Plot
King Leonidas and a force of 300 men fight the Persians at Thermopylae in 480 B.C.
Release Year: 2006
Rating: 7.7/10 (312,240 voted)
Critic's Score: 51/100
Director:
Zack Snyder
Stars: Gerard Butler, Lena Headey, David Wenham
Storyline In the Battle of Thermopylae of 480 BC an alliance of Greek city-states fought the invading Persian army in the mountain pass of Thermopylae. Vastly outnumbered, the Greeks held back the enemy in one of the most famous last stands of history. Persian King Xerxes lead a Army of well over 100,000 (Persian king Xerxes before war has about 170,000 army) men to Greece and was confronted by 300 Spartans, 700 Thespians and other Slave soldiers. Xerxes waited for 10 days for King Leonidas to surrender or withdraw left with no options he moved. The battle lasted for about 3 days and after which all 300 Spartans were killed. The Spartan defeat was not the one expected, as a local shepherd, named Ephialtes, defected to the Persians and informed Xerxes of a separate path through Thermopylae, which the Persians could use to outflank the Greeks.
Writers: Zack Snyder, Kurt Johnstad
Cast: Gerard Butler
-
King Leonidas
Lena Headey
-
Queen Gorgo
Dominic West
-
Theron
David Wenham
-
Dilios
Vincent Regan
-
Captain
Michael Fassbender
-
Stelios
Tom Wisdom
-
Astinos
Andrew Pleavin
-
Daxos
Andrew Tiernan
-
Ephialtes
Rodrigo Santoro
-
Xerxes
Tyler Neitzel
-
Leonidas at 15 yrs
Stephen McHattie
-
Loyalist
Greg Kramer
-
Ephor #1
Alex Ivanovici
-
Ephor #2
Kelly Craig
-
Oracle Girl
Trivia:
"Efialtes" is the Greek word for "nightmare".
Goofs:
Revealing mistakes:
Whenever you see an arrow being shot they have barbed or wide arrowheads yet after they have hit someone the are always in a small round hole. The arrows would look like they are sticking out of a cut the width of the arrowhead.
Quotes:
[first lines]
Dilios:
When the boy was born, like all Spartans, he was inspected.
User Review
A two-sided piece of art
Rating: 8/10
This film isn't for all people. That's to say about a lot of movies in
general of course, but this one in particular brings up a big clashing
point between critics; What do we want to see in our movies? What is
more important, to portray a fictional setting for the sake of giving
people a mind blowing visual experience or to amuse and amaze them with
clever plot twists and intelligent dialogs?
First lets analyze what exactly this film is made of. Basically, the
whole thing is just one epic fighting scene after another. Most
noticeably is the camera work and the visual effects. Every shot seems
like it was intended to be a work of art. The colors, the characters,
the costumes, the backgrounds... every little detail has been given so
much attention. During the big fights you'll also instantly notice the
unique editing. There are a lot of "time slowdowns" throughout the
battles which show what exactly is happening. Fatal wounds that slowly
leak blood spatters in the air, decapitated heads traveling in
slow-motion across the screen... it's all there.
The story on the other hand isn't very complicated, in the sense that
the whole movie could probably be described in a sentence or two. The
dialogs are simple and most often talk about moral values like freedom
and honor. If you would look at the script, it would probably look like
another movie that has nothing more to offer then idealistic visions of
how life should be.
Reviewers of this title seem to be split up in two groups. They either
love it with passion calling it an epic movie of the 21th century, or
hate it even more and throw it off like a piece of garbage consisting
of mindless action and silly cliché phrases. I feel reluctant to take a
position in this argument. Normally it's tolerable to weigh out both
sides of this matter to result in a fair judgment about a movie. Not in
this one. On the one hand the visual are surely among the best to be
witnessed in a movie. Every detail, every background, every special
effect set to the scenes are so mindblowingly stunning. On the other
hand the plot and dialogs are of the most simplistic and quite frankly
dumb kind. "I fight for freedom! I'd rather die in honor then live in
shame!" Sounds familiar?
Of course it could be debated that this movie was never intended in the
first place to have a unique plot that makes your head spin. But from
an objective point of view it's still lacking in this department, so it
should be noted.
Now that's fine and all, but does that all make of the film? Is it
worth watching or what? I think it is. For me the good outweighs the
bad by miles. From the second the movie started it grabbed me and
didn't let go. Every battle, every scene of the movie had me at the tip
of my chair. Everything from the strong acting to the wondrous visuals
to the war-shouts of the soldiers was just so stunning... it was truly
a wonderful experience.
I did not one single moment felt like the movie lacked anything. But I
could imagine why other people did.
So here's the deal.
If you are easily impressed by beautiful landscapes, wonderful
camera-work and editing and powerful acting then go see this. Right.
Now. You'll be missing out if you don't. There is so much to see, so
much power in the way this comic is translated to the big screen...
It'll leave you in awe.
However, you are looking for a good story, clever plot twists, some
innovating to the world of the movies then skip this. 300 contains
nothing of this, nor does it wants to give you this.
I enjoyed this movie so much, but I know there will be people that will
pass of as rubbish, and that's understandable. Just be sure to make up
your mind about what you want to see when you go to the theater
yourself instead of being drawn into bias by the tons of reviews this
site has to offer.
0