this guy sounds like one of those assholes who says you're a bad person just for liking a movie- oh wait, he just did that. i'm heading off to see the movie now, right after i "kill some cats"...

http://www.the-trades.com/article.php?id=5288

for what it's worth, there is a quote from the director in the above article where he states that he didn't intend the movie to have a political message.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

um, ok. i thought it was a cool movie just because of the style of direction and epic story, to be truthful i could care less of how historically accurate it was. and watching it certainly isn't going to make me vote for the next george bush in 08, just how dumb do you think we are? i myself am quite capable of seperating reality from fiction and don't think i'll be butchering kittens anytime soon after i watched it thank you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you want to pin the blame for 300's crappiness anywhere, pin it on Frank Miller.

I used to be a real fan. I loved The Dark Knight Returns because it was so edgy, and really breathed life into the Batman myth at a time when Batman spent at least a dozen panels per comic getting in touch with his inner child (or sobbing, I forget which). Jim Apparo (aarrgh!) were drawing Batman with only two facial expressions: shocked and shocked to the core. Compare Apparo's paint-by-numbers art with the range and gritty realism of Miller's pencils, and the choice is clear. And Miller's razor-sharp dialogue brought the noir into superhero comics.

But over the years he's slowly but surely revealed himself for the misanthrope he is. All his characters are Manichean and stiff, and Sin City the movie was the worse for it. I shudder to think of what 300 is like.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The author is possibly right about "300" (I am not going to watch it anyway) but I disagree about Sky Captain being execrable.
I found it a perfect hommage to the old serials and quite entertaining. I do not demand more from it (and didn't expect more).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

…account of this story try the book by Tom Holland called "Persian Fire". It tells the whole story from both sides and is gripping, enjoyable and educational.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well, Steve, that was a useless article if ever I read one. I love movies, but have little to no use for reviews and yours is certainly no exception. So you didn't care for the movie? Do I give a shit? Of course not. I haven't seen it yet, but now I'll make it a point to and the only review that will matter to me will be my own.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes, as a man of Scottish descent, I can't tell you how much Braveheart made me want to decapitate the English.

Idiot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Smells like anti-semitism. Yes I know one can be anti Zionsit without being antisemitic, but it seems the border is being crossed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think there are right wing mercenaries who are paid to post comments like cindyH's to make us Jewish folks believe that the left flank are all anti-semites. And yes, you can also be Jewish and an anti-Zionist. Go crawl back under your rock, cindy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Its not necessarily the overt racism that bugs me . O.K well it is, but aside from that, what is your point? That Jewish people are allowing Hollywood films to be used as vehicles for Bush propaganda? That's how it read's to me anyway. You're way off track their dude.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A movie glorifying mindless killing.....slaughter...etc. it'll make millions in the peace-loving west.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Persians are marching on Sparta and 300 Spartans go off to defend their country against overwhelming odds, ultimately sacrificing their own lives in the process.

Yeah, I can see how it would be bad to like such a story...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Once again liberals are forced to confront an ideal of the warrior defending his homeland and his values. Granted this movie may be made up in a comic book style but the underlying history is that 300 brave Spartans bought time for the Greek city states to come together and eventually defeat the Persians. They did this at the cost of their lives. The idea of self sacrifice for "G/D and Country" (in this case gods and city states) is anathema to what lefties believe or would be willing to do. I know you guys would be buying prayer rugs and immediately converting to whatever belief system would be imposed just so you could live another 10 minutes. Wussies and appeasers are what you are. Its part of your hard wiring. Your sense of history and the lessons that should be learned by it fall on barren soil. A movie with a theme of courage and self sacrifice makes as much sense to you as a belief in the one true G/D. You're weak kneed and weak willed and the majority of you just ain't gonna change till you get mugged (figuratively speakin'). Maybe not even then.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is shameful, really. From the unverifiable Freudianism to misidentifying the place of origin of the Spartans' allies, this is a mess. Unless, of course, this is a grand exercise in missing the point. First off, the story of 300 has existed for about two and a half millenia; it is not a political allegory for today. The fact that today's anti-democratic theocracy called Iran is the successor state to the tyrannical, mystical empire of ancient Persia is an amusing historical accident, not a modern cautionary tale. Secondly, the film does not glorify violence per se, but in the service of law, order, freedom, and reason. For those of you who think that the war in Iraq (or a prospective war in Iran) are illegal, chaotic, autocratic, and illogical, 300 could be a proof-text. Lastly, the fact that you lament how the story of the Persians isn't told is simply untrue: the Persians are power-mad, and will resort to bribery, conquest, and slavery to glorify their god-king. Simple. There is no more story that needs be told and that story is amply displayed throughout the film. There are a variety of reasons to not like 300, many of which are valid, but these are the worst and simply most untrue of any you could choose. This is shoddy writing at best, and manipulative liberal whining at worst.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Disclaimer: I am *not* a right-wing troll. I am *not* a right-wing troll. I am *not* a right-wing troll.

I am so very sick and tired of projecting their own biases onto things that have absolutely nothing to do with their biases.

This movie is going to rock. I have been STOKED about ths movie since I saw the first commercials. My buddy and I are going to watch this today with our girlfriends. I assume his girlfriend is going for the washboard abs, whereas I know my girlfriend is going because she is Iranian and LOVED Sin City, so she wants to see Frank Miller's version of Thermopylae. My buddy and I, on the other hand, are going because we have been excited about this concept from the very beginning.

A large portion of my friends have already seen it, and loved it. From my pretentious artsy film student buddies who loved it for the cinematic achievement to my football buddies who loved it for the camraderie and violence; even my history student colleagues loved it, despite its glaring lack of historical accuracy. Even my Buddhist vegetarian buddy Jimmy saw it and LOVED it. We are all leftist Canadian university students.

My point? Grow up, people! Its just a movie.

When Zack Snyder was asked "Is George Bush Leonidas or Xerxes?" I groaned. How sad. Neither. OBVIOUSLY neither. He is not Xerxes, the Persian-god king who whipped the sea for its insolence after Salamis. And he is not Leonidas, who "fought for freedom against all odds." George is not in full combat armor leading his troops, he is a chickenhawk.

I would really like people to stop politicizing the apolitical. And please no more comments about how the Hitlerjugend would've loved this movie. Rather than saying ANYTHING relevant about 300, you're simply revealing your own twisted Weltanschauung.

That is all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just reading the review made me want to wound my cat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I predicted in advance that there would be negative reviews for this movie in the NY Times and Alternet...and by golly I was right!

I just watched 300 last night. I did think certain 'Hollywoodized' parts of the movie were really annoying. But, being half Greek, this movie stirred my blood...thoughts of glorious ancestors, etc. I think it was great; and I did catch and agree with some of the political messages in the film.

If I drew some 'bigger' message from 300, it was that America was in danger, because we were turning our backs on the historic virtues of our society. We are looking more and more like the Persian empire (with Bush playing a less flamboyant Xerxes) and less like the egalitarian, democratic Greeks. The Greeks (and particularly Spartans) were represented as people whose greatness stemmed from self-discipline, rationalism, good governance and civic virtue. The Persians represented barbaric sensualism, excess, mysticism, obedience to power, greed and individualism. In this way, it was a movie about western values vs corruption.

Today I have been walking a few centimeters taller remembering my forebears and their commitment to their ideals. I think it would be good for our society to recall these ideals...even if they were only presented in a bloody, Hollywood video game.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I realize this must be hard for many, but every single person on the Left is not a pacifist. I was raised Left, I have always been Left, and I'm also Asatru, follower of a Norse Reconstructionist religion. Basically, I follow a warrior-type religion., Yet I"m a Leftist. *waits for confusion and boos and catcalls*
300 is a movie. I happen to like action movies, movies like this. I have never killed another creature, and certainly no0t a cat. I love cats. Whether some jackass Rightwinger likes it also is no big deal. Last night, a large group of Heathens (Asatru) got together and went to see it. ALL of them are against the war in Iraq. ALL of them support the troops in Iraq, as to turn your back on an actual warrior who is fighting with as much honor as they can muster is the cowards way out. (Bush and his admin are NOT warriors. Wimps who torture are NOT warriors.) Yet this writer would once again open up the whole ":If you don't share my exact views, you are lesser then me and worthy of disdain" bit. When did WE become THEM?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm sorry, but that movie is absolutely not an allegory to the U.S. and Iran, with the U.S. being Sparta. All we have in common is a abstract ideal of "freedom."

