• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

So "300" is only at 60% on RottenTomatoes.com

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I'm not reading this thread because I haven't seen this movie yet, so sorry if this point has already been made...

Not that it ruined much, but I was trying to watch this movie without any preconceived notions of it. I would have appreciated it if the OP hadn't put the whole 60% info in the title. :frown:
 
Caught it last night, good thing I bought a ticket over the phone it was sold out.

It was solid, the critics (especially David Lynch here in SD) were out to lunch...although the very beginning was a bit slow, it was a great adaption of a graphic novel.

 
I saw it today.

It was pretty much macho porn to the max- think the polar opposite of The Notebook (a film I know that is terrible without seeing, Nicolas Sparks is a hack). Anyways, pretty much every imaginable part of the movie was silly, but no one seemed to really care. It was a pretty fun watch, especially in Imax. Expect a glossed up B- flick and you probably won't be disappointed. Still, some of the poor reviews make perfect sense once you look past the glam of it all and see that substance in the movie is minimal.
 
saw it with some friends yesterday..we were laughing the whole time. Everything from big hairless penguins to dancing cows, it was more like a comedy. Didn't seem too macho to me, it was just funny.
 
Originally posted by: unfalliblekrutch
saw it with some friends yesterday..we were laughing the whole time. Everything from big hairless penguins to dancing cows, it was more like a comedy. Didn't seem too macho to me, it was just funny.
Click to expand...

😕
 
I like how everyone is bickering about whether the loincloths are "historically accurate" or not in a movie with 200-foot tall elephants, Gollum, and Xerxes being played by a white 10-foot-tall version of Dennis Rodman. Historically accurate? Give me a fvcking break.
 
Originally posted by: JungleMan1
I like how everyone is bickering about whether the loincloths are "historically accurate" or not in a movie with 200-foot tall elephants, Gollum, and Xerxes being played by a white 10-foot-tall version of Dennis Rodman. Historically accurate? Give me a fvcking break.
Click to expand...

Well its just one of those irksome things. Like, we don't mind the enhanced parts, but don't go flaunting around males in loin cloths. It looks really homosexual, and yes, that is a bad bad thing.
That and it doesn't even look cool.
 
Originally posted by: unfalliblekrutch
saw it with some friends yesterday..we were laughing the whole time. Everything from big hairless penguins to dancing cows, it was more like a comedy. Didn't seem too macho to me, it was just funny.
Click to expand...

I think you must have been drunk and wandered into the Dollar Theatre Double Feature of Barnyard and Happy Feet. 😕
 
"300" was awesome, and totally satisying. I got more rage and testosterone from watching that movie than I would if I injected anabolic steroids into my aorta.

All that aside, it basically fulfilled what exactly the type of movie it's supposed to be...super action. There's not a lot of story in Blackhawk Down either, but some damn good military action.
 
Originally posted by: unfalliblekrutch
saw it with some friends yesterday..we were laughing the whole time. Everything from big hairless penguins to dancing cows, it was more like a comedy. Didn't seem too macho to me, it was just funny.
Click to expand...

You got wasted and didn't even see the right movie then..

EDIT: Pretty much what Shotgun Steven said..
 
Originally posted by: TehMac
Originally posted by: JungleMan1
I like how everyone is bickering about whether the loincloths are "historically accurate" or not in a movie with 200-foot tall elephants, Gollum, and Xerxes being played by a white 10-foot-tall version of Dennis Rodman. Historically accurate? Give me a fvcking break.
Click to expand...

Well its just one of those irksome things. Like, we don't mind the enhanced parts, but don't go flaunting around males in loin cloths. It looks really homosexual, and yes, that is a bad bad thing.
That and it doesn't even look cool.
Click to expand...

We're just lucky this movie wasn't shot with full frontal nudity like Frank Miller depicted in his book!

The point he wanted to get across was that these 300 were the fiercest, most elite warriors in Sparta. They were born and bred warriors, so he reflected that by portraying huge guys with what seemed like 3% body fat. IMO, it made them look the part.

