Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

300

Watched this last night, was about as good as the comic as in not very. Bored the hell out of me. It was a very one dimensional film with really lame battle scenes. Another thing, anyone else felt like they were watching an advert for shampoo or perfume during some of the film?!
 
Kid_Eternity said:
Another thing, anyone else felt like they were watching an advert for shampoo or perfume during some of the film?!

Reno said:
....it's like one long Calvin Klein Y-front advert that comes down to no more than muscled hunks posing.
;)
 
zed said:
Unlike you, I like "violent action films" to have less of an agenda, more roots in fact and less homoerotic posturing.

BTW ...I don't find it at all surprising that the same person that posted a wankfest to the film 300, should aslo be dumb enough to consider putting his body up for clinical trialling as a way of earning extra money, before asking his employers if there was any chance of some overtime. It all fits.

Have you ordered your pretend chain-mail body armour yet?

I think there's a real difference between putting myself up for clinical trials, and asking a question on a bulletin board, you po-faced tit.
 
zed said:
Unlike you, I like "violent action films" to have less of an agenda, more roots in fact and less homoerotic posturing.

Nothing wrong with homoeroticism in film, Top Gun is a fantastic film but gay as a lamp post.

As for agenda? Please, don't tell me you subscribe to the 'agenda' theory? That's such a cop out. Besides, I thought you were a right-winger (as opposed to right whinger)?
 
Reno said:
Not that I think you bothered to figure out what I was saying but if you are having a dig at me, I do actually like violent action film, just not one as ineptly made as 300. I think Sin City succedeed at everything 300 failed at for instance.

It was a slight dig, nothing overly serious. You both took the bait though, which was satisfying.
 
I should say I don't in anyway subscribe to this agenda theory, the film was just boring not some pro US/pro war political statement.
 
Ok I seem to have missed something…

How exactly was the Persian King gay?

I thought he just appeared like someone who quite convincingly thought they were a god. Vain and over decorated with the agile grace of a former warrior. When he places his hands around his neck you might have interpreted that as sexual but I saw it as a owner trying to sooth a pet. That’s how I think he saw himself.

If he was so gay why did he have a female harem?

How the hell is it racist? Because it was white vrs blacks? News for you, that war was whites vrs blacks. Well more light olive skinned vrs dark Arabic skinned but African American actors are easier to cast as there are more of them and we do have to pander to the white American market to some extent as that’s where the money is.

To say its racist is to accuse world war 2 films of being anti Germanic because all the enemy are Germans.
 
Good film, does exactly what it says on the tin. Good-looking and violent. People can find something to be offended about if they want, I preferred to sit back and enjoy the film in all its over-the-top glory. The whole thing is quite clearly set out as an exaggerated retelling by the David Wenham character, so of course there are ten million Persians, and of course they're orc-like monsters and decadent foreigners while the Spartans are buff hardcases. It's a tall tale. It doesn't pretend to be the true story like (grr) Braveheart or King Arthur.
 
ChrisFilter said:
Besides, I thought you were a right-winger (as opposed to right whinger)?

Further evidence of what a pyjama-wearing dork that assumes too much from one dimensional mediums such as bulletin boards you are then, isn't it? :D

You're right about the "whinger" bit though. I love a good slagging off of people or things that annoy me. It's great.
 
.... except it was a true tale that they fucked up

thats the only reason i disliked it... if it was just roughly based on that tale but was blatently fantasy that would be alright... but it was trapped between real and unreal which kinda pissed me off


mind you i don't belive that it was deliberatly made with an agenda i just think it's one of those films you can blatantly shape to your own agenda
 
zed said:
Further evidence of what a pyjama-wearing dork that assumes too much from one dimensional mediums such as bulletin boards you are then, isn't it? :D

You're right about the "whinger" bit though. I love a good slagging off of people or things that annoy me. It's great.

As do I, but you don't real annoy me enough to set me off.

As for me assuming too much, isn't that exactly what you did a couple of posts back?

*I'd argue that assuming too much based on a message board isn't exactly a heinous crime, often you can only go on assumptions as you know so little of a person.

Also, pyjama wearing? Is that even an insult? :D
 
Oh, can't be much fun for them. I'd quite like a pair of plaid tartan pyjamas. As it stands I have to rely on the boxer / t-shirt combo that doesn't quite attain the levels of slumber time snugness I sometimes crave.
 
ChrisFilter said:
Oh, can't be much fun for them. I'd quite like a pair of plaid tartan pyjamas. As it stands I have to rely on the boxer / t-shirt combo that doesn't quite attain the levels of slumber time snugness I sometimes crave.

Nicely put. :D
 
it was too unrealistic to have anything to do with actual history
do you think, I mean part of the reason I've not gone to see it is the fact that what is portrays is almost the opposite of what actually happened, and that would wind me up.
 
saw this last night too..was unimpressed. was a nice looking film but it was deifnitely not as violent/graphic as i heard it was...the few head chops weren't that exciting. The film was pretty boring all in all....not a very interesting story - and the characters were all pretty one dimensional...and i agree that a lot of it did look like a long drawn out tv-advert
 
I saw a clip on TV where a messenger gets pushed down a big hole. I'm not going to watch 300 ever but I'm curious to know what happened to him?
 
when messengers were sent to sparta to bring back symbolic gifts of earth and water (to signify the ownership of land and sea if i remember my history correctly) they were thrown into a well "to get it themselves"

the movie has kicking and really large wells..
 
Allan said:
I saw a clip on TV where a messenger gets pushed down a big hole. I'm not going to watch 300 ever but I'm curious to know what happened to him?

He got eaten by the Sarlacc.
 
Anyone who looked further than mindless visual entertainment in this film needs to lighten the fuck up, really. Put your film degrees away people this is just solid visual entertainment. Fuck the story, it's all about the slo-mo carnage:cool:
 
I saw it in the melbourne Imax - bloody huge screen...anyway it looked great but a lot of the dialogue was poor imo....but apparently they did frank millers script pretty much word for word, it seemd to flip from formal to off the cuff and back again .......so it may seem good in the comics but didn't translate to the big screen that well....in terms of the rascism thing hmm not sure but it portrays the persians as lowlife hedonists with the greeks being that much purer.....if flawed in some ways i.e. high if rigid ideals....anyway overall I enjoyed it and I thought the violence might get a bit much in the same way killbill but not the case really.....
 
It was OK.

The theme of democracy vs slavery was a bit rich, considering that Sparta was a slave-owning military monarchy, but I did enjoy all the blood and the shouting.

I would have preferred a live action version though - I thought the comic-book graphics detracted from the all the delicious amputation and decapitation.

"Spartans, lay down your weapons!"
<whirr.. thunk>
Come and take them!

Good, but Sin City was better.

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/23495.html
 
Back
Top Bottom