Well, you're good at one thing... Mindless repetitions.. that have been irrelevant to my post since your first reply.. Which apparently to you classifies as "further explanations".. as rich as it was seeing you "explain" your statement by repeating the statement... it's sad now.. and you just won't drop it. Now you're reduced to this lovely pattern of eloquence.. "TWo women that don't like dumb violence, liked it. I'll explain : because two women that don't like dumb violence, liked it. Why did you take my general description and generalize.. people you don't know as well as me. You keep generalizing people you don't know and I do after I generally defined them as generally opposed to general dumb violent movies. How could you possibly generalize that? They're people you don't know! Ok, let's try to understand eachother.. two women that don't like dumb violent movies liked it. You have issues! Yes you do! Let me repeat myself again, and again, these are simple to understand explanations even though they don't explain anything and are infact exact copies of the original statement.. but you don't get my mindless rambling.. because you have issues! Yep. TWo women.." and it goes on like this.
el oh el. The i-run-ee. Your little rant pretty much told me all I need to know. Next time you decide to try and go Comic Book Guy on someone, don't expect them to not discuss it. You avoided actually addressing anything (shocking) in that reply, so I'll take that for what it is. Been nice talking to you.
Here's what I learned from the movie: 1) Athenians are pu**ies, and it's dumb to hold a day job. 2) Persians are just evil and souless Nomadic peoples (and Black, apparently) with weird creatures and monsters, and their women did nothing all day besides having hot lesbian sex. Yeah, it's historically accurate alright.
I don't know why people complain (in general, not you tiger) about movies that are supposed to be based on true events. It's Hollywood, of course it's not gonna come close to the history. It's made to entertain, not give you history lessons. I never go into these movies expecting a history lesson or else I'd be pissed after I come out of Gladiator, Braveheart, 300, Last Samurai, 13th Warrior, and many more. I take it for what it is.. just a movie.. and my opinion is that it's a pretty good movie as far as action is concerned.
LOL, if you're going to pick a movie that Gladiator or Braveheart copied, it would be Spartacus. But then I would say that Gladiator showed a good deal more originality than Braveheart ever did. Given that ancient greeks were about 4-11 on average and the available calories and protein in a diet at that time I doubt that.
Me and about 20 friends had bought tix when they first came on sale. It was freakin awesome. Had to sit way in the front and the stupid thing gave me a backache from constantly having to look up.
Yaozer, I am not complaining at all, the movie is what it is. I am just disturbed that some people think it's 'accurate' or that a history teacher would recommend this as an assignment to learn about a real historical event. That's all.
I wasn't referring to you at all, a misunderstanding. Poor wording in my part. Your post just reminds me of all the people I've heard that complained.
Indeed.. .... Here's my posting pattern : This is why the two women probably liked it. (then I give possible reasons) Ok, let me clarify.. I'm saying women can overlook certain things in 'dumb action movies' if executed in the ways I just said. Let me explain why I did this: your general praise looks misleading to the casual reader, and you make the movie appear to be something more than it's said to be by most reviews. Perhaps try a more honest phrasing with specific reasons, (I point at Yaozer's as an example). But like I said.. It's funny. In retrospect.. it's very funny that I went along with your irrelevant , mindless replies .. Thanks for the laughs.
first off, no i didn't. from what i remember, that didn't have no plot, it had a stupid one. and the acting sucked. and the dialogue, etc. second, 10 days, 6 pages, and 132 posts later is an impressively long span between a post and someone quoting it.
And who are you to judge this? In any case, you actually responded with something this time, so I can put an end to this for you: You're just wrong, man. I'm not even saying that your theorized reasons why women would love action movies are wrong - just that in this, my personal experience, you are wrong. My friends told me why they liked it, and those reasons were not your theories. I heard their reasons directly from them. That's it. End of story. You can't accept this, and I don't know why. Don't really care at this point. But your belief that you are in a position to decide what's misleading in my personal experience is, well, baseless and a little strange to be honest. And it's pretty damn insulting to be called 'dishonest' because of it. Whatever problems you have with this movie have nothing to do with me. No problem. Here's a hint, though; no one's laughing with you. You can keep going in circles here if you want, but we're done here. Take care.
My god.. you're a thick one.. Could've spared the the thread from your comically idiotic and irrelevant replies.. and my equally comical, accidental validating of them.. had you just said the exact words 'from their mouths'.. Perhaps you're just not very articulate.. Of coures not.. Most reviews were well worded and precise. What you fail to understand.. everything, really. But, mainly, the fact that, had I seen the movie.. there'd be no need for a review. To find out the intent of the movie, to see if the impression the trailers give are accurate to the actual movie, to leave no doubt about the movie's true direction and purpose. Whether it's worth going to see in a theater or wait for the dvd. But, as is obvious.. you're just a very very.. thick, dim, inarticulate person.. and who seems to.. be unable to read well. I am sorry. I should've caught on to this handicap by your second post. I'm pretty sure everyone else here doesn't give a rat's arse about our little back and forth.. so as everthing else that has come from your typing, you saying that, makes no sense. 'Here's a hint' , when I say, "thanks for the laughs".. I'm thanking you for providing me directly, with laughter.. not anyone else. Hahah.. Thanks again..
I did not say it was historically 100% accurate, but I did say that it depicted historical details accurately. Spartans were the fiercest and finest fighting machine among the Greek City-states. 1) Athenians were not known to be warriors, but poets/philosophers/intelectuals. Those panzies that accompanied the Spartans in 300 were not Athenians, but another group. 2) The Persian empire at that time was so vast, as they had conquered most of the eastern world at that time so there were all types of people (color) fighting in the Persian kings name. The monsters and creatures were just added as part of the mythology/mysticism of it. And yes homosexual orgies were common at that time in history, they just didn't show the Greeks doing it b/c they focused on the fighting. Look the movie is not accurate for many reasons but it contained lots details that would go unoticed by someone who didn't learn about this. I am fortunate to have done a 15 page paper on the entire persian wars so I remember all this. No need to get all upset and try to discredit my post.
