TV Tropes Org
site search
Three Hundred back to reviews
A weak and immature attempt of epic
"300" would please the fans of the graphic novel in which this film is inspired, rather than those who are interested in historical accuracy or at least, something less exaggerated or ridiculous. (Ironically enough, the comic book of Frank Miller was inspired in "The 300 Spartans" that is a much better film in almost all the aspects, and it had a more interesting and realistic portrayal of the Battle of Thermopylae) The plot, despite the violence and the nudity, is nothing but a childish amount of clichés as present as the good guys as handsome, muscular and tanned, while the "bad guys" are weak, ugly and effeminate, ridiculous use of the most obvious and blatant stereotypes, and a MTV-visual technique flashy enough to please those who prefer style over substance, but not enough good to make us forget about the lack of deep, characterization or anything that could have made this film more interesting than it actually is.

If your looking for mindless violence and cartoonish characterization of events in bold sepia tones and loud digitally mastered sound, then "300" will be your cup of tea. If not, try "The 300 Spartans", which is a fairly superior film.

There's a word called "genre" that you should look up. It's the reason people don't go around complaining about shallow plots and characters in kung fu movies.
comment #4888 24th Oct 10
The above comment implies genre movies are typically shallow, and are totally excusable for being so. I can think of plenty of genre movies that are more than just a choreographed free-for-all.

Not that it matters, because this review doesn't necessarily say 300 is a bad film. It just informs us that we should only watch it if we are looking for a light, superficial action affair (and nothing more thoughtful or down to earth). This is a useful review.
comment #4904 25th Oct 10
It would have been useful if you went more into detail about what its actual appeal is rather than complain about the things it's not trying to be.
comment #4906 25th Oct 10
The comment two above this one misunderstands the one above that. All movies (except post-modern ones) have a genre. There are certain genres where plot is required, and others where it is. 300 is not an attempt at an Epic Movie, it's a hack&slash movie, which like horror movies and kung fu movies, have mere Excuse Plots. The complaints of the review are complaints of the genre, not of the movie. Within it's genre, it's a good movie.
comment #7159 philipw 3rd Apr 11
"The plot, despite the violence and the nudity, is nothing but a childish amount of clichés as present as the good guys as handsome, muscular and tanned, while the "bad guys" are weak, ugly and effeminate, ridiculous use of the most obvious and blatant stereotypes" . - I can't believe people still use this as a complaint. I'm not a huge fan of the movie, but that point could be seen as done because of the Unreliable Narrator. It's not meant to be realistic.
comment #7207 brc2000 7th Apr 11
I don't like how people treat the concept of an unreliable narrator as cure all excuse for all the problems in a movie. The Narrator being innacurate doesn't make his tale(the story we are watching on the screen) of clichéd, two dimensional characters and gratuitous battles any more acceptable. It may be the reason for those problems, but it certainly does not excuse them.

Its been a while since I've seen the movie, but what was in there in the movie that indicates the narrator was unreliable in the first place?
comment #7209 maninahat 7th Apr 11 (edited by: maninahat)
The fact that he was narrating it to his Spartans for morale and that he wasn't there for all of it. It's an enjoyable film and does what a movie is supposed to do entertain us. What's so unacceptable about two dimensional characters and violence in a movie centered around a battle ? The comic it's based on is also ridiculous and over the top. What did you expect ? Did the trailers somehow mislead you ?
comment #7212 Vanitas 7th Apr 11
Well neither of those two facts show that the narrator is being innacurate. For all we know (as his is the only perspective), he is 100% correct. In movies it isn't unusual for characters to recount scenes they weren't even present in (see the entire premise of Citizen Kane).

Action movies don't need to be based around two dimensional characters and indulgence. A good, fun, mindless action movie can still feature fleshed out, original characterisation. Indeed, these elements often make the action far more fun, and the movie more memorable. If an action movie has nothing going for it except visuals, then it is only really a passable at best. Sure 300 looks good, but once you've got past the novelty of the clever greenscreens and the slowmo effects, the action can get boring. And that is the single worst thing that can happen to an action movie. This is especially the case on repeated viewings, or by just watching any other of Snyder's action movies.
comment #7215 maninahat 7th Apr 11 (edited by: maninahat)
I disagree with the complaints about characterization. This is the kind of movie that would suffer from trying too hard to make the characters 3 dimensional. It was a ludicrously over the top action movie, and refreshing in it's simpleness(is that a word?) and Refuge In Audacity. The kind of movie that tries to make the audience go: "Holy shit! That was badass!" It succeeded in doing that for a lot of people, though, obviously, not for everyone.
comment #8049 McSomeguy 10th Jun 11
I think the word you're looking for is "simplicity."

But yeah, I disagree with this review in the sense that it says, "The 300 Spartans is the superior film simply because it was historically accurate." I have seen neither movie, and so am not qualified to judge either one's merits, but 300 was pretty obvious about being an incredibly stylized version of historical events, and isn't technically inferior just because of that.
comment #8050 JackAlsworth 10th Jun 11
this is not a movie for those who like to exercise their minds, to say the lease. It is meant to be an enjoyable tale, and nothing more. if you were trying to find something more in it, fair portrayal of both sides of the war, deep characters, and historical accuracy, YOU are missing the point. this movie is meant to be fun, not oscar bait. with that in mind, this movie is a smashing sucsess.

if The 300 spartans is an apple, then 300 is definitely and orange. sure, they are both fruit, but they have their own merits.

if you can't tell, I like oranges.
comment #8059 Dynamod 11th Jun 11
"I don't like how people treat the concept of an unreliable narrator as cure all excuse for all the problems in a movie." - The point was about the historical inaccuracy, not quality (which is obviously subjective).
comment #8575 brc2000 11th Jul 11
I love reading about ancient battles and watching shows about them on the History Channel. I appreciate historical accuracy. That being said, I still enjoyed the crap out of this movie. When I first heard that it was based on Frank Miller comic and would be done in a similar way to Sin City, I was sold. I knew this would ultimately be a fantasy, it's Frank Miller after all.

PS- I enjoy exercising my mind quite a bit. I just know when and how to stop doing so and have fun.
comment #9109 GrandmasterKiramidHead 5th Aug 11
In order to post comments, you need to Get Known
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from
Privacy Policy