Posted on 03/28/2007 7:55:02 AM PDT by SmithL
When it comes to the offerings of Hollywood, rarely does a film resonate strongly with both mainstream America and the largely liberal world of film critics. For the two seem to inhabit different universes, particularly when it comes to depictions of patriotism, war, religion and the age-old struggle between good and evil.
When bad reviews and huge box office numbers coincide, the gulf between critics and audiences is laid bare. Such was the case with "The Passion of the Christ" and "National Treasure," both of which Americans flocked to see even as critics shook their heads in disbelief.
The unprecedented success of the recent film "300" is further evidence of this pattern. While critics have largely panned "300," Americans clearly haven't been listening. The film's opening weekend brought in $70 million, with all 57 of its early IMAX midnight showings selling out, making it the highest-grossing March opening ever and third-highest opening for an R-rated feature. And its box office numbers have remained high ever since.
Based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller (of "Sin City" fame) and directed by Zack Snyder, "300" is a fictional recounting of the famous Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC. The battle pitted King Leonidas and his bodyguard of 300 Spartans -- aided by the Thespians -- against the vast army of the Persian King Xerxes. Seeking to block the Persian army at a narrow mountain pass until Sparta and the rest of Greece could amass the will and forces to fight, the greatly outnumbered Spartan warriors used their superior fighting skills, bravery and determination to hold the "Hot Gates" to the last man. It was the Spartan sacrifice at Thermopylae...
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Try it. You might like it.
DMZ doesn't believe the liberals are getting their panties in a wad because he cannot google a review which states such. Baloney I say.
__________
LOL. I get it now. When using liberals in this context, it is "liberal movie critics" we are referring to. I thought we were talking about real people (if that sounds like a slam on movie critics generally, I'm OK with that).
Certainly a ton of people have gone to see this movie, spending their hard earned pay, and it strains credibility to the breaking point to suggest that it is only conservatives doing so. If liberals are spending their money to see it, that would hardly represent them "getting their knickers in a twist" over the movie, at least IMO.
What liberal movie critics get up in arms about is pretty meaningless from where I sit, and can hardly be used (again, IMO) to represent what actual people think, especially given the movie's considerable success at the box office.
How much pornographic imagery in a movie is "acceptable" for a Christian? In other words, at what point does a Christian make the difficult decision not to see a movie due to its graphic sexuality? Ever? Two sex scenes? Ten? Only one?
"What liberal movie critics get up in arms about is pretty meaningless from where I sit, and can hardly be used (again, IMO) to represent what actual people think, especially given the movie's considerable success at the box office."
And its success in the land of movie reviews, but don't let that stop anyone from complaining.
if it's not about two cowboys boofing each other, it has to go through the HollyWierd committee of censors....
And the accountants, who control the purse strings for any project. Statistics show that the largest percentage of movie attendance is among 14 year old boys. Hence the proliferation of shoot-em-up computer-generated blasts in most films today. "300" defied the odds on all fronts, particularly the 'historic' context because very, very few in the audience today have been taught any world history, so each 'historic' theme film has to 'stand alone' and assume that no one in the audience has a clue as to what the real facts are.
Producing a film with wide appeal to the paying audience is a challenge. A year ago I saw a film in a geographic area in which I was (racially) a bit of a 'sticking out like a sore thumb' member of the audience. One scene depicted an action that only someone with some knowledge of scholasticism would 'get'. I was the only person in the packed theater who laughed because no one else caught the subtle joke.
In the end, it's all about the 'business' of selling tickets. Sorry for the rant. Have a good day.
I think we all know that 300 was not marketed based on any historic merit it had and instead on people getting kicked into a hole and stabbed by a rhino's honr. This is perfect for the 14-year old boy market.
Too dark for ya, huh?
Long time, Lx! .................. FRegards
Dark, maybe, brutal, yes.
Yes, the idea of 300 standing in a pass and telling 10,000 enemies to come take their weapons after a surrender refusal only appeals to 14 year old....
Good movie. If the Greeks had not prevailed we might all be living under dictators. Greece was the foundation for freedom and democracy. That was presened well in the movie even if it did not follow history 100%.
Thank goodness for that. 'The Hitler Channel' seems fixated on Nazis marching into Poland, and all sorts of flying war machines Hitler didn't have, but wanted. The fall of a good network!
When I asked my son if he would go to the movie with me, I figured he'd already know the history, because he was a history major. He'd never heard about it.
End of Explanation
Liberal film critics that panned 300:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/movies/09thre.html?ex=1175227200&en=9e655b05fb03cd1d&ei=5070
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03092007/entertainment/movies/persian_shrug_movies_kyle_smith.htm
http://www.slate.com/id/2161450/
http://www.nj.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/entertainment-0/1173419771121620.xml&coll=1
Lefties who hated it:
http://www.artthreat.net/2007/03/95
http://alternet.org/movies/49029/
Proof enough for ya? If not, there's much, much more out there...
Being a mythic representation of the 300, it did quite well. The main themes are there. And this is a good thing.
I thought Apocalypto was a MUCH better and more spell-binding movie, but 300 was good too. If you liked 300 and haven't seen Apoacalypto, get the movie!
I can see where the critics were coming from, it really isn't a very good movie. Nice visuals, fun to watch, but the dialog was boring as hell and the characters were as two dimensional as the pancakes I ate for breakfast.
No question that "300" is an infinitely better movie than "Sin City". "Sin City" should have forevermore remained strictly a graphic story (comic book for those of you in Rio Linda), but "300" literally begged to be placed on the big screen, and was done correctly...
the infowarrior
I can too, but it just doesn't matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.