Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Austox on August 08, 2007, 02:06:04 PM
-
OMG i saw that movie last night and it was soooooo incredibly AWESOME!!!!!!
did any of u guys see it or like it????
-
Swords and Sausages is what the girls call it. I know more women that have seen the movie than men.
-
It was pretty bad-arse in HD DVD. Really enjoyed the fight scenes.
-
I thought you had a good night at the bowling alley.
shamus
-
One of the best action movies I've seen in a long time. I've had it on DVD for a few months(shhh!)
-
no I bought the movie the day after it came out and watched in movies. It may have not been in HD, but dam those sound effects in the movies were way better than all.
Its always better in the movies
-
Bah, all special effects. When will anything be natural?
-
Well, this topic has been around before an couple of times i think. As i said then, i didnt expect an history lesson from this movie, i had heard peoples reviews of it before hand and i knew what to expect, and it was not bad when you saw it as an pure action movie.
It was good entertainment for sure. Surely one of the movies i would test my new HD set with or something similar.
-
Saw it 2 days ago and was blown away. My wife even said :"The best movie of the year I've seen" ... which is quite an achievement for a "guy's movie".
On the top of the incredible visuals, gestures selection, I trully appreciating having a warrior king that looked/acted like a king... not a freacking pretty boy brat pit.:cool:
-
Spartans were bummers.
-
Originally posted by Denholm
Bah, all special effects. When will anything be natural?
as soon as you start renting old films.
-
Good piece of cinema.
Horrible, disgusting and wretched piece of history.
Don't take a single thing in it as fact, many are misled by its semi-historical basis.
-
The "Football rally-like" scene kinda killed it for me:furious
Other than that it's a worthwhile movie.
-
Seen it...but going to buy the DVD. HD TV and Bose Surround sound will be awsome Im sure.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Spartans were bummers.
yeaahhh gladiator movie lovers
-
300!!!
Saw it tonight on DVD
Wife borrowed it from the son of a friend of hers.
I'll hold back a bit and be nice in my review of this movie.
Glad I didnt pay actual money to see this piece of trash in the movies or to buy the DVD
FAR easier to list what was good about the movie then what sucked,,which on the suckville scale ranked at about a 90%
Best thing about this movie was some of the boobie shots and a couple moments in the battle scenes and the overall acting wasnt terrible.
Other then that.
Horrid.
Makers of this movie took poetic licence to a new low.
And
Overall filming was nothing short of atrociously annoying.
They say on a typical Hollywood movie the target audience is something like 14-25 year olds. (who would be much better served picking up and actually reading a history book)
I'd say they were shooting for a target audience of 10-17 year olds in spite of the R rating.
Unless The "R" rating stands for "Rancid"
They took what was all by itself a naturally GREAT story
And butchered it to more resemble a poorly made cross between Star wars (complete with Darth Vader breathing sounds) And a butcher job of Lord of the Rings.
The only type of person I could even imagine this movie appealing to would be probably either very young, completely wasted on acid. or have an IQ of about 2 and on a 3 day drunk.
I could go on but Im being nice
-
I saw most of it today. The Daughter and Son in law had it. She hates it but the Son in Law loves it. I left before the hunchback traitor attacked.
The effects were nice but stale and rather predictible. They borrowed stuff from all over didn't they. The Roman phalanx which the king claimed was so important, and didn't use in the movie. Not to mention the come back with your shield or on it phrase.
Then there was the mutants, the fire bombs, the gunpowder grenades, the rhino and elephants not to mention the hunchback. I was waiting for the sharks with frikkin laser beams on their heads to show up. Yep it's all in there alright.
It didn't hold my interest. Tacky, predictable and monochrome just like sin city. Very very forgettable.
-
I bought it last Saturday and watched it for the first time on Tuesday. Quite simply an amazing adaptation of the greatest last stand in History. The use of tactics was nice to see, the Spartans were the best fighters of the period.
I thought it was a great flick and am glad that I bought it.
-
Originally posted by 68Hawk
Good piece of cinema.
Horrible, disgusting and wretched piece of history.
Don't take a single thing in it as fact, many are misled by its semi-historical basis.
It was adapted from a graphic novel (grown up comic book :p )... So historical accuracy is left at the wayside and not the main agenda of the film.
