300 REVIEW on CNN.COM ("Far from perfect")

[DjfunkmasterG]

In other words, another s**ty Snyder movie. Avoid. Dawn 04 didn't suck in my opinion. 300 however, was a major let down.

[livingdeadboy]

I personally really thought the movie was quite kick ass. I didn't expect much but a two hour comic book on screen, and that's exactly what it was. In my own opinion I thought zack did a far better job with this then he did with Dawn '04 (and i really like dawn '04). I thought the action scenes were handled well, even the speed up and slow down action scenes, the digital comic book blood sprays were also quite fun to watch. Even thought that with the very simple plot, they managed to throw in some pretty well developed characters for a bunch of brutes. I personally do not enjoy movies like Gladiator, Troy, Alexander, Lord Of The Rings. But for me this was a nice enough twist and change to that type of genre to make it stand out in my eyes. I will admit a grin came across my face more then once as some of those rock guitar rifts game into play during battle scenes. In an age when all of these "period" movies like the ones mentioned above come out, with a bunch of A-list wimpy looking goofs wielding a sword ( I am with Dj on Russel Crowe though, that guy looked like he could kick ass.) It was nice to see some other actors come in, that are built like bricks kicking ass and taking names.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Ru Paul!?!?!?!?!? You know, the african American Transvestite. I think IT had a talk show sometime ago, and IT tried it's hand at a music career. See pic

[coma]

You know, the african American Transvestite. I think IT had a talk show sometime ago, and IT tried it's hand at a music career. See pic I know who Ru Paul is, I thought it funny that a RuPaul look alike would be in a battle epic. That dude is huge trough I think the music came first.

[Excessium]

Overall, you will need to be a hardcore fan of 300 to really enjoy this. It has some decent moments but the 117 minute run time felt like 3 hours. I don't know how Zack Snyder did such a great job with the DAWN remake, but failed to give us anything to cheer for in 300. The battle sequences could have been spectacular, but the constant use of slow motion really took a lot of the impact away. This film failed to meet my expectations. C+ I actually couldn't get enough of the film. Comparing 2004 with 300 is like comparing LotD to Braveheart. 2 different genres. The Slow motion sequences showed a lot of detail you wouldn't have been able to see at normal speed. The movie is worth watching. I don't understand how some of you accepting DJ's review and calling Snyder a **** director cause he directed a script written by James Gunn, that was based off Dawn. Obviously he does a pretty god damned good job if he's getting the budgets ok'd by the producers. This is Snyder's best work yet. I would say in the age of Braveheart type films, it goes below Braveheart, and Gladiator, both of which won best picture Oscars. Obviously people are going to have their own opions about the film but at least say you have seen the movie before you knock it. Just because you don't like a director who "remade" a classic and had far more success then the original is not a good enough reason to say all his movies will suck. I mean Romero made Land and people still love him.

[DjfunkmasterG]

I actually couldn't get enough of the film. Comparing 2004 with 300 is like comparing LotD to Braveheart. 2 different genres. The Slow motion sequences showed a lot of detail you wouldn't have been able to see at normal speed. The movie is worth watching. I don't understand how some of you accepting DJ's review and calling Snyder a **** director cause he directed a script written by James Gunn, that was based off Dawn. Obviously he does a pretty god damned good job if he's getting the budgets ok'd by the producers. This is Snyder's best work yet. I would say in the age of Braveheart type films, it goes below Braveheart, and Gladiator, both of which won best picture Oscars. Obviously people are going to have their own opions about the film but at least say you have seen the movie before you knock it. Just because you don't like a director who "remade" a classic and had far more success then the original is not a good enough reason to say all his movies will suck. I mean Romero made Land and people still love him. The only thing that bothers me is the whole..."He directed a James Gunn script." Actually he didn't. I have said this many times the version of Dawn 2004 that was filmed was the Scott A. Frank draft. WGA rules lets Gunn get the only credit because during the re-writes they retained more than 50% of his original story and a few of his original characters. If it wasn't for Michael Tolkin and Scott Franks rewrites we would have had characters like PEACOCK. You guys think Mekhi is tacky, well PEACOCK was a wanna be gansta, a white wanna be homeboy who talked all the BS Cliches. Because of Mike and Scott we Mekhi who has a much larger IQ... be thankful it could have been worse. Because of Scott and Mike we got the badass version of CJ. The other two security guards were just as pussy if not worse. The guard Kevin Zegers played, Terry, was written as a heroine addict who did nothing but draw unicorns, and in JG's verison there was no Steve Markus as we have now, and Ving Rhames character was kind of a dick, not a cool organized guy like he is in the Filmed version. So please people, when bitching about DAWN 2004, don't bring JG into it. Trust me if they used his draft, DAWN 2004 would have sucked so much ass it was not even funny. JG's script made a mockery out of DAWN, at least the re-writes restored some dignity. Thank the producers and Zack for that as well.

