Review of 300 (2007) by Turner E — 01 Mar 2014

Oh, 300. I have such a love hate relationship with this film. On one hand it is a visually stunning, exciting, war film about 300 men who died defending their home. On the other hand, its an over the top, historically inaccurate, homoerotic, dumb guy movie. I used to love this film as a kid when I saw it a few years ago. But seeing it through the eyes of an adult, I can't help but see the obvious flaws plaguing this movie. But at the same time, I can't fully denounce this film, as I did truly enjoy this aspects of this picture.

In ancient Greece, king Leonidas rules over the Sparta, and a military elite fighting force that can take on any army. The Persian army arrives to conquer all of Greece, but the corrupt council denies Leonidas the full strength of his army, he decides to challenge King Xerxes's greatest army with only 300 of his best men. But as Leonidas knows, they are 300 of the best soldiers in the world.

Seeing it through the eyes of an adult, I know now just how bad certain aspects of the film are. While at the time the film was visually stunning, EVERYONE trying to do this kind of film has copied Zack Snyder's green screen style. While some moments still hold up, its hard not to notice the visual tricks when we've seen it a million times by now. Compared to Sin City, the visual style has just worn out. That film still holds up for its unique black and white visuals, but each year 300 looks more and more dated.

Arguably, the worst visual trick in this film is the slowmotion. Sometimes it is effective like in the battle scene, where you can see all the action, or or few key visual moments. But most of the time it comes across as unnecessary and show offish. Particularly moments where characters are just doing things like riding a horse or cracking a whip where slowmotion is just not needed.

Also, this film is pure propaganda. They portray the Spartans, who were slave mongering, eugenics loving, homoerotic barbarians as paragons of truth and justice. And they do everything to portray the multicultural and mostly open minded Persian empire as totalitarian and horrifying. Xerxes is portrayed as a gay, weak, and cruel tyrant. All of the men are usually mutilated or disgustingly ugly. And every dark skinned individual is as monster. Its hard not to see this from a modern perspective. Even if it was unintentional, it still comes across as offence.

And do I really need to mention how homoerotic this movie is. Not that there is anything "wrong" with that. But this is defiantly not just a guy movie. It makes Top Gun look tame by comparison.

Still, for all the things wrong with this film, I can't just hate on it. The story, while defiantly inaccurate, does stand on its own. Take out the historical facts, and its a damn good tale of David vs Goliath armies. And the action, is still very intense to the point where you can't help but crack a grin. And, surprisingly, the acting is really good. While the narration can get old, most of the actors do a fine job even with some of the blander dialog. Lina Heady and an unknown Michael Fassbender have some great moments throughout the film. But lets be honest, this is Gerard Butler's movie. I'm not a big fan of his, but man does he own this role. He is one of the most badass charterers in fiction. He has a commanding voice and presence, but at the same time, he is hardly a stick in the mud. Its a great performance that could have easily been a one note character.

So one the whole, this film has a ton of issues. But on its own, I still enjoyed it. Maybe its just the inner 12 year old in me, but man is this a wild ride.

**1/2 (out of 4).