300

User Score
7.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1349 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. DenizY.
    Mar 10, 2007
    0
    Terrible, historically inaccurate, it's not even true to the comic book, too much slowmo, and I could predict every bit of the dialogue minutes before they would say it. Not to mention people saying the corniest one liners and that's it, just one line and then nothing for minutes on end. Seems to be more of a propaganda piece to just dehumanize Persians (think Iranians) and make Terrible, historically inaccurate, it's not even true to the comic book, too much slowmo, and I could predict every bit of the dialogue minutes before they would say it. Not to mention people saying the corniest one liners and that's it, just one line and then nothing for minutes on end. Seems to be more of a propaganda piece to just dehumanize Persians (think Iranians) and make them look like savages. Neither side was innocent, and they're both godless and brutal societies. (The last line about ushering in a new age of "free thought" and an end to mysticism is a real kicker, since the Greeks believed in their own made up religion.) Not to mention, they ruined an intriguing historical tale that could of gone places. Soulless, airless, they seriously must just take a giant crap and throw $20 million at it and call it a movie. Expand
  2. TerrenceG.
    Mar 11, 2007
    0
    If you like long winded speeches, people screaming about "SPARTA!", homoerotic undertones, giant lobster men or over-coreographed super slow motion fight scenes you'll love this movie.
  3. Timmy
    Mar 10, 2007
    0
    No plot, no meaning, nothing worth to talk about.
  4. alexe
    Apr 15, 2007
    2
    I saw the movie last night , i think it was very slow movie and it had a lot of historical problems,because i studey history i would like to mention some:
    1-persian kings apprearance is very different then what it is in history,in history all the persian kings had a long bear and wearing special clothes but in this movie persian king is NUDE!!without bear and like homosexuals!!hanging
    I saw the movie last night , i think it was very slow movie and it had a lot of historical problems,because i studey history i would like to mention some:
    1-persian kings apprearance is very different then what it is in history,in history all the persian kings had a long bear and wearing special clothes but in this movie persian king is NUDE!!without bear and like homosexuals!!hanging rings from his body its completly and exactly wrong!you can search in internet and see(its persia not maya)
    2-in the movie the armies of persia is consisting of many models but none of them was persian model for soldiers!!there was sth like samurais in japan!and arab soldiers and creatures and.... but none of them were persian soldiers that is in historises imagination!
    3-in museums we have the coins of xeres go and see the diffrence in movie for coins!!(i think the director has confused between persians and maya nation!!!)
    and it was interesting that soldiers of sparta were fighting with luagh is it funny fighting a big army with just 300 soldiers?
    I think people from persia will protest this film just because of it gives very wrong imagination of persia
    Expand
  5. HeruclesDoh
    Mar 14, 2007
    1
    This has to be the first movie since Hitlers propaganda movies in the 40's to depict an entire civilisation (Persian) as subhuman. Way to go guys... so the "ragheads" are demons and goblins now. Was the shock and awe not effective enough?
    You know what this movie needed!
    Terror Alert:High
  6. JeyJey
    Apr 6, 2007
    0
    Uh Man!
    I had this really awesome date lined up... and we went to see 300. But then she didnt want me to come inside for coffee, because Im persian... and according to 300 I suck. I'm evil, and souless.... and I probably have a deformed peepee......

    ... I call it Xerxes!
  7. Babak
    Mar 8, 2007
    0
    This is nothing unless humiliating the great nation and empire of Persia.

    What a world we are living, some people(Hollywood) change the history to earn lots of money, while some others simply watch and say what an interesting movie, without thinking about its accuracy. This movie shows that Persians are cruel. Have you ever studied their culture and history? Cyrus the great, was
    This is nothing unless humiliating the great nation and empire of Persia.

    What a world we are living, some people(Hollywood) change the history to earn lots of money, while some others simply watch and say what an interesting movie, without thinking about its accuracy.
    This movie shows that Persians are cruel. Have you ever studied their culture and history?
    Cyrus the great, was the funder of Persian empire under Achaemenid dynasty. He made the Cyrus Cylinder the world's first charter of human rights, based on the text written over this cylinder he was expressing Cyrus respect for human. HOW THESE PEOPLE CAN BE BRUTAL????

    Shame on people who made this movie.
    Expand
  8. FábioH.
    Jul 6, 2008
    3
    This movie is way too overrated. Everyone just talked so much about it that I had to watch it myself, and I found it disappointing. All I could see was some few scenes of nudity and endless nonsense violence. People fighting, hacking, slashing, piercing, and that's all I can remember whenever I think of this movie. It doesn't have a notable plot, just endless nonsense fighting. This movie is way too overrated. Everyone just talked so much about it that I had to watch it myself, and I found it disappointing. All I could see was some few scenes of nudity and endless nonsense violence. People fighting, hacking, slashing, piercing, and that's all I can remember whenever I think of this movie. It doesn't have a notable plot, just endless nonsense fighting. I don't know about you, but that's just not enough to make me enjoy a movie. The costumes and the graphical area were great, but that's all. I even found it funny that all of the Persians had to be pierced, deformed or ugly freaks in some way while the Spartans were all strong men with sculpted bodies and high morals. That's just disrespectful to Persian people. Spartan women are shown as beautiful, moral and full of rights, while the only Persian women that appear in the movie are nude dancers. Actually, it should be taken into consideration that Persian women had a lot more political/social/economical rights than Spartan women, but despite of that, in the beginning of the movie, they make it sound like the Persian women were mistreated and the Spartan women had many more freedoms. Oh, and of course, let's all remember that the film is REALLY distant from the historical facts. It wasn't just 300 men fighting there, and the Persian army wasn't made of "millions", no ancient army could be so big. Sparta was nothing like freedom or democracy, despite of whatever this movie shows. I think it is just another propaganda tool to denigrate Iranians and the eastern people, and show the west as the moral, "good", and democratic system, that has to fight the "evil", tyrannic and immoral eastern forces. Expand
  9. JohnLavitt
    Jun 24, 2007
    3
    Welcome to Republican fascism presented in the form of a video game. Everyone who is colored, gay, ethnic, different or pierced is evil, and all the white guys are good and majestic. They imply the Spartans were different from the "Athenian boy lovers." In truth, the strength of the Spartan army was bulstered by the ultimate loyalty and courage produced when fighting side-by-side yourWelcome to Republican fascism presented in the form of a video game. Everyone who is colored, gay, ethnic, different or pierced is evil, and all the white guys are good and majestic. They imply the Spartans were different from the "Athenian boy lovers." In truth, the strength of the Spartan army was bulstered by the ultimate loyalty and courage produced when fighting side-by-side your lover. The Spartans were as homoerotic as any of the ancient Greeks, but they simply focused that energy on war and combat. This film is frightening in terms of the future implications of Hollywood action genre storytelling. Where have the great action films like the original Die Hard and Terminator gone with decent characters and intriguing story lines? Expand
  10. ArthurX
    May 2, 2008
    2
    Historical inaccuracy and racist subtext aside, this movie is as cliche as it is bland. The film is based on a children's comic book, and with the painfully bad narration and two-dimensional characters, it really shows. I am glad I am not dumb enough to enjoy this movie.
