I caught an advance screening of 300 the other day, and unlike seemingly everyone else, I didn't think it was all that great.
First, what I liked. I'm a fan of Miller's work (both comic and movie), and I really enjoyed the adaptation of Sin City. If you liked the visual style of Sin City, then you will probably enjoy the presentation of 300. The colours in 300 are generally quite muted, except for certain objects. The action scenes are decent (though not terribly realistic), and the entire movie has a gritty/grainy feel that comes off quite well. CG was done extremely well (there were very few areas where it was obvious) and the cinematography was excellent.
So, what didn't I like? The characters and the dialogue. It seemed to me that the story can be looked at in two ways: 1) A group of people with a powerful leader fighting against impossible odds to maintain their lifestyle; and 2) One man's quest to stay true to his ideals and values. As far as I could tell, 1) was done in Braveheart, and 2) was done by Gladiator, and both done much better.
Looking at 1). It seemed (and perhaps this was the intent), that all the spartan characters were one-dimensional. They were either "true" spartans (ie. honour-bound warriors who wanted to die in battle) or weak "political" types who used back-room dealings to get their way. There is only one female character worth discussing, and she falls into the "true" spartan category. There is very little development of the characters beyond these two archetypes.
As to the Persian army, well, there is no development on that side. All the persians are protrayed as arrogant, overconfident servants of Xerxes. Even in battle, they have no real redeeming features, and serve purely as fodder to the Spartans. Perhaps this is a reflection of reality (after all, what type of tactics could there have been given the results), but it doesn't make an interesting movie. Besides, there were lots of other liberties taken, so making more interesting characters shouldn't have been that hard.
In terms of dialogue, it seems that besides quoting the most famous historical phrases from the battle, the main method Leonidas uses to inspire his troups is to shout (in his oh so gravelly voice) "We are Spartans!" or, "Sparta!", or some other 4 word phrase with Sparta in it. Of course, like clones, the 300 warriors all respond with a resounding "Whoo!" every time. Braveheart had much better/inspiring speeches, and it seems like the director/writers were more interested in getting to the action sequences than really providing any inspiration for the audience.
For 2), we get a little bit of information regarding why Leonidas behaves the way he does. While the movie explains away why only 300 warriors joined him, we never really get a sense of Leonidas being a strong and inspirational leader. In Gladiator, we see why Maximus inspired his followers through both his battle experience in the army (the scenes in Britain) and his leadership in the various arenas. Even in Troy (a movie with fight scenes I preferred as compared to 300), we can understand why Achilles was so reverred by the Myrmidons. Unfortunately, beyond an incident with a wolf, we never really see why the people following Leonidas believe in him so deeply but the rest of the city does not; he's not a great warrior, his plans are fairly simple (in fact, in one scene, even other Spartans knew what it would be, since it was the most logical tactical decision), and his speeches are hardly inspiring. The only thing I could get was that the 300 who joined him all had death-wishes (which, now that I think about it, is almost explicitly stated), and they figured this was a good war in which to die. Again, perhaps a reflection of reality, but hardly great movie-making.
Now, this may seem like an overly negative review, but the truth is I didn't hate the movie. However, looking at the reviews on rottentomatoes, or the general forum hype, I expected something a lot better. Instead, I found the movie to be ok but not great. A solid 3 out of 5.
First, what I liked. I'm a fan of Miller's work (both comic and movie), and I really enjoyed the adaptation of Sin City. If you liked the visual style of Sin City, then you will probably enjoy the presentation of 300. The colours in 300 are generally quite muted, except for certain objects. The action scenes are decent (though not terribly realistic), and the entire movie has a gritty/grainy feel that comes off quite well. CG was done extremely well (there were very few areas where it was obvious) and the cinematography was excellent.
So, what didn't I like? The characters and the dialogue. It seemed to me that the story can be looked at in two ways: 1) A group of people with a powerful leader fighting against impossible odds to maintain their lifestyle; and 2) One man's quest to stay true to his ideals and values. As far as I could tell, 1) was done in Braveheart, and 2) was done by Gladiator, and both done much better.
Looking at 1). It seemed (and perhaps this was the intent), that all the spartan characters were one-dimensional. They were either "true" spartans (ie. honour-bound warriors who wanted to die in battle) or weak "political" types who used back-room dealings to get their way. There is only one female character worth discussing, and she falls into the "true" spartan category. There is very little development of the characters beyond these two archetypes.
As to the Persian army, well, there is no development on that side. All the persians are protrayed as arrogant, overconfident servants of Xerxes. Even in battle, they have no real redeeming features, and serve purely as fodder to the Spartans. Perhaps this is a reflection of reality (after all, what type of tactics could there have been given the results), but it doesn't make an interesting movie. Besides, there were lots of other liberties taken, so making more interesting characters shouldn't have been that hard.
In terms of dialogue, it seems that besides quoting the most famous historical phrases from the battle, the main method Leonidas uses to inspire his troups is to shout (in his oh so gravelly voice) "We are Spartans!" or, "Sparta!", or some other 4 word phrase with Sparta in it. Of course, like clones, the 300 warriors all respond with a resounding "Whoo!" every time. Braveheart had much better/inspiring speeches, and it seems like the director/writers were more interested in getting to the action sequences than really providing any inspiration for the audience.
For 2), we get a little bit of information regarding why Leonidas behaves the way he does. While the movie explains away why only 300 warriors joined him, we never really get a sense of Leonidas being a strong and inspirational leader. In Gladiator, we see why Maximus inspired his followers through both his battle experience in the army (the scenes in Britain) and his leadership in the various arenas. Even in Troy (a movie with fight scenes I preferred as compared to 300), we can understand why Achilles was so reverred by the Myrmidons. Unfortunately, beyond an incident with a wolf, we never really see why the people following Leonidas believe in him so deeply but the rest of the city does not; he's not a great warrior, his plans are fairly simple (in fact, in one scene, even other Spartans knew what it would be, since it was the most logical tactical decision), and his speeches are hardly inspiring. The only thing I could get was that the 300 who joined him all had death-wishes (which, now that I think about it, is almost explicitly stated), and they figured this was a good war in which to die. Again, perhaps a reflection of reality, but hardly great movie-making.
Now, this may seem like an overly negative review, but the truth is I didn't hate the movie. However, looking at the reviews on rottentomatoes, or the general forum hype, I expected something a lot better. Instead, I found the movie to be ok but not great. A solid 3 out of 5.
