When you lack substance, drama, good acting, and historical accuracy, rely on copious amounts of style.

Rating: 2/10 (12 March 2007)

I realize that grading this movie poorly will net my review a "not useful" rating by its' fans. It's sad that this will happen.
In 480 BCE, King Xerxes marched his massive Persian army through Asia Minor and into Europe. His highly mobile, wealthy, battle hardened force was a threat to all of Europe. In an effort to stave the Persian war machine long enough to rally full military support, King Leonidas took 300 of Sparta's finest warriors and several hundred other Greek soldiers, on a mission to defend the only viable pass through which King Xerxes' forces could adequately launch an attack on the Greek empire. While the Spartans were completely wiped out save for one messenger, their efforts were not in vain, as despite the overwhelming odds they managed to hold back the Persians for several days allowing precious time for their Greeks to properly strategize and mobilize. The result of their sacrifice allowed the Greeks to win a key naval victory, which pushed the Persian army back into Asia Minor and subsequently ended the Greco-Persian War. The most fascinating aspect of this story being that it actually happened. It is a tale of heroism and resolve to be handed down for as many more generations as it has been told, but the basics points of this inspiring story are all that this movie manages to capture. As is to be expected, especially since this screenplay was inspired by a comic that took many liberties in its re-telling of the story, the cultural and historical inaccuracies were abundant, but I won't bore you with a history lesson.
300 starts with the telling of King Leonidas' youth, his rite of passage into the Spartan Elite, and a few footnotes about the Spartan culture (some of which are historically accurate). All this is hurried through in a very hum-drum yet over-the-top way, and lacking all interesting details, in a way that an annoyed parent might reluctantly respond to a child's question that they would rather not answer. However beyond that, the movie spends little time developing character or story, and pretty much jumps into conflict as soon as possible by killing King Xerxes' herald and entourage, as if the Director knows that the audience is full of chest-thumping aggro males and their reluctant significant others. It is evident from the start that 300 tells the tale with a magnificent visual style that is bound to be copied in many movies to come. Though distinctly artificial and computer-enhanced, the unique use of lighting is both surreal and evocative, and is well at home in a movie as visually mesmerizing as this. However, the movie's redeeming values end there. As if attempting to buck the tired trend of Bullet-Time camera effects and start a new trend outright, the movie uses various film speeds in an attempt to add emphasis to its' scenes Example: A female oracle divines the future in a fluid dance punctuated by camera zooms, quick angle changes, and of course - close up shots of her bare breast (in a way that proves "I'm a movie designed for 15-27yo straight males")- that jump from normal to slow motion in an effort to winnow a certain depth that was never there to begin with. The use of this cinematography could have added artistic and visual value, however, the movie relies so heavily on this and the aforementioned lighting, and they are so frequently used, that they do little more than cheapen and dilute the movie overall. The action sequences are full of severed body parts, arterial spray, wince-inducing wounds, and of course, the previously mentioned camera work which, once again becomes tiresome after seeing it used for the entire movie. Despite the amount of gore in these combat sequences, and the movie has plenty of them, there was not a stain of blood on any piece of clothing, nor did it stick to surfaces, dot the ground, or even pool beneath the fallen. It simply vanished off screen or through the ground, as the CGI animator did not bother to apply those decals beyond their flight through the air, streaming from body parts, or on the tip of a weapon. Beyond that, any convincing blood was absent until the aftermath, when a mixture of corn syrup, glycerin, and red dye could conveniently be sprayed on the set. This only served to remind you that you are watching a comic book. The dialogue was exaggerated to the point where the characters seemed to realize that a camera was present, and thus they over-dramatized every syllable, in an attempt to make every line something to be quoted for posterity for centuries afterward. Most of the dialogue seemed to be either screamed or hushed in a poor attempt to pull emotion from the audience - every hard consonant in every scream was punctuated and emphasized in a way only a character in a bad action movie could speak, while every hushed verse was melodramatically spoken as if it were a eulogy. The dialogue was mundane, lacked creative grammar, and was designed to be easily digested and mindlessly regurgitated back by people as they exit the theatre, as opposed to being intelligent and demanding of any deep appreciation.
In essence, 300 is just another Braveheart/Troy/Gladiator/Black Hawk Down gore fest that caters to guys who can only associate anything resembling drama to violent macho bravado tripe that is associated through warfare and the dismemberment of a fallen comrade... except Braveheart was actually good. Like a Dean Devlin film (Independence Day, Godzilla [1998], The Patriot, Flyboys), 300 may be entertaining, but that's really it's only redeeming value, and people looking for something with substance, longevity, and artistic merit are better off looking somewhere else. Side note: It's truly a shame that (American) cinema has bizarrely simultaneously stagnated, and moved in a direction, where most (not all) action movies can no longer be taken seriously, or be produced with artistic endurance or any award-worthy value.