-
watched about 5 minutes before i lost interest. txdad enjoyed it though.
-
DREDIOCK pretty much nailed it! Although I think his IQ rating was a bit high.
Wife bought it on the advise of her girlfriends and we had "new movie night".
She fell asleep half way through ... I had a good book ... so I managed to sit through the whole thing.
The R rating had to be for just plain rank.
-
I didn't like it. They also showed it on a flight I took. I watched 30 minutes and chose TMNT instead...
-
DREDIOCK
Originally posted by Fulmar
It was adapted from a graphic novel (grown up comic book :p )... So historical accuracy is left at the wayside and not the main agenda of the film.
I don't give a damn if it was based on a comic book. If it purports to be history and botches it sooooo terribly as this 'film' has there is no excuse. Now a whole generation of zit faced wieners will think they know some history because they saw the movie.
A comic book origin wouldn't excuse the last samurai either.
A comic book or 'graphic novel' as some might like to embellish can still be a decent presentation of history. If the comic basis is anything like this movie it should be burned.
As a historian it truly saddens me when people half bellybutton history. Naturally, no film can be completely historical, but lots of directors/producers at least try, and many produce remarkable works. This made only enough effort to rape the flavor right out of history and make people think it was historical.
I doubt Spartans would have been so kind to their females. It exhibits very modern notions of gender relations.
Ninjas? C'mon. The 'immortals' are based on real units in the Persian army, but that's just ridiculous.
The Spartans didn't scare off the Persians. They didn't kill the whole Persian army. They held them back long enough so their supplies were exhausted and they had to withdraw or let their army starve. One who thinks this movie is good would be wise to study the true nature of military strategy in the ancient period.
The makers of this movie should have a grabastic circle with terentino. He cares about history and reality just about as much.
And, btw, the Phalanx was Greek, not Roman. Roman's used different and more adaptable formations that became the next generation of combat tactics. The Phalanx could only go so far with its rigidity.
Not even sure I'd go so far as to call it "the greatest last stand in history", nor can the Greeks be universally called the best fighters of the period.
In many ways, with its amalgamation of folk lore and different cultural heritage LOTR was more historical.
-
those people calling it the best film ever have obviously never seen any other movie.
-
Transformers = 300 = Computer Game without the interactivity
-
I was in LA recently, chatted with one of 300's producers.
She said that those muscles were painted on - was filmed in Vancouver in January and everybody froze :D
-
firebombs as someone called it were actually historical. Naphta ( stuff used later in the lamps) was used as a form of a granade in historical times.
I guess you have to enjoy it for what it really is - movie based on comic book rather then history. Because historically there are 7000 Athenians and other greeks missing :)
Red headed chick in the temple was HOT HOT HOT though :D
-
Originally posted by 68Hawk
Not even sure I'd go so far as to call it "the greatest last stand in history", nor can the Greeks be universally called the best fighters of the period.
In many ways, with its amalgamation of folk lore and different cultural heritage LOTR was more historical.
Hmm, so holding off a first wave of almost 10,000 Perisans and losing 2-3 Spartans is nothing. Forcing the 2nd wave with 50,000 Persians to retreat is nothing. Yeah, forcing a huge Army to "fight the fight your way" and holding out is nothing.
You should read more.
-
Masherbrum - the main 'historian' of antiquity who talks about Thermopylae was also apt to record fantastical things such as lake dwelling men etc.
Perhaps you shouldn't believe all you read. ;)
There was no history in the modern sense in aquity. It was verbally communcated and therefore embellished for dramatic effect. Even the Roman's exploits are not completely recorded and there are few sources.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Masherbrum - the main 'historian' of antiquity who talks about Thermopylae was also apt to record fantastical things such as lake dwelling men etc.
Perhaps you shouldn't believe all you read. ;)
There was no history in the modern sense in aquity. It was verbally communcated and therefore embellished for dramatic effect. Even the Roman's exploits are not completely recorded and there are few sources.
I'm not saying it as Gospel, however, the numbers have been deemed close.
But to think "some of us watched 300 for it's historical accuracy" is beyond ludicrous.
-
I second what Dowding said about historical accuracy of the texts from the period.
