300, correct release date and reviews

majorstare

Active Member
Interested in buying 300 on DVD.

HMV have a release date of 1-10-07
MovieTyme, its available now.
E-Bay, available now.

I presume its a US release at the moment?
Reviews/opinions?

ta :smashin:
 

KevD

Distinguished Member
R1 & R3 are out now and R2 is out in October.
I should imagine with a title like this Warner will give an identical disc for the R2 release.
 

Richie Vee

Standard Member
I work in a video shop and our release sheet states 24/09/07 (rental and retail). :thumbsup:

EDIT: Although these do sometimes change.
 

redwing

Well-known Member
Worth a purchase ? :rolleyes:

Personally no id wait till it came on sky . Its worth watching but I personally was so disapointed as i expected so much from 300 and was looking forward to it for ages after being a Frank Miller fan and a Sin City fan.

The slowing down of every single battle scene didnt do it for me . I have many ripes but that would also lead to spoilers and i dont want to do that as many people liked it so you may like it too.

Ill just say I expected more from this a lot more .

If you have plenty of cash about and fancy a film fine, its not rubbish but if money is an issue then id personally wait.

6/10 IMO
 

red_flash

Active Member
I just saw 300 and I have to say I thought the movie was overrated. Having struggled to find a thread to talk about this movie, mostly reading H D threads I found the DVD picture quality quite disappointing although no doubt due to a deliberate grainy look. Making the point of HD immaterial. Anyway ignoring stylistic choices I thought the film was a case of style over substance. I think all too often the film went for slo-mo instead of taking in the action, ruining the action from my point view. I also felt that had the film had a more realistic vision would have made the action better , instead of the CGI bloodletting and decapitation I think more traditional methods could have had a lot more impact.

I felt the same about resident evil extinction relying on CGI blood letting, spraying CGI blood which doesn't have the same impact as well done practical effects. It really took away the violence making me wonder how it was rated as an 18? These kind of effects are fine on cheap independent films but for a large film like 300 I expected more.

I also didn't think 300 had much of an epic feel given a film of this nature. In addition I think that the size and finesse of these men looked all wrong. Given that this was set hundreds if not a 1000 or two ago, men didn't have six packs and probably were not as large as the majority of these men. They didn't have the food, and nutrition to develop such bodies which makes 300 in my opinion opinion look ridiculous. I'm sure the look from much older films from the Sixties like Ben Hur or whatever is more appropriate.

Anyway regardless of my personal thoughts about the look of the actors. I thought it could have hit higher levels.


spoiler warning

Spoiler warning


Spoiler warning

I would have liked to have seen a better final battle for the "300". I honestly felt that they just seemed to give up and die, even though I predicted the assassination attempt on the Persian king/God. Nevertheless I would have expected even given their imminent demise to conjure up an attack that could have been more inflow with the rest of the film. It's more like they seemed to just give up and die, whereas earlier in the film they seem to have a more thoughtful planned way of war far advanced of their enemy.

Shame could have been much better. Although I suspect will be better on second viewing.
 

the_pauley

Banned
The movie is based on a comic book and the look of the film is an attempt to recreate that style and kineticism, not to recreate any realistic look.

The HD DVD is quite beautiful looking. The HD release of the movie won an award for its picture quality.

red_flash said:
In addition I think that the size and finesse of these men looked all wrong. Given that this was set hundreds if not a 1000 or two ago, men didn't have six packs and probably were not as large as the majority of these men.

Absolute nonsense! Have you actually got some factual basis for that statement or was it just plucked out of thin air?

Never heard of "The Grecian Ideal"? Artefacts from that era speak for themselves...
 

Attachments

  • Greek1.jpg
    Greek1.jpg
    21.3 KB · Views: 34
  • Greek2.jpg
    Greek2.jpg
    20.9 KB · Views: 34
  • Greek3.jpg
    Greek3.jpg
    39.4 KB · Views: 32

red_flash

Active Member
The movie is based on a comic book and the look of the film is an attempt to recreate that style and kineticism, not to recreate any realistic look.

The HD DVD is quite beautiful looking. The HD release of the movie won an award for its picture quality.



Absolute nonsense! Have you actually got some factual basis for that statement or was it just plucked out of thin air?

Never heard of "The Grecian Ideal"? Artefacts from that era speak for themselves...

generally people were smaller just in the last hundred years( I'm sure you can look that up if you wish) let alone when 300 is set and certainly "six packs" wouldn't have been so defined, your pics demonstrate that nicely. sure there would be exceptions like maybe the king but everyone of them so ridiculously defined.
 

the_pauley

Banned
I'd suggest you do some reading on the Spartans. They were the peak of physical perfection with their life devoted to phsical training and battle. Six packs would have been the very least of it. Unless of course you think a bunch of actors would have in been better physical shape than a real Spartan warrior.
 

Lion

Active Member
yeah those six packs make the movie totally unrealistic,
king xerxes being ten feet tall is very true to life though,
and so is the fat guy with hatchets for arms, all the better for chopping heads off !
:lesson:
 

The latest video from AVForums

LG CX Best Picture Settings
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom