In my opinion this movie did what it was suposed to do. And it did it perfect. But there are people who think of it in a different way. What do you think ?

 

I agree with you in that it did succeed in its purpose, which was to give audiences a visceral, thrilling, visually stimulating experience.  My only gripe with the film is that it needed about 20 more minutes of character development to even it out a bit.  So, not a GREAT movie, but a very, very good one.

SOME SPOILERS BELOW

Whenever there is a book based on a movie I have to make a choice for myself to enjoy either the movie or the book, it seems like there can be no compromise.  My personality requires that I critique my viewing of one art form with opinions derived from the other.  It's not fair because both forms are so different in nature, but there it is.  I crippled my enjoyment of this film by reading the graphic novel first but I'd like to believe that my opinions are somewhat objective.

I agree with MurrayTheSkull that the character development was off, but I think it was not about the time put into it, but rather direction they took.  I expected the Spartans to be merciless, cold and calculating killing machines (and for the most part they were), but scenes like the one in which the general goes into a blood rage after his son's death, or in which Leonides tells him that his 'heart is broken for his loss' made the Spartans too human.  One step further and the Spartans would have even begun questioning whether they should be fighting in the first place.  The beauty of the Spartans in the world that Frank Miller creates is that this question would not simply be dismissed out of hand, but that it could never even be asked.  In the same vein is the subplot with the Spartan Queen sleeping with the diplomat.  It certainly seems like an action that a calculating and intelligent woman MIGHT pursue, but it ultimately cheapens her as well as her husband's honor.  They both knew when he left that he would not return, her attempt to save him is out of character for a Spartan woman.  I understand from the interview with Zack Snyder that this subplot was invented as a way to check in with Sparta, to remind us what they were fighting for, and without question the Queen's slaying of the diplomat is very satisfying, but at the time it actually took me out of the scene. 

With all that said, there is so much to like about this film.  The cinematography is stunning and the set design, wardrobe, character design, fight choreography and special effects are absolutely beautiful.  Particularly fun was the dynamic Jackson Pollock-like blood spatters in one of the closing fight sequences.  Next to Spider Man 2 this is one of the best comic book adaptations I have seen and I have a lot of faith that Zack Snyder can do justice to the Watchmen comic in the near future.

300 is the best movie so far out in the theatres for 2007!!!

It was good but not as great as I expected I fear this film fell into the graphic novel to movie mold and did little to stand on it's own.

A huge let down in every way.  While I liked it, I thought it had serious problems, the first being a complete lack of story.

I am not taking it too seriously either, I wasn't looking for Hamlet here, I was just looking for something coherent and I didn't find it.  The actors were really bad, and the action scenes were very underwelming.

Agree with jon47 - some of the story added for the sake of the movie were out of character.  The Queen sleeping with that guy completely went against all the dignity and pride she displayed till then.

 That said, the battle scenes were well done - great job of bringing the graphic novel to life, especially the color pallette and some of the frames they literally reproduced.

I notice the critiques of the movie are generally the same--bad acting, no character development, no story, etc. I don't know if that's just people trying to be different and sound like they know more about filmmaking, or if it's legit. I'd be surprised if it was legit because these same "reasons" are often used by anyone talking negatively about any movie. Whatever.

Jon47, I want to thank you for actually providing us with a reason why you didn't like the character development! I disagree with you about it going in the wrong direction though. I know what you mean when you say it made them seem too human, but at the same time I think it was needed so the audience could relate to them on some level. At the end of the movie, people cared about who they were and how they died because there was a relationship between the characters and the audience, you know? If they were just mindless killing machines, then you might not get that same feeling.

The movie was great although you can tell that it missed out some parts…as it did not all go together well, but they knew what they wanted from the movie and went on to produce it. I think is main objective was to be commercial, something that would sell a lot of tickets and make money with a lot of effort. I think they succeeded in the end giving the people a nice looking movie without the deepness of the story.

It is a very good movie. Most people WILL react, in any way, to the action and violence, but I see it as an art form. I love the action, but these less-noticed aspects appeal too me more. It feels true to Greek pottery, and the story contributes to the artistic style. One VERY good example of art style is in the end where (SLIGHT SPOILERS) Leonidas is surrounded by his men, like a painting. A lot of people are put off by the voice-over, but I see Dilios's narration as a Greek epic poem, two popular others being The Iliad and The Odyssey.