Persia comes to conquer all of Greece. A corrupt Senator takes Persian gold and bribes the oracle to lie to the Spartan king. Because of this lie and the Senator's manipulation of the senate, if the king goes to war, he will not have the country's support. That is why his army is so small.

In contrast, Iran is not ravaging up South America with plans to burn and pillage the U.S. There's no basis in that movie to justify a pre-emptive move. The Queen's speech in the senate clarifies this point. Her speech and her quick killing of the corrupt senator is my favorite part of the film.

As to the mocking of the Athenians, they provoke the king's comment by mocking him first for having so small an army. He replies noting that although he didn't bring a huge army, his men are better fighters than the Athenians who are artists and tradesmen. The narrator gives them thier due, noting that they fight haphazardly (duh, because they aren't trained), but with thier hearts.

What's more is that the writer missed the interesting representation of gender in the film. I liked the queen for her power and awareness of other women who are not in her position to speak.

And as for Xerxes, he is shown to be a weirdo who thinks he is a god. The Spartans can't stand for that. I don't blame them. The refusal to submit, to die first, is something I can't idenitfy with, but it's supported by the logic of the film. And as for portrayal, a film's "bad buy" rarely gets his share of sympathy, but it's important to note tht whatever his reasons were, they seem to be because he thought he was a god and therefore was taking what was rightfully his--everything in the world. Who does that sound like? Think oil. What if Xerxes said all he wanted was Sparta's oil? Hmmm?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

300 is another film taken from the work of graphic novel auteur Frank Miller, following very much in the CGI tradition of last year's Miller-inspired Sin City.

Dammit Burgess, get your elementary facts straight!

Even an idiot like me can consult the IMDB anf find that Sin City was released April 1, 2005. That's 23 months ago, and is not even close to "last year".

I haven't even started critiquing the tone and whiny nonsense of the review, but the author's factual sloppiness shows his character.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

300 is another film taken from the work of graphic novel auteur Frank Miller, following very much in the CGI tradition of last year's Miller-inspired Sin City. Nothing in 300 is natural

Natural? Is the computer with which I communicate "natural"?

Is the life-saving cardiac device inside my chest "natural"?

I don't apologize for bending Nature to my Will to serve my values. The standard of value is human survival and happiness, primarily my own as the most important human to me.

News flash, "Naturalness" is NOT the standard of value.

Sounds like Burgess and others who fetishize the Natural have a guilty conscience about existing as a human being. There's always the woods for them if they love The Natural so damn much.

BTW, I don't kill cats for fun. On the contrary, I care for my 2 kitties Beuky and Inez here at my pad, and I get to play with cats all day as I make a decent living preserving the human-cat bond now that I'm a DVM.

My conscience is clear, so if you don't like my comment, before you make any Burgess-esque baseless accusations (of right-wingery or cat-killing) go blank yourself first.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

please stop putting this type of crap up and trying to sell it as journalism. the only people who take this b.s. seriously are the coulters and the limbaughs of the left. give it a rest already

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hmmmm... way to shame your readers...

listen.. to decry people who like the movie as 'a person who might kill kittens for fun' or 'possibly george bush' is obvious and sickening shaming. this sounds like more of a rant than a movie review... what is this article about? what is it even trying to do? making you feel guilty for liking a movie? telling people they are not smart enough to recognize a poliical parrallel? raving about the stupidity of the american masses?

seriously... this article sounds reminiscent of a macarthy era attack. basically the message is. 'if you like this movie then you can't be liberal' .... it is like saying that people who aren't vegetarians can't be part of peta. are you kidding me?

go project on someone else

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To be quite honest, I saw the movie last night. It was pretty lame. But what's funny, is that I went to see it with two male friends of mine who wanted to see it solely for the rippling abs of the men.

You really can't take entertainment so seriously.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr. Quayle, it's a movie.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Frank Miller style. I have read several of his graphic novels and comics and though I never read an interview with him I would be surprised to learn that he was NOT politically right wing. The movie is what you'd expect if you read any of his stuff. The story is historically inaccurate and describes a society that puts it's little children through violent, brutal warrior training and regards its women {even the queen} as "unworthy" to speak before men as "freedom loving"... There's that word again. The attitudes depicted would fit well into a film about Nazis. The gore of the battle scenes is presented in a most hypnotic manner, a ballet of fast and slow motion where limbs are lopped off like so much brush being cleared. It's a movie for the times, my friends... this is what some people out there hope we are. Wish we were...
As always, it's you that decides...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I read the graphic novel. Far from being depicted as "the ideal" the Spartans were depicted as pompous and arrogant.

In fact in the graphic novel it is these qualities that not only prod the Persians to attack Greece, but drive the hunchback to betray the Spartans to the Persians leading to their complete slaughter.

I would take your analogy a step further and say that like the Spartans the US thinks that we can hold the pass when outnumbered because of our technological superiority. Also like the Spartans we are only forced to hold the pass because of our own hubris. Like the Spartans and many others through history it will also be our downfall.

It is obvious that the author doesn't appreciate this genre; however as an avid fan a Miller's work I know that this author is only familiar with his work through film.

I can only assume that this new movie must depart wildly from the book or that the author of this critique is only familiar with it through previews.

I will wait untill I see the movie before making my own opinion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Sparta depicted by Polybius (c.203-122 BCE) was the first republic. It is amazing how the movie industry reduces all history to the simplicity of blood and violence. Though blood and violence played a role in bringing about new and more sophisticated ways of organizing people, there was a lot of thinking that went into proposed new governments. Here is an excerpt from Polyibius:

"Now, it is undoubtedly the case that most of those who profess to give us authoritative instruction on this subject distinguish three constitutions, which they designate kingship, aristocracy, democracy. But in my opinion the question might fairly be put to them, whether they name these as being the only ones, or as the best. In either case I think they are wrong. For it is plain that we must regard as the best constitution that which partakes of all these three elements. And this is no mere assertion, but has been proved by the example of Lycurgus, who was the first to construct a constitution—that of Sparta—on this principle. Nor can we admit that these are the only forms: for we have had before now examples of absolute and tyrannical forms of government, which, while differing as widely as possible from kingship, yet appear to have some points of resemblance to it; on which account all absolute rulers falsely assume and use, as far as they can, the title of king. Again there have been many instances of oligarchical governments having in appearance some analogy to aristocracies, which are, if I may say so, as different from them as it is possible to be. The same also holds good about democracy."

Polybious was discussing the virtue of the republic upon which Rome was founded and it similarities to Sparta. Polybius marveled at how Lycurgus imagined, without the need of trial and error, to suppose that the repubic was the best of all forms of government because it employed the best of all forms of government to provide checks and balances against tyrany. I wish movies would stress the virtues of these early repubics rather than the unfortunate bloodshed that sometimes occurred when irrational resistance was met.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I haven’t seen the movie and probably won’t but not because I have anything against the Spartans.

The Spartan system of governance was complex and not a simple dictatorship. It made use of two hereditary kings who could veto each other, as well as elected ephors who served in a capacity somewhat like the kings. Spartans also elected a Senate of elders over 60 who were involved in governance.

Pluses for the Spartans: aside from martial talents, they treated women with remarkable equality—especially for ancient Greece. Women had many equal rights to men, including education, physical training, and rights to divorce and ownership of property. (In contrast, rights for women in Athens were abysmal.)

Spartan negatives: they had an extensive and brutal system of slavery, which they inflicted on a huge number of helots; under their martial monomania, their cultural life shriveled to almost nothing. They were secretive, xenophobic, and left almost nothing of interest in art, philosophy, literature or science—especially when contrasted with their great rival city-state Athens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why is a movie about glorifying warriors who coming out now? Come to think of it, why did this trend even begin, starting with that tripe Gladiator and now with 300? Can anyone here say PROPAGANDA!?!

I thought Snyder's last flick (which was I believe that Dawn of the Dead remake) decent, if inferior to the original yet superior to Romero's latest zombie flick (Land of the Dead). I'll hold off on judging the film, but let me just say that film is a cultural artifact and worthy of scrutiny in the same way as any other medium.

2 cents, boy!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As a fan of Frank Miller's work in Sin City and the Dark Night Returns, I'm somewhat interested in seeing this movie. but every time I try to find out more by reading a movie review on the Internet I get some lame crap like this. Why aren't their any reviewers who don't wildly and incorrectly transpose their misguided political beliefs onto this film? The problem is not because of so called left or right wing biases, the problem is this author has a lameness bias, meaning this reviewer only appeals to people with a predisposition for lameness. I don't care if a reviewer has a political agenda, it just sucks when they have to be so baseless, idiotic, and lame in how they push their politics through movie reviews.

