Forum Overview :: Peter Molyneux's The Movies
 
Ebert finally reviews 300, finds it morally objectionable. by Creexuls, a monster >:3 08/11/2008, 4:27am PDT
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080804/REVIEWS/506949713

Why did I like the first, and dislike the second? [HE MEANS SIN CITY VS 300 -Jahw] Perhaps because of the subject matter, always a good place to start. "Sin City," directed by Robert Rodriguez and Miller, is film noir, my favorite genre, taken to the extreme. "300," directed by Zack Snyder, is ancient carnage, my least favorite genre, taken beyond the extreme. "Sin City" has vividly- conceived characters and stylized dialogue. "300" has one-dimensional caricatures who talk like professional wrestlers plugging their next feud.


Also he literally doesn't know where the CGI ends and reality begins anymore, 300 has shattered everything he once knew with its barbaric display of fightings.

But to return to those muscles. Although real actors play the characters and their faces are convincing, I believe their bodies are almost entirely digital creations. They have Schwarzeneggerian biceps, and every last one of them, even the greybeards, wear well-defined six- packs on their abs. I can almost believe the star, Gerald Butler, may have been working out at Gold's Gym ever since he starred as the undernourished Phantom of the Opera, but not 300, 200 or even 100 extras. As a result, every single time I regarded the Spartans in a group, I realized I was seeing artistic renderings, not human beings.


And hey isn't this movie a little unrealistic?

The movie presents other scenes of impossibility. Look at the long- shots of the massed Persians. There are so many they would have presented a logistical nightmare: How to feed and water them? Consider the slave-borne chariot that Xerxes pulls up in. It is larger that the imperial throne in the Forbidden City, with a wide staircase leading up to Xerxes. Impressive, but how could such a monstrosity be lugged all the way from Persia to Greece? I am not expected to apply such logic, I know, but the movie flaunts its preposterous effects.


And then of course, much like the ending of They Live, Ebert complains about the violence.

All true enough. But my deepest objection to the movie is that it is so blood-soaked. When dialogue arrives to interrupt the carnage, it's like the seventh-inning stretch. In slow motion, blood and body parts spraying through the air, the movie shows dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands, of horrible deaths. This can get depressing.


DREEEEEEEEEEAMS etc. But just when you think things couldn't get any gayer, he goes off on an incoherent tangent.

In old movies, ancient Greeks were usually sort of noble. Now they have become lager louts. They celebrate a fascist ideal. They assume a bloodthirsty audience, or one suffering from attention deficit (how many disembowelings do you have to see to get the idea?). They have no grace and wisdom in their speech. Nor dignity in their bearing: They strut with arrogant pride. They are a nasty bunch. As Joe Mantegna says in "House of Games," "You're a bad pony, and I'm not gonna bet on you." That's right before he dies, of course.
PREVIOUS NEXT REPLY QUOTE
 
300. by Jhoh Cable o_O 03/10/2007, 5:32pm PST NEW
    I wonder if God of War 2 pushed its release date back to coincide with this? NT by Mischief Maker 03/10/2007, 5:43pm PST NEW
        GOOD IDEA by Jhoh Cable o_O 03/10/2007, 5:57pm PST NEW
            PS: this should help convince anyone that 300 is great. by Jhoh Cable o_O 03/10/2007, 6:19pm PST NEW
                Re: PS: this should help convince anyone that 300 is great. by Jerry Whorebach 03/11/2007, 12:53am PST NEW
                    This sentence might never be topped by Ice Cream Jonsey 03/11/2007, 1:15am PST NEW
                        Your post smacks of either disingenuousness or complete obliviou by Ray of Light 03/11/2007, 1:53am PST NEW
                tableaux vivants NT by *corncob pipe* 03/11/2007, 11:59pm PDT NEW
                Re: PS: this should help convince anyone that 300 is great. by Grumah 03/13/2007, 4:31am PDT NEW
                    Hard, manly, good warrior, poet-warrior, discerning, loyal and true men are NT by treasure too often buried. 03/13/2007, 5:41am PDT NEW
            Re: GOOD IDEA by Jerry Whorebach 03/11/2007, 12:24am PST NEW
                Re: GOOD IDEA by I need clarification 03/11/2007, 1:52am PST NEW
                    Re: GOOD IDEA by Jhoh Cable o_O 03/11/2007, 11:10am PDT NEW
                Re: GOOD IDEA by Jhoh Cable o_O 03/11/2007, 11:09am PDT NEW
    "This! Is! SPAAAARTA!" [Black dude gets kicked down a well.] NT by allhiphop.com 03/12/2007, 11:46am PDT NEW
        That's pretty racist. NT by Jhoh Cable o_O 03/12/2007, 7:58pm PDT NEW
    Ebert finally reviews 300, finds it morally objectionable. by Creexuls, a monster >:3 08/11/2008, 4:27am PDT NEW
        Hahahahahaha by Fussbett 08/11/2008, 11:24am PDT NEW
            Re: Hahahahahaha by Creexuls, a monster >:3 08/11/2008, 11:40am PDT NEW
        House of Games spoiler! Thanks, fat Ebert! NT by I need clarification 08/11/2008, 12:45pm PDT NEW
        Re: Ebert finally reviews 300, finds it morally objectionable. by Sadakichi Hartmann 08/11/2008, 8:32pm PDT NEW
            Pretty much. NT by Creexuls, a monster >:3 08/12/2008, 6:45am PDT NEW
        I recently read his review of "Titus Andronicus" by Shakespere. by Mischief Maker 08/12/2008, 7:35pm PDT NEW
            Sadly, this is not particular to Ebert. by motherfuckerfoodeater 08/12/2008, 7:53pm PDT NEW
 
powered by pointy