  11. davidprentice
    Apr 1, 2007
    1
    300 is the biggest pile of tripe I have seen in a long time. It doesnt know if it wants to be a war film, fantasy film or kids cartoon, and doesnt really succeed at being any of the above. It ends up a cross between braveheart, power rangers and lord of the rings, which is as awful as it sounds. Avoid
  12. RickS.
    Apr 3, 2008
    2
    I really looked foward to this movie, and what i got was 4 scenes of nudity, 3 scenes of fighting, 15 scenes of really good puch lines and dialogue, thats it. Did i mention how claustrophobic i felt through out the whole movie. Every single scene was rushed, nothing was ever open-ended, I was expecting something as grand and some what meaning full as Gladiator,(hell even Kingdom of HeavenI really looked foward to this movie, and what i got was 4 scenes of nudity, 3 scenes of fighting, 15 scenes of really good puch lines and dialogue, thats it. Did i mention how claustrophobic i felt through out the whole movie. Every single scene was rushed, nothing was ever open-ended, I was expecting something as grand and some what meaning full as Gladiator,(hell even Kingdom of Heaven was better), but what i watched was fast pasted nothing. I'm very sure fanboys will eat this sh!t up, but i really thought it was a saturday cable movie. Nothing ground breaking, nothing instesting, just abs and t!ts, oh and some stabbings. The one thing i did enjoy in this movie was the wonderful costume design and the score, the music really tried harder than the pictures in this film. Overall the low score is deserving(even Halo has more emotional moments than this), I can't really get over how people are comparing this to the Matrix. Wow a huge let down, i'm really not looking foward to any Zack Snyder films. What a brilliant idea,too bad, it got caught up in an MTV, HBO type style of film. By the end of the movie i was waiting for the two parties, the Iranians, i mean Perians and the Americans, damn, i mean Greeks, to whip out machine guns and start shooting, sadly this never happened! Expand
  13. DonaldReynolds
    Mar 31, 2007
    3
    Dreck in CGI.
    Great visuals alone do not make a good movie. The visuals were GREAT but damn, that story wasn't even compelling. I mean even if it does parallel the lunacy of the Bush administration's propaganda and ill will, it wasn't even as interesting as an Ann Coulter tirade.
    It's a mythic story retold from the muddled psyche of a middle class white
    Dreck in CGI.
    Great visuals alone do not make a good movie. The visuals were GREAT but damn, that story wasn't even compelling. I mean even if it does parallel the lunacy of the Bush administration's propaganda and ill will, it wasn't even as interesting as an Ann Coulter tirade.
    It's a mythic story retold from the muddled psyche of a middle class white boy's wet dream: a tad too eager and all too wet.
    It wasn't about heroism; it was about cultism. I kept laughing at all that Marines macho posturing, the repug mugging and the crap about going to war to save families. Please.
    All that said, though, I admit the beheadings were absolutely FABULOUS!
    Expand
  14. RichardL.
    Mar 9, 2007
    3
    The Visuals were nice .. that is it ..
  15. panikscam
    Apr 4, 2007
    3
    This video game was a little too expensive to watch a bunch of people with white teeth and six packs turning toward the camera to yell "Sparta!" or "Freedom!" and tear through their opposition with some of the laziest choreographed violence this side of Jackass. Maybe if I cared if they won I'd be more impressed by the delightful arterial sprays decorating the screen as if theThis video game was a little too expensive to watch a bunch of people with white teeth and six packs turning toward the camera to yell "Sparta!" or "Freedom!" and tear through their opposition with some of the laziest choreographed violence this side of Jackass. Maybe if I cared if they won I'd be more impressed by the delightful arterial sprays decorating the screen as if the Spartans were just slicing through sides of beef.
    Just once couldn't someone yell: "Sparta! _u_k Yeah!" ?
    No, this is a serious piece of dramatic cinema. It's in the teeth. Every decade needs a Rambo I guess.
    Expand
  16. WVanAs
    Jan 9, 2008
    1
    Play God of War instead, rather than watching this pseudo fantasy wannabe epic softcore wankfest.
  17. JefE.
    Apr 1, 2008
    3
    The only reason I'm giving 3 are for the visuals. It worked as a graphic novel because you create the ambience in your imagination, and it just wasn;t replicated here. Unfortunately the script and Zack Snyder's characterisations were underwhelming at best. I must say my girlfriend loved it, albeit for the obvious reasons.
  18. KassB
    Aug 12, 2008
    0
    Oily men in loin cloths rubbing each other down and kicking each other into pools of Vaseline while wearing gold necklaces and tongue rings that hang from their eyebrows? I'm gay and even this is too gay for me.
  19. maxj
    Feb 11, 2009
    3
    300 is a movie that makes you feel like you want to just turn it off and go and do something else.
  20. HenriqueR.
    Jul 5, 2009
    0
    I'm not being irrational, and I have thought about this. This is the worst movie I have ever seen in my life.
  21. AndrewP.
    Jan 9, 2008
    0
    This movie was the worst movie ever. The same man who made sin city made this movie.... enough said.
  22. RyneG.
    Mar 1, 2008
    2
    This movie isn't about showing the actually war, it was just a cheap way to make money by violence, and naked women, if you want to see a good action movie watch Die Hard, Spiderman, or anything else, overall this movie is a insult to action movie, and to the 300 Spartans this movie is base on.
  23. DAVEuknow
    Mar 6, 2008
    2
    AN OVERDONE FAKE BULLSHIT OVERRATED FILM THATS ONLY POINT IS TO TRY TO OVER WELM YOU IF I WANTED THIS ID FIRE UP MY XBOX THIS MOVIE IS BAD AND WHOEVER DID THIS FLIM MUST STILL LIVE WITH THERE MOMS.....PLEASE DONT EVER DO THIS AGAIN AND ONE MORE ? why so gloommy?????????
