As escapist as it gets? Borat-style shock humor? Manipulation all the way? What was this thing that hit me?

Rating: 10/10 (24 March 2007)

10 out of 10 in this case means: you have to see this film. Nothing more, nothing less. I wouldn't dare deduct a single point from the maximum available score, for discouraging anyone from viewing this movie could not be further from my intentions. It's an exceptional cinematic experience (provided you really go and see it at a theatre). On that level it is unmissable. On other levels you have important choices to make. You can regard the concept behind the movie as a joke or caricature of some kind - Borat-style shock humor if you like, built around a kind of exaggerated orientalism. Or you may see it as irrelevant, focusing instead only on the visuals. These are the ways to enjoy this movie. These are the techniques that I consciously tried to concentrate on applying, to keep enjoying it. It wasn't that great a mental effort - ever since I saw the trailer I could hardly wait to see '300', and so it would have been difficult not to feel rewarded by finally making it. On the other hand, you may not necessarily like what you see if you can't put yourself beyond rightly seeing this movie as historically inaccurate.
And that's the key question. If it's shock humor or just an irrelevant means in the service of the greater purpose of escapist entertainment, then the inaccurate account of historical events is not manipulative. In fact in that case it is, potentially, even sarcastic and caricature-like. However, if it was meant with at least a bit of seriousness, it becomes quite problematic. The 300 could then be a bunch of Marines going loose after feeling their orders are counterproductive, only to put up a hell of a fight thanks to their superior training, to the potential bitter end. And Sparta might be the U.S. protecting freedoms with its own distinct, more sacrifice-ready culture for the rest of the democracies out there. And the Persians today's Iranians. And so on, with each and every politicizing statement like that being enough in itself to spark a debate that could escalate into world war with the faulty consensus-seeking software human beings are produced with in the factory, you know.
And there's one more thing. While I think we did get the special 'product' we were looking for in this film after first having seen the trailers, we could have had more of it here to make the film really exceptional. The story should have been less moving in a way. Spartans went out there for some serious blood-letting not minding even if in the end it was to be their blood that was to be spilled. They don't want to be remembered by us swimming in tears. They would probably appreciate a warrior-like reaction more, seeing, as they 'dine in hell', people willing to become strong to make the ultimate sacrifice and, importantly, to make it count, make it efficient as well. You don't have to accept their mentality but that is their mentality. Watching a movie you have to suspend disbelief and identify. So how can you watch soldiers making their sacrifice, sympathize with them, and, at the same time, think they are mistaken. The contradiction might go away if you temporarily but fully identify with them and start critically reflecting on that only afterwards. But this shows that then the film shouldn't try to evoke sorry for the soldiers. A lot more heavy music (most fittingly some straightedge hardcore) should have been added to the film score and the film should rock all the way. It's okay if, one hour after having seen it, you start thinking, oops, how I got carried away by the power of the film. But while it's underway you shouldn't for a moment cease to look for the next battle, together with the Spartan unit. In that, I think, the film tried to be too wise. Shouldn't have tried to make the message complex at all, that's my message to the crew. If there was an effort to that end, it didn't succeed.