Visually breathtaking if glaringly flawed

Rating: 7/10 (27 April 2007)

At a first, objective glance, I find it incredibly easy to dismiss this film. It suffers from everything from genre clichés  so yeah, the wailing woman soundtrack worked well on Gladiator but that doesn't mean it has to be used in every historical epic made  to a screenplay emptier than the dark pit into which the Spartans cast their enemies; and with such an excessive use of slow-motion photography, one wonders just how short the film would actually be had the entire thing been played at normal speed. Despite this, at the same time, I found 300 to be nothing short of a groundbreaking achievement. And if one looks a little further outside of the box at this film, one will see that there is much more than meets the eye.
Despite its obviously out-of-the-box nature, I can't convince myself to ignore some glaringly problematic flaws the film suffers from. While its action scenes keep the blood pumping and the adrenaline flowing, I must admit that during most of the scenes in which killing of some kind was not depicted, I found myself indifferent and bored. The filmmakers attempted to interweave a subliminal political/social message into the film  some dribble about glory and freedom  which came across as forced, ridiculous and underplayed. Also, I found the utter lack of any characterization to be an irritating distraction. The previous Frank Miller adaptation, Sin City, was populated by caricatures. This time around, 300 is populated by nothing less than cardboard cut-outs; characters so utterly devoid of any traits or characteristics or anything interesting whatsoever about them that it's beyond the level of stereotypes. The acting too was mostly problematic, with Gerard Butler delivering a borderline-irritating performance, shouting and screaming for dramatic effect alone without even an ounce of conviction or sincerity in his words. The rest of the actors seem to be practically sleepwalking through the entire show. The film almost  but not quite  makes up for these glaring flaws with its incredible achievements in other fields, but I really feel that these problems drag it down and could have easily been fixed to create a truly compelling work. But alas, no film is perfect.
Unsurprisingly, probably one of the most noticeable aspects of the film's screenplay is its exaggerated, unbelievable, outrageous and sometimes downright ridiculous over-the-top nature. But since Snyder and Miller so cleverly book ended the film with a subjective storyteller, effectively they give themselves total freedom to spin the tale what which way they please. If you think about it, this really gives them the artistic license to include the over-exaggerations, the glorifying, and the outrageousness: monstrous creature-men, terrifying mutants, giant god-kings, over-sized elephants and other creatures, and so on. Actually, I quite liked this aspect, as it added a totally original spin to the classic, historic tale. Indeed, had 300 been a regular sword-and-sandals historical epic, I doubt it would really have anything new or interesting to add to the genre. By in actual fact crafting what can most easily be described as a fantasy film, Snyder and Miller portray the genre in a fresh, new, imaginative way as never has been seen before.
I am not a big supporter of the digital revolution. I think that movies like George Lucas' Star Wars prequels and to a lesser extent most any other significant action film from the past few years overuse and abuse the CGI tool to the point of excessiveness, and it all just comes across as terribly, unimpressive laziness. The two major flaws of over-using CGI is that it isn't well developed enough to carry an entire movie realistically and convincingly, and the other is that it really comes across as lazy and negligent  Lucas' Star Wars prequels in particular are living proof of everything that is bad about CGI. But in 2005, Robert Rodriguez treaded new ground in the CGI territory, and with 300 now Zack Snyder takes the CGI tool to entirely revolutionary levels. Instead of using CGI to replace reality, Snyder uses it to create imagery that is otherwise utterly impossible to create in a practical manner. By doing this, I can truly and honestly say that Snyder has crafted a groundbreaking film that uses CGI not as a tool but as an art form.
And I don't say this lightly whatsoever. Indeed, this total freedom Snyder has given himself by filming on blue screen sets allows him to craft what may be one of the most visually creative, unique and utterly astoundingly beautiful films of all time. I'm not exaggerating when I say that every single shot of this film is a heart stopping, breathtakingly gorgeous work of art; a renaissance masterpiece of the modern age. The sepia tones, the golden gleam, the striking dark shadows, the contrasts, the vibrancy this film is simply put, visually astounding.
In all, notwithstanding the ridiculous plot and story elements, painfully flat characters and boring, pointless talky scenes, 300 is a totally unique, brilliantly creative and an arrestingly visual masterpiece: With the most creative and breathtakingly artistic use of CGI imagery in any movie, 300 may just pave the path to a new, entirely visually liberated style of film-making. And if one views the film as a fantasy piece as opposed to a historical epic, one realizes that it's all in fun and just an entertaining, wildly crazy ride. Still, some flaws are too glaring to forgive, and had the film sharpened itself in terms of characters and story, it would have been far better than it actually is.