Take the movie for what it is - a film adaption of the graphic novel. No need to over analyze!
 
Originally posted by: TehMac
Well its just one of those irksome things. Like, we don't mind the enhanced parts, but don't go flaunting around males in loin cloths. It looks really homosexual, and yes, that is a bad bad thing.
That and it doesn't even look cool.
Click to expand...
As the guy right below you said, the men wearing loincloths is historically accurate. Even if it wasn't, this is Hollywood we're talking about, and flaunting mens' sexuality sells every bit as well as womens'; just look at Brokeback Mountain. I guess you wouldn't want to see anything you could see by looking in the mirror after you get out of the shower though, that would be terrible.

I, for one, do mind the enhanced parts because it is completely stupid to combine over-the-top supernatural CGI elements with a movie based on a comic book which is (apparently very loosely) based on a historical battle. They could have just made cool CGI renditions of normal battle scenes. Makes me want to wait for a World War II movie with slimy disco-dancing octopuses and midget pirates from outer space as Axis soldiers.
 
Originally posted by: masshass81
Originally posted by: TehMac
Originally posted by: JungleMan1
I like how everyone is bickering about whether the loincloths are "historically accurate" or not in a movie with 200-foot tall elephants, Gollum, and Xerxes being played by a white 10-foot-tall version of Dennis Rodman. Historically accurate? Give me a fvcking break.
Click to expand...

Well its just one of those irksome things. Like, we don't mind the enhanced parts, but don't go flaunting around males in loin cloths. It looks really homosexual, and yes, that is a bad bad thing.
That and it doesn't even look cool.
Click to expand...

We're just lucky this movie wasn't shot with full frontal nudity like Frank Miller depicted in his book!

The point he wanted to get across was that these 300 were the fiercest, most elite warriors in Sparta. They were born and bred warriors, so he reflected that by portraying huge guys with what seemed like 3% body fat. IMO, it made them look the part.

Take the movie for what it is - a film adaption of the graphic novel. No need to over analyze!
Click to expand...

I did see the History channel's 2 hr special on the what led to the battle of Marathon and subsequently, Thermoplyae. It showed how they fought, armor worn, naval significance, etc... I still loved this movie! 🙂

 
Originally posted by: JungleMan1
Originally posted by: TehMac
Well its just one of those irksome things. Like, we don't mind the enhanced parts, but don't go flaunting around males in loin cloths. It looks really homosexual, and yes, that is a bad bad thing.
That and it doesn't even look cool.
Click to expand...
As the guy right below you said, the men wearing loincloths is historically accurate. Even if it wasn't, this is Hollywood we're talking about, and flaunting mens' sexuality sells every bit as well as womens'; just look at Brokeback Mountain. I guess you wouldn't want to see anything you could see by looking in the mirror after you get out of the shower though, that would be terrible.

I, for one, do mind the enhanced parts because it is completely stupid to combine over-the-top supernatural CGI elements with a movie based on a comic book which is (apparently very loosely) based on a historical battle. They could have just made cool CGI renditions of normal battle scenes. Makes me want to wait for a World War II movie with slimy disco-dancing octopuses and midget pirates from outer space as Axis soldiers.
Click to expand...

You want to see a metal slug movie? 😕
 
Originally posted by: JungleMan1
Originally posted by: TehMac
Well its just one of those irksome things. Like, we don't mind the enhanced parts, but don't go flaunting around males in loin cloths. It looks really homosexual, and yes, that is a bad bad thing.

That and it doesn't even look cool.
Click to expand...
As the guy right below you said, the men wearing loincloths is historically accurate. Even if it wasn't, this is Hollywood we're talking about, and flaunting mens' sexuality sells every bit as well as womens'; just look at Brokeback Mountain. I guess you wouldn't want to see anything you could see by looking in the mirror after you get out of the shower though, that would be terrible.
Click to expand...

Most of ATOT won't recognize what they see in that movie from personal experience. 😉 I'm amazed there haven't been a rash of threads asking why all of the Spartans had parallel, vertical rows of tumors upon their abdomens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top