My question to you, ED, is this: Is this film anything more than 2 hours or so of eye-candy?

Yes Bones it is. I mean I've been a 300 fan for awhile. But, in my opinion this movie did nothing wrong in it's execution.

Best comic book adaptation ever created.

I'll have to wait til they play it here, too. I'm very curious about it.

To the accuracy of the story - I don't know about the movie, but the comic 300 was a quite good adaption of the version as it is told by Herodot. Maybe not in every single detail (like Leonidas short hair cut for instance), but as a whole it gives a god overview. If Herodot's version is historically correct, is another question, of course. A historian back then had other goals than a historian today has - that shows well in their work
To the historical events I have started a thred in the philosophy forum a long time ago, where I also added some pictures of the place, where the whole evet took place.

So $70 million box-office during the opening weekend ain't bad, eh? I'm pretty sure very few of those folks spent their $10 for a history lesson.

By the way, Joel Seigel (ABC movie critic and frequent Good Morning America contributor) called it a landmark film. He said the computer technology which was used to create all the sets and backgrounds in this movie will revolutionise the industry. He also said it was a pretty darned good film, which was surprising to me as he doesn't usually give good reviews to the more violent movies.

Sidenote: I started playing "God of War" (now only $19.99!) on playstation 2 this past weekend, and have literally logged more than 10 hours in three days playing it. It is the story of a lone Spartan commander on an impossible, violent quest for the gods, seeking the reward of clearing his mind of the memories of his own hiddeous deeds. It is fast, gory, smooth to control and gorgeous to look at. And it looks a lot like the movie!

i'm so tempted to go out and see this one. But i think i'll hold out like i always do for the DVD. i'm a special features junkie. As soon as the movie is over i watch everything of the bonus features section. Then watch the movie again with the commentaries turned on. So...yeah, i can't wait til it's on DVD.

The History Channel had several nights of programming last week devoted to 300 and from what i gather the movie is pretty much historically accurate save for some cosmetic changes such as the lack of body armor for the Spartans and Xerxes' lack of pants which he was fond of wearing.

There's a joke here that I'm not touching!

By the way, Tek, I'm with you on the special features and commentaries. I devour all the special features, and if it's a movie I like a lot I make sure I get the multi-DVD special editions (just picked up the "Sin City - Recut, Extended, Unrated" package).

But there are exceptions that I make when I think that there's a part of the movie going experience that will be lost by watching the film on the small screen. Certain films have a different impact when seen on the big screen.

My goodness, it was amazing watching "Batman Begins" on the Imax giant screen.

I really feel the same way about "300". I'll still be getting the DVD, but home viewing, no matter how good your video and sound system, won't be the same. So I encourage you to see it in the theater.

JP just bought a movie screen and projector for his basement. He feels the same way about the big-screen experience, but he hates paying $8 to hear other people comment on every little goddamn thing.

If you're ever in the midwest, bring by some movies. We'll chill & the theater room.

It really fucking bothers me the director put in all those "Freedom isn't free"* lines and the whole rape plot, but otherwise I agree.

Miller's 300 took some liberties with the history, but it was all stuff I would have done if I wanted to popularize some badassed history. Or it was stuff that historians disagreed one way or another, so he went with it.

* especially from a warrior society that got powerful by enslaving their neighbors - who stayed enslaved for about...wait for it...300 years.

Still, physically, it's a great movie. And despite my reservations, the fact that I hear the director's doing the Watchmen movie makes me happy. because, dude, the Watchmen!

Hey! The same director is doing "Watchmen"? Man, does that little fact excite me!

Supposedly he snuck this frame into the one of the final trailers of 300:

3 words... Oh Shit Son

300 kicked ass.

The oracle was hot and I wanted to fuck the shit out of her.

Leonidas was a full-blooded, admirable and impressive man and his wife, the Queen Gorgo was perhaps the most sexually luscious / physically intense woman to grace the screen in a long time.

Xerxes was a panty-waste.

The battle scenes were positively mesmerizing. The bloodshed delicious. Definitely worth seeing on a big screen. The DVD can't do it full justice on a television screen.

I saw it in IMAX. I'm going again.

I'm reading from my copy of Watchmen ... (note: there is no "the") ... so here are a few blurbs from the cover.

Watchmen by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. Published by DC Comics.

The only graphic novel to win the Hugo Award.

One of Time Magazine's 100 Best English-language Novels since 1933. Quoted from the article - "A work of ruthless psychological realism, it's a landmark in the graphic novel medium."



Other quotes:

"Watchmen is peerless." - Rolling Stone
"Groudbreaking ..." - USA Today
"A brilliant piece of fiction." - The Village Voice
"The greatest piece of popular fiction ever produced." - Lost co-creator Damon Lindelof
"Remarkable ... the would-be heroes of Watchmen have staggeringly complex psychological profiles." - New York Times Book Review



Here's a little bit of excerpted info from the Wikipedia article (click here for the whole artcle):

"Watchmen is a twelve-issue graphic novel written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons. Originally published by DC Comics as a monthly limited series from 1986 to 1987, it was later republished as a trade paperback. It was one of the first superhero comics to present itself as serious literature, and it also popularized the "graphic novel" format. ...

Watchmen is set in 1985, in an alternative history United States where costumed adventurers are real and the country is edging closer to a nuclear war with the Soviet Union (the Doomsday Clock is at five minutes to midnight). It tells the story of a group of past and present superheroes and the events surrounding the mysterious murder of one of their own. Watchmen depicts superheroes as real people who must confront ethical and personal issues, who struggle with neuroses and failings, and who - with one notable exception - lack anything recognizable as super powers. Watchmen's deconstruction of the conventional superhero archetype, combined with its innovative adaptation of cinematic techniques and heavy use of symbolism, multi-layered dialogue, and metafiction, has influenced both comics and film ...