If anyone out there has seen a real review of '300', one that is more insightful then lame, please, give me a link.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Firstly the mea culpa--the soldiers who joined the Spartans at the pass were indeed Thespians, not Athenians, and without returning to sit through it again I will assume the movie got it right. The point was the same though--the potters and artists were not the equal of mighty Spartans. And perhaps more telling is the way the film ignored the crucial role played by Athens in the war against Persia.

I have sympathy with those posters who claim too many reviewers search for politics where there is none. It was not my intention to suggest that the movie is actively pro-Bush. I just noted that those folks would love it.

Still, can those of you who've seen it really deny that Frank Miller and pals are wearing their bloody hearts on their epaulets here? A cigar is sometimes just a cigar, as noted above. But 300 is no cigar--it's a four-alarm blaze. Don't use the word politics--just think about a worldview. To see 300 and deny that every frame screams its particular point of view is to be willfuly ignorant. This is as unsubtle a movie as you will see this year.

But as some have pointed out, it's just a movie. Very true. And this was just a review.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The attack on Greece by Xerxes was in revenge for the defeat of his Father, Darius, by a heavily outnumbered Athenian army at Marathon in 490 BC. Ten years later the 300 Spartans (uh, along with about 3,700 soldiers from other Greek city-states) did bravely delay the huge Persian army at a narrow pass at Thermopylae. However, the war was won when Xerxes huge fleet of over 1,000 ships was decisively defeated and almost totally destroyed by a Greek fleet of about 370 ships led by and largely composed of Athenian ships at the Battle of Salamis. Um, what was that about the weak, artsy Athenian potter, sculptor, poet soldiers?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...so I probably won't go see the movie. But:

wherever disturbed young people massacre hundreds in violent video games

reminds me of all those "Indians" and "robbers" I used to kill as a kid with my pop gun. Not to mention Lucas' Stormtroopers. According to that criteria, I must kill cats and vote for George Bush, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hijacking any work of art- no matter how dubious its merits may be- for political purposes is always a mistake. The average liberal would be irritated- and rightfully so- if some conservative commentator were to say that "anyone who likes (insert movie title here) is an atheistic, terrorist pedophile." Saying that anyone who wants to see "300" must like to kill cats, etc. is the same thing, just in reverse.

I personally don't plan on seeing this movie, as I found the last Frank Miller adaptation, "Sin City," too gratuitously violent (but, hey, I've played and enjoyed "Grand Theft Auto," so maybe people aren't so pigeonhole-able after all). But the possibility of a person wanting to see "300" for its admittedly amazing-looking visual effects, and not because they're looking for any kind of a political allegory, is entirely within the realm of possibility... I'm usually happy to consider myself basically "a liberal," but crap like this article just reminds me of the fact that no label, no group's membership, can save a person from being a dumb-ass.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sin city was a crap snuff film. Yeah, he "invigorated comics" for a while, but as his style moved through the medium is was lke a poison . After miller, comics became "adult" i.e. ultraviolent , nihilistic, and gory (see mcfarlane) and "juvenile" i.e. anything not soaked in righteous blood and carrying a CCA seal.
Odd, since his writing seems to speak to a certain type of pre-adolescent sociopathic mentality. All his stuff going back to the Dark Night is just fancied up revenge story telling. In the fight between Batman and Superman, Batman(the 'good guy') has become a crazed violent bloodthirsty vigilante on a suicide mission. I don't think Frank as a hidden right wing agenda, I think it's just that his immature and simplistic worldview happens to mirror that of the far right. Like, I don't think he voted for Bush, but he just might deck you if you say something bad about the war. In other words, an angry little boy in a man's body, not an idealogue.
Also, seen some interviews with him and he seems like a pompous , arrogant ass.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One of the questions being asked is whether George Bush is Leonidas or Xerxes?

He's neither. But if I had to pick a character, it would be the corruptible senator, whose main reason for going to war--or not--is profit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I believe Bush is an idiot.

I believe Cheney is a criminal.

I believe Ann Coulter is an idiot and a C%$T.

I don't particularly care for cats, but I certainly would not harm one.

... and I love love love 300. It is a masterpiece.

It is NOT a parallel to modern issues. It is a fanciful adaptation of an historical event.

You should not so easily paint all who would appreciate this movie with the brush of "right wing Bush lovers." This illustrates much of what is wrong with "right vs left" characterizations. I am as left as they come, but I do not
appreciate being told what I should like or not like by someone like yourself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And it was awesome. Just awesome.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is really taken quite literally from Frank Miller's graphic novel 300. It was put together in 1998, well before king George was a thorn in our sides. I must say the author is a complete idiot. The movie is based on the battle of Thermopylae. The battle was bloody beyond belief. The combat was in your face. Miller did a great job retelling the epic story simplistically while being faithful to the core story of the 300 Spartans. Snyder faithfully paid close attention to the details of the graphic novel. Many of the scenes in the movie are based on the Greek historian Herodotus's book the Histories. A Neocon and racist wet dream? No MR. fool just an artistic interpretation of a horrific battle fought at the Hot Gates. I felt the movie was incredibly beautiful and accurately (with artistic flair) portrayed the horrors of war. You Mr. Author makes me embarrassed to be part of the progressive community. You are as bad as any on the far-right, because you as well are boxed in and blinded by your ideology.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Simple and straight forward. The story was told through the art, with very little dialogue. Zack Miller(director) was faithful to the graphic novel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

O.K. we get it. You don't like Bush or Ann Coulter. You also don't like Right Wing types. Who cares? I don't like weak, limp-wristed liberal types either. They suck and are always saying (insert whiny voice here) "OOO George Bush is a war monger", and "Give peace a chance", wah, wah, wah. Hell, Ann Coulter could probably kick your ass weakling!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Okay, just when you think you've seen it all, you read AlterNet. (Alter is a great name btw, as in alternate reality)

How in the heck can you tie a movie about a famous battle to killing cats and a knock on persons different than the author's obvious political persuasion? I think we're taking the right-wing whacko war-mongering, "24" watching, "we love torture", "Go Jack Go!" false stereotype a bit too far.

These leaps of logic (or lack thereof really) coming from the left always amuse the snot outta me.

It's almost analogous to saying a certain false world phenonenon is a hardened fact because a computer model says so, even when humans cannot predict weather towards the end of the week.

Wait, what am I talking about, logic and reason was never these people's strength.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I was going to comment on the qualities I like about the movie: its reliance on the historical record provided by Herodotus, "Hollywoodized" as it is; its detailed description of the actual battle of Thermopylae; the use of clothing, armor, animals and other visuals to show the vast extent of the Persian empire at the point of its attempted expansion into Greece and Europe; the excesses, hubris and ultimate failure of empire.

I was going to say that if you are a real comic book fan, you need to approach Frank Miller in the context of the larger DC comic universe. Batman, The Dark Knight, is a hero consumed by the need for justice and revenge. He operates both inside and outside the law. The people he trusts the most in the world are his "family" (Alfred), his partner (Robin) and his best friend Superman. He is always for the underdog. He refuses to be constrained by laws that operate only for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful. He is a "dark force" feared by the darkness itself, a force who protects those who cannot protect themselves from the predation of the "wolves" in society. Batman, like Frank Miller's other anti-heroes, are wolves themselves. They do not hunt the weak. They hunt those wolves who hunt the weak.

I was going to say you could flip the "obvious" interpretation of the movie on its head. It would be just as easy to see the Persians as Imperial America with its coalition of the "willing" and the Greeks as those countries who defy America's lust for power, wealth and control. It's a whole different ballgame once you flip the picture.

I was going to say that this is obviously a military recruitment film, especially with its Marine Corp shouts and perfect six-packs. Even so, that doesn't change the fact that on the whole the movie is a statement on the futility of empire.

I was going to say all this and more. But then I saw one comment after another castigating the reviewer on his liberal bias, using the same talking points in one comment after another. It sunk in. I realized that the movie probably is being perceived as a political statement for the Right by the Right. Very weird considering that it was the Persians who got their butts totally kicked by the Greeks in a pan-Greek alliance consisting of Spartan soldiers, Thespians and Athenians (and we all know how LGBT, intellectually elitist and politically liberal those people were).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I forgot to mention, I really liked the movie.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And please stop trying to tie everything in the world that you dislike to the parties and people you dislike.

