Amazing on a Visual Level but Slightly Overrated

Rating: 8/10 (20 November 2007)

King Leonidas: The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant, that few stood against many, and that before this battle is over, even a god-king can bleed.
300, adapted from Frank Miller's graphic novel, is best described as a visual orgasm. This may seem like a weird description, but trust me, it fits this film perfectly. '300' is one of the most visually stunning and innovative motion pictures to come along in years. The thing that makes this film actually work isn't the acting, directing or writing, but the cinematography. I've never before seen this style of film-making, and maybe that's why '300' left such an impression on me. Like an orgasm, the film takes you on a wild and unpredictably riveting romp, and one way or another, it's over far too quick.
'300' tells the story of the 300 Spartan soldiers who faced and army of millions of Persian soldiers, and held their own. Sure, every single one of them perished, but they took as many Persians with them to hell as they could. That's pretty much all the story there is in this movie. Zack Synder's directing here is as solid as it was for 2004's Dawn of the Dead, and perhaps even better. Synder doesn't deserve an Oscar Nomination for his work exactly, but it does gain my respect for him as an up and coming filmmaker. The acting is good as well, with no one turning in a disappointing performance. No one really turns in a "fantastic" performance either, because '300' isn't really concerned with it's characters as it is telling the tall tale of the 300 Spartans. I guess you could point at Gerard Butler who plays King Leonidas as giving a very good performance, as well as Dominic West (whom you probably don't know as Detective Jimmy McNulty from one of the best shows on television, 'The Wire') in a kind of slime-ball role. They both give good performances, but again, nothing to shout from the hilltops in joy over.
I honestly only have two complaints about the film. Number one, what was with all the monsters? Yeah, I thought the monsters were cool -- but were they really needed? The film had enough excitement without a fat giant with razors for arms decapitating Persian soldiers. They could just explain them as 'mutated freaks', but that wouldn't make sense. There is no possible way someone could be born with razors for arms -- even if their mother f__ked a shaving kit, THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE! I'm not saying the mutants were bad, they just seemed a tad unnecessary. The second complaint is the real complaint however. The only thing that sucked about '300' was the screenplay. Rittled with cliché lines and cheesy delivery, the characters dialog was very unrealistic. There was one scene in particular that caused me to roll my eyes in embarrassment. Two young Spartans are fighting Persians and one makes a cheeky joke to the other one about covering his back. That's funny, I seem to remember paying money to see '300', not f__king 'Rush Hour'. After that I was half-expecting Chris Tucker to come out in a toga with a spear with his whiny voice exclaiming, "Muthaf__ka, you know I don't wanna be f__king with no godd__n motherf__king mutant Persians and sh__t! Goddamn, you crazy! Sheeet!." But thankfully, that never happened.
All in all, despite a few flaws I mentioned, there isn't really a reason to dislike '300' -- unless you hate screen violence. It's a fast-paced, exciting, action-packed adrenaline rush that kept me glued to the screen the entire 110 minute runtime. Needless to say I was really wound up and hyper when the film ended, and had to run around Desert Ridge slicing up random people with a sword while shouting unintelligible babble in mock-Greek in order to calm myself down. Grade: B+