300

Xerxes does resemble the escort for some extravagantly dressed drag queen at a gay ball. If that doesn't give away they aren't going for any historical accuracy, nothing will.

HA! Well put.

ex-actly

I watched the movie when it was out and overall I have a positive opinion, but to be honest I expected something better.

The presentation of the Spartan and Hellenic spirit was efficient. I have to note the realism of the battles. Unlike most movies, this one was showing many of the battles in a slow motion and you could follow the battle.

The historical innacuracies of the movie were a few, but it had many "natural inaccuracies". I am referring to the parts they exaggerated it by presenting orc and troll-looking members of the Persian army. The rhinos and the elephants in the movie are also much bigger than the real ones.
The presentation of Xerxes as a hippy-looking skinhead homosexual is also far from the reality, as Xerxes had a long beard and he was always wearing a crown.
Now regarding the presentation of the Greeks: The actors were more Greek-looking than the Nordics of "Troy" and "Alexander". What I did not like is that they were all depilated. At least the breasts of the women were not silicon-fed.

Overall, the movie was a lot better than flukes "Troy" or "Alexander", but as I said it could still be better.

The problem with the rhinos and elephants isn't that they are too big, it's that they're in the film at all. The Persian army never used elephants -- at least not in the west (it's possible that they may have had a few in the east, but I think even that is farfetched). And no army, in any period of history, has ever deployed rhinos.

That was something my husband and I talked about , and did some research on as well.
No where is there ( that WE found ) a record of anyone using a rhino in battle. But again, consider the source .. It IS based on a comic book.

With their behaviors, I dont see how a rhino would even be considered anyway.

An elephant on the other hand could be a great thing to use..... except for the fact that they can be easily spooked.

Mixing real history with fantasy is not something one sees that often. Some directors have become downright didactic telling a historical tale, as in "Alexander," and the dramatics become frosting on the cake. Borrowing some inspiration from LOTR isn't verboten if that's the intent. Here, I think it was the intent.

I saw 300 last night!
It wasnt as amazing as I hoped.
Colours great, over all story good, the comradeship between the soldiers was fanatstic, costumes amazing, battle scenes amazing,characters great and it was soooo refreshing to see real strong mens torso's, not male models!!

I hoped there would be more of the fight scenes, I was looking forward to seeing more elephants in battle but they were out as soon as they arrived.The den of odd people was hardly touched on, they could have made more of that.

Overall, worth seeing but not as good as I hoped.

I saw 300 on Friday and can see why others love it. Though I didn't like everything about it, it really was done in a creative way and is truly a piece of art.

I also got some good trailers before the movie, including The Invisible, which is finally coming out later in April. I'm picking it to be a sleeper hit.

They wore glasses?

300, the most racist and most historically incorrect movie ever!

1. Since when did persians depicted as asians? WTF is this? Persia isn't even in the east. Any country west of the Indus River(which is the river separating india from pakistan) is considered "western". THe Ancient Persian Empire never controlled any countries east of the Indus River. THey controlled much of Egypt and the middle east but nothing else.

2. The Use of Elephants/Rhinos. ANother historically incorrect depiction of war. The only time Elephants were acually used in battle is by Hannibal Barca against the Roman Legions. Elephants were never used in the battle of Thermapolae. Rhinos.. UHH rhinos aren't even domesticated enough to be tamed.

3. The "mask" of the immortals is another historically incorrect part of the movie. THe Japanese used those mask to scare their oppositions, not the Persians. The immortals never used those japanese masks. SERIOUSLY, The persian empire is not "asian"

4. The representation of persians is racist. Seriously, they made it seem like ALL persians were ugly/ruthless/brutal people. Since when is king Xerxes 7 feet tall, black, and have multiple peircings?!! Xerxes was just a typical king with lots of facial hair, not some freak of nature.


5. Oh and btw, why did they have to pick on black people in the movie? I seen like 2 black people's heads cut off, and one gets Kicked in a well. UHH, if you were black, wouldn't u be skeptical? BTW, im pretty sure there wasn't any black persians in the past. Most of the people in ancient history were racist.