The movie is just a movie, it is intended to get you out of your small narrow, obsessed with politics, bush hating mind. And to offer a little distraction by placing you for a couple of hours into another era.

Obviously you spent the entire time looking for conspiracies and wasted a chance to enjoy yourself. Now you want to excrete your mental masturbation on the rest of us.

Here is my review of your review. I printed it out and lined my parrots cage with it and he did not take a crap all day.
He just kept looking down at it saying "that would be redundant".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Every article I've read about the movie "300" mentions its homoeroticism without mentioning the historic homoerotic background of the Sacred Band of Thebes.

"The reasoning behind the Sacred Band was that lovers would fight more fiercely and more cohesively at each other's sides than would strangers with no ardent bonds."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...or sublimely ignorant.

Did you even read the Wikipedia link you put in your comment?

The army of Thebes in the fourth century BCE was not the army of Sparta in the fifth century BCE.

Perhaps, if you had read your own link, you would have come across: The Sacred Band under Pelopidas fought the Spartans at Tegyra in 375 BC, vanquishing an army that was at least three times their number. It was also responsible for the victory of Leuctra in 371 BC, called by Pausanias the most decisive battle ever fought by Greeks against Greeks. Leuctra established Theban independence from Spartan rule, and laid the groundwork for the expansion of Theban power, though possibly also for Philip II's eventual victory.

By your logic, the current American army in Iraq is the same as the British army that fought in the Boer War. I guess all those Greeks just look alike to you, huh?

Nice try, but no dice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Initially, after seeing the movie and the generational cross section of the movie goers, I "felt"we was being indoctrinated by 300's right wing dialog. But what might have been seemingly the rilling up the almost 80% of high school seniors (mostly males), I feel the movie was marketed to them to embrace the glory of fighting for the "Idea" of freedom vs. slavery. But "if" that was the intention I think it missed it's mark. Fore as I listen to the after show comments the teens where not different than myself at that age. like, "ooo, wan't that cool when they loped the heads off", etc. The movie was created by a bunch of artistic technicians whom weave together the teir joy of creating something "cool"! As well as a director that tries to keep some continutiy so viewers see their creation with appreciation.

The over tones of script dialog weren't as important as the visual experiences any way. Not even the the story line. These movie goers have over-time aquired such short attention spans that the continutiy of the script seemed to just go in one ear and out the other, while they kept their visual cortex of the brain in a mesmerized state.

Then after reading so many defensive bloggers actually describe the movie, most all except for the political ax grinders positioning themselves, it became apparent that maybe some people only want to believe that there is an Machnivelian intention behind the the wash of the movie. But even if there is the audience, as a mass group, doesn't have the serious attention span to let it have any mental sticking power.

Movies come and go now faster than ever. So fast that for any movie to have any social influence it would have to be maditory that the society embrace the movie as required and repetative viewing daily (by law) to have any real affect in molding young minds.

Actually, my crit of the movie itself, I saw such great irony in it, if I was to relate the movie to todays political concerns. Fore Xerxes and the "Persians" seemed to represent the the United States in terms of the might of forces and weapons of mass destruction! Where as the Spartans were more like anyhandful of "Enemy Combatants" whom refuse to give in "till the death" Suicidal you might say.
So Ironically, isn't it curious how the impressions of a "movie' can flip sides or points of view? How about those Christ like red robes? Red is always used to keep you focused, like a "Stop" sign!

Oh, and keep talking about 300. You know what they say in marketing, "negative talk is just as profitable as postive talk".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is a political rant.

Ok, I realize that AlterNet is a political website. That's why I read it; I enjoy the articles and the lively discussion. But what makes most of the articles and discussions good is that they're honest about what they are. They stay focused on the topic at hand. And that's exactly what the author has failed to do here.

While reading the review, it was obvious that he didn't like the movie. That's fine. Not all reviews can be positive, and it's probably true that 300 has some pretty big holes in its backstory and runs a little thin on character development. (Nevermind that that's not the point of the move at all.) But when the author started discussing certain parallels...that's when I started to get a little upset. You see, not everything should be dragged into the political arena. Not only is it annoying to the people not on ultra-extreme fringe right OR left, but it distracts from more important discussions. You know, like energy conservation, or pollution control, or education reform. The things that are important, the things our elected officials are supposed to be worrying about.

This has turned into a bit of a rant in itself, so I'll try to sum up quickly:

This was a terrible review. Find something else to write about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Okay, I've been reading AlterNet for a while now, at least since before the '04 elections. Now, while I think most of the political articles in here are pretty good, this article on 300 is just wrong.

I don't know what the deal is with all these people searching for some deep political undertones to 300. There aren't any. Everyone keeps coming up to Gerard Butler, Zack Snyder and Frank Miller himself and asking if Leonidas is meant to be Bush, or if Xerxes is the allegory to George Dubya. And they keep trying to explain that this story is not an allegory. There is not supposed to be any East vs. West throwdown as we would imagine it. This is not the USA vs. Iran. This is Greece and Persia, two empires that faded long, long ago. 300 is a fantastical depiction of the Battle of Thermopylae. It isn't supposed to be a faithful, realistic analysis of the battle. It's a modern way of telling an ancient story.

The idea behind both the film and the novel was to fill people with the sense of wonder and amazement that the ancients felt long before us, when they were first told of the sacrifice of Leonidas and the men (probably more than 300, though) who followed him. That's all. Realism takes a back seat to over-the-top exaggeration, just like any good story handed down through the ages.

Everybody is so hung up on these movies that are so overtly political (I'm looking at you, V For Vendetta), that we forget that maybe we can tell a story without complaining about the modern political scene. Not that 300 is God's gift to Hollywood, though. It's man porn, plain and simple. Swords, Blood, and maybe a hot chick or two. Is it deep, layered and thought-provoking? Nah. It is fun to watch, even if it's only once? Sure. I had fun. But is it political? No. So, let's get over ourselves just this once and go back to actually escaping the real world at the movies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As I have read the graphic novel I must disagree with what the author of this opinion article says. I kind of associated the 300 with the patriots who fought Britian to keep our country free. Many of them sacrificed everything for their beliefs and should be respected for it. One of the trailers even stated that this battle, "Was the first battle for freedom."

My connections stemmed from the facts given in the story that the Persians were an overwhelming force. Just as the British were against our forefathers. The Spartians used cunning tactics to defeat as many of their enemies as possible, just as our forefathers did. Not once did I make a connection to what the author of this article is saying.

In all honesty I'm putting my own personal spin on what I read and gathered from the story. That is sort of my point. The author is gathering his assumptions based on his own opinions, his own point of view, and his rapid association with the Bush administration. I can see what he's saying but I don't buy it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

$70 million!!

Gee, that's a lot of right-wing moviegoers, no?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe the persians represent the Occupation forces, and the spartans represent the Iraqis. After all It is the Persians that are the invading force. Additionally The USA and England are suposed to be the the world's strongest and best equiped military, and we're getting our ass kicked by a small group of insurgents.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Looks like everyone is gonna be doing it again by the sounds of it, thank you Jesus! And I haven't gotten the chance to see the movie yet...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

this is definitely not a political movie. This is the hisotrical representation of ancient frat boys. Perhaps as a male columnist, you're trying to give credit where no credit is due. The idea that this movie had more thought and political parallels involved is riddiculous. You know when you see little boys making the sound of an explosion over and over? Fast forward a few years and this is their movie....and their thought processes haven't changed much.
p.s. sorry to be a little sexist here.
p.p.s. i really liked the movie for that inner little boy in me and all of us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Frank Miller and 300's Assault on the Gay Past

"This is an action-adventure comic and movie aimed at young straight men, meant to pile up book sales and box-office cash by piling up dead bodies as graphically and artistically as possible. That is an audience not likely to shell out $9 to see even a mere implication of same-sex love. The real issue is that Miller (and apparently Hollywood, in adapting his work) did include homosexuality, but negatively. If neither the effeminacy of Xerxes nor the insult were included, or if by some miracle they were balanced out with the other half of the historical equation, gay viewers would have less reason to feel insulted by yet again more historical inaccuracies."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Leftards are threatened by 300 because it shows how lost causes aren't necessarily bad causes.

