300

Post Reply New Topic

Huh?

It's a roundabout way of saying that the movie is unbelievably awesome. So awesome, in fact, that it is physically impossible for anyone to like it.

Not that I am genuinely accusing these people of being liars.

Nice review, but there's an inaccuracy. Zack Snyder didn't direct "Sin City"--Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller did (with Quenten Tarantino directing the scene where Bencio Del Toro's corpse talks to Clive Owen in the moving car). Snyder's only film before "300" was the remake of "Dawn of the Dead."



I disagree. This is the very mentality of the people who said "Sin City" was unfilmable! And "Spider-Man!" And "Lord of the Rings!" And look at those wonderful adaptations. How is "Watchmen" any different?

It would have to be a long film, yes, but it's not unfilmable. Zack Snyder, the director of both it and "300," says that it will likely be a 3 hour film. There's almost nothing in it that couldn't be put into a movie somehow, and I for one found the stylings of the graphic novel to be quite cinematic. The film would probably have to skip a few details for the sake of running time, but many of those details could have been cut in the first place for more efficient storytelling.

Plus, there's no law saying you must see the film of "Watchmen." If you can't imagine it being at all decent, just don't see it. Or do see it and do your fanboy duty and rant like hell about it, and then read the book again and remember how awesome it was in comparison. For example, I was really pissed about some of the changes made to "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire"--most notably the handling of the Quidditch World Cup and the handling of the Veela, including a Fleur that was horrendously un-sexy--but that doesn't mean that the book is any less good. (Though, it's not the best analogy because I wasn't 100% fond of the "Goblet of Fire" book either. Heh.) A film will only hurt the source material if it's really sh***y as a movie, and no matter how much they change, as long as it works as a standalone film it will still make the ignorant go and seek out that source material. And I think that regardless of how much Snyder cuts from "Watchmen," he'll make it a good film--he's proven himself to be a talented director, he's obviously very passionate about "Watchmen," and he clearly understands that it's closer to "Dr. Strangelove" than "Fantastic Four." (Indeed, he's spoken about how he's been trying to explain this to studios.)

I didn't care much for the movie. Didn't like the plot and the music. Only two things i liked were Lena Headley and the camerawork. That's it.

Holywood loves to hack up good comic books and turn them into s**t movies. Look at Constantine... Hellblazer was a great book, not deserving of such a crap movie.

The difference between "Constantine" and "Watchmen" is that "Constantine" didn't have a writer/director who was passionate about the comic and understood what made it so great and intended on bringing the book to life rather than creating something that had nothing to do with the book. (To be fair, though, I thought that "Constantine" was a great standalone film, even though it had nothing to do with the comic.)

And hey..."V for Vendetta" was great, and that was Alan Moore. And unlike with "V for Vendetta," "Watchmen" isn't going to be altered to fit a modern era. "V for Vendetta" the film was symbolic of fascism in America while claiming to be about England, while the book was 100% about England. But Snyder has stated in interviews that he isn't going to update "Watchmen" or switch it from the Cold War to the "War on terror." Anyway, continuing on... "V for Vendetta" still worked great as a film, and was true to the spirit of the comic. "Sin City" was a very well-done, and VERY faithful adaptation of the comic. The people in this thread seem very pleased with "300," and it's pretty faithful too. And what of "Spider-Man," "X-Men" (except X3, which was screwed up by that evil Fox executive Tom Rothman), etc.? The point is, it works as often as it doesn't.

I thought it was great how un-PC it was. Also how relevant that the "modern-day Persians" want to destroy Western culture and how our politicians and a large chunk of the population like to pretend like there is no threat.

I thought the music was especially good. It was edgy and heavy, rather than the standard melodramatic orchestra.

I liked it a lot as it showed some of Spartan culture as well as some great battle scenes with hundreds of bare-chested men who were a professional army. Even then, there were some inaccuracies historically, but that's common in Hollywood. As an archer, I noticed that the way those Persian arrows were designed, there's no way they would have pierced those bronze Spartan shields, but there's nothing like seeing a volley of arrows raining down.

I still enjoyed this movie, and I recognized the narrator as the same person who was Farimar in the LOTR movies.

Best film ever, plus it has become quite an internet phenomenon:

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/im ... inhell.jpg
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/im ... DINING.jpg
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/im ... AURANT.jpg
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/im ... AAAAAA.jpg