"What It Does Is Entretain."

Rating: 7/10 (30 August 2007)

300 "Spartan King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) and 300 Spartans fight to the last man against Persian King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) and his army of over one million soldiers, while in Sparta, Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) attempts to rally support for her husband."
300 has probably assured Frank Miller a spot in the millionaire club for live. Before it, sure, there was Sin City but after the gargantuan box office earnings this recent movie has brought in, well Probably all of his comic-books are getting adapted the hell out of them. Which of course is good for the comic-book industry who is slowly, but surely, climbing its way from the hole the economic fiasco of the nineties left it in. So, as you read on this review, you have to keep in mind that 300 is not without any accomplishments.
In fact, let's list them.
What it does is entertain. The whole movie is based around the glamorous fight scenes, and splendid cinematography. Even at the beginning of the story: the horse riding in the horizon, the cold cuts, and slow motion of the love scene, and the soldier's constant narration full of pompousness, and rhetoric- already prepare us for the endless array of blood, choreographed fight-scenes and speeches that will follow. Endless array. That sounds as if its bad, doesn't it? And in fact, when you talk about action movies, and epic movies, people often complain about how there is too much explosions, and special effects. But the thing with 300 is that the director, Zack Synder, just does it so well. The fight scenes are the strongest aspect of the movie. Spears dripping blood slashing across the screen, men slowly falling into an abyss, suspended in the air. And then, suddenly the camera will focus on one of the soldiers, as they engage hundreds in an avalanche of pure manliness. The audience, most of them can't help but smile. I mean, what Synder does is He performs these fight sequences so well, that they never seem repetitive even though they actually are. He does it perhaps too well.
You see, after a while, the battle is all the audience cares about. So, when suddenly, the violent, and aggressive pace of those sequences are interrupted by the political intrigue of the Queen's storyline, it feels awkward. Out of place. Which, even though it is a major setback, happens not only because the audience is impatient to get back with Leonidas, and his 300, but because the Queen's scenes suffer major faults. It seems that Synder doesn't know how to handle them. The pace is slow, and the dialogue is stiff, but the director still tries to squeeze the slow motion into the scenes, as if the same rules that apply to the battlefield applied in the Senate, or the Queen's residence. In the end, the eye of the camera feels inappropriate, and the whole storyline feels like a filler. 300 can afford to be dumb. Sadly, she doesn't take that chance, and ends up paying for it. And it's not only that. You see, after seeing Xerxes' abominations and monsters, and bearing witness to the unbelievable stunts the Spartans pull, the speeches the Queen delivers The audience. They just can't take them seriously. In fact, most of them can't even listen. There is little dialogue in the battle scenes. The narrator does the talking over there, as we are shown montages of swords cutting heads off, and wounds opening. The speeches are just unbearable. Plus, they feel like propaganda.
It is not a lie that the movie has been under fire from a number of different fronts. The Iranian government, direct descendants of the Persian empire, has criticized it's depiction of the Persians as a monstrous, androgynous, orgy-attending, merciless individuals. Which is understandable, I guess, but in the end, hey, it's just a movie whose whole purpose relies on trying to sound as unbelievable as possible, and then thrive in the fact that it is still based on a true, historic event. Another reason of why it has been under fire is that people are drawing comparisons between Bush's "war on terror", to Leonidas' "march to glory". Is that what the movie does? Defend the war against Iraq? Subtly. It speaks of freedom, and convincing the people that striking against the impending threat is better than just waiting for them. Portrays people who oppose the war as cowards, and traitors. And it does a great job brainwashing the audience. Not by means of the speeches, as it intended, but by the essentially one-dimensional characters, who look, act, and talk like demi-gods. The audience wants to be like them. They believe the narrator when he talks about how the Spartans are direct descendants from Hercules, and about how they are the best of the best in what the human race is concerned. So, we shrug at their atrocities. Throwing ugly babies from a cliff? Sure. We'll dine in Hell! Getting killed instead of retreating? Why the hell not? Prepare for glory! We, the audience, glare at the Greeks who flee the battle, and all they want is not to get killed. We laugh at how they kill messengers.
So Mr. IMDb User, should I go see 300?
Hear me now: it is a good movie. I mean, it's not a great movie, but it is good in a way that you will enjoy it thoroughly. Sure, after the splendid opening sequence, the politics, and the five-minute long silent good-bys will seem endless, but when the bloodshed begins, you won't care. I say go see it. Yeah, it has flaws, but not enough to toss it away.