They have sold Iraq as a lost cause, and therefore a bad war. Just like Vietnam=bad because we lost, Korean War=good because we won. Both wars were otherwise very similar, as they involved communist invasions from the north against a non-communist south. But you woulnd't know that if you listen to the Leftard narrative.

The movie 300 shows that lost causes are not bad causes, and that a cause is no less worthy because you lost (not that I accept their premise that we lost). Trust me on this, folks. It's as simple as that. That's what's got the Leftards in a tizzy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

God forbid someone have a passion for comic books, or art. You make it seem as if anyone whom likes this movie must agree with Bush's ideas of the Iraq war. This proves that you're ideas are about as hefty as a fart in the wind. The fact that this comic was based on a true story depicts history in a acoustic and beautiful form of art doesn't protest the ideas that Bush's ideals are correct. In fact, it is the exact opposite. I viewed the 300 soldiers as the enemies against Bush's policies. The many outspoken against a vast majority, fighting for what they believe in. The 300 represent the media, the truth seekers. They will gladly fight for what they believe in. In the movie they are fighting for a free Sparta, against enslavement.

I think you are trying to run a parallel with something outrageous. You are grasping for a story that isn’t there. Do you even know the true history behind the movie?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHY IS THERE SO MUCH VENOM IS THIS THREAD?!

Haven't seen "300" yet, though I probably will at some point. I found this "review" very interesting, not so much as a review of this particular film, but as an insight into how art is a mirror of the society that creates/appreciates it. And I agree with those who appreciate the author's perspective --- whether I will end up agreeing with it or not.

I'm reminded of something that happened among my circle of friends 20 years ago, over a much more light-hearted movie, "City Slickers". Several of us thought it was delightful, and were laughing over it when one of our group piped up and said it was disgraceful. I was so taken aback that I still remember exactly what she said, "Well, first they got rid of the blacks, then they got rid of the Jews and the woman, THEN the 'real men' brought the cattle home!" I was amazed, mostly because she had a point --- one that I would never have seen until she pointed it out. The other friend (a woman, Jewish) who had first recommended the show to us as a light-hearted delight, was very defensive and a little indignant at the criticism. To me, it seemed like someone just re-adjusted the focus, from the foreground to the background. And, yes, it was also clear (no pun intended) that the person, who saw so much questionable social commentary in a fairly silly comedy movie, was projecting all over the place. But it was ridiculous for there to be an argument over what the picture portrayed; obviously, it portrayed whatever the viewer focused on.

The simple truth is that ALL OF US project all over the place all the time! So, when we talk about art (including low forms of art, like movies inspired by comic books), we're really talking about ourselves, about what we think and feel. So what?

If we can't have a civil conversation, what hope is there for a civil society?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

(Leonides voce)
HOW DAAAARE YOU CRITICIZE MY FAV MOVIE!
(/Leonides voce)

HaHa, fanboys can lap it up in the dark of a theatre, but can't take criticism in broad daylight!

Unlike their '300' cartoon heroes, cowardly fanboys ONLY "fight in the shade"!

It is quite entertaining to watch their "stream" of anguished replies. Oh the agony! And I haven't even washed my soiled shorts yet!

Paranoia about the film producers intent is not required. One only needs to respond to what ones' own senses record from the screen:

- substantive plot was almost nonexistent - this is based on historical material, but no REAL historical context is given;

- on "our" side (the Spartans or Greeks), everybody not a Spartan warror - Athenians, workers, intellectuals (i.e., priests and philosophers) is basically a diseased f$%%^t. Leonoides contemptously refers to Athenians as those "philosophers and 'boy-lovers';

- this is ironic as the scantily clad '300' themselves are a nonstop beefcake burlesque. A set of sixpack abs is an absolute requirement to be a Spartan warrior! No wonder the male couple next to me came to see it! The reviewer hit the nail on the head on the homoeroticism! Surely fanboys enjoyed this special feature of the flic. Alas, too many fanboys had the selfish bad taste to actually bring their girlfriends along to see this! I guess it is by way of saying, "Hey I'M not gay!" HaHa;

- The rather transgender "female" role of Leonides' wife was gratuitous BS. Acting was bad. It could have been dropped altogether, except that would have completely "dropped the drawers" on the '300', making them look totally homo;

- the "other" side was a faceless collection of "Asians". Xerxes, despite his larger than life stature and Darth Vader-esque voice, was rather a scantily-clad, multiply pierced, effeminate figure - again as counter-cover for the otherwise obvious homo-eroticism of the '300';

- any historical analogy with the present is completely ass-backwards: Xerxes is the imperialist invader of ancient Greece. The US is the imperialist invader of the Middle East;

One could go on and on, but I like this part:

Enjoy, homosexual fanboys!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I came out of this movie feeling "meh," and grossly upset by the *addition* of all the "liberty" and "freedom" themes that were added to the movie from the comic story.

Silly me, I should have realized that clearly these elements were every bit "comic book" and "mastabatory adolescent experience" as all comics are. Yes, you are right.
Honestly, 300 isn't a particularly good comic, it was clearly someone who read too much Herodotus and not enough modern historical analysis or other contemporary accounts.

The story of the 300 is a beautiful story, and it has a clash of civilizations element to it, you can't take it away if you want to talk about the 300 (which is from The Histories as I'm sure you already knew).

If you want to critique a movie, go ahead. I encourage it.
If you want to cast aspersions without knowing anything about an area, I discourage it. You sound like a moron.
Next time, before you bash a comic for being childish, go and read it. Go and read the Watchmen, go and read Transmetropolitan, hell, go and read the 300.
Then tell me about mastabatory adolescent experiences with no grasp of socio-political events.

If you want to bash a movie, know what it's basis is. 300 is based on Herodotus, the movie is based on 300, therefore the movie != history. It's a story crafted as a means of informing greeks what it meant to be a "Greek," to create the first sense of national identity (not something I'm a huge fan of).

Look, read, learn, then critique.
Your blindly cast aspersions are presently as convincing, and knowledgeable, as Fox News. Congratulations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So many angry little Republicans! GRRR! (lol)
To continue in the spirit of your post, I will use terminolgy inspired by you. "Rightards" are threatened by anything in 300 that does'nt support thier undeserved heroic self image. Face facts. You don't need a party to be a hero. Supporting war for anything, other than a last resort means you need to evolve some more, and stop your knuckle dragging and chest thumping, and turn off the fake wrestling you like to watch to salivate over glimpses of the muscley guys .
Oh Yeah! you guy's as a rule don't believe in that!
Sorry. My mistake.Despite the fact we live in a time where conflicts take place, we are suppose to exhaust all other avenues first, Captain Tetosterone! It's not supposed to be a vehicle for an agenda pressed on us by a man who would be our "King", if he had any say in the matter! And it certainly hasn't stopped him from trying to be. When it comes to supporting a really stupid war in a country we don't belong, or the fact your favorite liars, faking christian morality turned out to be the thieves they appeared to be to the rest of us doesn't mean we're stupid or your right, OR... for the MILLIONTH TIME, that we don't support our troops!
You can't change historiclly factual information to fit your tiny, violent fake American views, or change an opinion about a culture to excuse your biased opinions. The Spartans were protecting thier home from invaders, intent on wiping them out. Destroying the U.S. may be a terrorists pipe dream, but it's not going to happen, even though we currently have a moron in charge who likes to whack hornets nests at home AND abroad. We are stronger than they like us to believe, and the American PEOPLE can handle more than our President likes to know.They were Greeks, and that entailed some behaviors you'd prefer to remain ignorant of, despite them being part of why they were so unique, and what makes the parts of the story you didn't see in the film so interesting. Not to mention the comparative parallels of our time and thiers being really interesting when you think of how upset discounting this film has made so many "rightards", and the strange homosexual denial "rightards" have, despite an obviously strong homosexual presence within thier own ranks. That really caused some colons to spasm. Thats what's got leftards like myself thinking you guys don't really like Bush.
You really like dick. And I don't mean Cheney.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Most of these movies with big advertising budgets end up sucking big time! I probably won't see it until it comes out on dvd. And I will put my cats in the other room!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The statement is totally ridiculous. You should not equate a person enjoying a rip roaring action adventure epic with being a cruel and inhumane person. I have enjoyed the written and visual versions of something like 300 for a good deal of my life. I have never been in a fight, never been cruel to animals, and I have literally given the coat off of my back to someone that was in need. My 14 year old, who I took to this movie (we were both anxious to see it) has never beeen in a fight, and is a very kind person as well.

