The reviewer starts out saying that this is a great historical movie, which makes it sound like most audiences would enjoy it. then, toward the end of his review, he says this: 'Blood flows freely which should come as no surprise and the whole thing plays out as an adventure intended for boys.'
Had he said this at the beginning of his review, I wouldn't have bothered reading further.
Its a shame the producers, writers and directors are bigots. The story of the Persian Empire presented in the movie is the same as all the history taught in the U.S. - completly false. How many Islamophobists did you have on the set????
The religion of Islam was formed in 600 AD, roughly 1080 years before the battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC. Islam and the Persian Empire share nearly nothing in common save for the geography. By the way, the events of the battle and the historical account are detailed by the Greek historian Herodotus in 450 BC, also known as “the farther of history”. Just a note from a US educated bigot.
It's just a reaffirmation of how the West sees it's culture. The line in the sand for deomocracy is a joke as well. The Persians as far as empires go were far more civil than Greeks or Romans. No slaves in Persia for one and the first charter of human rights originated in Iran. There's a copy of it in the UN headquarters. Lastly, I can't say I've met a Spartan, but know a lot of Iranians.
Hammurabi’s code was written during the Babylonian empire not the Persian. Again, this 2500 year old war has nothing to do with current-day events. The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian empires are in NO way related to modern day Islamic nations or culture. The only people offended by this movie, are those making historical connections that don't exist in emperical fact.
Kian, Persian solders were slaves taken from other nations and impressed into service in the army and navy. As a matter of fact most Persian sailors at the battle of salamis could not even swim, and many died from drowning even though they were close to shore.
The Spartans had a good reason for fighting 'nearly naked'. A wound on bare skin would usually stay clean and heal without complication. A wound made through a cloth garment would press the threads of the garment into the wound and usually result in infection, a serious consideration in those pre-antibiotic times. Wearing clothing into battle could make a survivable wound fatal due to the resultant infection. Thus it was the practice of all the Greeks, not just the Spartans to go into battle COMPLETELY naked, except for armor.
See what the real Greeks - People whose history this movie is supposed to depict think of this cheap brainwash propaganda clip:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/08/arts/EU-A-E-MOV-Greece-300.ph p
'By ancient Persia, they refer to modern Iran — whose soldiers are portrayed as bloodthirsty, underdeveloped zombies,' he wrote. 'They are stroking racist instincts in Europe and America.'
Based on the epic graphic novel by Frank Miller, 300 is a ferocious retelling of the ancient Battle of Thermopylae in which King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) and 300 Spartans fought ...more
William PalevedaMar 7th, 2007 - 23:14:19
The reviewer starts out saying that this is a great historical movie, which makes it sound like most audiences would enjoy it. then, toward the end of his review, he says this: 'Blood flows freely which should come as no surprise and the whole thing plays out as an adventure intended for boys.'
Had he said this at the beginning of his review, I wouldn't have bothered reading further.
Report this comment