  24. whatever
    Apr 2, 2008
    3
    Mindless violence masked as a deep storied action movie 90% of the movie was slow motion so there is just about half as much actual film presented For how many Persians are in the battle and how close of quarters they were fighting in, the battles were far too spacious I don't know how people think that some unshaven man screaming "This is Sparta!!" and kicking someone is so cool Mindless violence masked as a deep storied action movie 90% of the movie was slow motion so there is just about half as much actual film presented For how many Persians are in the battle and how close of quarters they were fighting in, the battles were far too spacious I don't know how people think that some unshaven man screaming "This is Sparta!!" and kicking someone is so cool and, thusly, should be applied to everything in life Everyone bought into this cheap attempt at a real action movie and it's very irritating to hear people, primarily those who give off an aura of intellectually lacking, say this is the best movie ever. Expand
  25. John
    Jun 15, 2008
    2
    The movie is attractive to look at, but it is horrible in every other respect. I have never seen a movie with less likable characters. It was like they were all trying to "out-asshole" each other. Go rent the "WAR" by Ken Burns if you want something infinitely more engaging.
  26. RobD.
    Mar 11, 2007
    0
    Awful film. It really does no justice for the real heroism of the real battle.
  27. fabioc.
    Jan 13, 2008
    2
    This movie was historically inaccurate and lacked character development and overall quality. Sure the battle scenes were fun but the violence was excessive and most of it was unnecessary. 300 was filmed to amuse today's youth who are becoming more and more violent due to movies/games like this. A typical teen viewer is blinded by the well done special effects and battle scenes to see This movie was historically inaccurate and lacked character development and overall quality. Sure the battle scenes were fun but the violence was excessive and most of it was unnecessary. 300 was filmed to amuse today's youth who are becoming more and more violent due to movies/games like this. A typical teen viewer is blinded by the well done special effects and battle scenes to see this movie for what it really is. Expand
  28. OMG
    Aug 23, 2009
    1
    To quote another review "This movie has everything you want" Well, that's true. Unless you want story, character, sense, entertainment, meaningful scenes, or something else than premature violence and sex. This movie is filth at it's worst and god damn if it kills me, I will spread the word of this would-be-five-minutes-long-film-without-the-slow-motion. Crap.
  29. May 21, 2011
    0
    Pretty to look at but too ridiculous to take seriously but not funny in any way shape or form. Its just so bland in every way besides the visuals and lacking any substance what so ever. I can see why people like it if they like style over substance but its surprisingly not badass (the entire reason my friends recommended it to me) and just terrible for people like me who don't put muchPretty to look at but too ridiculous to take seriously but not funny in any way shape or form. Its just so bland in every way besides the visuals and lacking any substance what so ever. I can see why people like it if they like style over substance but its surprisingly not badass (the entire reason my friends recommended it to me) and just terrible for people like me who don't put much stock in visuals. Expand
  30. Sep 2, 2014
    3
    Despite storytelling promise, the choice of visualization over matter lead to the fall of this take on Sparta. Even the would-be-epic battle sequences are weakened by the direction.
  31. May 20, 2012
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This horseradish movie! The worst did not see anything! Do not see the **** Look better than the film's AvatarÑ Expand
  32. Apr 22, 2015
    0
    **** just a big Lie full of violence and brutality between two nations were famous for their Knowledge and Civilization
    by watching this film, I feel shame to b human
  33. SY
    Mar 10, 2007
    2
    Some good action and visuals, but HUGE mistakes/misses with explicit and unnecessary sexuality. Do not take your young and/or teens to see this movie.
  34. S.R.
    Mar 24, 2007
    0
    This was awful and my expectations were already low. i was laughing out loud. it was not possible to take this serious for one minute.
  35. EamM.
    May 4, 2007
    3
    Juvenile. If u want to see this type of thing done with the skill and flair of a talented director check out SinCity.
  36. NealC.
    Mar 11, 2007
    3
    A dreadful bore of a movie. By the end of it, I was rooting for the Persians to win. At least then I wouldn't have to listen to Leonidas' and his wife's pale and two-dimensional defenses of "freedom" (freedom to what, by the way? Be ruled by kings and prophets? To be forced into the brutal life of a warrior? To have your newborn child thrown off a cliff if deformity is A dreadful bore of a movie. By the end of it, I was rooting for the Persians to win. At least then I wouldn't have to listen to Leonidas' and his wife's pale and two-dimensional defenses of "freedom" (freedom to what, by the way? Be ruled by kings and prophets? To be forced into the brutal life of a warrior? To have your newborn child thrown off a cliff if deformity is suspected?). The battles were mostly dull, not due to lack of interesting cinematography, which I will credit the movie for, but because the movie never gives us a compelling reason to be concerned for the safety of the Spartans,who are portrayed as a nearly-invincible fighting force throughout most of the movie. And who can root for or sympathize with an invincible fighting force? Looks alone are not enough to save this dud. Even if it were stripped of any possible political or racial overtones (an army of white men vs. an army of people with darker skin, homosexuals, and the disabled? Ahem.), 300 is still a waste. The Battle of Thermopylae could have been the centerpiece of a better film which explored Spartan society or the Greek/Persian wars and which took the time the flesh out its characters, their flaws and all. Instead, we have a film that is almost entirely about the battle and military tactics, and thus I couldn't care less about the fate of the Spartans. Expand
  37. TD
    Mar 10, 2007
    3
    This movie was funny as hell. my persian friend was sittin next to me the whole time pissed off because the facts where so off an wrong. I love how they made every race in that movie look ugly and only the spartans looking pretty and built like a body builder. O ya when did the persians have ninjas? but the 3 is only for pity, ive see better graphics in other movies and before they makeThis movie was funny as hell. my persian friend was sittin next to me the whole time pissed off because the facts where so off an wrong. I love how they made every race in that movie look ugly and only the spartans looking pretty and built like a body builder. O ya when did the persians have ninjas? but the 3 is only for pity, ive see better graphics in other movies and before they make another movie like this they better read the facts. Expand
