If by "Grade B" the reviewer means a good movie, then I'd agree, but a B movie is a low-budget film. Given the costs for paying extras and other expenses, this doesn't look like a B movie.
grade f movie
yes expence
no good acting
no good script
no good direction
not good at all
I hardly think "300 Spartans" is a grade F movie. The acting is mainly solid and Sir Ralph Richardson and Richard Egan, although not A list stars in the U S, are very good in their roles. Yeah, the love story gets in the way, but overall it's a fine tale of a heroic stand.
shareNot bad for year 1962 movie. One of my favorites. I hope they will someday remake it. Although, not necessary. For someone who likes history of ancient greece, I would really recommend to watch this movie.
shareHistory of ancient greece? No way. This was a bad movie and didn't say so much about ancient greece. Sparta was not a "free" state of free men. They also had slaves, like all other ancient nations. They were dependent of slave labor. The slave owners were free because they had slave to work for them.
shareYes way. 300 Spartans is a fact though. There is some truth. Ok, the moviemakers have glorified the spartans, but what they did at Thermopilae was amzing. Look, Persians had slaves too. That was a custom of that era :(
shareThis was a chance begging for better direction. There was spectacle aplenty and there were hosts of well-costumed extras. Some of the leads did a great job with a trite script. It was not Farrar's finest moment (Xerxes)and some of his acting was pure ham-it-up stuff. The music, apart from the main title (which was barely acceptable...) was woeful. Hadjidakis (the composer), reportedly, could not even read music and so the studio rushed in an experienced music editor and director to save the day. Still sounds like listening to Greek music emanating from a Greek cafe with a severe hangover. Don't get me wrong...I first saw this film as a kid and loved it. Now, in the cold light of day, I can see it for the weak production that it is.
shareThis movie pretty much sucks... but its all we have until '300'. :)
"The greatest lie God ever pulled was convincing the world he exists."
Well you could always watch a Roman movie.It's not the same but it's close or you can watch Sin City for the stylazation that 300 will have.No doubt it will be the same in your face dialogue and gore.
Ben Hur,Sparticus,Gladiator,Troy,Clash of the Titans(I need this one),Jason and the Argonauts(need this one too),Rome...
I'd love to see some of the old Italian Sword and Sandal films from the 50's.
"The Spartans do not ask how many the enemy number, but where they are."(300):3/9/07
I've read up on (but not read) and seen a trailer for 300, and it looks silly, with the Spartans having no body armor and a black Xerxes with piercings. I know it's based on a graphic novel and these were deliberate choices, but it feels like King Arthur syndrome (accuracy < "coolness"). And don't just reply "if you want something historically accurate, watch a documentary", because who says interesting historically accurate movies can't be made? This film is loads more accurate, I'm sure.
shareThe black dude with piercing isn't Xerxes; it's an emissary from Xerxes. The exchange in the trailer makes it pretty clear.
And I think it is appropriate to say, "if you want something historically accurate, watch a documentary," because the movie 300 coming out next year is based on a comic book about the event that took an incredible amount of license with the historical facts.
And there was nothing cool about King Arthur. That movie sucked hard.
300 will be the movie of 2007 , that movie will rock in the box office , you will see ps : king arthur is a stupid film
Jens Naeyaert
300 will be the movie of 2007 , that movie will rock in the box office
Too bad that Persians are not into film making:)
I wonder why the makers of this film didn't prefer to shoot a movie about Persians if they are so interested in bravery and warriors.
Besides, there can be no sequel for "300" since they are all dead.
A movie about Persian victories could be a huge movie with many sequels.
BTW, don't you think "300" is too much and unnecessary.
I think 30 would be enough since it's a Greek myth :)
Besides, there can be no sequel for "300" since they are all dead.
You're a moron. King Arthur, while a poor movie, was made to be historically accurate. Instead of basing it in the English myth, they took a more historically correct Arthur. If you actually saw the film, you would have realized that they said that before the film started.
share"You're a moron. King Arthur, while a poor movie, was made to be historically accurate. Instead of basing it in the English myth, they took a more historically correct Arthur. If you actually saw the film, you would have realized that they said that before the film started."
Firstly, King Arthur is based on Brythonic/Welsh myth (hence they are against the Anglo-Saxons, AKA English) and secondly as a historian I can assure you that the film was far from accurate. Look at the Picts (or "woads" as they called) them with heavy medival war machines, the "sarmatians" in general, the Romans living north of the wall with their "monks" randomly killing people, the all powerful church (which was far from all powerful until a bit later on), Germanus, the uniforms in general, the "Saxons" (who would be Angles if they were that far north, though the Romans did tend to call them all "saxons" or "franks" at that time) dressed all in black (they didn't even have black die, I should know I am also an early period Anglic reeanactor), with crossbows (and picts without crossbows!) and who don't even use real tactis, during the cavalry charge by the "knights" (which is an English or "Saxon" word originally meaning "servant" or "youth" anyway) at the end of the film they would hit the almost unbreakable 'shield wall'...look at Hastings, the Norman cavalry had to wait till the English broke ranks and chased them down the slope as they could not break it.
Ridiculous film!
"Nothings gonna change my world!"
I watched it last week. It was many years since I last saw it in high school, and I remembered it as a good film. I was shocked at how bad it was. Its not that they didn't have the tools and budget for a good film. Good story, some good actors, good costumes (except the Roman-style helmets on those with speaking parts), and partially filmed in Greece. It was even reasonably accurate historically as Hollywood films go. But the execution was just about as bad as I have ever seen in a movie by major studio. The script, the direction, the camera work, the editing were all simply terrible. Egan and a few others did good acting jobs considering the planly bad directing; but David Farrar and Barry Coe stunk it up. Clearly, the priority was getting a print in the can; no one cared about quality.
shareIt was funny to see persians run in jeans
shareI still have the image in my mind of Immortals holding the Spartan spear heads in their armpits while falling.
shareYeah, this movie was really, really boring... Too bad.
I saw "300" last night though, and lOVED it...
I didn't remember this movie fondly from when I saw it years ago, but gave it another try today. I was so bored I went outside to see what the dogs might be up to. Not much. Neither was the movie. The battle, such as it is, doesn't even start until 2/3 of the film is over. I would prefer to watch a documentary rather than sit through this again. Besides, the mixture of accents offends my ears.
Don't ask a dyin' man ta lie his soul inta Hell
[deleted]