Re: Review of the film 300


"Matt Giwer" <jull43@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote in message
news:47e31c98$0$4971$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Peter Jason wrote:
"Matt Giwer"
<jull43@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:47ddcc78$0$6126$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hayabusa wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:36:04 -0400,
Scotius <yodasbud@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Forget it. I saw it. It is the movie
about a comicbook, and a splatter
movie. The wall of dead bodies is quite
impressive, and the scene
created on the computer where the
Persian fleet is smashed to pieces
by a violent sea is impressive too. The
rest is a waste of time.
If you like comic books it isn't bad. No
worse than Batman and Superman. But when
I read Iran complaining about it I had
the thought of New Yorkers complaining
about their portrayal in comic books.
The CGI technique is excellent. It gets
over the hurdle of face quality by using
real faces. Faces look OK if clearly
computer graphics but they get more and
more annoying the closer to human they
look. No one has made computer faces good
enough yet. So like in Beowulf a 5'8"
actor of normal build with a good voice
can play the lead. If this had been
around 30 years ago we could have been
spared Arnold in Conan. They would not
need midgets in supporting roles for
Sylvester Stalone movies.
Of course it is a technique looking for
scripts but it makes possible a lot of
scenes that would be unaffordable or
impossible with real sets and to hard to
integrate real actors into a graphics
background sets.
Disclaimer: I first went to Jurassic Park
to see the computer graphics.

I thought Arnie was perfect as Conan!
Remember that towering scene when Conan
was tied crucifixion-like as JHC to a dead
tree and left to die of exposure amongst a
horde of expectant vultures?

Yes but Conan was an Austrian? No, I am not
a kneejerk against his characterization.

The Austrian didn't bother me. He was still
growing as an actor when he nailed the
role. And he got is having the build for it
and fitting the director's vision of the
character. One assumes compromises. Now
consider ANY actor could have done the role
and the body added.

I just got a copy of the original release
and the TV release cuts a philosophical
discussion with Subatai that is out of
place for Arnie's character. He doesn't
deliver it well. Consider an actor who
could deliver it well and we saw a Conan
who had been educated in the philosophy of
Sung and portrayed it.

And how the setting sun turned all his
steroid-muscles to shimmering gold as he
began to succumb?

But if Richard Burton had CGI muscles ...
Bad choice. Consider the best possible
actor for a highly educated warrior who
will become a wise king even if he is 5'8"
and see him in the role with all the
muscles. That is just about the actor who
did Beowulf -- same height anyway.

And how an impatient vulture decided to
jump the gun and take a bite out of Arnie
before he was truly dead and tender?
And how Conan summoned his last ounce (28
grams) of strength and bit its fucking
head clean off...?

You did not see a head bitten off. The cut
made it look like you did. But with CGI you
could see the bite and the blood spurt as
we did in 300 -- although I have problem
with parts of that animation as two
dimensional in the wrong places. There is a
pan shot of spurting blood that is clearly
two dimensional as seen in the pan. I have
no idea what they thought they were doing
and suspect the editor wanted something and
this were proof/test frames that were not
originally intended for the movie.

I don't think you will ever make a film
critic! How could CGI ever come close to
this?

As a matter of fact the film critics hated
Arnie but if any were here and supported me
I would point out why they were and are all
wrong. At the time and with no CGI I think
it was a great movie. It is only now some
30 years later that the state of the art
can imagine a better production of the
movie.

And they didn't really hate him. The
newspapers hired for the viewpoint not the
content. At the time a local radio show
(WTOP, DC, back when I lived there) had a
movie reviewer. He loved the movie as I
did. But a few weeks after it came out he
was hired by the Wash Post as their chief
reviewer and suddenly he did not like it.

And AFTER he was with the Post I heard him
criticizing scenes that were not in movies.
Either the critics were shown a different
version or they were repeating Hollywood
press releases. I assume the latter.

So if you thought I was one of those, I am
not. I have it and still watch it every so
often.

The sequel sucked.

An example of CGI overkill was the recent and
very-long movie "Kong" in which all stops
were pulled out in the jungle scenes showing
various monsters of the Cretaceous having
their wicked way with the crew of a ship
trying (at that stage) to rescue some blond
bimbo kidnapped by this huge tender-hearted
ape.

This post is most relevant because it reveals
the presence of mammalia, in the form of this
giant ape, during the Cretaceous period.
Together with a decidedly ugly tribe of
dishevelled Australopithecines with anger and
vengeful issues.

Due to some marvel of cosmetic science this
blond bimbo maintained her composure (and
hair coiffe) through a dinosaur brawl, swings
thru the trees, being swung about by Kong,
rescued by her inamorato, and suffered no
more than a small scratch. Curiously, in
this movie, it was only those handsome men
who survived because the giant insects,
dinosaurs and other worthies had this
prelediction for ugly people and
Afro-Americans, some of whom were clearly
Jewish.

The CGI triumph was the killing of the
aforementioned, and now clearly
broken-hearted "Kong" on top of the Empire
State Bldg and this was very well done
indeed, giving the viewer a feeling of
vertigo, a feeling augmented by the
rising-sun dawn and sweeping vistas.

Typically, like "300", the story was a
pastiche of cheap nonsense. (To have Kong
consummate his love with the Blond Bimbo
would have required great feats of
elasticity). But in artistic terms these
movies have the choreography of good ballet
and when viewed with this insight are very
enjoyable indeed. It's a bit like
high-quality porn, which is very hard to
find.

We breathlessly await Wagner's Ring in CGI.





.