DVD Review: 300
Filed under: Action, Warner Brothers, DVD Reviews, New on DVD, Home Entertainment, War

First, the good news: Zack Snyder's 300 arrives today on DVD, where its amazing visual scheme meshes more seamlessly in the home digital realm than it did with that pesky analog film element getting in the way. Like a more colorful, daylit Sin City, Snyder lacquers a computer-generated sheen over the film, thereby rendering the humans and the special effects on the same plane. No more actors glossily staring into the distance while an imaginary bad guy hovers over them; now everyone plays on an equal field. To that end, Snyder wisely avoids the usual shaky-cam technique that most directors use for their action sequences. Generally, untrained, untalented directors use this to purposely obscure their action sequences, lest the audience realize that they don't know what they're doing. With complete control of every blow, slice and decapitation, Snyder shoots with a clean, slick, almost graceful energy, highlighting and celebrating the movement of battle. My hope is that, if this movie inspires anyone to do anything, it will be to give up the shaky-cam forever and shoot more action sequences this clearly.
Onto the bad news: 300 is dangerously stupid, and its overwhelming popularity takes a disturbing x-ray of the country's mood at the moment. Its painful dialogue -- by Snyder, Kurt Johnstad and Michael B. Gordon, based on Frank Miller and Lynn Varley's comic book -- blurts forth with a swaggering, self-important bluster, like so many humorless frat boys challenging one another at drinking contests. Everything that's said comes across as earth-shatteringly important, as if these characters from the year B.C. 480 were fully aware of how they would place in history books (even though, arguably, none of them ever saw a history book). To be certain of that, David Wenham is on hand as a soldier who narrates the tale with pomp and bravado. It's a pretty simplistic tortoise-versus-hare story: three hundred Spartan warriors, led by King Leonidas (Gerard Butler), face off against thousands of Persian soldiers, led by the evil Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro). The bravery of the few manages (for the most part) to ward off the arrogance of the many.
The main problem is that, in practice, the Spartans are just as arrogant. Lena Headey, as the Queen, has lots of dialogue about how superior Spartan men are to all other men. Indeed, Synder's Spartans spend almost every waking moment half naked, with their chiseled, sculpted, rippling male bodies gleaming. (One writer called the film "war porn," and Sarah Silverman joked that the title was a reference to how gay the film was on a scale of 1 to 10.) And the prologue shows a young boy being viciously trained as a fighter and sent out into the wild to fend for himself. One could argue that this cruelty makes a good antihero, settling into a movie full of gray areas and ambivalence, but alas this is not the case. Synder very clearly outlines his good guys and bad guys. For example, Dominic West plays a traitor, and the moment he appears onscreen, he's practically sneering; if he had a moustache, he'd twist it.
The most notable thing about 300, however, is its colossal success in the wake of the failure of so many other war films, in particular Clint Eastwood's twofer Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. Eastwood is no amateur at making audiences stand up and cheer; no one with a pulse felt sorry for the thug on the other end of his famous "Go ahead... make my day" quip. But when it came time for his modern war movies, he took the grown-up route and made them complex and grim. War is hell, not fun, and he showed it with intelligence, sadness and harrowing violence. I could argue that Eastwood's morally complex tales turned off audiences, while the morally simplistic 300 did not, but it's even simpler than that. Eastwood's movies were about humans, and Snyder's is not. In Letters from Iwo Jima, we crossed our fingers and prayed that a young Japanese baker would live to get home to see his newborn child. In 300, we can barely tell one rippling pectoral muscle from the next. In short, it doesn't really matter who gets killed in 300, whereas in Eastwood's films every death -- American or Japanese -- hurts.
In any case, the new 300 DVD will no doubt capture a few more thousand viewers. Warner Home Video has released 300 in a double-disc Special Edition (as well as widescreen and full screen single-disc editions, an HD and DVD combo edition and a Blu-Ray edition). The SE comes with an audio commentary track by Snyder, co-screenwriter Johnstad and cinematographer Larry Fong. Other extras include deleted scenes, a photo gallery, three featurettes (300: Fact or Fiction, Who Were The Spartans: The Warriors of 300 and Frank Miller Tapes) and "Webisodes," behind-the-scenes peeks on the set.










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
7-31-2007 @ 1:13PM
YouFaceTheTick said...
Didn't see 300 and I have very little interest in seeing it. Eventually it'll show up via netflix but given its sport 90+ on my list, it'll be some time.
Regardless, what's the point of bringing up that hack Eastwood? The guy's made maybe one film that's worth watching, while the vast majority of his starring and directing work can only be described as listless, self-important, brainless crap - including his vaunted war movies of last year. I'll never get the Eastwood veneration; from the dirty harry films to unforgiven to letters from iwo jima, he makes films or stars in films that are nigh impossible to sit through.
Reply
7-31-2007 @ 1:29PM
Gina said...