  38. BobC.
    Mar 16, 2007
    1
    If I were a 15 yr. old boy, this would be the greatest movie ever (until the next epic came out). But I'm not, and while the visuals are well-done; there is nothing really new or ground-breaking here - and the REAL story of Thermopylae is so much more interesting. Sin City is a MUCH better adaptation of Frank Miller's Work. So much potential and hype left me disappointed and If I were a 15 yr. old boy, this would be the greatest movie ever (until the next epic came out). But I'm not, and while the visuals are well-done; there is nothing really new or ground-breaking here - and the REAL story of Thermopylae is so much more interesting. Sin City is a MUCH better adaptation of Frank Miller's Work. So much potential and hype left me disappointed and somewhat bored. Expand
  39. kevinsmith
    Mar 20, 2007
    0
    technicaly we can call this is new experiance for cinema in future but we should always remember
    cinema is cinema and there are borders between it and liturture -comicstrip and tv games
    when you compare the movie like 300 with past you find nostalogic feeling about past cinema the moviees like my fair lady - rayan duther- dr givago- gone with the wind - citizen kane- third man-
    technicaly we can call this is new experiance for cinema in future but we should always remember
    cinema is cinema and there are borders between it and liturture -comicstrip and tv games
    when you compare the movie like 300 with past you find nostalogic feeling about past cinema the moviees like my fair lady - rayan duther- dr givago-
    gone with the wind - citizen kane- third man- .....and great pewrsons like john ford - hichcok-kazan-billy wildler-......and many more
    hollywood going to die
    Expand
  40. AbbasJ.
    Mar 20, 2007
    0
    This is just good for video game and in compare with great movie that we ever seen its nothing and even is not history.
  41. JamieP.
    Mar 30, 2007
    0
    Should be watched alongside Idiocracy. This really is film for people with literally no intelligence. It's like a cross between LOTR, Starship Troopers, Gladiator, and Monty Python's The Holy Grail. I thought it was a self-parody for quite a long time... That's how bad it is.
  42. MartinM.
    Apr 8, 2007
    0
    Pathetic story, well no story, good graphics, stylish, but good for a beer ad. Rather offensive movie for an intelligent audience.
  43. GVA2
    Jun 27, 2007
    1
    Awfully cliched, poorly acted.
  44. TW
    Jun 7, 2007
    0
    Without question the stupidest movie I've seen a long time. Mindless celebration of militarism, gratuitious violence, cliche-ridden plot. I like the sword and sandal genre generally, including Gladiator, and even the likes of Alexander, but this is just flat out awful.
  45. AlexJ.
    Mar 11, 2007
    2
    One of the worst movies I've seen. There is one simple conflict that tries to stretch out for a feature length film. There are only two settings, which are as bad as the acting. The only criterion to be an actor in the movie was that you have to have a 6 pack. Horrible writing, horrible story, horrible acting, HORRIBLE MOVIE.
  46. YayaF.
    Mar 12, 2007
    1
    It's not based on history, and even sometimes it's not related to Frank Miller's comic book. It lacks truth and honesty. A Persian king as a black man! Persian people were as civilized as Greece people were. None of them were stupid and both believed in freedom and humanity. Once Xerxes attacked Greece and another time Alexander attacked Persia. BE HONEST! that's all.
  47. KevinR.
    Mar 10, 2007
    3
    Some great visuals (thus the three points) but the script is little more than a repetitive series of shouted pep talks in which Spartans, who are forcibly conscripted into the military at age 7, are encouraged to fight for "freedom."
  48. MattA.
    Mar 12, 2007
    0
    This might be the worst movie I have seen in a theatre in the last 5 years. The charachter development was non-existant, the story went nowhere, and the slow motion kill trick that the director utilized in a failed attempt at drama was used so many times that it must have added 30 minutes to the running time. I've played video games with better direction. I'm sure the comic book This might be the worst movie I have seen in a theatre in the last 5 years. The charachter development was non-existant, the story went nowhere, and the slow motion kill trick that the director utilized in a failed attempt at drama was used so many times that it must have added 30 minutes to the running time. I've played video games with better direction. I'm sure the comic book fans will love it, but everyone else should stay away at all costs. Expand
  49. Sharon
    Mar 14, 2007
    2
    Everyone knows that the first signs of civilization was seen in "modern Iran". Persian Empire was the most powerfull empire at the time. This movie is historically inaccurate. The question here is, how it got permission to come out on the screen and tell people that "yeah, this is how persians were (violent and stupid) and this is how greeks were (spritual and passionate)"! It Everyone knows that the first signs of civilization was seen in "modern Iran". Persian Empire was the most powerfull empire at the time. This movie is historically inaccurate. The question here is, how it got permission to come out on the screen and tell people that "yeah, this is how persians were (violent and stupid) and this is how greeks were (spritual and passionate)"! It doesn't make any sense. Anyone who knows a little bit about world's ancient history would know that this is not true. Expand
  50. SJ.
    Mar 14, 2007
    0
    Worst film of the year. This proves that not anybody can make a good movie from miller's books. I love sin city.
  51. ChadS.
    Mar 10, 2007
    2
    Slow-motion droplets of blood after every kill preceeded by slow-motion combat which makes you aware of the choreography in a fight sequence; that's what I'll remember best about "300". Unfortunately, this stylistic gambit makes war look like interpretive dance; something Debbie Allen might've cooked up for the 1994 Academy Awards ceremony. King Leonidas(Gerald Butler) Slow-motion droplets of blood after every kill preceeded by slow-motion combat which makes you aware of the choreography in a fight sequence; that's what I'll remember best about "300". Unfortunately, this stylistic gambit makes war look like interpretive dance; something Debbie Allen might've cooked up for the 1994 Academy Awards ceremony. King Leonidas(Gerald Butler) really likes Sparta. You can tell because he shouts a lot. This! Is! Not! A! Good! Movie! There's too many arrows; too many ships; too many soldiers; all thanks to CGI, which makes a seemingly infinite number of objects look artificial and flat. And where did they cast the 300 soldiers? At a bodybuilding convention? Sometimes these Herculean men seem to be in the midst of a calendar shoot. Go! Rent! "Gladiator"! Expand
  52. ElliottM
    Mar 10, 2007
    3
    A crushing disappointment. 300 is historically inaccurate, filled with unintentionally laughable dialogue, too invested in vapid characters, and I swear that at least 75% of the movie consists of shots of mens' abdominal regions. The novelty of the effects wears thin about halfway through the movie, and when the visuals aren't doing it for you anymore, it makes for one boring, A crushing disappointment. 300 is historically inaccurate, filled with unintentionally laughable dialogue, too invested in vapid characters, and I swear that at least 75% of the movie consists of shots of mens' abdominal regions. The novelty of the effects wears thin about halfway through the movie, and when the visuals aren't doing it for you anymore, it makes for one boring, seemingly interminable movie. Expand
