anyone seen the movie yet?
the trailors seem cool.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Have not seen it but i intend to. I'll probably wait until it comes out on DVD though. I hate paying so much to go see a movie in a theatre only to have idiots sit behind me and kick my chair while they talk the entire time.
But yes, I will see it. Can't wait.
But yes, I will see it. Can't wait.
havent seen it yet but i hear it's great!
I dunno anything about it. I just finally finished 1900 though. Was boring as hell and gratui--uh, overly violent and explicit. I started it in December and finished the other night. That's how long and boring it was.
1969 is pretty good. But 9 to 5 is my favourite of the numbered films.
1999 and 25 or 6 to 4 are pretty good songs too.
1969 is pretty good. But 9 to 5 is my favourite of the numbered films.
1999 and 25 or 6 to 4 are pretty good songs too.
Quality violence.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]the insane bunny wrote: [/QUOTENAME]1999 and 25 or 6 to 4 are pretty good songs too.[/QUOTE]
Chicago Transit Authority.... rock on!
I saw 300... it was fantastic. Anyone who is remotely fascinated by ancient history will enjoy this movie for sure.
Chicago Transit Authority.... rock on!
I saw 300... it was fantastic. Anyone who is remotely fascinated by ancient history will enjoy this movie for sure.
saw it with my mates in a theater in Belgium a week before the Dutch premiere... nice movie. Much better than I thought it would be...
BUT.. if you really want to see a great movie: go see : "das leben der anderen" great great great movie...!
BUT.. if you really want to see a great movie: go see : "das leben der anderen" great great great movie...!
this movie is nice. i love the effects and the cinematography. oh screw that. i love the whole package. the only thing lacking is more blood. :D and gore. :D
it's a must-watch for all y'all!
it's a must-watch for all y'all!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I saw 300... it was fantastic. Anyone who is remotely fascinated by ancient history will enjoy this movie for sure.
[/QUOTE]
I gather from your enthusiasm that it's historically accurate, yes? At least somewhat? I ask because I know there was an uproar in Iran about it. They're saying it's an American propaganda film aimed at shedding a dark light on their people.
I saw 300... it was fantastic. Anyone who is remotely fascinated by ancient history will enjoy this movie for sure.
[/QUOTE]
I gather from your enthusiasm that it's historically accurate, yes? At least somewhat? I ask because I know there was an uproar in Iran about it. They're saying it's an American propaganda film aimed at shedding a dark light on their people.
^i heard about that, mfm... about Xerxes being depicted as androgynous... apparently the iranians have respect for their gods and when they found out about the androgyny in the king-god, they got mad.
Saw it at the IMAX, opening night, fantastic Movie, totally worth paying 15 bucks to see.
I saw it at the IMAX in Lansing opening weekend with my boyfriend and another couple from the CMU History Department. It was a GREAT movie. Now, to be fair, most of it is historically shit (we were probably the worst people to be sitting next to during the movie, because we just kept ticking off things that were inaccurate).
Lots of blood, gore, gratuitous violence and sex...but that's not a bad thing :-)
I'd say it's definitely worth the money to see it!
Lots of blood, gore, gratuitous violence and sex...but that's not a bad thing :-)
I'd say it's definitely worth the money to see it!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I saw 300... it was fantastic. Anyone who is remotely fascinated by ancient history will enjoy this movie for sure.
[/QUOTE]
I gather from your enthusiasm that it's historically accurate, yes? At least somewhat? I ask because I know there was an uproar in Iran about it. They're saying it's an American propaganda film aimed at shedding a dark light on their people. [/QUOTE]
The people in Iran are in an uproar about it, but that's called paranoia. The movie historically is shit, and I honestly don't know why they are so upset. They are claiming that the portrayal of the Persians makes them look bad, but they forget something....no one knows who in the hell the Persians are now a days. And the people who do...well, they are educated enough to know how crap the movie was historically. You could try to read a political message into it...but you won't get very far.
Some of the things that are wrong in the movie:
1) Leonidas wasn't king of the Spartans. He was the commander of the unit that went to Thermopolae. Sparta had two kings, but they were elected from the Council, and you had to be at least 60 years old to be on the Council, because you were technically in the military until age 60 (or until you died, whatever came first)
2) The Spartans weren't wearing enough armor. Now granted this provides for an excellent opprotunity for women to view some nice six packs on the Spartan men, but in real life they wore full chest plates as part of their armor.
