DVD Review HTF REVIEW: 300: Two-Disc Special Edition (2 Viewers)

[Bo_Darville]

secondly, why should this forum have a policy against posts like donnie's, but allow fan-boy posts that say things like "THIS MOVIE ROCKED! I CAN'T WAIT TO GET THIS!" "THIS WAS THE BEST MOVIE OF 2007!" "THE ACTION WAS AWESOME!"

a policy like that gives a very distorted and misleading view to others reading the posts. balance is good -- welcome to america.

 

[RickER]

You may not feel like i do, but maybe you could tell me what i missed, or why i was wrong.
"300 SUCKS", yea, thanks, i see your point.

Oh, and Bo please dont think i was saying YOU threadcrap. I just wanted to answer. Also i have to always remember this forum is more than the USA.

 

[TravisR]

Exactly. If you came in and said something to the effect of "I didn't like this movie because of the non-stop narration that half the time was describing exactly what was happening on screen, the non-stop slow motion and faux tough guy talk that both became parodies of themselves and the terrible subplot about the wife put into the movie solely for the female demographic." is better than "tHsi mvoie sux!!!@@!!!!"

 

[Brett_M]

Thanks for the review.

I saw 300 three times in the theater. Loved it more with each viewing. I have the huge vinyl banner for the film hanging in my home theater.

I saw Troy twice at the cinema and enjoyed it enough to buy it. It gets better with additional viewings for me. I look forward to the extended version, too.

I have seen all three versions of Alexander and the final cut is stellar. It is the best version in terms of story and I love it.

To each his own, I say. I know I'm in the minority here with regard to these three films but I do not apologize for it. It does not bother me if someone thinks a movie sucks. It does bother me when the statement is not supported with examples or explanation. (The same is true for statements regarding how awesome a movie is, as pointed out by an earlier post.)

Thanks again for the review, Ken. Some of us appreciate your candor and honesty.

 

[Paul_Scott]

lol. Uh-oh
I was on the fence over whether to blind buy this (on HD)- because I didn't like Sin City much (mostly due to Millers faux tough guy/noir dialouge).
I was expecting the same here, but didn't realize this had redundant narration as well.
I just re-watched the trailer and it looks visually interesting, but that only carries me so far. Sounds like I'll just pony up for the rental after all.

 

[Rhett_Y]

I will be picking this one up.. I for one loved this movie.. can't wait! Thank you for the review.

 

[Chris Tedesco]

This will be the movie that will push me over the HD DVD fence. I will purchase the 300 HD DVD and the Toshiba HD-A2.

THIS IS SPARTA!!!!!!!!!!

 

[PatH]

I saw this in theatre (in IMAX yet!) and loved it, but I think I'll pass for now. I already own The 300 Spartans which tells the story just as heroically, is brighter (therefore easier on the eyes) and stars people whose work I've liked and respected for years.

Don't get me wrong: as I said, I liked 300, but if the transfer isn't impeccable, I can pass. The only regret I have is that its existence probably guarantees that Gates Of Fire will never become a movie.

If my brother buys the two disc version, though, I will check out the fact vs. fiction extra and the midget archer outtake.

 

[David_B_K]

Gates of Fire was so gripping, I doubt a movie could have ever done it justice. It'd take at least a 2 or 3 part miniseries to do it well.

 

[Yumbo]

The movie has digital grain.
Warner's transfers can be bad.
Blood Diamond was NOT one of them.
Will post observations of both editions (HD COMBO) tomorrow.

 

[Joe D]

One question I have for Warner SD-DVD's is why the sudden drop in quality. For years they pumped out great transfer after great transfer, and since HD/BD came along the quality has really taken a nose dive.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Looking at "300" a second time and comparing it to some of the other recent titles, I'm starting to think that in this particular case it is just the compression not always being able to keep up with the heavy grain. It is not as much around edges as I thought it was at first glance, but more in bright areas of the screen. "Blood Diamond", "Happy Feet", and, "Letters from Iwo Jima" had artifacts that seemed like a combination of thin edge halos and compression noise whereas "300" just seems to get "blockier" from time to time in the brightest and grainiest parts of the image.

Regards,

 

[Yumbo]

Correct Ken.

The HD side looks exactly like in did in cinemas - grain galore, lol.
The online feature prompted cookies, which you should select ACCEPT ALWAYS under settings.

Haven't checked the sound yet.

