300

Oops. This is no mega epic. 300 is a modest experiment based on a ten-page screenplay and with nice blue-screen backgrounds. The dialogue pretends to be so serious and cool that it’s laughable. The story recycles what we’ve already been told by Braveheart and Gladiator, only shortened and focusing exclusively on the visual aspect. It’s nice to look at and the battle scenes are well done, but everything else is bland. If not for the slow-motion shots, 300 would barely run 60 minutes. It’s fine for what it is, but I hope it doesn’t herald the start of a new film subgenre. (03/13/2007)

For me, a completely indigestible mix of pathos, stupid dialogues and a pseudo-art image, which, apart from rich colors and slow-motion, offers nothing more interesting than bricks of soaked Spartans and a nice composition here and there. Snyder is an absolute maniac, who, more than the narrative itself, is driven by various effects, accessories and frills, because of which, from my point of view, the film has no tempo, explosiveness or even meaning. Impactful comic book bullshit about freedom and building speeches, in the style of the last battle ignited me, endlessly irritate, and the action scenes bore me with their sterility and the absence of a decent choreographic idea. Any way I look at it, it’s a truly idiotic work, probably only good for making fighting slogans for hockey teams. (12/19/2008)

I really like Zack Snyder for Watchmen and Dawn of the Dead (and Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole and Suckerpunch look very promising, too), but 300 is unfortunately a very big misstep. A visually fancy historical carnage (a bit too digital and artificial for my taste) that to it’s own chagrin takes itself way too seriously. Gerard Butler is one of the least likeable actors and his heroic speeches almost made me burst out laughing. This is not Sparta, this is a bad joke. (09/12/2010)

I would like to paraphrase a sentence uttered in the film itself: "My eyes saw a grotesque spectacle summoned from the darkest corners of Miller's strange soul." The rape of history under the guise of a comic adaptation (under which everything is tolerated nowadays, perhaps even if someone made Němcová's Grandmother a dominatrix in a S&M parlour), the fanatically stubborn (though undeniably charismatic) Leonidas, who reminded me of another fanatic, Hoferik from Signum Laudis, so I certainly wouldn't want him as a king, and the slow-motion shots in the second half with their increasing frequency bored me to death. If, given the high box office returns, this empty and narcissistic affair will set the course for the future of the film industry, then we have no choice but to shout "Gott mit uns!" I'm not sure if sentences like "...I felt like smashing someone's face in after the movie was over..." is the right emotion to take away from a film, but I have no doubt that for angry young teens, this will be the best movie of their short lives so far :) (04/07/2007)

The film has a nice visual aspect, but the rest is sterile or conceptually problematic. I once invested an incredible 50 bucks in Miller's comic book, influenced by the claim that it is one of the most significant works of comic creation. There is no doubt that it was the worst investment I have ever made in the world of books. Ideologically, it felt like a guide for a young fascist through the world of life values, not to mention the lack of historical credibility, only the visual concept stood out... Overall impression: 40%. (09/25/2010)