In our culture where fast food rules and reality TV frequently wins the hour, why should we be surprised that a movie like 300 would be a 'surprise.' Audiences like to know exactly what they're getting into. The trailer promises Matrix-like action, buff bods, ample breast, and a whole lot of spilt blood. When a ticket costs upwards of 10 dollars plus your dates' ticket and of course your popcorn/soda, you are looking at 30 bucks for a night out - one you can't simply gamble with. That I think is the key to a lot of 300's success... you get exactly what you want, no questions asked.
Everyone I have talked to have loved it. The only people who don't are a handful of the critics. They say it is sterile, a videogame.
I say who says that is a bad thing? The movie clearly has one agenda on its mind... to entertain, not to comment on the Iraq War, not the tell a historically accurate battle and not to show deep character depth. It sets out to do one thing and that is to give the audience an escape from their lives and be immersed in the world Zach Snyder and Frank Miller have created. To cheer with every bombastic speech and to gasp at every blood soaked gouging. In its own way it becomes pop art or a visual opera. Why is a videogame considered bad? Videogames are art. They force you to participate and create a unique experience you can't find anywhere else. I say 300 does that.
Why can't my favorite movie of the year also be the best of the year? 300 gave me the most exciting experience at a theater ever... well, aside from any Star Wars. I drove with some buddies to NYC to see it at an IMAX. The audience was respectful. The picture crisp. The sound immense. Ive never been so throughly thrilled with what I was watching. This is what makes cinema the greatest medium. Once it was over, I was entertained. I think King Leonidas will go down as one of cinemas greatest heroes and by the end of it all I wanted to do was pick up a shield and spear, and watch it again. With 300, Zodiac and Black Snake Moan, March has quickly shown it can house some of the best movies of the year. 2007 looks to be quite a great year at the movies.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Are You Not Entertained?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
At least in one aspect of your argument I agree completely... whatever film you like the most should be your favorite film of the year. Hell, I'm the guy who proudly exhibits Eternal Sunshine, Fight Club and Memento as Bests-Ofs simply for that reason - and I will defend to the death the merits of my adolescent obsession, Terminator 2: Judgment Day. So for as far as that much, I concur.
But the overall appeal of 300 is something I call into question, and not just because it reminds me of a videogame (although it does, and quite frankly it makes me think it'd make a kickass videogame). But seeing two hours of seemingly nonstop violence set in Ancient Greece about the Battle of Thermopylae with what appears to be very little backstory or character development is what lacks the appeal for me. A videogame you can play and quickly discard with once you get bored, a feature film requires devotion of two hours straight.
I figured 300 would be a big hit - maybe not as big as it has become - but a big hit nonetheless. And every friend of mine that has seen the damn thing raves about it, so I feel like I'm somehow in the wrong here even before I've watched it, but I stick with my original impression. 300 looks like big dumb fun, and to me that warrants nothing more than a DVD rental and certainly should not be demolishing a film as masterfully concocted as Zodiac is.
Although I admit, I can't help but feel giddy it's kicking the absolute shit outta Wild Hogs and Premonition.
I agree if you are looking for deep depth, you are not going to get it. It is no Eternal Sunshine. Yet it has enough for you to understand the characters motives and the emotions, more than your regular blockbuster. It has a couple really touching scenes and Butler really is quite good. Although I do admit the last speech isn't a rousing as it should have been, but it was much like the novel in that aspect.
The novel is all about visuals. So naturally that is a big portion of what 300 is all about. The dialogue isn't spectacular, yet it is quite memorable. The plot isnt complex, yet it is quite thrilling. It is one of the few occasions, when a movie supercedes the original source material, with its additions.
But please Brian, this is a movie to see on the big screen. Whether you will like the story or not, I can't imagine you not simply engrossed in the beauty that Snyder displays. It really is a work of art. When I was working at the theatre, Sin City came out. I watched the movie a few times and than decided to watch it without sound and simply "see" the story unfold. To be honest, it was kinda boring. But 300, plays much like a silent movie. If I still worked at the theatre, I would watch 300 without the sound, and I imagine I would be just a enthralled as I would with it.
I am quite of fan of Frank Millers stuff, so I was quite the eager beaver to see both films. I understand your hesitance, and it does suck that Zodiac isn't getting the love it deserves, but what Fincher film (besides 7) has. I think for once, this is a time when the general public got it right.
PS Wild Hogs does suck, but it still is probably in the top ten movies so far. That just shows you how bad Jan and Feb were. I really think Norbit killed Eddies Oscar chances. Ghost Rider will prevent Cage from ever getting another one.
You know dude, the more I watch it, the more problems I have with it. It's still my favorite film of the year. By far. But, having to watch it on the shit-tastic Fred 15 made me focus a bit more and brought to my attention some minor flaws. For example, the dialogue. While it is certainly not the main reason I drove all the way to NYC to watch 300, if there was one more mention of freedom or democracy, my brain might have collapsed. Obviously they wanted us to realize that the Spartans fought for all that tasty goodness, but good Christ, I figured that out after the first speech....didn't need the next 23.
I agree that the lack of character development might have been a problem, but I think this film doesn't necessarily need that depth. A great parallel film in this respect would be United 93. A group of people that you know are doomed, and that you know very little about, but care for and empathize with based solely on the situation they are in and the actions they take.
Overall though, I gotta go with TK on this one. This is a film to be seen on the big screen, and, as in cock size, the bigger the better. You're going to lose so much at home on your TV, unless you have a mighty kick-ass TV, at which point invite me over when this comes out on DVD. I think it's great that an internet-fueled, fanboy driven film finally succeeded in a huge way. Hopefully this will allow a bit more freedom to those directors who want to make graphic, yet audience-friendly films that previously would have never been greenlit. Congrats to Zack Snyder for making one kick-ass, balls-out mega-bloody visual masterpiece...and here's to hoping that Watchmen will live up to the almost inevitable hype to come.