Masher I'm glad we can agree that this film is ludicrous. :D
It's not like the Greeks faced all 10,000 at once. The terrain played a big part. In essence, the Persians choosing to take the pass and push its army through such a narrow strip was its own making. Wasn't about the greeks forcing them to go through there.
To think that some of us watched 300 without an eye to the history it is supposedly based on is sad. I'd also go so far as to use the words lazy, irresponsible, ignorant, juvenile, horrid, banal, public education, and banana.
It depicted better soft core porn than it did the history that it slapped in the face in order to sell tickets.
-
Originally posted by 68Hawk
Don't take a single thing in it as fact, many are misled by its semi-historical basis.
Here's a piece of advice that should apply to anyone who ever goes to see a movie. Ever.
-Sik
-
Yeah, especially if they come out of Hollywood, but some films do a decent-good job of portraying history. I'd call Saving Private Ryan somewhere on the outside of decent, but not nearly as bad as 300. A bridge too far was much more to the good side. Gettysburg was pretty damn good too. We were soldiers goes back to the pvt. Ryan side.
Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima, while certainly still presentations of history, where beyond the good in this scale and deserve endearing respect. 300 grotesquely portrayed itself as something along the lines of these two films, but wasn't even on the same continent.
-
Originally posted by 68Hawk
300 grotesquely portrayed itself as something along the lines of these two films, but wasn't even on the same continent.
I don't mean to be argumentative, and I fully admit that I don't have a TV, and didn't see many previews for the movies, but did it actually portray itself as history?
As to your point, sure, there are varying degrees of historical accuracy. I personally don't believe that better accuracy necessarily equals better cinema. Unless it's a documentary that professed to be an exploration of the facts, I'm never going to bang a movie too hard for deviating from history for the sake of drama.
And yes, I cringed when I saw the Japanese blow the **** out of those Spruance Destroyers in Pearl Harbor.
-Sik
-
yeah.. the movie was a movie... not history but... I don't think any of us really know about that history... even tho.. most agree that a lot of the movie did follow history.
I was not impressed with letters from iwo tho knowing the history of the event. I think that it was much more entertaining the way Clint portrayed the japs than the way they were tho.
lazs
-
Lazs, I have to strongly disagree with you on the portrayal of the Japanese. Obviously there were many opinions and feelings on both sides, but the American perspective on what the Japanese thought and felt has always been very skewed. I thought Eastwood did a good job of getting behind their lines in a meaningful and mostly truthful fashion.
Silkboy I went back to look at some trailers to see if they actually used the words, "true story of". Didn't find them, but it is strongly implied in the couple of trailers I saw. If nothing else, a great deal of cross-promotional money was spent to laud the historical 'basis' of this.
I don't mind that compromises be made to make a good movie, so long as they are acknowledged and minimized when the subject is supposed to be historical. If someone made a WW2 movie and messed up the planeset slightly or something (such as the HA1112 in Battle of Britain) I can understand. They got the basics of the history right and didn't really embellish.
The last samurai is another perfect example of just enough historical seed to give a flavor, and just too much to make people who don't know the history think that it is actually historical. It wasn't, neither was 300.
Might as well have F-16s fighting the Battle of Britain.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Hmm, so holding off a first wave of almost 10,000 Perisans and losing 2-3 Spartans is nothing. Forcing the 2nd wave with 50,000 Persians to retreat is nothing. Yeah, forcing a huge Army to "fight the fight your way" and holding out is nothing.
You should read more.
Didnt the sea battle take out more Perisans than the actual Spartans? Everything I read and watch stated that it was the sea fighting taking more lives and making more of a stop than that Spartans did. Wondering if anyone else read or heard that?
-
Praise Jebus, I do believe he's right!
-
Originally posted by fd ski
firebombs as someone called it were actually historical. Naphta ( stuff used later in the lamps) was used as a form of a granade in historical times.
I guess you have to enjoy it for what it really is - movie based on comic book rather then history. Because historically there are 7000 Athenians and other greeks missing :)
Red headed chick in the temple was HOT HOT HOT though :D
Athenians did not take part in the battle, it was the spartans and a group of 1000 thespians.