If you're a fellow RiffTrax fan, you'll be glad to know that this film is the subject of their next roasting!
http://www.rifftrax.com/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=80
(Last I heard, this was due to be released later today.)
Reply
7-31-2007 @ 1:42PM
Alex said...
Wow, I don't really know where to start. 300 is intentionally pulp and should be seen that way. Hence the excessive over-masculinity, shrewd dialogue, and abundance of carnage. I have no doubt that 20 years from now it will be seen as one of the great movies of this era for that very reason. There will always be a place in film history for high art. However, there will also be a place for high pulp. That's why movies like Jaws, Star Wars, and the Poseidon Adventure are still incredibly important to film history.
Reply
7-31-2007 @ 1:52PM
YouFaceTheTick said...
Alex, one watches a movie for what it is. You can't assign a meaning to a film or tell people to watch it a certain way. Films stand up or fall based on how they're perceived by the audience. Some may find the satire almost cartoonishness of say Raising Arizona great, while others may find it a dull flick about a kidnapped baby and a few idiots.
You can't command audiences to watch 300 as "pulp" and enjoy it as such. Genre or style has nothing to do with it.
Reply
7-31-2007 @ 1:58PM
Josh said...
300 WAS AWESOME!! THIS IS AN ACTION MOVIE.
On a side note, how is Flags of our Fathers even comparable? Flags is a wartime drama that takes a serious look at the true story of the heroes of Iwo Jima. 300 is a fictionalized story of the battle of Thermopolye or however you spell it. In any event, no one know what happened for certain in the Spartan battle, but people can accurately recall Iwo Jima, they lived it. It's like comparing Animal House to School Ties because they're both about frat boys.
Furthermore, Flags was poorly told, Band of Brothers was beter and it was on a TV budget. Acting and casting in flags was plastic and plain, Directing was flat and evoked little emotion, editing was confusing as we were shot back and forth between 3 periods: present, past, and little more in the past, and overall the experience was week. I have yet to see Letters to Iwo Jima, but have heard it was much much better.
300's 1-sheet sets up the movie perfectly... "PREPARE FOR GLORY". You go in their, knowing that you want to see some serious ass kicking, not only are you given what you paid for, but as reviewed above it's candy coated with beautiful cinematography, tight editing, a linear story line, and actors who actually look like comic book heroes are supposed to. Not only that, but they are believable as COMIC BOOK spartan soldiers.
My point here is, these movies are Apples and Oranges. Quit being a deusche and stop comparing a campy Saving Private Ryan knock off to a bloody combination of He-Man and Gladiator. Yes they are war films, no they are not comparable.
300 revs you up and gets your heart rate pumping... like listening to Metallica - Enter Sandman.
Flags of our Fathers is supposed to make you think... I think... it's kind of like listening to a female lounge singer in Atlantic City do her rendition of the Beatles Imagine.
Reply
7-31-2007 @ 2:18PM
Rogphi said...
FYI. this is how Greeks handed their stories down,
since there was No TV, Movie theatre Media or snarky reviewers! I thought the movie was great albeit a little heavy handed in places but They told a story and they told it well!
Reply
7-31-2007 @ 2:29PM
Adam E said...
So then you liked the DVD or not?
While I appreciate the thoughts on the movie as compared to Dirty Harry, how does the DVD stack up? Are there any differences between the Blue Ray and HD DVD versions? How ARE the extras? Is the commentary any good? How are the menus? Are there any Easter Eggs?
Let's keep the movie reviews where they belong and bring on the DVD Reviews.
Reply
7-31-2007 @ 2:41PM
Beth said...
I completely agree with Adam E. DVD review... how were the special features??? I could look up a list of how they were on my own. Review them.
Reply
7-31-2007 @ 2:37PM
tobyism said...
Wow. Got to love snarky holier than thou reviews. Don't see enough snark on the internet these days.
Yes, what a trashy movie. And boy it sure was purported to be better than Godfather, Gone with the Wind and Citizen Kane combined.
And 'Youfacethetick': How can a genre not be important? So my complaint that 'The Pianist" wasn't funny enough is now valid? I mean so many opportunities for jokes, and they just left them hanging. Of course the intent and genre have something to do with the movie.
Next on Cinematical: Why Transformers failed as a parable of the Holocaust.
Reply
7-31-2007 @ 3:21PM
YouFaceTheTick said...
Toby, So you must be TOLD what a film is in order to enjoy it? That's sad. Really sad. Ever come across a movie on HBO or HDNET just watch it because something caught your eye? You don't know jack about the flick but you end up liking it? Never. You gotta check to see if it's a "thriller" or a "comedy"? You can't just enjoy a film or get into the style and feel without some reassurance that your view is the "right" view of the film?
Ever watch the Chumscrubber? I wouldn't call it a drama. Wouldn't call it a comedy? I just watched it on HBO one night and found it amusing...genre/style/intent were irrelevant. Ditto my first time watching Donnie Darko in 2001. What was intended by Kelly didn't matter...I found myself buying into his world regardless of the genre/tone/stylistic choices.
