300
The adaptation of graphic novels and comic books has officially become the new millennium's most impressive movie art form. Frank Miller's "300," a follow-up to the brilliant "Sin City" is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful cinematic experiences you are likely to have. The visuals are so impressive, in fact, that they compensate for the total lack of story and character development (the film's only shortcoming). Then again, why do all movies need an airtight plot and deep characters? The genius of films like "300" and "Sin City" is that they entrench the audience in a totally new world. To be sure, "Sin City" wanted to envelope you in a world where caricature creatures like Marv (Micky Rourke), the Yellow Bastard (haha), and Kevin (Elijah Wood) wreaked havoc; it didn't much care to show you what made them tick---although Marv and Hartigan (Bruce Willis) get some depth. Likewise, "300" takes you back to an almost ancient world where men were men and the women were too. War, blundering, and misogyny ruled the day!
"300," like any good movie, set out its themes early. We are shown an old man inspecting a Spartan baby to decide whether it is fit to be a citizen soldier. I particularly liked this scene because of its Kubrikesque shots. The theme continues as a boy is trained to wrestle, survive in the harsh wilderness (aptly against a wolf), and embrace death as a glorious gift to Sparta. When Sparta is threatened by the Persian empire (demonstrated by beautiful shots of armies and the effeminate king) and its motley assortment of weird creatures, 300 Spartan men are called to defend their country against hoards of invaders. That's it. That is the plot. The movie relishes in visual depictions of manliness, courage, glory, and legend.
Unlike some mediocre movies like "Gladiator," "300" does not take it self too seriously, nor does it try to be historically or physically accurate. This is a lesson that most directors should learn: in movies, we cannot recreate the past with accuracy, we can only show the tinted view of legend and hindsight. Plus, audiences are more forgiving of movies that lack pretension. For example, there were several scenes in "300" that are physically impossible, ridiculous, or confusing (the Spartan king's trip to the old men on the mountain was nonsensical). However, I was not bothered by them because they were using film to make a point about glory, legend, and manliness. Thus, when I saw characters jump ten feet in the air or get shot with 50 arrows and still fight, I knew the director was depicting sensationalized history rather than just plain history.
I highly recommend this film for avid movie buffs and lovers of violence. It may not appeal to those who cannot suspend reality, stomach brutality, or appreciate abstract filmmaking.
4.5
"300," like any good movie, set out its themes early. We are shown an old man inspecting a Spartan baby to decide whether it is fit to be a citizen soldier. I particularly liked this scene because of its Kubrikesque shots. The theme continues as a boy is trained to wrestle, survive in the harsh wilderness (aptly against a wolf), and embrace death as a glorious gift to Sparta. When Sparta is threatened by the Persian empire (demonstrated by beautiful shots of armies and the effeminate king) and its motley assortment of weird creatures, 300 Spartan men are called to defend their country against hoards of invaders. That's it. That is the plot. The movie relishes in visual depictions of manliness, courage, glory, and legend.
Unlike some mediocre movies like "Gladiator," "300" does not take it self too seriously, nor does it try to be historically or physically accurate. This is a lesson that most directors should learn: in movies, we cannot recreate the past with accuracy, we can only show the tinted view of legend and hindsight. Plus, audiences are more forgiving of movies that lack pretension. For example, there were several scenes in "300" that are physically impossible, ridiculous, or confusing (the Spartan king's trip to the old men on the mountain was nonsensical). However, I was not bothered by them because they were using film to make a point about glory, legend, and manliness. Thus, when I saw characters jump ten feet in the air or get shot with 50 arrows and still fight, I knew the director was depicting sensationalized history rather than just plain history.
I highly recommend this film for avid movie buffs and lovers of violence. It may not appeal to those who cannot suspend reality, stomach brutality, or appreciate abstract filmmaking.
4.5
posted by Unknown at 6:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home