  53. MarkB.
    Mar 20, 2007
    3
    Graphic novelist/ artist Frank Miller has stated that he was inspired to do his interpretation of the Battle of Thermopylae by The 300 Spartans, a 1962 cheeseball would-be epic starring Richard Egan that, if nothing else, proves that Miller apparently has a limitless attention span: even allowing for the very broad guilty-pleasure parameters of the sword-and-sandal genre, even Graphic novelist/ artist Frank Miller has stated that he was inspired to do his interpretation of the Battle of Thermopylae by The 300 Spartans, a 1962 cheeseball would-be epic starring Richard Egan that, if nothing else, proves that Miller apparently has a limitless attention span: even allowing for the very broad guilty-pleasure parameters of the sword-and-sandal genre, even Airplane!'s Captain Oveur would find it remarkably dull. Dull is certainly a word that, in all fairness, CAN'T be used to describe Zack Snyder's screen version of Miller's work. Endlessly pompous, self-important, turgid, bombastic, pretentious AND simple-minded (two adjectives that normally don't go together, but do here), and borderline obnoxious, sure...but dull, no. (At least not until after the 300th or so impalement/ dismemberment/ decapitation, anyway.) Snyder may have received praise in some circles for accurately interpreting Miller, but all that does is prove that some books simply shouldn't be brought to the screen at all, because all the hard work that went into replicating Miller's "look" resulted in an absolute visual nightmare: it's so blurry that 4 months from now, unsuspecting DVD renters seeing 300 for the first time will spend the movie's entire two hours endlessly fiddling with the 'sharpness' button on their remotes; the actors, to a one are photographed as if being caught in the middle of transmogrifying into stone sculptures. This actually befits most of the performances, because with the exception of Gerard Butler's heroic King Leonides and Lena Hudley's smoulderingly sexy Queen Gorgo, who lend some subtlety and nuance if only because they're allowed to use a normal tone of voice once in a while, all the actors are directed to DECLAIM! ALL! THEIR! LINES! EXACTLY! LIKE! THIS! And the much-discussed wall-to-wall bloodletting really has no impact whatsoever, not only because it gets to be so deadeningly repetitive, but because the red stuff flying across the screen looks much less like anything a CSI crew would recognize than like the wax globules present in lava lamps, and I'm not sure that 300 intended to remind us more of the late 1960s through mid-1970s AD then of 480 BC. Far more creepy and disturbing is the knowledge that in some corners 300--a movie that stops just short of endorsing the retroactive abortion practiced on babies judged too weak to be effective warriors, and that clothes (unclothes?) its heroes as gay poster boys throughout--is being lauded as some sort of neocon Triumph of the Will simply because it so nakedly and unapologetically trumpets war; if that's not ample evidence, on the 4th anniversary of the Iraq conflict, of the increasing desperation employed by its proponents in defending it, I don't know what is. And speaking of ironic timelines, it's notable that 300's studio, Warner Bros., just announced the DVD release of a dozen 1950s to early 1970s camp classics ranging from good films (the seminal women's prison movie Caged) to interesting curios (Howard Hawks' Land of the Pharoahs) to a lot of absolute junk (Trog, Skyjacked, Queen of Outer Space). 300 may have logged $70 million in its opening weekend--more by far than such genuinely good current releases as Zodiac, The Astronaut Farmer and Black Snake Moan will bring in COMBINED during their total box office run--but some of those earlier cinematic butts of jokes originally made money too, and I'll be eagerly looking forward to the utterly humorless but spectacularly silly 300's inevitable inclusion in a future batch of Warners so-bad-it's-good series when it's released in, say, the year 2012. Expand
  54. SamF.
    Mar 22, 2007
    2
    The visuals were awsome, but the violence was senselessly too much. It took the concept of a guy-movie (found better in Crank, Sin City) too far.
  55. Tosh
    Mar 24, 2007
    3
    I haven't seen anything that cliched in a looong time.
  56. [Anonymous]
    Mar 9, 2007
    2
    2 only for graphics. it's inaccurate, unfair, racist and most of all boring.
  57. JudyT.
    Mar 9, 2007
    1
    Nothing we haven't seen before and done better. The narration was just plain laughable.
  58. Mark
    Apr 11, 2007
    2
    Looks great but that's it. Badly told story with lousy dialogue and an incredibly obvious twist.
  59. SinderV.
    Apr 29, 2007
    0
    Saying it is pointless, retarded, completely trite and disgustingly absurd is an understatement. This movie truly has no redeeming qualities (as much as I have tried to find at least one). Well, the visuals are great - if your idea of "great" is being entirely unimaginative and using two colors and a half for two hours. I find it hard to imagine anyone liking this movie. Yet so many folks Saying it is pointless, retarded, completely trite and disgustingly absurd is an understatement. This movie truly has no redeeming qualities (as much as I have tried to find at least one). Well, the visuals are great - if your idea of "great" is being entirely unimaginative and using two colors and a half for two hours. I find it hard to imagine anyone liking this movie. Yet so many folks do, which is actually depressing given how unsettlingly bad it is. Expand
  60. halb
    Aug 10, 2007
    2
    Several people had told me, in passing, how good a movie this was... and they were mostly women. What in God's name were they thinking? [Does this film really depict the kind of story, the kind of men, that women are attracted to??] I'm a relatively macho heterosexual male, but this film was laughable in its depiction of manhood, of war, of history... Nothing more than a Several people had told me, in passing, how good a movie this was... and they were mostly women. What in God's name were they thinking? [Does this film really depict the kind of story, the kind of men, that women are attracted to??] I'm a relatively macho heterosexual male, but this film was laughable in its depiction of manhood, of war, of history... Nothing more than a sophisticated video game put to film, with a questionable morality behind it... And I liked Braveheart, I really did. Expand
  61. SavvasV
    Aug 14, 2007
    0
    The worst movie I have watched in my life. The story and what they made of it has nothing to do with the heroic stand of the Spartans against the Persians and not the monsters from the Lord of the Rings...
  62. Frank
    Aug 1, 2007
    3
    If you faux-meatheads knew anything you wouldn't even bother rating this silly movie. You think you're impressing other dudes by pretending to be "hardcore like totally manly men" but if you read books instead of watching shit you'd know that good old King Leonidas was a big ol' "boy-lover" himself. Strange how they left that part out of the movie/comic, isn't it. If you faux-meatheads knew anything you wouldn't even bother rating this silly movie. You think you're impressing other dudes by pretending to be "hardcore like totally manly men" but if you read books instead of watching shit you'd know that good old King Leonidas was a big ol' "boy-lover" himself. Strange how they left that part out of the movie/comic, isn't it. Go on, make the world a better place by being less stupid and by not supporting stupidity and ignorance. Expand
  63. MattJ.
    Aug 2, 2007
    0
    Quite literally the worst movie I've ever seen. Worse than Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey. Worse than Showgirls. If it weren't for the overdone slow-motion, it would've been 20 minutes long.