I've got a great example of a film the director and writer intended one way and I took another way: Scream. Ever listen to the DVD commentary? Kevin Williamson and Wes Craven believe they made a horror movie, a scary movie (the film's original title too). Uh, I didn't know that was the intent until I heard the commentary; I recall laughing hysterically at their view of their own film. I saw Scream at the theater and thought it was a post-modern sendup of horror films; it was hilarious and fun for that reason. They may not have had post-modern or sendup on their minds but in my eyes, that's a funny flick that mocks horror movies. Shrug.
Reply
7-31-2007 @ 3:38PM
Robin said...
I have to agree about the review of the movie vs. the DVD. People wouldn't even pay attention to the DVD review in most cases if they didn't enjoy the movie or have an interest in knowing about the DVD release.
300 was light but enjoyable. I don't understand the seething hatred here.
Reply
7-31-2007 @ 3:35PM
Matt said...
Wow! What I really wanted was a review of the DVD extras with a mild plot synopsis and you gave me some lame excuse for a review of a movie that came out in March in which you ramble on about how great Clint Eastwood is at directing. Yeah Yeah we get it, he made two movies this year and nobody saw them but they saw the 300 in record numbers, boohoo! Did you even have the DVD when you wrote this review? It sounds like you just recycled this from 4 months ago and tacked on a listing of extras from Amazon. If you could write better, that would be great.
Reply
7-31-2007 @ 3:54PM
Matt said...
Youfacethetick - please stop talking. I can just imagine your nasally, Nordbert voice as you try to relay how studied you are in the ways of film. OOO you saw Donnie Darko in 2001, you're such an early adopter. Also, Craven and Williamson attempted to make a horror movie that plays on all the horror movie cliches. It's tongue-in-cheek, everyone gets it, you're not special.
Reply
7-31-2007 @ 4:34PM
AJ MacReady said...
I really enjoyed both of Eastwood's flicks, and had a great time with 300. The difference to me is that Snyder was making - like Rodriguez - the most faithful adaptation of the Miller source material that he could. And while comics can be morally deep and metaphorical, I doubt that's what Miller intended with either 300 OR Sin City. Both of these movies were intended as something to feast your eyes on while it kicks your ass - not your mind. I can't recall having to do any mental gymnastics to keep up with either of them; that's precisely what made them so fun and enjoyable. Whereas Flags, as well as Letters, were profound and moving and thoughtful, and really quite excellent.
So for me, it's not so much genre as it is approach, as 300 and Clint's films illustrate how different "war" films can be from one another.
Ebert once said "a movie is not what it is about; it is how it is about it."
Reply
7-31-2007 @ 4:57PM
Camperton said...
I love this movie. I disagree that it's shallow. It has some pretty intense themes under the surface and it deals with them vividly, intensely and economically.
Reply
7-31-2007 @ 6:51PM
YouFaceTheTick said...
@Matt,
My point wasn't clear enough for you: people don't need to be told what a film is supposed to be.
Whether 300 is pulp, or just poorly-made crap with lousy CGI, it's up to the viewer to determine this. They don't need to be told, "Oh, it's supposed to look like 'Spartacus' but with the homoerotic visuals notched up to 11."
Hard concept to grasp, eh, chief?
Reply
7-31-2007 @ 9:18PM
Ivan said...
Special Edition DVD review by me:
Picture is good 9/10
Sound is great, especially on surround sound 10/10
Movie was great too, imo 9/10
Extras: around 2 hours all together. A good commentary, but it lacks Miller. But some interesting stuff including facts about real spartans and some info on the graphic novel as well as great interviews with the actors and filmmakers. 8.5/10
Overall - 9/10
But this is coming from a fan of the movie.
Reply
8-01-2007 @ 12:14AM
Stan Heck said...
I agree 100%. I was not a fan of this movie. I saw it a few days after it opened. I did not see why people were saying it was so good. I was bored for the 1st 1/2 or so. Then it got my attention and then it bored me again I thought it wouuld never end in fact I still have nightmares that I am still watching the movie!
Reply
8-01-2007 @ 9:46AM
Joe said...
300 was great. After seeing the History Channel's true version I could not see much difference other than some "added" cinematography. One needs to look beyond the violence to the morale and plot to really enjoy the film.
Reply
8-01-2007 @ 10:56PM
Gator said...
For Adam in post #7, the HD DVD is freakin awesome. In addition to a perfect picture (this will be one of my HD DVD reference discs to show off the quality of HD DVDs), it has HDi, or Picture in Picture feature that runs during the movie if you want it to (I don't believe BlueRay has this capability yet). One of the HDi features is the ability watch the movie in the main screen and see how that part of the movie was actually filmed against a blue screen. Zach Synder, the director, gives commentary while the PIP is running. This feature can run for the entire viewing of the movie if you want it to. It really is cool. The HD DVD also has web enabled features that you can access if you connect your HD DVD player to the internet. More cool stuff.
Reply