-
Originally posted by USRanger
One of the best action movies I've seen in a long time. I've had it on DVD for a few months(shhh!)
me too:noid
-
Not even sure I'd go so far as to call it "the greatest last stand in history", nor can the Greeks be universally called the best fighters of the period.
many armies were bigger..but i dout many at the time were as advanced and well trained like the greeks....alaxander rolled most of the known world with the greek phalanx. they were outnumberd in many battles and usualy came out ahead cause of well train troops and great tactics...i think there one of the best fighters of there time....they defenatly have anuff battles under there belt to prove it... even the later romans had a tuff time taking on the greeks...they still tring to figure out how they made those cranes that flipped the roman boats over in there attack. lol
-
I watched it for the action, knowing that it is highly unlikely that anything made by a production studio is going to have any real sense of realism.
Action wise, pretty good.
Fact wise...
Yes there was a King Leonidas.
Yes there was a festival called Carhnae.
Yes the main Spartan Army stayed home.
Yes it was because of the Carhnae.
I doubt it was for political reasons.
Yes Spartan Women were treated better than any other Greek woman.
Unlikely that they would be equal to men, but while the men were away the women did run the City.
Yes there are no defensive walls in Sparta.
The Athenians kicked the Persians down a well.
Yes Leonidas lead 300 Spartans into Thermopylae.
No they didn't wear loincloths, they fought naked.
No that was not a real Spartan Phalanx.
That was a Macedonian style Phalanx. Greeks fought with the spear over-handed, which provided a much more powerful thrust.
Yes he did actually say the following famous quotes: Then we shall fight in the shade, Come and get them, Tonight we dine in Hell... what no tables? Fine Purgatory...
No it was more like 500,000 Persians not a Million.
Yes there was a lunatic named Xerxes.
Yes he went to Thermopylae.
Yes his fleet got beaten up by Poseidon.
Yes he still landed the vast majority of his troops.
Yes there was a guy named Ephialtes.
No he probably wasn't a hunchback, just a moron.
Yes Xerxes eventually won. But the Immortals were mauled.
No the Immortals weren't middle-aged mutant ninjas.
No the Persians didn't use elephants, or rhinos.
Naptha... probably... although it wasn't cheap back then.
Xerxes eventually went on to sack Athens.
Although why he went through Thermopylae to do it... And why he needed 500,000 men to do it...
Yes the Persians were massacred at Plateha (however you spell it)
No Xerxes wasn't there he ran away back to Persia, who then later was ruled by Darius the II. Who was later usurped by Alexander the Great.
Ignoring all of that... okay movie. Good music... gratuitous sex scenes not withstanding I liked it.
Favorite part:
When Gorgo disembowls the politician.
-
Originally posted by Jebus
Didnt the sea battle take out more Perisans than the actual Spartans? Everything I read and watch stated that it was the sea fighting taking more lives and making more of a stop than that Spartans did. Wondering if anyone else read or heard that?
The Persians were forced to fold back and leave Greece due to the Athenian navy sinking their reinforcements and supplies. Athenians themselves had a heroic fight in the straits east of Thermopylae, at the same time, blocking a vastly superior Persian force.
Athenians won the war.
The movie sucked, save a couple of action scenes.
-
When it came to documenting battles, ancient historians wildly exaggerated the numbers of warriors involved. I don't believe the claim that Xerxes had 500,000 men involved in the campaign against the Greeks. Such a large number could not have supplied themselves by foraging in the lands ringing the Aegean, through which they marched.
A more likely number, as estimated by modern historians, was 150,000 or so. If Xerxes followed the custom of later armies that trudged through the same region, he would have hugged the coast so that his fleet could keep him supplied with victuals and reinforcements. To keep in touch with his fleet, he would have had to pass through the mountains of northern Greece near the coast, and would have found it necessary to utilize the pass at Thermopylae.
The fact remains, however, that a force of approximately 2000 Spartans and other Greeks held that narrow pass against a vastly superior force for three days, and the 300 Spartans held the pass as a rear guard to allow the other Greeks to safely retreat.
-
Was just watching scenes from the DVD this morning. I enjoyed the battle scenes and throught the movie was entertaining. For history, go to the books and likely several of them because there are always different takes on history.
Enjoyed watching the Hoplites fight.