300 = 100 wasted minutes

there has been a lot of excitement, fuss and enthusiasm for this film 300 of late, so we had a look at it. Michele is of the impression that it is a rather good film and would reccomend it. i am not and would not, quite frankly.




whereas people are celebrating the fact that it was all done on one stage (or perhaps two) with the backgrounds added in digitally, i cannot for the life of me see how this is a wonderful thing if it is always so blatantly obvious that you are looking at a false set that it is distracting.

ah, you say, i should be concentrating on the plot and acting, not looking for flaws. well, it would be nice to do that, but the plot is so mind numbingly one dimensional and simple it is tiresome, and the acting looks like it has been done by a group of actors who know only too well that they are, to all intents and purposes, about to be inserted into a cartoon.

the filmmakers claimed that they "never intended this to be historically acurate". oh, really? then why use the name and mythology of the Spartans at all? why not make something up completely from scratch? too complicated, is it? the interweb network thing is no doubt littered with sites lambasting the historical folly of 300, i shall not bore you further with them in a film review.

the much lauded and heralded action scenes? dull, tedious, repetitive, dull, tedious, repetetive. nothing new here whatsoever, and they manage to be exceedingly unimaginative with their cloning of other mythological battle films.

300 does nothing but underline the fact that Troy was a masterpiece of cinema, horribly underrated by the world. blimey, 300 makes something like Red Sonja look original and authentic.

i understand that my view on 300 will be a minority one. but don't be fooled into thinking you simply have to find this film cool or brilliant.