AO Scott: "300 is about as violent as Apocalypto and twice as stupid.."?

Question

For those who've seen both movies, do you agree to this statement?

Which do you think was a better movie?

Answer 1

I disagree with this statement. Yes, 300 is more violent but it was a different quality of violence. The poor guys in APOCALYPTO were prisoners having their heads chopped or or hearts torn out, whatever, I forget. In 300, it's warriors against warriors. It's not the horrible victimization that you see in APOCALYPTO.

I strongly disagree with the statement that 300 is "stupid."
Anybody that says it was stupid is just probably too stupid themselves to understand the subtleties. I just loved 300!! I used to say GLADIATOR was my favorite film but now I love 300 more! What an awesome movie! Yes, better than TROY, better than BRAVEHEART, better than any other "swords and chaos" film that I've seen, I can honestly say that I was fascinated every minute! The script, the costumes and sets, the music, everything was just PERFECT!!!

I was most impressed by the action scenes, they were choreographed very nicely and looked pretty realistic. (OK, OK, the arterial spurt was wrong, there wasn't enough gushing blood and no sword, no matter how sharp, stays sharp long enough for you to hack that many people to death but let's overlook little details like that, OK?)

I own swords and I know it's not easy to swing those babies for long, you really have to be in good shape and these guys really looked it! Like real warriors not the weekend warrior type. I mean, you could believe that they'd been training as warriors since they were kids. I know people say it's all digitally enhanced but I don't care. It looked pretty real when it needed to look real.

OK, there was some gratuitous nudity (young "oracle" in flimsy gown, the Queen of Sparta flashing flesh, the king and queen in the bedchamber) to keep the young, testosterone laden men interested until the carnage but I guess that's only fair as we women were treated to the sight of all these buff guys in skimpy war outfits.

The bad guys were suitably bad, LOL! It cracks me up to see the people posting here at YA that are saying it's an anti-Iranian film or whatever. It's fiction for Pete's sake and it's a good story!! It was told from the viewpoint of a survivor, someone who came back to Sparta and told the story. Of course there will be embellishments!

Ah, but it wasn't just a good story, it was just a spectacular feast for the eyes in many respects and was very inspiring. It was a story about duty and loyalty, courage and honor. Who doesn't like that?

No question, 300 is the best movie of 2007 so far. I've seen several: WILD HOGS, 23, GHOST RIDER, CATCH & RELEASE, MUSIC & LYRICS, DEAD SILENCE.... um, some other horror flick whose name I can't even remember now... in fact, several movies that I can't name now because they were so mundane but 300 is awesome! I'll buy it on DVD as soon as it comes out.

Answer 2

I think the violence is not really the issue..and 300 is basically a war movie so its bound to be violent.

But both are lousy movies with a very high "stupid" level. 300 looks technically better, but I am no longer impressed by technical effects as so many bad movies are sold on the basis that it may suck but it "looks great" . Also the script of 300 stinks the place out, it sounds like it was written by a 6 year old..

Answer 3

Who the hell is AO Scott? Sounds like a bonehead to me.