 |
On the other hand, 2007 brought a Miller adaptation with much broader mass appeal. 300 became the years first really big hit. With its $210 million gross, it turned into a surprise smash.
Based loosely on historical events, we go back to the BC years for 300.Persian King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) demands that Spartan KingLeonidas (Gerard Butler) kneel before him and by connection commitSparta to Persian rule. Leonidas refuses to do so. Though the Persianforces outnumber his by roughly one million to 300, Leonidas leads hismen to battle. Much mayhem ensues.
Those who seek more plot in 300shouldnt hold out any hope. Oh, the movie throws out a little intrigueback home between Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) and traitorous Theron(Dominic West), but those elements go virtually nowhere. The focusremains on Leonidas and his dudes as they hack and slash through thePersians.
If youve ever watched someone else as they play a videogame, youll know what to expect from 300.This isnt a movie as much as it is a collection of action sequences.The narrative ties the events together in only the most loose of allpossible ways. This is less a story and more a series of videogamelevels.
I think it gets tiresome to refer to certain movies as triumphs of style over substance, but that clich truly applies to 300.Director Zack Snyder clearly could not care less about suchtrivialities as story and characters. He cares about the way the filmlooks and thats it. Everything else becomes irrelevant to Snyder, aseven Leonidas receives nothing more than rudimentary character depth.Snyder nods vaguely in that direction but we still know or care little about the protagonist.
This means 300 looks like a compilation reel of Lord of the Ringsfight scenes. Not much happens other than the battles, as we ricochetfrom one to another with little substance to fill the gaps. Snyder justmakes this a greatest hits compilation of the Spartans baddestbrawls and hopes that we love all the mayhem.
Apparently a lot of people dodig the non-stop action, but I dont. Indeed, I think the incessantemphasis on fight scenes robs 300 of any drama, urgency orexcitement. Its like a meal that consists of 20 candy bars. Theyregood in small doses but dont satisfy when taken to such extremes.
Because of this, 300 becomes& <span style="text-decoration: underline;">dull.With one fight after another, the film seems tedious and repetitive.Maybe the first battle or two comes across as moderately interesting,but the movie quickly enters enough already! territory.
Snyders techniques make thingsworse. The fetishistic violence annoys more than it sickens, butirritate it does. Snyder films all of the gore in a rather loving waythat also robs the material of any impact. Oh, and he chooses to useslow-motion all the time. I reckon that if the whole movie ranat normal speed, itd probably last about 12 minutes. Maybe Snyderthinks we need the slow-motion to expand his feeble, slight narrativeinto feature length, and he might be right. Theres certainly notenough substance to fill out almost two hours of screen time.
300 comes with some ofthe worst, most clich dialogue Ive ever heard. We can usuallycomplete statements before the characters get there since weve heardso many of them already. Basically, take the rallying the troopsspeech from Braveheart and repeat it over and over; thatll give you some clue of the insipid lines heard here.
The film forces the performers to overact this material to a laughable extreme. In 300,the actors declaim the lines with the overwrought force youd expect tofind in a bad high school rendition of Shakespeare. This factor makesit even more impossible to view the film as anything other than a campypiece of schlock.
I respect Frank Miller and I actually liked Snyders Dawn of the Dead remake. I wanted and expected to enjoy 300.However, the film ended up as an enormous disappointment. Its nothingmore than a two-hour videogame demo released as a feature flick.
Read More...
[Source: The Hollywood News - Posted by FreeAutoBlogger]