To don't know Pengin, I think the dialogue, while certainly repetitive, seems to suit the atmosphere very well. The movie is all about excess, much like another classic Road House. While that movie was about excess in terms of nudity, mullets, and just all around kick-assness, 300 exists in a world were you have excess in visuals, dudity (though not what I was hoping for) and glorious bombastic speeches. Unfortunately, I haven't see it again since NYC, mostly due to a big project I got to finish. I will see it again on the crappy Fred 15 screens and see if will can notice any of your quibbles. Thanks for joining our blog.
Alright, I just spent a while writing a lengthy reply to this post which promptly got deleted by either blogger or my ineptitude. I can't decide which. Either way, this response is getting scaled back a bit.
First off I'd like to welcome pengin to the boards. I'm very pleased with how well this blog has been running, even in just the few days that it has been up for. We've been getting a healthy influx of posts and comments from everyone and even though we only have three contributors thus far, I feel like we have a solid core of film aficionados with which to build around. And obviously we hope to continue adding to the contributors and the discussion in the coming weeks.
Now back to the topic of conversation, 300. I don't want to give the impression that I'm bad-mouthing the film, I'm not the type to criticize a movie before I've even seen it. I'm only commenting on the trailers and stills that I've seen. It just hasn't appealed to me in the way it obviously appealed to its $100+ million audience. Which is strange to say because I thought the trailer for Sin City looked so kickass from the first time I saw it.
I think the realism of the picture plays a significant role in my reaction. Like the aforementioned United 93, 300 is based on a real event, but United 93 is drenched in realism. It's set in present day, with an attack we all know too well. It's shaky camera and documentary approach only add to the in-the-moment feel of the picture.
Then there's Sin City, whose stylishness approaches noir (a genre I'm very fond of). The only comparions I can make for 300 is Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow or some type of cartoon or Pixar CGI creation. Which has me immensely worried about the future of filmmaking with more and more pictures relying on the complete CGI creation of their backgrounds.
Regardless, 300 is probably my second most anticipated movie of the year thus far besides Zodiac (needless to say, I haven't seen that many films thus far in 2007).
But seeing that I can barely get out to theaters except on Sat/Sun, I might have to rely on my 44-inch screen to relay the experience of the movie theater as best as it can. Now, an IMAX showing might be an altogether different decision...
To comment on Brian's last post...I agree with your statement "Which has me immensely worried about the future of filmmaking with more and more pictures relying on the complete CGI creation of their backgrounds."...to a point I guess.
When CGI films like Shrek and the Pixar stuff started to replace the old-school, hand-drawn animation that Disney excelled at for so long, I remember being incredibly sad that I might never again see another Aladdin or Mulan. I have never been huge on CGI, especially in things like horror films. I'm a real fake blood and guts kinda guy. However, I think what Sky Captain and Sin City and now 300 have all done is a very important, and dare I say it, needed step forward in cinema.
I love looking at Lord of the Rings and thinking, "Man, I good buy a plane ticket to New Zealand and end up standing in the middle of the Shire". I love looking at Tatooine and knowing that I could go to Tunisia and wander around in the desert and hopefully not die and maybe end up standing where Luke Skywalker watched the duel sunset. But sometimes, it's just not possible, or feasible, for a director to search the world over to find their Hobbiton.
300 succeeded, and was really only made, because they were willing to go CGI. And it works. For this film, it works. The backgrounds are just beautiful, the armies vast, the blood flowing or spurting as necessary, and the slo-mo/sped-up fight scenes breathtaking. Could it have been done using practical effects? To an extent, but that's not the purpose of this film. Adequate is not enough. Hell, over-the-top isn't enough. I understand the concern about CGI, but if using CGI means that more experimental films are going to be made because they fit the budget...then I'm all for it.
Overall though, it'll probably just be a phase. Disney's going back to hand-drawn cartoons...starting 2009. CGI will never be gone for good...but I think there's enough diversity in the industry to allow for both the practical and the hi-tech....which is the best of both worlds for me.
I agree completely about the replacement of the classic 2D animation feature with CGI creations - when Disney announced that they would no longer be creating 2D features a few years ago I thought they were completely out of their minds. Personally I've never head of such a brazen disregard for everything that built a corporation as big as Disney, and it took an outsider in Steve Jobs to implement the division again. Unbelievable, Walt Disney was probably spinning in his grave over that one.
But discussing the CGI worlds with real life characters, I think it's a slippery slope we're dealing with. I'm not opposed to the occassional Sin City and 300, especially when it's based on a comic book or graphic novel that needs it to really stay true to the source material. It's the unquenchable desire for more I worry about though.
Plus with studios tinkering with entirely CGI created films, such as Final Fantasy and digitally adding tears to Jennifer Connelly's face in Blood Diamond (which was wholly reprehensible), where does it end? When does acting become nothing more than a special effect?
Now I know that human actors will never be fully replaced (at least I sure as hell hope not, Simone anyone?) but it's this over-reliance on computer graphics that bothers me the most and I guess 300 just encapsulates that. Honestly that isn't my only hesitation to visit Zach Snyder's world (Snyder's negative response to any critic trying to find actual meaning in 300 besides the empty-headed entertainment it is also strikes me as wildly stupid to the point of hilarity).
All that said, I'll definitely be seeing 300 at some point. It just will never be a must-see film for me.
Post a Comment