That being said, it is likely that people that have no interest and possible enjoyment from an entertainment artifact like 300, will say something off the mark.

Kind regards.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not. What would the Spartans have made of the likes of Bush and Cheney? Avoided combat? Not worthy of the title - SPARTAN!

And, we shouldn't necessarily judge the Spartans by todays political standards.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Im so sorry you had to read my post.
Being so smart, it must have been sooo tortuous going through my, " rife with grammatical and spelling errors" commentary. Maybe you should've stopped reading, big guy. Whats so wrong with being Gay, anyway? Some of the best friends I've made in my life are Gay, and I wrote this post after speaking with a Gay friend about my frustration over this very topic. He thought it was a funny post, and I trust his reaction more than yours. Just becaue you don't agree with me on the sad amount of complete BS flying through this particular response TO A MOVIE, and the ignorant lionizing by Right Wing morons of a comic book-turned-propaganda flick as a historical account of a fanatical group of Greek soldiers, and you don't like what I had to say, telling me "shut the fuck up" comes across as a whiny, LESS intelligent or authoritative response than you intended it to be. Censor your own posts, Professor! And if your going to read posts just to make bitter assumptions, go sign up for some Anger Management courses while your at it. Your heading for an aneurism.
Oh Yeah. Thanks for reading my post.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

300 sucks persian socks. I won't see another Frank Miller film I don't care if it isn't CGI, drama, or nominated for acadamy awards. If conservatives like this movie then they are log cabin republicans. Maybe some of the script was ok and maybe the music was on but the rest of it just was nonsense. History Channel does a better job with this story telling.

10 minutes into the movie where they say that people gave up their children to learn to fight should make everyone just get up and walk out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hey...come check out www.electorials.com

Check out our brand new blogs and our great and organized political message boards.

Bryan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Iranians view the Achaemenid empire as a particularly noble page in their history and cannot understand why it has been singled out for such shoddy cinematic treatment, as the populace here perceives it, with the Persians in rags and its Great King practically naked. The Achaemenid kings, who built their majestic capital at Persepolis, were exceptionally munificent for their time. They wrote the world's earliest recorded human rights declaration, and were opposed to slavery. Cuneiform plates show that Persepolis was built by paid staff rather than slaves And any Iranian child who has visited Persepolis can tell you that its preserved reliefs depict court dress of velvet robes, and that if anyone was wearing rags around 500 B.C., it wasn't the Persians." - 300 Versus 70 Million Iranians

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Doesn’t this strike you as the left wing version of the right wing panic over the last Star Wars flick?
Remember when Natalie Portman’s character gave a speech about freedom dying with applause, and all the right wing nut cake pundits said the whole thing was an obvious jab at Dubya, with George himself as the dark lord, and an obsequious senate stumbling all over itself to satisfy his power lust, a prime example of "liberal media bias," blah, blah, blah?
Never mind that George Lucas wrote those lines 35 years ago, and if they applied to anyone, it was Nixon.
This review proves that ideologues are all alike—their paranoia taints everything they see; couple it with the usual liberal hand wringing over cinematic violence and you have a review so gratingly annoying and irrelevant it barely merits comment, except as an example to those who actually take reviewers seriously.
I broke with them 20 years ago, after reading a glowing review of “Terms of Endearment,” about which a friend of mine delivered the definitive judgment when he stated the last time he had been that grossly manipulated was by a hooker in Saigon.
Except in the loosest, most abstract view, there is nothing applicable to the real world here; it’s not a symbol for failed foreign policy, nor a metaphor for clashing civilizations. If anything, it makes one point, something that one can discern from any history text, that a small, well disciplined, dedicated force with a workable strategy can defeat an enemy that is vastly stronger.
(My cat hates this review and has threatened to do violence to the author.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hows about the denial factor in replies from "Rightards"?
Cute terminology. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!
Did you copywrite "Leftards" yet?
No one, so far has had a problem with beautiful, naked humans, as far as I've read.
Some "secret homos" aren't so secret, except to themselves, and sometimes angry denial is a first step towards personal discovery, and it doesn't mean you might be gay, for goodness sakes! And if it does, power to you!
There's precedence for this kind of behavior from lab studies to the historical records of many cultures, including the Greeks, and our own.
The pursuance of violent fantasies with homoerotic overtones experienced by a good portion of the hetero male population while conveniently removing the hisorical facts, for one. That is a pretty fucked up trend that belies some issues experienced by previous cultures, but theres always reasons and precedence for everything. Alienation, isolation, denial, loneliness and fear... amongst others.
Is it any wonder American culture, having been put through the wringer over the past couple of decades, has issues? Especially the men. Things are changing for us,
(thank whatever diety you currently worship!) and those who don't like it, cling to old models, and look backwards in time to antiquated solutions, (despite the possible suicidal ramifications. Look up "Lemmings" in your encyclopedia.) romanticizing the outcomes to justify thier actions and bypass proper decision making skills.
While your enjoying your fiction based on fact, it's only wise to question where the missing peices went and why they were left out. If Frank Miller had left in the undesirable "Greek" facts, the comic and pursuant film would probably have been a lot better, but he would have lost most of his target demographic.
Heterosexual males ages 16 through 35.
Yeah, a flick like this can be fun to get your ya ya's out on, but getting mad when cold water gets thrown on your vicariously experienced berserker rage reveals denial about a lot more than just sexual orientation. Polarizing into a political preference debate reveals even more. Thats about as intellectually dishonest as you can get. Enjoy your power fantasies, but remember what your watching, Fanboy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just a piece of advice so that your article gets taken seriously... Refrain from using ad hominem attacks. I didn't read your entire article and you know why? Because the moment you said something about someone watching the movie killing cats for fun, my brain killed itself. And also, the title: ready made for right-wing crowds. So according to this title, you made the assumption that a person who likes 300 is automatically a bad person and gets sent to the assumed dunce chair that is the category of "right-wing", because being right-wing is the epitomy of all evil. And you assumed that anyone who likes 300 is automatically a violent person themselves. As for the rest of the article, maybe you do say some valid things (I don't know because I haven't read them). But by reading the title and the first couple of sentences, you've turned me and probably a bunch of other people off from reading the rest of your article because unfortunately, I make assumptions too and the assumption in this case is that you use these kinds of cheap attacks throughout the entire article. And you know what the sad thing is? I have this feeling that because of this post, people are automatically gonna assume that I'm a right-wing bigot. Then again, maybe I am...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't care what it's about. It's a movie.
It can be claimed to be completely factual.

It's still a movie.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good lord if your gonna bash a movie at least get your facts straight, they NEVER even mention the Athenians in the movie, they were making fun of the Arcadians who were poets and such. As for Athens they were the FIRST to defeat the persians, and then did it again with a large naval battle after Thermopylae. They sent the persians packing
I guess the reviewer was an arcadian.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I was watching a documentary a few months back and this movie reeks of a fable that the host was describing at some site he was at. The place was a archaeology(Tourist) spot and the host was describing a story about a small garrison of soldiers who withstood a massive army that besieged this spot. The garrison was eventually overrun but not before they had held out for a spell. The location was a stone like fortress that I think was only accessible by ladder. I believe this event was unfolded somewhere in Israel or Palestine. Does anyone recall seeing this documentary by chance?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is hard to believe that anyone could compress that much f**cked up Greek history into less than two hours. Ahmadinejad protested the depiction of Persians in this film; but the Greeks are the ones who should be outraged--or will it be only classicists/ancient history majors like me? The five ephors were annually elected judges comparable to the Roman tribunes. They were not deformed old lechers and didn't maintain harems of nekkid ladies. Leonidas was one of the two chief priests of Zeus (Lakedaemonia and Ouranos)--and not one to flout the gods. The religious law was that the Spartan army could not leave Sparta during the Carneia, so Leonidas took 3/5 of a mora, not the entire army. The memorial posted at Thermopylae states accurately that the 300 lay there "in obedience to her laws," not in violation of them. Spartan women had much greater freedom than other Greek women in 5th century BC Greece, but not of the variety depicted in the film. The film got only 3 things right: 1) Ephialtes was the name of the betrayer; 2) the Spartan response to the demand that they lay down their arms was "Come and get them (Molon labe)"; 3) they all died but one. The Spartans did not go out of the narrows until the very end, after Ephialtes had led the Persians in behind them. Hoplites fought in phalanx. And, despite all the comments about blood and gore, it wasn't realistically bloody enough--chopped off heads that don't drip? Come on! Kurosawa did a better job without special effects technology in Ran, so it wasn't even a good comic book adventure. Bummer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The staggering popularity of the movie is perhaps a worthier subject of debate than the movie itself. I suspect the film is so popular because it assuages the unspoken pyschological crisis that plagues much of the country right now. '300' is about achieving glory and victory in war no matter how impossible it seems, and no matter how much the facts rail against it. In short, it is a fantasy that many Americans are desperately yearning to engage in at this historical moment, as one very real fact has become unavoidably clear: the war in Iraq has been totally, and unconditionally lost. The denial is so thick in this country, you would need a battle axe to cut through it. The myth of american military supremacy has been totally eviscerated in Iraq, torn to pieces by a smaller, underequipped, yet strategically superior military force. (Which of course, makes the insurgents more like the greeks than the US Army). However, unable to grapple with the reality of having been defeated, (and by doing so re-structure our foreign policy based upon a strategic asessment of this fact) we instead, escape into our fantasies. An ostrich may bury it's head in the sand, but US consumers, it seems, simply go to the movies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

