Pretty pictures, action is okay, but pure propaganda.

Rating: 1/10 (18 March 2007)

Note: If you enjoyed Sin City, then this comment isn't for you -- its for people who don't read Frank Miller.
Who knew that the often overreacting Iranians were actually right for once? After all, they threw a tantrum over Alexander portraying the defeat of the Persians "too easily". (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6446183.stm for their fit) Since Iran's reputation is pretty much nil, and the trailer was nicely done, and I was invited to go there with some beautiful women -- I figured, "Hey, what the hell. It can't be that bad, and who knows, it looks like a completely different style from Sin City!" To sum up the movie: 1) Tons of gore != good action -- it's independent. Just watch a few good Hong Kong films to see what I'm talking about. In fact, you might even go so far as to say that if gore isn't overused in a film, it has a more powerful effect when it IS used.
2) Pretty imagery != good movie -- it's just icing in the cake.
3) The whole movie was a pure propaganda piece. Even the Republicans agree (Possible spoilers at link: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/186928.php) and that says something. Basically, all the dialog could be ripped from a government press release or Fox news, where words like 'Persia' get replaced by a word from the set {Afganistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Iran, Iran, Iran, Iran, North Korea, Iran} -- and it's pretty lame.
4) While it has a few cool scenes (e.g. where someone stabs the someone else at an appropriate time, or the introduction of the Japanese Ninja Warriors) -- that only accounts for a few minutes out of 117 minutes of footage.
5) Action is okay -- not spectacular. This would be fine if it wasn't a pure action movie, and spent time developing the plot, the historical background, and so on --- but the movie is just action. Thus we have a problem. Overuse of slow-motion and flying limbs and flying blood. If that gets you hot, more power to you. It doesn't do anything for me.
6) No historical basis at all. Except that there were 300 Spartans out of a force of ~7,000 Greeks that held Thermopylae. The swords are not Spartan Xiphos, the Spartans had dual-kingship and were a dictatorship, and you could go on and on. The worst part was simply that the Persians looked like a bunch of S&M freaks out of Sin City and some goth flicks.
I won't address the fact that the movie is really for people who like seeing near naked men and a few hard nipples of attractive women. (But mostly near naked men, all the time.) That's for you and Freud to think over.
And if you disagree with any of the conclusions of those points, that's fine -- this is just a warning to those who would draw similar conclusions.