A bloody good film, or good bloody film depending on how you look at it

Really ? why did you think that? Probably you thought people actually care about what the idiotinadinnerjacket and Ayatollah crazies think ? Guess what, we dont. Never have, never will.

Next time they have their annual "death to America" parade, we in the US should scree the movie 300. Where 300 'free men' wiped to floor with the hordes of savages.

300 got tore apart on the last South Park, it was pretty damn funny!

Come on people! Was it really that graphic? I mean, really; When you decapitate someone, blood spurts for at least 3 feet! If you sever a hand, it shoots even farther! These guys should have been covered in blood after the first battle scene. Also, did you see anyone get disemboweled? NOPE! With that style of warfare, that is how most of them would die! There would be steaming entrails all over the battlefield! I think it should have been rated PG.

IAF


Not quite...

I know it's not meant to be a historical re-enactment, and Frank Miller can tell his stories however he wants, but if it was my story I would have shown the Spartan slaves (do a search for "battle of Thermopylae Helots") for context.

Good point. From the Spartan community there were more slaves than actual Spartans at the battle. Gates Of Fire and many other books depict and tell a more accurate story (if there is such a thing) of the battle and the role that slaves had in it.

[edit on 27/4/2007 by SportyMB]

I HATED! this movie so much. They say its an historical reinactement?
It's strange because I dont recall ever reading about big fat lobster looking men and 8feet tall monsters who dont seem to feel pain, and also the walking undead immortals.
Can someone please direct me towards the historical writings that contain these creatures? Not to mention they show the whole battle fought by only 300 soldiers and at the end its fought by 12 soldiers?
This is also completely WRONG...the director of this movie should stick to the over reacted sci fi movies he likes to make (wich also contain invicible MORTALS)

I'm not sure if your'e being sarcastic or not

Who said it was an historical reinactment?

That's how they advertised it over here. I dont get why it couldnt have just been like any other historical movie why did they need the monsters?
For me that ruined the movie.

Because it's not an historical movie and it's a movie based off a graphic novel (aka comic book for some people) that had monsters in it and used the basic plot from a famous battle that took place 2000 ago.

Take it for what it's worth.....an awesome war flick, nothing more.

Almost every trailor and a few of the movie posters showed monsters.

Are you kidding?
Aside from all the narration and a few extra scenes, the movie was practically a direct translation of the comic. Some parts of the movie are exact panel for panel, word for word.
Frank Miller was executive producer of the movie. He wouldn't let anyone bastardize his work.

Except Robocop 2

i think the monsters where just a over dramatic recreation of some popular beliefs of that time. we are talking about mythology and all they did is make it seem like it actually did happen, not just in the minds in the text that we have to analyze left to us over time. there were some awesome quotes, and if you look further into it, they're even some more extreme quotes that have been inscribed about spartan and spartan life.

300 was a horrible movie. It took so long to get the point sometimes, and they felt the need to show boobs cause the movie sucked that bad. Why was the King of the Persians gay? He walked feminine and acted feminine.

I give this movie a 1 on a scale from 1-10