  64. davec.
    Aug 31, 2007
    3
    why was there so much jumping? it seems to me that leaping about wouldn't be an official Spartan army technique, but that didn't stop the bare-chested studs from hopping like bunnies throughout the film.
  65. MauricioB.
    Oct 19, 2007
    0
    A rally boring movie and too slowly, the effects are too much and the director don't pay attention to the story.
  66. RezaJ.
    Mar 12, 2007
    0
    Unfortunately, this movie is all lies and lies and lies. The most glorious civilization on the face of Earth throughout the history (Persian Empire) has been pictured so wrong that the movie has turned into a spagheti of historic lies and not worth watching if one cares about the contents of what they're watching to be true or false. I'm sure reading a little history Unfortunately, this movie is all lies and lies and lies. The most glorious civilization on the face of Earth throughout the history (Persian Empire) has been pictured so wrong that the movie has turned into a spagheti of historic lies and not worth watching if one cares about the contents of what they're watching to be true or false. I'm sure reading a little history wouldn't hurt anybody and on the contrary, will shed some light on such misleading stories that try to degrade a civilization where the first statement of "Human Rights" came from. Expand
  67. KevinL.
    Mar 13, 2007
    3
    I agree with Shawn M. - "Great visuals. Poor scripts. Laughable acting." Halfway through, all I could think about was how I couldn't wait to watch Gladiator instead of this.
  68. RichardM.
    Mar 13, 2007
    2
    Lame, lame, lame, lame and lame. Only adolescent fanboys (and those who wish they still WERE one) will be impressed by this tortuously slow six-pack-ab-fest. If the whole thing were run at normal speed, it would have been over in an hour and we could have salvaged our night...
  69. RomanZ.
    Mar 14, 2007
    3
    Cool special effects but after a good hour it could bore your eyes out. Poorly written, dialogue was very amatuer and characters were not at all convincing. The whole glam-metro look with the costumes and make-up really reminded me of "Zena Warrior Princess" television series.
  70. ManM.
    Mar 15, 2007
    0
    You can watch this movie without even going to the movie theatre! Just stay at home and play Gladiator, Braveheart, Van Helsig, and Gigli at the same time and you will see the same two hours of crap! Worst movie ever (until Transformers).
  71. MattM.
    Mar 16, 2007
    0
    A letdown. If you look at it historically, if you look at it from having read the original graphic series, if you look at it from simple film-making. I came into the theatre *thrilled* to be there -- shelled out the extra money for IMAX, even. I love the original story of the Spartans, I loved Sin City (same writer and director pair as 300) -- how could it lose? I was so completely A letdown. If you look at it historically, if you look at it from having read the original graphic series, if you look at it from simple film-making. I came into the theatre *thrilled* to be there -- shelled out the extra money for IMAX, even. I love the original story of the Spartans, I loved Sin City (same writer and director pair as 300) -- how could it lose? I was so completely disappointed with this. Crazy-stupid mutants, for no reason. Ridiculous lines thrown in, like Miller is trying to enter current U.S. politics. What a waste. Expand
  72. JesusC.
    Mar 16, 2007
    3
    After watching the first 30 minutes, you've basically seen the whole movie. The fight scenes were awesome at first, but just keeps getting recycled over and over again. 300 also lacks a real plot and is hampered by subpar acting. All the hype for nothing. 3/10 for decent visuals.
  73. DeniseM.
    Mar 18, 2007
    3
    Repetive drivel. We walked out 3/4 of the way through the movie. Some visiully stunning moments -such as the oracle filmed under water. HBO's Rome plays a similar tune a thousand times better.
  74. KG
    Mar 19, 2007
    3
    Really really great looking movie. With really cool action. And nothing remotely worth caring about. It doesn't matter how awesome the fights are if you don't care about the people fighting them.
  75. ZooTrain
    Mar 19, 2007
    2
    For an epic, this film was surprisingly underwhelming. I don't care if it was "historically inaccurate." I realize that I shouldn't be getting my history lessons from Hollywood. What bothered me was the laughable acting, shouted cliches from Braveheart and Gladiator, and zero plot development made this movie a chore to get through. Some people will say, "Well, it's supposed For an epic, this film was surprisingly underwhelming. I don't care if it was "historically inaccurate." I realize that I shouldn't be getting my history lessons from Hollywood. What bothered me was the laughable acting, shouted cliches from Braveheart and Gladiator, and zero plot development made this movie a chore to get through. Some people will say, "Well, it's supposed to look pretty. It's based on a comic book." Well, Sin City had essentially the same concept...but it was executed so much better. Watching the two side by side emphasizes the difference between a professional director and an amateur one. Expand
  76. MoopM.
    Mar 20, 2007
    1
    EASILY one of THE worst movies ever created. I feel duped and violated, repulsed, taken for a fool, while that ninny of a "director" is laughing all the way to the bank..."Hey Persians, are those the ONLY CREATURES you have?"
  77. MackeyM.
    Mar 20, 2007
    2
    "His vision narrows, his shield is heavy." I felt I was watching a National Geographic special on African lions eyeing their prey. "The lion's vision sharpens, his sense of smell is keen, he attacks." What a disappointment of film-making.
  78. DougR.
    Mar 28, 2007
    3
    Beautiful to look at for about 2 mins, then it gets old and even annoying. Action is bland. Acting is atrocious. Direction is completely uneven.