No, it's considered the Middle East and therefore it is not a Western country.

Picking on a movie that's adapted from a comic book (well, "graphic novel") and is not meant to be taken seriously in the first place is not to be taken seriously. I did find it an exciting and epic adventure film, and didn't for a minute take it as a historical film. The author of the graphic novel and the filmmaker even put out disclaimers that it was not created to be real history but a fantastical take on history. Again, I would read Herodotus for the "actual" story and with a grain of salt -- it likely has some historical inaccuracies but there's not much there to check it out. Considering the Bible, I believe even some ancient historians took some license, especially if the history was written from verbal accounts passed down from events. Archeology has confirmed and denied details about historian's accounts of events. For instance, it's been revealed that Nero unlikely had Rome burned -- it now appears more likely that Christians did do it. One of the most astounding confirmations is that Troy actually did exist. There's not much to confirm Helen or the rest of the characters in what was written to be a mythology, but history had inspired Plato to write his masterpieces, even what he wrote about Atlantis.

I could buy the racism to an extent but it's still a bit of a stretch -- there's nothing when I Googled it other than how the Persians were depicted. I do believe the Persians did enslave native Africans and they were forced to engage in their battles but I'd have to do some research. I do see the homophobic, homoerotic take noted from some reviewers.

Artistically, the film is pretty nearly flawless, but, of course, I'm not about to compare it to a classic masterpiece painting by, say, Caravaggio (which was the ridiculous comparison of scenes in "Passion of the Christ.")
Kubrick and Scorcese are two filmmakers who came close, in "Barry Lyndon" and "The Age of Innocence" to superimposing great classic painting in their imagery.

It's a great movie, and I agree it is best seen on the big screen. Or IMAX if available.

I actually saw it on a big screen at a THX certified theater in Huntington Beach and then at home on my large screen HD display. Still had great impact -- the sound was especially state-of-the-art.

Persia is in Asia. Thus all Persians are Asians. What's the problem here?


Already discussed in this thread.


No doubt this is correct.


Quite right.



Well, that depends on how you define "Persian." The Persian empire, at its height, extended into Egypt, where one would have probably found some Nubians (from the area now known as northern Sudan). So there were blacks who were subjects of the Persian empire. It is, however, highly unlikely that any of them managed to serve in Xerxes's campaigns against the Greek states.

Right you are, Joe. I suppose I believe that Middle Earth actually existed. Tolkien sure has me convinced.

I did take some time to research online -- the Nubian angle is true, but I lost that link.

Reading between the lines of Jeremiah's post, I suppose the fact that Persia is now Iran could prompt a filmmaker to throw in some not-so-subliminal barbs regarding Persians. Every person I met from Iran after the fall of the Shaw (they seem to swarm into Newport Beach, CA when I was in business on the Peninsula) was insistent that they were Persians, not Iranians.

Even though you've pointed out they are from Asia, I don't get the connection of racism as their ancient heritage is a mix of aboriginal Caucasians and Asian peoples as far away as China, as well as many other ethnic peoples beginning in Southeast Asia. Iranian is a term for all these peoples from Eurasia to China.

So the Xerxes in the film may be off track according to what he likely resembled from art of that age but I can see where they got their inspiration for their kinky, new age revisionist Xerxes (who looks like he belongs in a Gay Pride Parade). I think it's hilarious that anyone gets worked up over it. Lighten up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples

I still remeber one of my friend calling it (300) as good as LOTR...

After hearing those comments I did not go and watch the film.

There can never be another LOTR... at all.

The battle scenes are as good as LOTR but that's about it. Practically the entire movie is the battle. But it is a fantasy concocted out of an actual historical event. I can't quite figure anyone getting their panties all tied up in a knot over historical accuracy or any perceived racism, especially since they need a study lesson on the history (and geography) themselves. Too many posts on A2K are from some source that has a bone to pick and is being paraphrased for our consumption. Bad appetizers tend me to think of leaving the table before the salad.

BEST MOVIE EVER. brilliant, gory visually stunning and the only movie that i was bawling like a little baby at the end.