The 300

John Casler · « **on:** 4 Mar 2007, 03:16 am »

This looks like it will either be junk, or maybe a great film, depending on how well the effects work.

Lot of "making of" on YouTube. I like the physical conditioning part. Look here:

http://raincloud.warnerbros.com/wbmovies/300/journals/journal3_hi.mov

For YouTube "stuff" just go to YouTube and search for "Spartan Training"

mjosef · « **Reply #1 on:** 4 Mar 2007, 07:17 am »

Just saw the HBO making of... and its looks great on my 42 HD plasma. Would love to see it on an IMax screen.

wshuff · « **Reply #2 on:** 4 Mar 2007, 01:56 pm »

I'm interested in seeing this film, but like John, I'm afraid it might end up being junk. I have the Frank Miller book, and liked it well enough, but not nearly as much as Steven Pressfield's book Gates of Fire which deals with the same subject matter but with far more depth. You can check it out here. I think that the excerpt posted on the site describes some of the Spartan training:

http://stevenpressfield.com/

http://stevenpressfield.com/books/gates_fire.asp#excerpt

From the previews, it looks to me that the movie 300 tries to maintain some of the visual style of the book, which is fine, but it also looks something like a video game, with some of the Persians looking like they've stepped off the set of Lord of the Rings. I guess those Orcs needed more work. I'm just afraid that the movie 300 will sort of be on the level of something like Pearl Harbor, while a movie based on Gates of Fire could be more like Saving Private Ryan, or Band of Brothers. Less flash, more grit and emotion. That's what I've been waiting to see. When I read the book four or five years ago, Michael Mann was supposedly going to be starting work on Gates of Fire once he completed Ali. Gladiator was still fresh in people's minds and lots of big names were said to be interested in the movie, from Bruce Willis (I don't see how that could have worked), to George Clooney (not sure about that one, either). Nothing ever materialized, and with 300 coming out, I'm afraid that nothing ever will. If 300 blows, then nobody will want to make another movie about the same subject matter. If 300 blows people away, I still don't see the powers that be deciding to make another, less flashy version of the same movie. That didn't work out too well for Costner's Wyatt Earp following Kurt Russell's Tombstone.

So, I'll see 300, and I hope I'm pleasantly surprised, but I can easily see myself watching and ending up disappointed, thinking about what could have been.

fredgarvin · « **Reply #3 on:** 4 Mar 2007, 10:30 pm »

wschuff, I also enjoyed "Gates of Fire", have you read "Tides of War"? Also by Pressfield. A few years old but I have wondered if it was as good as 'Gates'. I know he also has a new book out that is placed in Alexanders' campaigns.

wshuff · « **Reply #4 on:** 6 Mar 2007, 11:54 pm »

Fred,

Sorry. I didn't see your post. For some reason I don't get all of my email notifications.

Quote

wschuff, I also enjoyed "Gates of Fire", have you read "Tides of War"? Also by Pressfield. A few years old but I have wondered if it was as good as 'Gates'. I know he also has a new book out that is placed in Alexanders' campaigns.

Yes, I've read Tides of War. I think I've read all of his works except Last of the Amazons and Bagger Vance (but I did see the Will Smith/Matt Damon movie).

I really enjoyed Tides of War. It deals with the war between Athens and Sparta that followed in the decades after Gates of Fire. In fact, in ways I liked it better than Gates. There were so many political twists and turns. The story follows the career of Alcibiades, as seen through the eyes of a fictional friend. Alcibiades, as envisioned by Pressfield, was a really interesting character. All of these are historical novels, so they have a basis in fact. It was interesting going to some of the old historical texts to see what they had to say about the events and the personalities, particularly Alcibiades and the Spartan, Lysander.

I recommend Tides of War, but be warned. After finishing the book I stumbled upon Pressfield's website and was surprised to see that although it was his favorite book, many of his readers were disappointed in Tides. I sent him an email just to say, "Hey, I read Tides and loved it." About nine minutes later I get a reply from Pressfield thanking me and telling me how mad some of the readers had been. That started a nice little discourse, and I thought it was pretty cool. I've dropped him a few notes since, and he's always had something to say.

I also really liked Virtues of War, which is told from Alexander's point of view. I enjoyed it as well, particularly the descriptions of the battles. I suspect that if the real Alexander ever got to read the book, he'd be flattered.

The Afghan Campaign is set during Alexander's campaign in . . .guess . . .Afghanistan. I started reading it last summer, right around the time I moved. I think I had a hard time getting into it because it is told from the point of view of a grunt in Alexander's army. It was a bit of a let down coming from Virtues of War. The book got boxed when I moved, and I've not gotten back to it.

Anyway, despite putting The Afghan Campaign down, the truth is I've really enjoyed all of the books so far. And if you like this type of historical novel, Pressfield's website has his recommendations for a few other books. I read one, I think called Eagle in the Snow, about the last days of the Roman Empire. If you like Pressfield's work, I'd say give it a try.

fredgarvin · « **Reply #5 on:** 7 Mar 2007, 01:53 am »

I am a history buff, primarily, but also love well written fiction. I'll take your recommendations and read Tides and Virtues. I think the narrative style works well with historical fiction as it maintains a historical feel (memory of events). I think Pressfield works hard at cleaving to historical 'accuracy', such as it is, as much as possible. All historians use there own interpretation and guesswork. Thanks for the informative answer.