Alan Moore, who wanted to transcend the perceptions of the comic book medium as something juvenile, created Watchmen as an attempt to make 'a superhero Moby-Dick; something that had that sort of weight, that sort of density.' Moore also named William S. Burroughs as one of his 'main influences' during the conception of Watchmen and admired Burroughs' use of 'repeated symbols that would become laden with meaning' in Burroughs's one and only comic strip, which appeared in the British underground magazine Cyclops."

I'd also like to say I have read it many times ... in fact, I'm on my third copy (gave one to a good friend and lost one). And, they are not kidding about the psychological complexity of this work. When I first read Watchmen I found myself both admiring and disliking Rorschach ... and that hasn't changed in all the years of rereading.

Additional trivia notes:

* The Question, on whom Rorschach was based, actually read Watchmen in one issue of his own comic book, and decided that he admired the character of Rorschach. He tried to emulate the character's brutal style of justice, but was beaten up. In the end he decided that "Rorschach sucks."

* Actor Jude Law is a fan of the Watchmen and even has a tattoo of Rorshach. He has expressed great interest in portraying Rorshach if a film of Watchmen is ever made.

As SecretBoy said, the only parts that weren't historically accurate were parts he took liberties on to just amp up the epic-ness of the movie, which is completely fine by me.

Apart from the few monstrosities and the back home "scandal" and some minor things like having a small number of ships in the sea compared to the storm killing a lot of there men, just slight differences. The movie never claimed "Based on a True Story" even though it was more accurate than most "Based on a true story" movies.

Can't wait to see Loy's review, and can't wait to see the responses.

I wonder if he just follows the critics, 'cause most of them thought it "Long, drawn-out, and winded."

But then again, when was war ever not long, drawn-out, and winded.

Long, drawn-out and "winded"?

As in out of breath?

Feel free to comment here on why you agree or disagree with our illustrious film critics review of this much hyped new film.

Extra points will be given for including proper grammar and spelling.

Are the extra points available because maybe anyone that might actually like the movie are too incompetent to formulate a "proper" response?

Hmm.

Ouch-- I watched it yesterday, and truthfully, I kind of liked it... I don't like war movies, usually, but this one was just so artistic, I hardly even thought about the blood and the dead bodies. And I was really interested in the contrast between the Spartan and Persian cultures. It definitely made me want to learn more about what REALLY happened, though.

And now, I'm off to read the review.

300 was really awesome! But also really overrated...I was hoping for something better than that but I still enjoyed it.

Besides, I'm a teenage girl, it was natural for me to drool at those topless men (some with paperbags on their heads)

But y'know? The script resembled to something like:

Dramatic speech
Lots of yelling
More dramatic speech.

It wasn't anything special, but it was a feast for the eyes.

That sex scene also weirded me out a bit and somewhat awkward, before I knew it, there were a pair of nipples bigger than my head any my mom asking me
"Is that doggysty...."
"Yes mother...that's what it is."

Ohmigawd! Demonista ... I'm sorry ... that really shouldn't be as funny as it seems to me. That sounds almost as awkward as the time my mom started describing the occasion she accidentally (!) (so she says) walked into an adult toy store. She started describing the variety of sizes, colors and shapes of the different dildos she saw, and that she had no idea there was such variety in the world ... and I had to say, "Mom! I really need you to stop!"

I can definitely relate to the, er ... "pain" ... of the moment. But, I have to say, I would never go to a movie like "300" with my mother in the first place.

I wonder if he knows the same tech was used on Sin City.

how accurate of an adaptation is this, anyway? It sounds like some stuff was added... Just curious.

In reference to Loy's 300 review.

I already accepted that it would be a biased review. Although not as bad as I thought it would be, you can't call a movie that makes that much money a piece of shit. The whole point of making the movie is to make money off of it. And in this aspect they did quite well if you ask me.

I'll be honest though, seeing the movie a 2nd time and almost falling asleep in the theater. Loy is right that there is no story and I doubt I'd be able to watch this movie any more times. (This coming from a Frank Miller fan) It may work in comics, but not even close in film.

Although I also will not call it a piece of shit. It's a good movie (I emphasize good not great) because it looked good. As far as movies go there's plenty that have been shittier and plenty that have been more epic.

And if I were one to rate it, I think I'd give it about 2 stars out of 5... because too many people rely on graphics nowadays. But not having a story is way too much of a negative to even say it's average. But, it's not a piece of shit...

Finally, I've seen it.
Well, I wasn't really impressed. The artwork was partly beautiful, but couldn't compensate the missing plot. The phalanx battle, started out good (together we march, we strike we push blah blah), but died in action and pathos soon later.
In a movie like this, a line like "this is not history, this is a legend told by Herodot" or something alike shouldn't be missing.
The plot they added (the corrupt 2nd king and the wife) - oh well.
Instaed of forcing the Freedom talk, they could have shown what that meant for Greek city states, and exspecially for Sparta. Only Spartan citizens had these rights, but it didn't include the people they based their camp society on. Some sources report, that when a Spartan boy was becoming a man, he had to kill a Helote in the wild (not a wolf). It was a touch, though interesting society, but nothing that should recieve entirely uncritical praise in a 2 hours movie. In the comic, the story - which is Herodot +/- a little works better, in the movie it doesn't.

Having read Loy's review, I agree with many points (even though I didn't necessarily expect to before having seen the movie).