Okay, I'll admit, it ain't as good as his Sky Captain review...

[thebitterguy]

But you can alway count on nihilistic_kid to bring the goods. He does a review of The 300, and by "does a review of " I mean "does a number on". Bless his black little horror writing heart.

He also links to this article about the film.

Comments

[sixteenbynine.livejournal.com]

The split over this film seems to fall between "hey, it's just a movie, it looks cool, just have a good time" and "my god, what a self-important piece of greenscreen ass".

[waiwode.livejournal.com]

His review was weak.

"Wait, a movie based on a comic book isn't historically accurate!" (sarcasm)After all, historical accuracy has always been a Hollywood standard.(/sarcasm)

I've read some good bad reviews of 300. This spoiler-rich rant wasn't one of them.

Doug.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

I liked the livescience review better, but both completely validate my already fairly strong desire to avoid that film at all costs. Frank Miller was good when he did Batman Year One and Daredevil, other than that, I completely avoid his work. I'll take work by Grant Morrison, Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, Warren Ellis, or even Marc Millar over Miller's work any day.

[lowercaseem.livejournal.com]

I'm glad I enjoyed the film prior to having bothered with reviews. From the previews I was anticipating boredom and an overuse of some form of SPARTA!! on the part of the various actors. In the cineplex I sat back and enjoyed the spectacle.

The only lingering ugh that remains, for me, re: 300, is the sense that I was watching a recruiting film for the war on terror. It's probably nothing, though.

[thetathx1138.livejournal.com]

Anybody who calls "Sin City" a waste of film is officially wasting my time.