not like anyone cares for historical accuracy, but, according to wikipedia the pass at thermopylae was defended by 300 spartans, 700 thespians (athenian) and 6,000 other greek allies. Does that mean that this movie is a bunch of b.s.? maybe... I haven't seen it yet but I'm sure its fun to watch though.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've been reading a lot of comments where people are defending this movie because Zack Snyder was faithful to Frank Miller's comic. That simply isn't true. If you actually read the comic, there are quite a few important changes that were made.

Removed:
In the comic, when the persian messenger arrives at sparta, he is ridiculed by the guards without provocation. In the movie, the messenger rides up looking very menacing, and pulls out a string of human skulls. This is NOT in the comic.

The whole stelios/stumblios theme was removed from the movie. This is the spartan that tends to trip over his own feet a lot in battle.

When the persians are riding up to the "wall of bodies," in the comic they comment on how "it's true what they say...these spartans, they are demons!" There is no dialogue in this scene in the movie.

In the comic, ephialtes throws himself off a cliff after being rejected by leonidas. He curses "Gods! I still breathe! I still live! Gods, you are cruel!", "Damn you father! Damn you mother! Damn you all to hell!", "Spartans! The boldest of men, the finest warriors in all the world, damn you all!" It's after this that he betrays the spartans to the persians. This is not in the movie.

Added:
Every single scene in sparta after leonidas leaves is NOT in the comic. Neither the corrupt councilmember story, or the "rape" of leonidas wife. For that matter, the sex scene with leonidas and his wife before he leaves isn't in the comic either .

The immortals being "mutant persians" under their masks, the giant with swords for arms, these are also not in the comic.

The "ransacked village" where the persians have decorated a tree with bodies, this is also not in the comic.

And, while the scene where the spartans lie riddled with arrows IS in the comic, I think they went way out of their way to portray leonidas as a crucified jesus figure in this scene in the movie. I didn't get that at all from the comic.

--

The comic is really no masterpiece anyway, but at least there was some subtlety. It also left the question open, who are the bad guys here? Maybe they all are? In the movie, the spartans are heros, champions, brave patriots, and the persians are just soulless invaders and barbarians. It's a lot less clear cut in the comic.

I really have been very surprised that nobody has brought up these points either here, or in other forums I've seen discussing the movie.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Okay here I am. I am a 32 year old man.
An Ann Coulter loving super right-wing Reaganite who loved 300.
I have read almost all of the responses to the author and I was torn about writing this. The author is obviously a lefty as are most internet "blog & comment" type folks. His observations & the observations of those, from Irans prez & his art minister, to the lefty critics like the one above and all the dorks cited on wikipedia who are convinced this film is a propaganda attack, are correct.
Now, it was not meant to be, I know that.
I hated all the comic book movies, so I wasn't going to see this one.
It does not mean there is something wrong with you that you like the 12-16 year old caliber of entertainment.
But this one I was especially going to avoid because I am obsessed with the study of history.
However, because IRAN attacked it and some very feminized male critics hated it, along with a Canadian history prof, I decided I had to go see it.
After seeing it, a loud, brash, stylized, fantasy interpretation, my feet did not touch the ground when I left.
I called a friend who is a Gulf War vet & I told him I could not have made a better propaganda film if I tried.
I went to Chick-fil-a to grab a sammich and the teenage GIRLS there were jabbering about how good it was.

I loved this film because it was unbending and uncompromising.
I loved that Ancient Iran (Persia) was made to look like monsters.
I loved that the West refused to cave in, even in the face of defeat.(Remeber, even in this movie, they lost that battle, but refused to retreat)
I loved the scence showing the anti-war leaders being self interested and self-aggrandizing, because they always are.
I loved this film for the seed it is for future young soldiers.
I especially loved that Amedina-Jihad has been shooting his mouth off for 4 months about restoring the Persian Empire and BAM! Here is a movie custom made for him.
And most of all, just like Fight Club, the Masculinaphobes are out in force attacking it. Mainly because it makes them look looke the cu*ts that they are.
Their fathers failed them.
The attraction to 300, is that the nation of Sparta overcame its anti-war leaders with the will to fight and win.
Without the peoples support, no military will ever win a war.
Our media, entertainment, schools and colleges worked to win WW2.
Now they work to abandon Iraq.
We are already at war with Iran.
They paid to give us bad intel(Challbi)
They give guerillas weapons.
They threaten our allies.
This means they are fighting us now.
Fat guys in ties declaring it doesn't mean shit.
Get on board for your nation to win in the Mid-East, Asia & Africa, or work for it to lose.
Those are the choices.
I noticed someone posted that people are caught up in the fantasy of America winning in Iraq.
The fantasy my friends, is that Americans will have the will to win.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FIRST of all, propaganda is what you make of it...SOME idiots claim that FOXNEWS is genuine, fair an unbiased reporting....and other idiots claim the same for CNN. I would hope that the majority of us would know better. Same thing goes for the movie 300--people can read into it whatever they so choose. I watched it and loved it...and I'm Persian!! Why did I love it? Because I took it at face value and didn't try to attach a bunch of political metaphorical bullsh*t to it. At face value, it is a BEAUTIFUL film. Fake scenery or not, every frame was breathtaking--even when guys were getting impaled left and right. Also, I loved that for once, it was the MEN who were being objectified. The men actually had on less clothing than the women and they all had awesome chiseled bodies...I know this may be a bit intimidating for the average movie critic NERD, but now you guys know how women feel when we are forced to watch movie after movie of gorgeous, perfect-figured women prancing around with barely anything on while the men are fully clothed. THIRD, the central female role was actually a strong one, for once. She wasn't some whimpering loser or deceitful Jezzebel, as we are accustomed to seeing women portrayed in most films of this genre. Finally, I don't give a damn if they didn't portray the Persians in a positive light or if they didn't show their story. This film was about the SPARTANS, not the PERSIANS. The Persians were known to have come from a decadent society and although that was obviously exaggerated in the film with all the jewelry and makeup, it was done in a way that only enhanced the Persian mystique of that era. I did not feel offended in any way because like someone else mentioned, Persia no longer exists. That empire fell a thousand or so years ago and the Iran that exists today is a far cry from the incredibly far-reaching empire that the director attempted to represent in the film.

In conclusion, the proud sheeple of the right and left can argue about the film's hidden connotations until the world ends, but the rest of us normal, non-retarded people, will just be waiting for the next awesome epic by Zack Snyder to come out!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

300's BEST message is this:

That if Amerikan Nazis identify with Sparta, then the solution to the "War" "Against" "Terrorism" is simple: Merely take your 300 most buff insane warriors, arm them with swords and shields, send the rest that are dragging on them home, and leave your 300 to win the war.

How simple could it be? Surely, if Sparta could win their war with 300, then we should immediately draw down our troops to that magic number, and just watch us win!

And after we've "secured" Iraq, ON TO IRAN!! SYRIA! LEBANON!!

And then, much to their surprise and dismay, SAUDI ARABIA!

And last but not least, ISRAEL!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I just finished enduring "300". I didn't pay a penny to see it either, just a part of my own personal financial battle against everyone who had anything at all to do with this "movie".

I'm going to begin writing about this from an American perspective, since this is a quintessentially American film, so hopefully people from the rest of the world will understand.