  79. RodrigoL.
    Mar 9, 2007
    3
    Stylistically it's interesting but not nearly as beautiful or effective as Sin City and the lack of qualified actors really hurts this movie. All the characters are one-notes at best with Leonidas being especially tiresome as almost every other line of dialogue is trite, cliche, and yelled at you. This battle cry delivery becomes the sole method of conveying both the drama of the Stylistically it's interesting but not nearly as beautiful or effective as Sin City and the lack of qualified actors really hurts this movie. All the characters are one-notes at best with Leonidas being especially tiresome as almost every other line of dialogue is trite, cliche, and yelled at you. This battle cry delivery becomes the sole method of conveying both the drama of the moment and the persistent theme of the movie, that Spartans are badasses. Am I supposed to sympathize with this ancient clan of fascists? Twenty minutes into it I already felt numb with the realization that I simply did not care what happened to the characters on the screen. The only thing I kept asking myself was why McNulty agreed to do this. Expand
  80. JohnD.
    Apr 12, 2007
    0
    Tonight, I went to the theater to see the movie "300," a glorified account of the conflict between the Spartan city-state (in modern-day Greece) and Persian invaders, led by the Persian king Xerxes. The movie is about the battle of Thermopylae in 450 BC, in which 300 Spartans held off millions of invading Persian armies. The movie depicts the harsh warrior culture of Sparta in glowing, Tonight, I went to the theater to see the movie "300," a glorified account of the conflict between the Spartan city-state (in modern-day Greece) and Persian invaders, led by the Persian king Xerxes. The movie is about the battle of Thermopylae in 450 BC, in which 300 Spartans held off millions of invading Persian armies. The movie depicts the harsh warrior culture of Sparta in glowing, glorified terms. Children are trained in combat "from the time they could stand," and the movie depicts their fathers striking them with closed fists during intense bouts of training. No one seems reluctant to endure this suffering; ALL maddeningly embrace it. Boys are sent out into the wilderness in rags, armed with a spear, braving the ice and snow bear-chested and without so much as a shoe on their feet. I suppose to wear warm clothing would be a sign of shame, culturally-imposed by the glorious warrior culture. Of course, the subtext behind this whole movie is that all this harsh living is necessary for the survival of the state against foreign invaders. Those who would demur in the face of such a threat would surely be called cowards, whether their motivation was cowardice or not. As the movie unfolds, it becomes immediately obvious that there is no room for tenderness, no longing for a life of peace, no enjoyment of one's existence. There is only self-sacrifice, of boys and men, who must constantly prepare to pay the ultimate price in order to defend this culture of self-annihilation. But in the movie "300," the headlong rush toward violent conflict is not depicted as a necessary evil, or even an evil at all. Death is depicted as glorious, so much so that the truly brave lust for death. This is not a movie that promotes bravery, but rather bravado. The value of each Spartan soldier is measured in terms of his lust for danger and death, for his willingness to pay for the country's "freedom" through willing self-sacrifice. This is how men are portrayed: valuable if they hope for, run toward, and drink deeply of death. The wife of the brave Spartan king is portrayed much differently. While he is off fighting a desperate struggle, she remains behind. Her burden is the sorrow she feels that her husband is away. Her parting words to him -- as he departed from her for a hopeless battle -- were, "Come back with your shield, or with your head on it." Moviegoers are intended to respond to this display with stupefied admiration. [***SPOILER***] Our warrior hero is Sparta's King Leonidas, now on the battlefield in a desperate struggle against overwhelming odds. His wife is Queen Gorgo. Left behind, Queen Gorgo is left with the task of summoning the country's political leaders to send the full army to reinforce her husband's tiny force of 300. The leader of this council is named Theron, a corrupt politician. He intimidates her with veiled threats to kill her son, then comes at night with a promise to lend her political support if she will submit to being raped by him. He tries to shame her by pointing out that her husband is defying Spartan law by deploying troops without authorization. He tries to shame her by contrasting her comparatively comfortable existence with the gore her husband is swimming in. Taunting her, he asks her, "What do YOU have to offer?" She drops her clothes in response, turns around, and as he begins the rape, he tells her the encounter will "not be short, and it will not be pleasant." The next time we see Queen Gorgo and Theron together is in the presence of Sparta's council. She makes a plea for the deployment of troops to assist her husband, a speech laced with platitudes about bravery and freedom. Theron, convinced that he "owns" the council ("I created it with my bare hands"), unexpectedly denounces the plan to save Queen Gorgo's husband. In a spiteful tirade, he belittles and mocks her. Some in the council speak against him ("how dare you" insult the Queen), but he shames them into silence by pointing out their own corruption in the acceptance of bribes. Even the queen's defenders lack moral value. As Theron's tirade against the queen reaches a crescendo, he insults her honor by calling her a whore. The queen turns away, defeated, insulted, her honor in disarray. Suddenly she turns the tables and stabs Theron with a sword, the picture of female empowerment -- saving her own hide despite the good intentions of her would-be saviors, the corrupt male politicians who were too impotent to defend her. As I watched this scene come to this climax, women sitting throughout the theater erupted into spontaneous applause. In the face of a non-lethal threat -- a mere insult -- the queen's honor had been avenged with lethal force, and by the only one competent enough to avenge it: the queen. Back on the battlefield, a disfigured and weak Spartan (who was rejected by King Leonidas as unfit for battle) lends his support to the Persian enemy in a display of revenge. The Persians take tactical advantage, and soon the 300 brave Spartan warriors are surrounded, then annihilated -- including King Leonidas. The parting shot of our hero is of a man beaten, but brave -- pinned to the ground with scores of arrows dug into his flesh. He dies in agony, but he dies bravely -- a martyr -- the epitome of what all Spartan men should aspire to become. A volley of thousands more arrows are launched at his twisted body as the camera fades out. The lesson to be learned from this movie is subtle. Men are portrayed as valuable and noble not when they lust for life, but when they lust for death. The most honorable men are indeed the ones who die. Contrast this with the portrayal of Queen Gorgo. Her worth was her dignity, not her compulsion with self-sacrifice. Her worth was shown in her desire to live -- despite the specter of rape, child molestation, and public humiliation. Her worth was shown in her empowerment to exact revenge against her male oppressor, despite having no one capable enough to risk themselves to save her. Her departing camera shot has her standing in a majestic field, gazing off into the distance as her young son runs to her side. She is the mother, the nurturer, and the intact survivor. She has braved this battle, and despite her pain has prevailed. Not only this, but she has saved all of Sparta by convincing the male politicians that they are well-served in deciding to defend themselves. The final shot of the movie is of a sea of tens of thousands of Spartan warriors, yelling battle cries in willing anticipation of the coming military threat. King Leonidas' death, along with the deaths of the 300, had been the catalyst to convince the warrior culture to defend itself. This was, however, only possible when his wife made a speech. If you can't see the cheapening of human life in this movie -- especially that of boys and men -- and the glorification of males only in their embrace of self-demise, you are truly a part of the misandry generation. Expand
  81. SamM.
    Apr 28, 2007
    0
    Forget the critics, this is an awesome comedy. Sandler at his best!
  82. SamD.
    Apr 8, 2007
    1
    The only film I have ever walked out of - the most mind-numbing homoerotic fantasy that could ever be conceived.
  83. KN.
    May 10, 2007
    2
    A piss-poor would-be docudrama on Thermopylae. watch the history channel if you want details; all you'll get in 300 is a taste of ancient crossdressing and homoeroticism.
