Did Gladiator borrow elements? Yes. A ripoff of Braveheart? Hardly. All films borrow from each other these days. And Gladiator is better than Braveheart, imo.
good movie. the visuals and the energy thoughout the whole thing make up for the lack of a real good story. definitely a big time man movie.
Actually, that was the only part that was historically accurate, as people back then were pretty much like that seeing how they walked and ran and fought everyday.
Now, if you took what I wrote *in context* you'd see that the particular Crouching Tiger comment was made in association with the subject of historical accuracy. If you read further in context, you'd see my ultimate comparison would be a movie like Kill Bill, where style and violence was the M.O., and my point was that a story, every story, must have a plot and a character development. If even Quintin Tarentino ( the ultimate random violence movie maker ) has to use a plot and character development, then it shows that every movie needs a plot and character development. You can't just have a story with pointless violence and sex for 90 minutes. Why? Because it's very boring and predictable to most people. The only exception to this is p*rn, but even p*rn gets boring after the first 5 minutes. I like violence as much as the next guy, but you can't just have scene after scene after scene of people killing one another for basically no reason. That's poor writing.
^^and yet again, Kill Bill is still not a fair comparison cause Kill Bill has a terrific story and fleshed out characters. I'll agree that you do need a story, but not every film has to have an oscar-caliber storyline or even close to be enjoyable. And I'm willing to bet, at least in this particular case involving 300, that most people would agree. The film has gotten solid reviews and seems to be playing to full audiences. Sometimes you just need a pointless, mindless, all-out action romp. At least I do. - you probably could have made a better comparison with Ballistic, but even then not only was there next to no story, but the aciton was quite boring as well. In fact a good example of a movie thats all action from beginning to end with little plot or character development would be District B13, and that was qutie enjoyable.
Kill Bill was the best comparison of a good movie I could find. Anything else would be a bad movie, and I didn't want to compare a bad movie with another bad movie ( 'cause that would be pointless ). Kill Bill didn't have Oscar-caliber writing, but there was at least writing. You're telling me Frank Miller couldn't have given Xerxes some better lines and a little more insight into King Leonard's mind? Look what he did with Batman and Joker in DKR. Frank Miller can do that. I just don't understand why he stopped. Anyway, I'm glad you liked 300 and didn't waste your money watching it. Wouldn't wish that on anyone.
I dunno, I disagree with you on Kill Bill (Vol II more than I) cause I loved the writing. Especially in II; pretty much any scene with David Carradine unloading an anecdote was gold. And there was Oscar buzz for it; maybe it came from the fanboys but still, it was there. In any case, I agree one of the knocks on the movie was the srictly bravado, tough one-liner dialogue. But it didn't really bother me in the least. I wasn't expecting deep exposition. But, yes the film would have been better if the characters were given a little more backstory, a little more depth.
I don't understand why it is you decided to watch the movie for if you hated the novel so much. You knew what the writing would be like, exactly like the novel. That seemed to be what the director striving for. To make the movie as faithful to the comic book as possible. What did you expect?
I'm trying to decide if you are going out of your way like this because you don't want to see praise for this film, or if you just like to see your words on screen. You seem to continue to think you understand the people I actually know personally, for some reason. This is false. (Zero plot and zero character development is false, by the way. ) In any case, my initial post was rather clear, but I will simplify it further for you; the women I was with don't like loud action movies as a general rule. They liked this film. They saw something more than just loud action and beautiful people. That is praise, if it helps you out any. It is good you consider yourself an 'aware movie goer', though...although it generally helps if you've actually seen the movie you are trying to discuss.
Anyways, just got back from the movie, and I give it a big "F". It was full of cheesy one-liners, over-the-top machismo (actually, it was ghey), and unnecessary sexual content that only took away from the overall value of the movie...not to mention the stereotypical orientalist view of 'the East' (the whole lesboerotic 'harem' scene, to name one). Throughout, I did this enough times that I now have a splitting headache, which isn't fun at all. Overall, I give the movie a solid 'meh' and a few ' ' along with a handful of "WTF"s. It's about as insignificant as any movie I've ever seen. Understandably, it's a work of fiction, but even then it sucked.
In that case, I should have responded with a , This is a work of fiction, what does it have to do with a history class?
Pretty horrible movie to say the least...the graphic work and production didnt by any means outweigh the hurrendous plot line and acting. Just horrible, horrible, horrible!! (shout out to Pryuen)
JunkyardDwg, Spot on. I appreciate your critiques RiceDaddy, but the introduction establishes the historical premise upon which the film's hyper-representation balances itself: this is over a thousand years in the past, and a singular purpose defined and drove every action of each side's respective cultures- why the need to delve any deeper (since nothing is to be found there) or romanticize individuals? As an example, take both of the "traitors" in the film: they were consciously given a superficial development, and rightly so; do we really need a more significant motivation than power and ambition? Would it be better if one of them had their feelings hurt when both they and the King were children? Maybe the hunchback's father was banished by the current King's father, or the other one was passed over for the throne? While the film could be criticized for unknowingly framing the story in a parallel fashion to the current clash of civilizations (ironically with the caucasian Spartans more similar to the non-Western world), what it accomplishes from a stylistic standpoint is remarkably refreshing, just like Sin City. Social scientists can bemoan the fetishization of violence all they like, but its artistic endeavor is inspirational. Even if you disagree with its content, I don't think anyone can legitimately argue with either its cinematography or direction.
the only thing that bothered me was there was the sex scene was corny and the xerces was a 7 foot gay black dude(which made me laugh hilariously when i first saw him). And everyone had like 12 packs bulging out of their sides and backs too. saw this thursday night at 12 pretty good movie i give it a B+.
the professor said he realizes that basically the entire movie is inaccurate, but he likes giving bonus points... and he hopes this will atleast spark some intrigue in that time period.