If you took an American, ANY American of sane mind from 1960, put them into a time machine taking them into the future, sat them down in a theater and made them (and you would absolutely have to MAKE THEM) sit through its entirety, that person would BEG you to take them back to 1960, because they would think that the future they had been taken to had become absolute hell. Not because anything in the film was a depiction of the future world they were transported to; because of gladiator and Biblical epics they would easily recognize that this film was supposed to have taken place in the distant past.

Why they would have supposed that the future had become hell itself, would have derived from the conclusions they would have drawn from the film itself ABOUT WHAT KIND OF CULTURE could have dedicated such technology, such talent, such skill, such obvious wealth, into the service of turning the worship and depiction of violence into hetero and homo erotic pornography. This they wouldn't have understood, but if they weren't driven insane by the film they would certainly have been terrified beyond belief at the mere idea of seeing even a small part of the world that could have created it.

They would have realized that the world outside those cinema doors was one where it was as if Jesus Christ or Gandhi had never breathed. Where no one honestly or truthfully wanted peace, only duplicitous rapists who were selling out their country, their freedom, their people's liberty, their very SURVIVAL, for money. For that was certainly the world created in this "movie".

That said and done, I'd like to address the message of the film (and be quite assured there IS a message):

"Martyrdom THROUGH VIOLENCE for ones' country is the highest state and highest achievement a real man can reach."

That's it. That's the message. It could just have easily been indoctrinating young Muslims instead of American boys raised on the violence of video "games". In fact, I suggest the entire film would enjoy quite an enormous success throughout the Muslim world by dubbing it into Farsi and other Islamic languages, photoshopping the actors of the films to reverse their skin color and obvious ethnic origins, change the thrust of the film from wanting to preserve Spartan liberty and freedom and their families to worship of Allah and freedom and preserving their families and the message would be EXACTLY the same.

America, this is a film FULLY backed by the US government to turn your kids into suicide killers for the Armed Forces. Make no mistake about that.

And not a damn thing more. There is no truth in this movie, but plenty of incredible beauty twisted from the real ugliness of mans' violence to his fellow man, which is the greatest lie of all the great lies that his movie espouses. The entire movie itself is not a comic book; it is a lie from start to finish and a wonderful recruiting aid; I can see enlistments already going up. There is no better way to entice a young man to kill than giving him an erection from heroism and hero-worship.

There is no beauty in murder, there is no glory in battle, and there is no truth in the useless sacrifice of war. ALL WAR. ANY WAR THAT EVER WAS OR EVER WILL BE.

Here is your truth, America, and all of Mankind:

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind; a life for a life LEAVES NO ONE ALIVE ON EARTH.

(Continued on next post)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who by now doesn't know that the fallen ones thrown down here, throwing their collective tantrum in as many stolen bodies as they may inhabit, are behind the onslaught of movies of this type? Most of them are nothing less than thinly veneered recruitments for antiChrists....the symbology and language designed to dazzle and flatter all the newbies to their devlish cause.

That cause being to recreate the ancient 'Beast' the Roman empire and cause every one living to kneel and take it's mark.

All the while, making desperate appeal as underogs, fighing a ruthless dicator and his Right hand Man.

Come, join with us, fight for 'freedom'! The freedom to pervert and subvert anything righteous and true.

The makers of these kinds of 'entertainments'....will have their day....or more accurately, their 'hour of power'. But even now this short tantrum, claiming so many of the truly weak ones, (weak in mind, spirt and will by giving in to the carnal) is being shortened.


Yahweh, in the name of Yahshua, Jesus Christ,


Swiftly bring to ruin those ruining the earth. And dip down but a finger of your left hand in retribution to those associated with the aforementioned film and the host of other Hyenic antiChrist smears upon the minds of the restless and gullible.

Mark of the beast

Solomon's Seal

antiChrist as a Solomon figure

666 talents of gold

TalmudTruth

Revealing Photos

God bless all who study His truths

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

xbj and netfamrob , you two are hilarious! Thank you for the laughter and the good times, That is a great comedy routine.
I love the way you pretend to know everything and the way you act all pompous and declare this movie a blasphemy! Good stuff!

That part about how the government is totally backing the film and how the filmmakers are agents of the antiChrist... brilliant!
Can you believe that their are ACTUALLY people who think and talk like that?
People so out of touch with reality that they have to sit on their pedestals and preach about how ungodly and satanic the masses are for liking a comic book movie...!
I was waiting for the part where you start speaking in tongues and babble about how we should burn any art or literature that you think is 'bad'. Art is the enemy! lol
Anyways, great ironic portrayal of pompous psychotic holyroller fanatics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I loved the movie. History is good even if it is one sided and some left out. I just wish we had that 300 to get our own country back from the dark powers that have taken over within.
I actually see it as hope, the 300 represented American's and the Persians represented the government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thouest hath spoken such truths that I doth feel the ominous shadow of God's almighty fist chill my sinful flesh as it threatens to crush my very soul! Hell is too good for the likes of sinners like me! You, oh great and all knowing xbj, you are the eyes and voice of The Lord and I kneel before your omnipotent judgment!

Honestly though, zealots like you are as much a problem as the corporate scumbags who have highjacked the government. The reason our world is so violent and screwed up is because of religious fanatics who think their way is the only way. The West vs East problem is the same thing as the Crusades, except with corporate sponsors.

Art, whether it is fueled by commerce or not, is a reflection of the world - not the other way around.
Sometimes, just like rock and roll, violent films are how some people deal with living on the same planet as the insane dictators and religious blowhards. It helps us vent and provides us with myths to relate to.

You know about myths dont you? You have chosen to follow one big myth because you are so scared of facing your true human nature. But I digress...

See you in hell!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I note that many here have criticised the film 300 without actually having watched it!! They vomit conjecture and accusations based on what?

Well I have seen the film. I found it invigorating and exciting, I found the backdrops to be expertly rendered and the fight scenes professionally coreographed. Yes there was violence and gore, but what do you expect it was based on a violent period in 5BC. However the violence wasnt anywhere near as violent as in Saving Private Ryan. Then again if you want love scenes go watch romeo and juliet.

Not much of a story eh. Well I find the tale of 300 fighting overwhelming odds one hell of a story. Maybe all of you who have seen Zulu also find that rather boring. You got to admit theres not much of a story there. Now let me see a small battalion of welsh borderers defending a mission against a vastly superior army of zulus. Hmm sound familiar.

Or should I interperate that event also as symbolic for Iran v USA. Get a life!!

Ok maybe 300 wasnt 100% accurate. Who cares, it was a damn good movie. I didnt come out killing cats and I am not by any stretch of imagination homosexual. But I am proud to be Welsh and a man.

Maybe all of you who only know of this historic period through the comic and now the movie really ought to get some education and read some history.

Theres just too many sheeple in the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Personally if I want a message to be delivered to me I will read a book. All I expect out of movies is entertainment and I try to filter out any "message" the writer/director has as much as possible.

That can be difficult with some of the more preachy (and strangely popular) directors.

In my view trying to squeeze the message of a Greek tragedy into 120 minutes of movie cheapens the message, dilutes it, and ultimately makes it irrelevant and lost.

The only director who I've seen manage to actually get a message across in an elegant manner is Woody Allen and his few movies that manage that fail to be entertaining.

Hollywood thinks too highly of itself. Entertain me - I'll read and think about a book over the course of a few days if I want a serious message.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

as a very educated woman holding a master's degree in political science- i must say this is the most tiresome, yet hilarious thing i have probably ever read.

this was a movie based on a novel based on an actual historical event.

remember the spartans were completely engaged in copulating with their fellow soldiers so no homophobia there- which was elluded to in the movie. they only looked down on the athenians for having sex with "boys". spartans had sex with men/ soldiers/ warriors.

as for the rest, ever hear of the battle of thermopylae which this novel/ movie is based on? it was real, folks. if herodotus is too much reading for you, check wiki.

all of frank miller's novels are built by taking an idea to the extreme. sin city, etc. not to glorify it.

i can't stand george bush. and i hate racism probably more than anyone you know. and i found this movie to be nothing more than an entertaining way to spend 2 hours of my life.

reading anymore into it is grasping for straws by people who have nothing better to do than to find conspiracy at every turn. who strange it must be to live one's life like this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

are HISTORICALLY indo-persians.

chew on that one for a while.

and, btw, greeks would not have been considered "aryans" even by the nazi's.

so all of this racist bs only betrays your ignorance.

further, the persian empire was the world power of its day. the reason why xerxes' army contained so many ethnicities... was, well, because... it actually did historically. do a little research before you claim racism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]