Anybody who says that "300" isn't the latest example of Hollywood pro-war propaganda aimed at the young and the gullible just isn't paying attention.

Yeah, but it features enough badassery to forget about that and just watch.

I'll vote for this to spite roughy's comment. That's not far from saying that Doom was pro-war propaganda. Sheesh.

Here here twiddles...and cats make great avatars in my opinion.

All movies are propaganda if you over-analyze them enough. This rocks.

Pro-war propaganda? Since when since the 60's has Hollywood ever been that?

Netflix has this on "very long wait"... sigh. Enough of these sifts and I won't need to rent it. (nah.. A fierce manly Scotsman like Butler is waaaay too yummy to miss on HD)

I enjoyed this scene quite a bit in the theatre because the first few moments of it are quite realistic. The bit where the Persians slam into the shield wall of the phalanx is exactly what phalanx warfare would have been like. It's unfortunate that they didn't have a first-person shot from within one of the helmets as that would've completed the effect. You'll notice that the helmets have no ear holes and have extremely limited peripheral vision. Couple that with the dust clouds that would be kicked up by that number of men, and your individual Greek hoplite would be unable to see or hear anything in the chaos of battle. What it would come down to is maintaining your place in formation and trying to find an opening for your spear against the enemy in front of you, an effect that I thought this scene conveys pretty well when the two bodies are pressing their shields against each other. The realism of course breaks down once the Spartans start killing people but it was nice that they throw in those few moments of realism for those of us who are interested in ancient warfare.

"Anybody who says that "300" isn't the latest example of Hollywood pro-war propaganda aimed at the young and the gullible just isn't paying attention."

That argument can certainly be made but on the other hand the director has denied any such intent. Instead, that the film was intended as entertainment, and had no political intentions.

Whatever the case I suggest reading Aeschylus's Persians which was written and performed in 472 B.C., only 8 years after Thermopylae and Salamis, and 7 years after Plataea (the battle that the Spartans charge into at the end of 300). The play gives an insight into how at least one Athenian responded to the Persian Wars and his interpretation of the East-West rivalry. You'll find some similarities and one striking difference between the play and 300. They are similar in that Aeschylus clearly defines the differences between Greek and Persian society, and while acknowledging Persian greatness, ultimately draws the conclusion that Greek culture is more humane and therefore superior. The striking difference however is in how war itself is treated. In 300, war is glorious entertainment. The film does not want us to question the consequences of war because if we do so then the violence becomes less entertaining; it's really cool when blood spurts in slow motion through the air, it's less cool when collects in a dark pool beneath the body of a dying man. The Persians however is structured around the idea that suffering is a universal human experience and that war, no matter how just and necessary, brings suffering to innocent people. Aeschylus therefore both glorifies Greek culture, and Greek victory in the Persian Wars, while also asking his Athenian audience to consider the suffering Greek victory wrought upon the Persians. Poignant stuff, and it's for stuff like this that I study Classics.

Downloaded it and was not impressed.Im glad I didnt waste my hard earned money on this piece pseudo history which was not too much different from another schlock film "Troy" with Brad Pitt.The fighting seemed accurate enough which was of course the whole point of the movie to the average viewer .

My biggest issue with this story was their treatment of the Persians and the monster characters etc .It was just too much for me. I had to laugh.Did anyone who saw it catch the Persians punisher who had flesh blades for arms to chop off the head of his messenger ? These werent appendeges they were supposed to be mutations.Please it was too much.

If we are talking purely entertainment value, sure it was slightly entertaining, but for some to call it a great epic film and dare I say Totally historically accurate is quite another.Maybe one of these days Hollywood will get it right and do their research and use the facts, which are even more interesting than the half truths they sell to get the average person to go and see this garbage.When will it end ? I hope kids arent going to try and recite this film in a history report instead of doing the reading .Anyways thats my 2 cents worth.

I try to think of the film as the myth that the Greeks would be passing around of the Spartan feats at Thermopylae, a bit of propaganda to help rally the armies to deffend against the persian invasion. It helps me enjoy the film alot more since, as has been stated, it's terribly inaccurate from a historical standpoint.

Fun to watch, but pointless to overthink.

My two cents.

"Maybe one of these days Hollywood will get it right and do their research and use the facts, which are even more interesting than the half truths they sell to get the average person to go and see this garbage."

As skrob says its best to think of 300 as a stylized story the Greeks would have told among themselves and in that respect the film is extremely accurate.

Much has been made of how the Spartans don't wear any armor in the film, which is of course completely ahistorical. In a stylized account of Thermopylae, the near-naked bodies of the Spartans is entirely Greek. Were it not for US homophobia I'm sure the film-makers would've filmed the Spartans without their loincloths. In Greek art there is something called heroic nudity. All Greek men worked out nude, daily, as a community in preparation for when they would have to fight shoulder-to-shoulder together in the phalanx. This obsession with physical fitness caused them to idealize masculine beauty. As a result, much of their more stylized art depicts heroic men as being nude and buff as hell. Hercules, for example, frequently shows up just wearing his lion skin cloak. Were the Greeks to have had access to film, and decided to make a movie about Thermopylae, I am certain that the Spartans and other Greeks would have been depicted naked, just like in 300.

Another issue that is often raised is the depiction of Xerxes. No, he probably wasn't 10 feet tall and probably didn't have the voice of god. That however isn't the point. Xerxes was treated as god-king by his subjects and he ruled the largest, wealthiest and most powerful empire in the world. The Greeks were well aware of how powerful and impressive a guy he was. In fact, they frequently referred to Xerxes, and his descendants, simply as the King, as if the Persian Emperors were the only rulers of all that wasn't Greece. Given all of this, it is entirely appropriate for Xerxes to have the appearance of a god in the movie.

Another interesting thing they did with Xerxes was gold imagery. This goes back to Aeschylus's Persians where the imagery of wealth permeates the entire play, shifting in meaning to symbolize Persian wealth and power in the beginning of the play, to symbolizing Persian weakness and downfall. Ancient Greece was not a wealthy land by any measure. The great public works projects of Classical Athens were payed for by imperial tribute, not some inherent money-making ability of the Athenians. The Greeks, therefore, viewed extreme wealth with suspicion. They felt that a man that doesn't work for his living isn't fully a man. Wealth and leisure was therefore associated with effeminacy. Going back to 300, note how Xerxes wears golden chains over his body and has both golden nail polish and eye shadow. The effect the filmmakers were clearly trying to acheive was the association of gold with makeup, and therefore the feminine. Xerxes, despite his god-like stature, strikes the audience, with his makeup, as being much less manly than Leonidas. This is of course exactly how the Greeks viewed it.

I could go on, there are plenty of interesting examples of "Greekness" in 300. The point is that while 300 is not completely historical, it is very, very Greek. The filmmakers clearly did their research and read their classical texts.

Just watched this last night (on Blu-ray even, oooooooo!) loved it!
I don't worry too much about historical accuracies, I just watch for the splatterin'

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Stingray.

Awarding EDD with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.

*cinema

Adding video to channels (Cinema) - requested by EDD.