  84. Eon
    May 5, 2007
    2
    Well if you like intelligent movies and you want to see "300", then... DON'T.
  85. DannyV.V.
    Aug 25, 2007
    3
    This film is entirely bland. The story is paper-thin; just an excuse to get hacking. The only reason to see this film is for the art direction, which is fantastic. The problem is, it gets repetitive after the first five minutes, and throughout the rest of the film I was just wishing I hadn't wasted eight dollars to see it.
  86. Bart
    Aug 3, 2007
    2
    Other than nice use of color and well-timed action, this movie has virtually nothing going for it. I will give it that it's visually an achievement, but that doesn't make it worthwhile. It's an achievement in the same way that those cup stacking people achieve something: sure, it's impressive, but what's the point? 300 delivers absolutely nothing worthwhile, and Other than nice use of color and well-timed action, this movie has virtually nothing going for it. I will give it that it's visually an achievement, but that doesn't make it worthwhile. It's an achievement in the same way that those cup stacking people achieve something: sure, it's impressive, but what's the point? 300 delivers absolutely nothing worthwhile, and that's why really is pornographic. It butchers a meaningful and historically significant historical story, and does so in such a way that those who think it really is "awesome" can shout down anyone who criticizes it as lacking in testosterone because this is what "real men" are supposed to like. Expand
  87. KouroshA.
    Sep 12, 2007
    0
    Most disgusting, overrated movie ever. I got a dvd quality copy off the internet for FREE, watched it for an hour, then erased the damned thing from my hard drive. A worthless inaccurate piece of crap glorifying a bunch of savages and insulting and portraying a great civilization (not the worthless Spartans) as bunch of dark aged barbarians.
  88. JoeAverage
    Mar 11, 2007
    1
    Was expecting something akin to the imagination and fun of Sin City. Instead, a HUGE disappointment. Not sure why they need someone else to direct this. Frank Miller could have done it while waiting for Sin City 2 to start up. A '1' for trying desperately to recreate the mini-series. Unfortunately, they forgot its visual imagination and to bring anything new to the table.
  89. DaveG.
    Mar 12, 2007
    0
    A silly, foolish film about nothing worthy or accurate. Garbage. F Tries to be visually stunning, and throws old techniques and annoying plot all over the place.
  90. CU
    Mar 12, 2007
    1
    A dimly lit decapitation and nipple fest.
  91. RaymondR.
    Mar 15, 2007
    0
    This film intentionally twists the history and tells a highly inaccurate tale of the battle between the Persians and Greeks. As for entertainment value: you'll get bored after 30 minutes.
  92. SalimM.
    Mar 26, 2007
    3
    One trick pony - beautiful to look at, but the story is weak and the fight scenes are almost all the same - how many chopped limbs and seas of armies shots can a movie have nowadays?? This basically is a retread of Braveheart, Lord of the Rings and Gladiator...no creativity, no new ground, no real story...worth seeing, but really completely unfulfilling.
  93. LeylaB.
    Apr 19, 2007
    0
    This movie has changed the history all together. I am amazed how the special effects can drain the brain out of the mind of movie goers.
  94. SathyanS.
    Jun 22, 2007
    0
    I have given it a zero, because, there isn't any other lower score provided BELOW that! Hopeless movie. Dim witted. Entirely relying on graphics, stunts, and gore, without any focus on the plot. And what an out of the way plot too! 300 taking on a million??! The director sure knows how to please audiences. Make them say its a good movie! To me, its a hopeless gimmick, poorly put I have given it a zero, because, there isn't any other lower score provided BELOW that! Hopeless movie. Dim witted. Entirely relying on graphics, stunts, and gore, without any focus on the plot. And what an out of the way plot too! 300 taking on a million??! The director sure knows how to please audiences. Make them say its a good movie! To me, its a hopeless gimmick, poorly put forth by the director, with the sole aim of making money. Nothing else. Unfortunately, that's what directors in our land do too!!! Expand
  95. Feb 19, 2011
    2
    Some of the scenes are impressive which saves this film from a score of "0". Other than that the acting is hilariously bad, the plot is terrible, the characters are all one-dimensional, and the message the film attempts to convey is laughable.
  96. Sep 4, 2013
    0
    A complete disgrace to the actual battle. Nothing about it is historically accurate. Watching this film will kill off your brain cells faster than trying to break through a cement wall with your skull.
  97. Dec 23, 2011
    0
    A real racist film that demeans a whole culture. This is really a culture war between East and West, Iran and the U.S., given the bad relationship that both countries have with each other. It shows a completely false and negative picture of the Persians, both in terms of their clothes, habits, culture and so on. A false image of a high culture that has given much inspiration to today'sA real racist film that demeans a whole culture. This is really a culture war between East and West, Iran and the U.S., given the bad relationship that both countries have with each other. It shows a completely false and negative picture of the Persians, both in terms of their clothes, habits, culture and so on. A false image of a high culture that has given much inspiration to today's western world, from language to philosophy and science. All the cultures of the World Have Both bad and good sides and You Will Never See Anything That is good with Persians in this movie but the actual barbarous Spartans are the angels. Expand
  98. Apr 27, 2014
    3
    I can't stand seeing such a great movie project fails that way. I believe it's stupid to try and make that kind of movies in a matchbox and expect to succeed. Gerard Butler made his best performance in this movie but unfortunately he was unlucky.
  99. Apr 7, 2012
    2
    I'll forgive this film for being so historically inaccurate (after all, this is Hollywood we're talking about.) I won't forgive it, however, for being an utterly boring film that relies on graphics and violence, rather than an engaging plot, to deliver it's punches. Yawn.
  100. Aug 31, 2013
    1
    It's too bad. It has nothing to do with the ancient Greek history. It's a very dangerous movie. Don't try to see it. You will waste your money. (I'm talking to those ones who understand what that movie is. It's not good.)
Metascore
51

Mixed or average reviews - based on 35 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 16 out of 35
  2. Negative: 6 out of 35
  1. In epic battle scenes where he combines breathtaking and fluid choreography, gorgeous 3-D drawings and hundreds of visual effects, director Zack Snyder puts onscreen the seemingly impossible heroism and gore of which Homer sang in "The Iliad."
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    60
    A blustery, bombastic, visually arresting account of the Battle of Thermopylae as channeled through the rabid imagination of graphic novelist Frank Miller.
  3. 75
    300 may not offer masterful storytelling in a conventional sense, but it's hard to beat as a spectacle and that makes it worthwhile viewing for all but the most squeamish of potential audience members.