Stunning visuals let down by pointless fantasy......

Rating: 6/10 (25 March 2007)

I neither saw 'Sin City' nor any of the hype surrounding this film, but as one who spent a whole summer holiday when they were twelve copying the Greek Myths section out of a borrowed Larousse Mythology by hand, I came to this movie as a fan of Ancient Greece, art and culture. However, knowing that 300 was based on the graphic novel rather than the history, I viewed the film as such.
I many ways, I was not disappointed. The opening was entirely accurate in its depiction of Spartan Culture. The graphic style of the piece, which has bothered some, was a definite asset for me. The style, not only held true to the spirit of the novel, but also gave a nod to Greek art, and subtly drew on others. The beautiful Oracle sequence lent heavily on fantasy art, while the background vistas and the use of snow, wind and wave, owed not a little to the woodcuts of Hokusai. Indeed, many of the visuals made this an astounding and exciting experience. The battles were at times stunningly realised, the phalanx was well depicted, hails of arrows and a real sense of the eyeball to eyeball, brutality of hand to hand fighting gave the piece a reality which belied the stylisation. Yes, there was plenty of digitised blood, but often the violence was implied by shadow, sound or close up of a bloodied weapon, thus managing to wrest itself from possible accusations of 'slasher gratuitousness'. If that were not enough, there were many shots of the body beautiful (both male and female) to keep any mind from wandering. The casting throughout was good, and not too starry for anyone to hog the screen. Lena Headley made a striking Queen, David Wenham was a sympathetic character- narrator, and Gerard Murphy made a strong and effective King Leonidas. Murphy even managed to make several rousing speeches a la Braveheart sound more convincing than Mel - no doubt helped by the fact that this time his accent was genuine.......
That said, my problems with the film came when it lurched entirely into fantasy, in scenes that seem to have come from an entirely different film - several films in fact.... Though scattered like chaff through the wheat of better sequences, when they occurred, my principle enjoyment came from playing spot-the-reference, rather than the action. Why for example, did the Oracle's attendants appear to be medieval cowled monks who seemed to have a bad case of leprosy? (Braveheart/Name of the Rose - anyone?) Why a Spartan Quasimodo? Why Immortals who seemed to be a combination of Ninja and dark hordes of Mordor? Why the mutant fighting for the Persians which was lifted straight from Lord of the Rings...? As spectacular as the creature was, I don't think the Persians had attack-rhino...... But most and worst of all, why was Xerxes portrayed as a camp dancer from a burlesque, swathed in gold 'bondage' chains, shimmer body gel and sparkly gold eye-shadow? Good grief - the guy was nice to look at - but why?? The Persian culture had more than enough to recommended it to be depicted with as much reality as the Spartan heroes. Yes, fantasy might be part of the genre, but for me in this case, its inclusion seemed shoehorned into the plot and utterly pointless, making what could have been a very good film indeed into a fairly good one. It's certainly worth a look - but it's not the must see I think it might have been.