3) The Persians were wearing too much armor. They didn't wear hardly any at all, and what they did wear consisted mostly of tightly woven reed mats worn under their clothes
4) The Spartans weren't alone at Thermopolae. They were joined by regiments from Athens, Corinth and other major city states in the Greek world. They do briefly mention the Athenians being there, but only to say that the Athenians were into the whole "Greek Love" thing...which actually was started by the Spartans as part of their military training/living in the barracks until age 30 thing
5) The rest of the Greek army didn't desert the forces at Thermopolae. Leonidas was the commander in charge of ALL the Greek forces, and he sent them all home once he knew that they were gunna loose the battle. He did this to give the Athenians and others time to gather larger forces and meet the Persians at a different location once they got through the pass. The Spartans under his command stayed with him, but he'd sent everyone else home to prep for the major battle he knew was coming.
6) The Persian king Xerxes was not an 8 foot tall, makeup wearing, pierced to high heaven, nearly naked, transvestite looking thing. He actually looked more like the messenger they chopped the hand off of after the first battle.
7) There were no mutants running around. The Immortals were real, but they weren't monsterous looking things. Neither were the Ephors. And I'm pretty sure the Hunchback of Notre Dame never made an appearance at the real battle either.
8) Xerxes never sent elephants into the pass. He knew this would be pointless.
There are more...but the movie never claimed to be based on history. It claimed to be based on the graphic novel that was inspired by a historical event. Big difference.
I saw 300... it was fantastic. Anyone who is remotely fascinated by ancient history will enjoy this movie for sure.
[/QUOTE]
I gather from your enthusiasm that it's historically accurate, yes? At least somewhat? I ask because I know there was an uproar in Iran about it. They're saying it's an American propaganda film aimed at shedding a dark light on their people. [/QUOTE]
The people in Iran are in an uproar about it, but that's called paranoia. The movie historically is shit, and I honestly don't know why they are so upset. They are claiming that the portrayal of the Persians makes them look bad, but they forget something....no one knows who in the hell the Persians are now a days. And the people who do...well, they are educated enough to know how crap the movie was historically. You could try to read a political message into it...but you won't get very far.
Some of the things that are wrong in the movie:
1) Leonidas wasn't king of the Spartans. He was the commander of the unit that went to Thermopolae. Sparta had two kings, but they were elected from the Council, and you had to be at least 60 years old to be on the Council, because you were technically in the military until age 60 (or until you died, whatever came first)
2) The Spartans weren't wearing enough armor. Now granted this provides for an excellent opprotunity for women to view some nice six packs on the Spartan men, but in real life they wore full chest plates as part of their armor.
3) The Persians were wearing too much armor. They didn't wear hardly any at all, and what they did wear consisted mostly of tightly woven reed mats worn under their clothes
4) The Spartans weren't alone at Thermopolae. They were joined by regiments from Athens, Corinth and other major city states in the Greek world. They do briefly mention the Athenians being there, but only to say that the Athenians were into the whole "Greek Love" thing...which actually was started by the Spartans as part of their military training/living in the barracks until age 30 thing
5) The rest of the Greek army didn't desert the forces at Thermopolae. Leonidas was the commander in charge of ALL the Greek forces, and he sent them all home once he knew that they were gunna loose the battle. He did this to give the Athenians and others time to gather larger forces and meet the Persians at a different location once they got through the pass. The Spartans under his command stayed with him, but he'd sent everyone else home to prep for the major battle he knew was coming.
6) The Persian king Xerxes was not an 8 foot tall, makeup wearing, pierced to high heaven, nearly naked, transvestite looking thing. He actually looked more like the messenger they chopped the hand off of after the first battle.
7) There were no mutants running around. The Immortals were real, but they weren't monsterous looking things. Neither were the Ephors. And I'm pretty sure the Hunchback of Notre Dame never made an appearance at the real battle either.
8) Xerxes never sent elephants into the pass. He knew this would be pointless.
There are more...but the movie never claimed to be based on history. It claimed to be based on the graphic novel that was inspired by a historical event. Big difference.
Holy crap... you know your stuff.
I watched the movie with someone who is in their fourth year of studying history, and they said it was historically correct. Maybe I should show her this topic and see what she says...!!
I watched the movie with someone who is in their fourth year of studying history, and they said it was historically correct. Maybe I should show her this topic and see what she says...!!
Amazing, HistoryGirl! And very interesting. When I asked if it was historically accurate, I never expected such a response. :-) Cool.