[mista_mo]

I loved the movie, and i thought it was very well made and produced. I went in expecting it to be garbage, as i abhor the comic books, but man, i was very surprised at how well the movie was. Sure, it's not historically accurate, but who cares? It's entertainment, and if I wanted to go see a movie that did every single detail of the battle down pat, i would rather read about it. Some parts had me questioning The sanity of the film-makers though..whats up with all the deformed people? Why were all th persian immortals dressed up like ninjas and sported some wicked facial mutations? (altho this is a tad contradictory, as i loved the costumes for the immortals, as they were xerxes elite soldiers, and they needed to stand out a hell of alot more then the ordinary rank and file of the persian army) If you like fast paced, great action movies, well, this one is for you. However, for those of you who really like other things in a movie other then sheer BALLS, we have something else...I personally loved the message it contained. That so few, fighting for their freedom, their homeland, and thier lives can and will stand up to a force so vast "it drinks the rivers dry" just because they don't want to enslave themselves to them. It's awesome, and i loved it, and altho it teaches very poorly (historical accuracy I mean) it has great action, decent acting, and a great message underneath all the blood and guts and beheading and anger. Unlike many of it's film counter parts, The soldiers in this movie looked as if they could actually kick your ass and break a gorilla over their knee, and impregnate 35 women all at the same time. That was my main problem with LOTR...c'mon, Aragon was played by a pussy, as was legolas, as was Frodo, as was....well, you get the point. Although, The Spartans themselves were far from the noble, stoic, knightly characters shown in the film..hell, there were 7 slaves or so for every spartan citizen, they were encouraged to have sex with young boys, and they killed off their children that they deemed unbefitting of the Spartan Standard. but besides that, it was great.. But wtf is up with the leather panties and red capes? I thought hopilites wore bronze armour and shin guards and such...all i saw was sweaty manliness in the extreme..300 ripped guys (and man, do I mean ripped) killing other lesser more femine guys..I wonder what thats all about. this movie has balls. Unlike that LOTR bs... if you are a man in anyway, you will throw away that LOTR fagginess and watch this movie. Over and over again. and Braveheart and then Gladiator and then aliens and then Terminater 2.....

[Danny]

if you are a man in anyway, you will throw away that LOTR fagginess and watch this movie. Over and over again. and Braveheart and then Gladiator and then aliens and then Terminater 2..... yes, becuase guys in skirts and leather diapers is much more straight!

[mista_mo]

I ignored that part and went for the straight foreword manly killing..besides...300 doesn't have two hairy footed guys on a rock surrounded by steaming hot magma (which undoubtibly makes it easier for their clothes to fall off when they procede to have intercourse) but they get rescued by giant owls..man..thats so straight... altho, I do agree with you about the "diapers" as you put it..I think Zach is a closet homosexual who likes sweaty ripped men fighting...it's just a theory.. and again, so much killing... this movie has so much balliness, it doesn't know what to do with it all (make all the jokes u will undoubtibly make about it lol)

[slickwilly13]

I just saw the film and enjoyed it. A great larger than life battle movie.

[bassman]

I found it to be mediocre at best. Of course the visuals were awesome but it lacked in other departments, I would say. It had a layer of cheese that was a bit too thick. But at least Snyder intended it to be that way this time. My rating: B-. Entertaining but nothing to take away from it. Mindless, good looking flick.

[slickwilly13]

I was also pretty blowed when I watched it. Which helped. *L*