Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

I personally have mixed feelings, meaning I found most of it apalling. To be fair, I was predisposed to hate it, as I read a negative review of it before seeing it.
A bit of background though...

Airline food. What is up with that stuff? If you fly on American Airlines, you pay ten dollars for a sandwich, and three for a meager packet of m&ms. I was forced to subsist on the half full cups of water they give out for free. It sucked. Yet if you fly on Swiss Air, they practically come skipping down the aisles, tossing you gourmet meals. (This does relate to the movie I am reviewing, in case you were wondering). Another perk on Swiss Airlines: if you are on a particularly long flight (try crossing the Atlantic), you get a little screen in the seat in front of you on which you can play games, listen to music, see flight information, or best of all, watch your selection of not-too-outdated movies.

Long story short, I was going home from Paris, and I was going to take advantage of the superior entertainment on Swiss Air, sleep be damned. I would have time for that at home. So I decided to watch the movie 300.


Oh.

My.

God.


Somewhere, someone is rolling in their grave over that. Probably a historian.

I am not going to start with a summary. Look that up for yourself. It's late, and I'm tired.

Instead, I am going to start with a few questions I want answered.

1. Why didn't the Spartans wear pants?

The soldiers they were fighting were clothed in layers of fabric from head to toe, so the lack of clothing can't have been due to temperature. Yet the Spartans went nancing about in their underwear. Are they just particularly proud? Seriously. Look.

This leads into my next complaint.

2. Why did the Spartans wear leather underwear?

I ran a brief (ha ha, brief) google search, that I do not recommend you repeat, on leather underwear. What I have discerned from my research is this:
Based on the fact that companies carrying leather underwear also carry pink silk panties (yes, for men), I'll say the reason for wearing leather underwear does not have to do with being heterosexual. Specifically, the reason for wearing leather underwear does not have to with Michael Wilkinson (the costume designer) being heterosexual. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but let me just say I have my suspicions about all the boys who enjoyed the movie featuring overly chiseled men in, allow me to say it once more, leather underwear.

Oh, and here is an elusive picture of the man responsible for the costumes that caused me to wash my eyes out with soap.

3. Why the racism?

If anyone tells you this film wasn't racist, tell them to get their eyes checked. To be artsy with my writing, the racism was there for all to see, in black and white.
I don't care how historical it's supposed to be, you simply can't, in a film, pit 300 white guys against a supposedly invincible army composed of innumerable guys of any other ethnicity, then make the white guys so smart, and so strong, that they manage to win. (I don't know if they technically win, I opted out of the end of the film in favor of a nap, but the point is that the wonderful caucasians are glorified in an almost propaganda-like way).

Could this film simply have approached the story in a non-mindless way? Why does the audience require clearly defined 'good' and 'evil'. My god, don't even bother with it. If you have over three brain cells, please, do not bother with the movie. The dialogue was poor, and I don't care how much other reviews around the internet praise its 'message'. Its moral that is still applicable to today. Whatever moral about personal sacrifice one might take away from this film is instantly undermined by the glorification of violence.
Oh, and another thing about the other movie reviews. If you read one written by a woman calling the protagonist sexy (and I have read several), please bear in mind that this woman is obviously a gay man in a woman's body. Tell her so. The same applies to anyone gushing about Gerard Butler in real life (by the way, Gerard Butler is the underwear model above) (oh, and when I say anyone, this does not include gay men, who are obviously not in women's bodies). And again, I've got nothing against gay men. I think they're great. I don't enjoy watching their fantasies acted out on film.

But enough with the bitching!
Let's move on to what I liked.

1. King Xerxes. The god king.
Dude, he was cool. Just the portrayal of his character. He was a man of contrasts.
Here are some pictures.
This is my favorite picture. If you saw the movie, you know what I mean.
This is the most common one. I don't hate Michael Wilkinson for this one. I actually liked this costume. (Yes, you may call me a gay man in a woman's body for this, but only if I accused you of the same for liking Gerard Butler's costume, and anyway, I mostly like the ornate jewelry aspect of it, not the gilded panties)

Like I said. A man of contrasts. Perfectly polished eyebrows/makeup, yet deep manly voice. Delicate accessories, yet gargantuan stature. I'll bet there was an interesting character behind him, but it wasn't shown enough.

2. Some nerdy, nerdy part of me was obligated to like it just because it was one of those epic greek movies. I can't resist them. Plus, the monsters were kind of cool, in an offensively inaccurate sort of way, and you can't argue with that.

Anyway, if you intend to see it, bear in mind that the moral is more like an afterthought. Watch it for what it is, gay pornography a really violent, really nerdy movie that was based off of a comic book.