The SD side has compression issues obviously, and the grain looks worse. Be happy to watch it in HD if you can.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

This is an interesting film and I do think you need to consider it because it follows a line of filmmaking techniques that we're probably going to see more of. I'm sure people can name other films that fall in this category but I think the line goes something like this:

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow

Sin City

300

All of these films are set in a computer generated comic book environment. Personally I much prefer a real world environment as a setting but due to the expense of creating them now we are probably much more likely to see films that require a unique environment set in one of these computer candy lands. I can't say I find that a good thing. Nothing can compare to an amazing environment that the actors can actually interact with...say the Discovery in 2001...and I think you are drawn into the film much deeper if they are in a real place and not standing in front of a digital painting.

All that said because 300 is a comic book come to life the effects work wonderfully to achieve the goal in this film, just as they did in Sin City.

I will say that I did find 300 very entertaining but obviously not a great film. It's a popcorn movie and a great one at that. Certainly a "guy" movie that pretty much goes right for the teenage boy in us. To me it sort of reminds me of Mysterious Island or a Harryhausen Sinbad film...plot and character development are less important than the action and fancy effects. You could find plenty of ways to attack this film but why would you when the intended outcome of viewing it is to get you to say "Wow, that was neat!"

I think comparing it to Troy and Alexander is pretty funny. I guess just because they are all sword and sandal flicks that means we should compare them. I don't think that makes any sense because 300 is not meant to be a "historical epic" as the other two films are...it's a comic book, get it? Comparing it to Sin City makes the most sense but really who cares?

It's also kind of funny that my problem with Troy and Alexander is the same...the casting stinks. I guess they wanted "names" to play the leads but Pitt and Farrell were terrible choices and they both stink up the screen. Stone also cast Leto to play Farrell's gay lover...which probably makes perfect sense, if you were casting say, "Brokeback Alexander" but these guys are not at all believable as great warriors fighting their way across continents. They look like a strong breeze would defeat them never mind barbarian hordes. The cast in 300 may not be asked to do much more than scream their dialog but in terms of what the filmmakers wanted...it's a perfect cast.

So while Alexander is a much more interesting film its flaws are far larger than those in 300. 300 hits a home run with its cast and in accomplishing what it set out to accomplish. I think everybody involved with it did exactly what they set out to do and this is why the film is so damn enjoyable to watch. Troy, to me, is the worst of these three and the one that there is no reason to ever watch again.

If you have to choose which film is the best of the three, 300 wins over Troy and Alexander because it is exactly what its makers wanted it to be. I think Alexander is the most interesting of the three but 300 is overall the better film. If you want a film like 300 that I actually think is a better film I'd go with Gladiator. It has the great action, a far better story, much more in the character area and it is a beautiful film to look at.


Just my two cents...

 

[Jonny P]

I think all of the "CG" films listed above owe a debt to the movie "Tron" -- which offered desaturated palettes and people living in a computer generated world that was supposed to "look like something else" (in the case of "Tron," a video game).

I have read some other reviews of the SD version of "300" that find the transfer to be very good. So I think I'll pick this up tomorrow.

The movie is a bombastic platter of sex and violence...and there isn't a lot of plot.

But it does manage to be a "guy movie" in an age when we don't see all that many R-rated action cheese-fests anymore. And it is a very handsome looking movie.

I am one who thinks movies feature too much CGI these days. However, this movie has stuck with me because it does look so damn unique.

Question: are the discs containing the movie the same on both single-disc and two-disc versions?

 

[Colin Jacobson]

99% sure they are...

 

[Clint_G]

I am disappointed that there is no trailer for this movie. I plan on watching the feature tonight, and just got home, popped in the disc, and was saddened that the amazing trailer was not on there.

 

[JeffMc]

I don't give any film kudos just because the filmmakers aimed low and accomplished that task. I really liked the 'look' of 300 and that's about it. At least it did try to do something unique so I would cut it more slack than things like TROY or ALEXANDER. What all three of these films apparently share is a gay subtext, thus making 300 probably the most mainstream gay film ever. That token female love interest thrown into all this macho-speedo action was hilarious.

 

[Clint_G]

"Aiming low" is subjective. As far as your "gay subtext" claim, sounds like those are some issues you need to work with and shouldn't have any bearing on the quality of the film.

 

[JeffMc]

I have absolutely no problem with gay material, thank you very much. I actually found the homoerotic subtext of the film kind of interesting as you usually don't see stuff like that in most mainstream films. And I was never judging the quality of "300" on that issue at all. The dumb dialog and over-emoting pretty much ruined the film for me. If others like that, fine. But don't even think about accusing or implying me of homophobia or any kind of bigotry, because you would be dead wrong.