PhilNYC · « **Reply #6 on:** 9 Mar 2007, 10:54 pm »

the reviews that are coming in for this film are pretty positive...

launche · « **Reply #7 on:** 9 Mar 2007, 11:09 pm »

I am dissapointed it's not showing at my local IMAX (as I was led to believe)

But I'll check it out tomorrow at the best theater I can get to within reason. Hope this one has good audio as well.

Dave G · « **Reply #8 on:** 9 Mar 2007, 11:19 pm »

Well, not everyone gives it a great review. Read this.

Dave

PhilNYC · « **Reply #9 on:** 9 Mar 2007, 11:45 pm »

Interesting...here's a positive one: http://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/289178,WKP-News-hundred09.article

launche · « **Reply #10 on:** 10 Mar 2007, 12:13 am »

Quote from: PhilNYC on 9 Mar 2007, 11:45 pm

Interesting...here's a positive one: http://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/289178,WKP-News-hundred09.article

This review sums up about what I'm expecting to see.
As the man said, you want the other stuff... watch the History Channel or read the books, this one's candy coated pop cinema with layer or two of truth to its concept. Remember we're trying to please a certain demographic here, bring in some fringe viewers and push the cinematic envelop a bit I presume.

Cacophonix · « **Reply #11 on:** 10 Mar 2007, 07:31 am »

Just came back from the theater after watching this movie ...
I felt that was an okay movie. Presentation wise, meaning the technical side of the movie was quite spectacular. But apart from that ... it was kinda blah.

Val · « **Reply #12 on:** 11 Mar 2007, 06:28 pm »

Yeah, watch the History Channel. Spartans without breastplates? Give me a break!

griller · « **Reply #13 on:** 12 Mar 2007, 08:23 pm »

I loved the Pressfield book. Very much looking forward to seeing this one, must remember to not try to compare it to the book too much as I'm watching, that would probably make it suck.

2bigears · « **Reply #14 on:** 12 Mar 2007, 09:37 pm »

Quote from: Val on 11 Mar 2007, 06:28 pm

Yeah, watch the History Channel. Spartans without breastplates? Give me a break!

gotta get those girls in,see those eight-packs,hollywood-sell tickets!!!!

zybar · « **Reply #15 on:** 12 Mar 2007, 09:59 pm »

Well, "300" took in over $70 million this past weekend and was the third highest open for a "R" rated movie.

Not sure how much staying power it will have, but it sure started strong.

George

mcrespo71 · « **Reply #16 on:** 18 Mar 2007, 11:00 pm »

I just saw this last night. I tried to go see it in Imax, but it was sold out. It had some pretty cool action scenes, but the character development and some of the dialogue were laughable. I still enjoyed it, however.

Bemopti123 · « **Reply #17 on:** 19 Mar 2007, 01:28 am »

They could done away with those ridiculous Lord of the Ring type of Persian and Persian allies. Asides from that, I thought that it was not as bad as I thought it could have been. Stylistically, I am sure it followed the Graphic Novel Well and the battle scenes, were what I felt, historically accurate, asides from the lack of Spartan shielding.

I have this wild wish, that if it does well, there is a good possibility that other, Ancient era types of movies will get the green lights to be filmed.

What I am afraid off, that people will try to get history lessons out of Hollywood productions. But well, even Ahmeninajad, the President of Iran was barking at it.

2500 year old event still touches some raw nerves.

Cacophonix · « **Reply #18 on:** 19 Mar 2007, 03:54 am »

Quote from: Bemopti123 on 19 Mar 2007, 01:28 am

Stylistically, I am sure it followed the Graphic Novel Well and the battle scenes, were what I felt, historically accurate, asides from the lack of Spartan shielding.

Historically accurate??????

All those monsters, giants, ogre like creatures, and a 7+ foot xerxes are accurate depictions??

Apart from the general idea that 300 spartans fought a much larger persian army (very valiantly, i must add), i didn't find anything historically accurate with this movie. I tried to compare the movie with what is historically known, and gave up after a little while. Its easier to enjoy this movie thinking of it as a comic book adaptation rather than a historical movie.

It is a known fact that greeks had slaves, and more so the spartans who had no skills apart from battle skills. And to hear them talk a LOT about freedom and justice in the movie was kinda jarring. On one of discovery channel programmes it was mentioned that spartans were generally not comfortable fighting too far away from home as they were always afraid of a slave revolt within their city state.

goldlizsts · « **Reply #19 on:** 19 Mar 2007, 04:35 am »

Quote from: Cacophonix on 19 Mar 2007, 03:54 am

Quote from: Bemopti123 on 19 Mar 2007, 01:28 am
Stylistically, I am sure it followed the Graphic Novel Well and the battle scenes, were what I felt, historically accurate, asides from the lack of Spartan shielding.

Historically accurate??????.................

Of course it's not accurate. I wonder if there's EVER, ever a movie (not a documentary) that's faithful to history. It's always dramatized, altered, etc. for cinematic reasons. Overall, I found the movie to be good. I would give it 3 out of 4 stars. Since the first time I saw a Star Wars (3rd?) installment that used extensively computer generated images, I've come to dislike such tricks. There is something UNnaturalness to the scenes that I can't seem to be comfortable with. The one aspect I really dislike the most is the blandness of colors. How should I say it? The scenes generally very starkly shaded, without the colors of natural daylight scenes. Lately, Children of Men, and now this. There's just something seemingly unnatural about computer-generated images and scenes.