right -- I'm looking for eye-candy and I hope this movie has plenty of it.
There is an underlying reason for my interest in cinematic tech advances. My hopes are that eventually, someone can produce a decent cimematic adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs' Mars novels.
You are going with the right attitude.
I have read plenty about Greek history and the Battle of Thermopolyae. So I can easily fill in info if a film has any gaps in it.
There is plenty of eye candy in this film. Without spoiling it too much I will point out these:
1) The film is simply stunning. The landscapes and colours seem like something out of an oil painting. It has a dreamy, other worldly, surreal feel to it.
2) The Oracle Scene, especially with the female, has a very etheral feel to it and was simply mesmerizing....
3) The battle scenes are outstanding. In particular, the battle scene with King Leonidas in slow motion is a sight to behold. Even several days after seeing the movie, this fight sequence still stays with me. It goes on for some time, and is sheer beauty. Unlike most directors who use shaky cams and quick cuts for battles, Snyder used this slo-mo techinque, and has set a new standard for how battle scenes can be filmed.
All the essential elements of history are here: we learn about the Spartan warrior ethos; we know the Spartans are going to the hot gate; Xerxes and his army are trying to defeat Greece; only 300 can go to the battle because the Spartans are celebrating a religious festival; etc....
The film deviates from historical reality by using, what I call "giving visual form to a character's inner traits". What do I mean by this? Simply this:
The Spartans are brave, noble men and women, so they are portrayed as muscular (men) and beautiful (women). The traitor is pictured as being misshapen and ugly; while Xerxes, who proclaims himself to be the King of the world and a god, is portrayed as being dark and sinister, as being 10 feet tall, and covered with chains of gold...
Just remember that this is a graphic novel about the battle that has been brought to the big screen....
EDIT: I should add that those poor souls who lack imagination; who develop eye twitch if even a single element in a film is not 100% historically accurate; and who thinks that the end of civilization as we know it has finally come because a film about historical events are not as they should be; should not venture forth into one's theatre to see this film....
..i liked Straw Dogs for much the same reasons...
..come on now, it was a hot'n'sweatey little battle, according to some too "tactical" to be done in t3 but whatevr, what i've seen so far goes a tadge too "muscular" for my tastes, i prefer Alexander as a portraial (sp) of ancient warfare..
..and, sorry, i thought we all knew the historical situation, it's hardly covered by the 30 yr rule..
|
|
|
|
