Separate names with a comma.
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Discussion in 'Amon Amarth' started by RunicSymbolDeath86, Mar 11, 2007.
it was pretty brutal and id give it 9/10
Hm I have to say I haven't seen it, but it's directed by Zack Synder (the guy who did the Dawn Of The Dead remake) so I expect great things. It also has a high rating on IMDB, it'll probably be in the top 250 in no time. - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416449/
But just tell me one thing (without spoiling it too much); the battle with the 300 Spartans Vs. The million or so Persians, does it last long?
here in germany it hit's the movies on april 5th :-/ i'm eager to see it!
its badass! go see it
Very good movie.
Doesn't look that kid friendly( My little one is still little, and babysitters are hard to come by), so I'll probably have to wait until it's on DVD... which never seems to be long, any more.
yeah...the whole movie is pretty much based around battle scenes its awesome man...so bloody, finally a battle movie with some gore instead of the pussy scorpion king kiddie shit.
i wanna see it... I saw the trailer yesterday and I was like, woah nice!
That movie looks so awesome!
Im already making plans to go to the premiere with some friends and scream our lungs out at the part: THIS IS SPARTAAAA!!!!!!!!
saw the midnight showing. it was bad ass. i recommend reading the graphic novel before seeing it, makes it even better.
Its at least 75% of the movie
I finally watched the trailer (hadn't realised to do so except now), But whats with all the monsters? I thought this was based on an historical event.
It doesn't have monsters, just deformed people. What the spartans think are monsters are the rhino and elephants. They all get killed. Just about everything dies in this film, it's fucking great!
So these guys are...deformed :zombie:
k.. its based on Frank Miller's graphic novel... and frank miller based his novel on the battle of Thermopyles (or Thermopylae). In his graphic novel Frank Miller added some shit, and changed some historical facts..
on the two 'monster' pics on the previous post, the first one is this deformed guy, if you read the graphic novel you learn that its a spartan who was hid from the authorities by his parents because he was born deformed.. and the spartans would 'disgard' the weak and deformed to be elite.
Whereas that other pic, with the guy who has blades instead of arms, i don't know who he is.. he's not in the graphic novel...
but as i noticed in the trailers, they added some shit in the movie, stuff that isnt in the graphic novel...
anyway, i've been waiting for this movie for almost a year now. i'm so excited, i might go see the premiere wednesday but that isnt sure cause its too expensive. But it'll come out the 21rst in France, i guess i can wait a little longer..
By the way, i read a great article on 300 in this "mad movies" magazine... they were saying that Frank Miller is very pro-western and shit.. the graphic novel is an allegory of the free western civilisations struggling against invading eastern fundamentalists., and they didn't take away that aspect of Frank Miller's political opinions in the movie.. which is why the movie will kick ass.
only thing i didn't really like about the movie was the stuff they added about leonidas wife. because thats not in the graphic novel and it was just dumb.
i thought the movie was sweet. i hate all the critics sayin it was too bloody and unrealistic they obviously didnt get that the whole point of the movie was an interpretation of the real events on steriods. had some great quotes and unreal fight scenes.
this makes me sad. and should still be going on. agree with me or not, mentally/physically retarded babies should be put down... if you will.
So, ive just seen 300 and here my critic.
I dont know the details of this battle, only what is said in general history class, that a very little number of Spartans fighted against a very big army invading their land, and that in the end, they won. I know that this story is merely an idea of how it happened, from a today's point of vew and a bigger than nature visual interpretation.
All along the movie, i sensed that comics edge in the image, in how the camera moved, in the closeups and the luminosity, pretty much as i felt it in Kill Bill, Sin City (that is very obvious) and V for Vendetta. I didnt knew it was inspired from a comics, as much as i didnt knew it too about Sin City before seeing Marvel at the beginning of the movie. As for Kill Bill, i just figured that Tarantino was a big fan of manga (i wasnt surprised), thing confirmed by further researches. 300 is taken from comics it was not treated like were Sin City and Kill Bill, lots of gore and blood for the pleasure of it. It felt more to me as in V for Vendetta, as, yes there is violence and blood, it might seem free, but it is not, or not that much. 300 is about war. War without violence is like the Tranquil Revolution in Quebec in the 60s-70s, without fight. Knowing Sparta a warring civilization, it was impossible to have a cute movie of empty fights lasting 30 mins on the screen. To take Rushockey30's words, "the whole point of the movie was an interpretation of the real events on steriods."
But what makes me appreciate the movie is not just the sheer strenght of its battle scenes. Yes they were unreal and beautiful. Yes, the alternating slow motions between each thrust of spear and swords and parring of the shield makes parts of the whole battle scene (yes 75% of the movie) even more unreal, and might annoy some, or heaten others. Actually, i really enjoyed it. Especially when they refresh it in the comics-like 3D generic at the end.
The luminosity of the movie was a very important aspect, and was, of course, treated digitally for most of it. Some spot of lights were coming from no where, like the one that was giving us the shape of the corpse tree at the beginning. The constant golden-ish luminosity was giving the historical atmosphere of the movie and, youll observe, gives a very good contrast to blood and steel. That luminosity was pretty much like in Gladiator, but with a bluntest edge, less richer. The producers gave a very good deal of their budget in the quality of the image.
But also in the costumes.
Oh wait.. what costumes? The Spartans were looking much more as hard core fans of ManoWar than actual soldiers to me. Ok, it is facts that in Sparta, the little boys started their military training at the age of 6-7 years old, but im not sure that even 20 years of constant training would give these men such a bodybuilding shape. (thats the most appropriate word I have in English to express this one in French : musculature). Yet their costume consisted solely on a jockstrap, some sandals and a cape. That didnt helped my association to ManoWar. As for the girls, 90% of all of them were naked or barely covered. I find it amusing that the only time the queen was appropriately dressed was at the end when she speaks to the assembly. I like the artistic arrangements of the jewels and costumes of the Assyrian army.
The music was also interesting. I felt it inspired by Hans Zimmers Gladiator with more vocals, but with this particular touch or electric guitars in my favorite scene when it rains and the ships dismembers and disappears into the sea. It really reminded me of my actual screensaver:
The actors were good, not overly good but they did the job. Gerard Butler proves again that he can impersonate a hero. He already did it with Attila(2001), the Phantom, in the Phantom of the Opera(2004), and Boewulf (2005). The one that play Xerxes was making me think of Apophis from StarGate tv series.
Finally, a more its storycaly-inspired than Sin City but equally fun.
this is a long critic, but you dont hear of me speak of things if they dont passionate me, so deal with it.
APOPHIS! Xerxes did pile up the Egyptian eyeliner; overall I agree with your review (as I did enjoy the movie).