25 marines against 3000 Spartans who win


A film review by Joachim Kurz

There were only 300 Spartan soldiers whom King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) opposed to the hordes of the Persian king Xerxes in the battle of the Thermopylae Pass and who were slaughtered by the overwhelming odds down to the last man. The resistance of these brave men against the Persian invaders is probably one of the most fascinating military achievements of ancient Greece. The American director Zack Snyder, who was most recently the horror classic Dawn of the Dead breathed new life into his 300 The film with the title approximated this episode of ancient military history on the basis of a comic book, the result was presented to the audience at the Berlinale yesterday, because in addition to high cinematic art, the festival, which is often referred to in the industry as "Cannes with brains", is also found every now and then again a place for the lowlands of the cinema. At 300 However, the question arises as to how deeply set a film can be in order to be allowed to be shown in Berlin.
With the help of modern computer technology, director Zack Snyder tries to create the look of Frank Miller's comics, from whose pen the graphic template is also created Sin City came to empathize, which sometimes works well. However, that is the best that can be said about this “slaughter plate on celluloid”, because it has a lot more than show values, constant slaughter and stupid dialogues from the pool of less gifted war rhetoricians 300 not to offer, least of all self-irony.

Now it may be a coincidence that Zack Snyders 300 just in the days of a possibly imminent armed conflict with Iran (i.e. the successor state of ancient Persia, which threatens the free world here) is preparing to conquer the big screens - the war rhetoric, the permanently stupid clichés about heroism, willingness to sacrifice and mercilessness and others Adolescent platitudes, however, are nauseating enough even without this specific background. And so it fits into the picture when Xerxes is a real full-body pierced freak, a mixture of drag queen and pop star, who brings up monsters and people masked in the manner of Islamic "warriors of God" to bring Sparta to its knees. And it is clear that the ultimate defeat of the defenders of the West can only be brought about by a traitor. It is just as clear that meanwhile a waxy Senate prefers to conduct endless debates on the home front instead of supporting the king with troops - a villain who draws parallels to the current political situation in the Gulf region.

A film that can at best be regarded as trash, but which as a film only receives the rating “particularly worthless” - a propaganda film by George W. Bush to continue his “war on terror” could not have been worse.

There were only 300 Spartan soldiers that King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) opposed to the hordes of the Persian king Xerxes in the battle of the Thermopylae Pass.
mike the tank·12.10.2009

So, even if the comment or the criticism is already years old, I have to clarify something.
the hooded warriors of xerxes are not islamic warriors of god but historically proven facts that had a name. namely: the immortal.
someone who thinks he is allowed to criticize should do some research before he writes such nonsense.
what xerxes looked like .. is not historically proven .. certainly not like in the film, which is completely irrelevant, because something is called artistic freedom.
so the film is entertaining and does not claim to be documentary ..
And because of the film, the Americans did not invade Iran, and certainly not will ...
such reviews are pointless and boring
if you don't like action films, you shouldn't watch any .. so easy


This film should actually be boycotted, because there is nothing more to see + to hear than hollow, repetitive monologues about "the law" and the display of the warlike slaughter.

Once again I find it very astonishing how easy it is to inspire (probably rather young) cinema-goers today.

With a lot of pathos and visual aesthetics, the pitiful story is cut mercilessly. With the one-dimensional characters, you think you're in a puppet theater, albeit admittedly in a very cruel one.

The film raises the hopelessly obedient warrior, who has been trimmed since childhood and who was only bred to kill, to heaven in immeasurably stupid OFF monologues ...

I'm really upset because I actually like to watch a war movie. The only thing that matters to me is the structure and the motifs. Why are heads and body parts constantly flying by in close-up and slow motion? Why is the splashing blood fountain shown at least 100 times in high-speed recording? ...

Klaus Holzporz·04.07.2007

What bad words and what bad rating.
This is a film designed for entertainment purposes.
To judge him on such a level is simply wrong.
The film 300 itself is really successful and not boring. Had it been gimmed with more in-depth lyrics and content, it wouldn't be what many people consider a good action movie. Then he would have flopped completely.
The film 300 was obviously judged by the wrong person, because in my circle of acquaintances around 70% say great and around 30% think that they don't need something like that.


In my opinion, 300 is a classic example of how people try to distract from a lousy plot and superficially drawn characters through powerful images and the sometimes really offensive celebration of brute force. The heroism of the Spartans is so obtrusively exaggerated that it seems really ridiculous at times. The aesthetics of the pictures would resemble a poem, according to another comment. Some people may find it aesthetic when 300 completely oiled porn actors with pretty red capes and large gold shields chop off bad ugly Persians in piecework; or when a severed head flies past the viewer in large format in "slow motion". As a Christian person, I find something like that disgusting. I find it frightening that this film, as well as "Sin City" by the way, has received such a positive response from the majority of cinema goers. How one can enjoy this film is a mystery to me. The film is based on a comic, yes; War isn't a profound thing either, of course; fine laconic humor, very funny. But still, the battle of the Termophyls, which would undoubtedly provide material for a nice film, could have been made much more appealing. With authentic characters who are going through a development and with whom one can perhaps even identify; and WITHOUT monsters and other phantasy figures who can undoubtedly only have sprung from a sick phantasy like that of Frank Miller. What also really annoyed me was the unnatural environment in which the action took place. With their "blue-screen" or "green-screen" technology, the filmmakers managed to create a consistently cold and uncomfortable atmosphere, which, by the way, also affects the minds of the audience. Even if 300 is a strain on the nerves, it can at least be used as an indicator of emotional maturity.

Steffi K.·28.05.2007

Strunzdoof, this film. And incredibly boring! Where was there an action?

And then this Nazi ideology. All about fascism ...


Simply the film is just great, just like the guys are all on it, you have to be


i'm greek so my opinion on the film doesn't count but i want to say the film comes after the comick but the story is except of course that with the big guys you look like a monster and a few things. it's a film that you can only enjoy.


I think this film is a success. why do some people expect an encapsulated, profound story. war was and is not a means of intelligence. (why should it represent that. why should a spartan say something particularly witty, they are warriors who were born to die in battle) this way of staging 300 is justified. from the pictures it resembles the aesthetics of a poem.
Recommended to watch as a contrast to this film version of the film "300 spartans" from 1962. Of course, that's how it works. a little more background and more subplots, but it is no longer the child of our time. For our viewing habits today, the older version is sometimes tiring.


How should a film be based on a comic? Exactly: like a comic. No more, but no less either.

Of course, you can now interpret a lot in such a work, and above all draw parallels with the political present to a work released in 1998, on which the film is really closely based.
One can easily ignore the fine laconic humor of the Spartans. And instead you can dismiss the dialogues that are normal in every male society as hollow pathos gossip.

You can ... if your name is Joachim Kurz.

But you can also enjoy the film for what it is: a comic that has become a film. And pretty perfect.


What a crap, I saw the film, the purest copy of the lord of the rings and troy. have not seen such a bad movie in a long time, the only funny thing was the gay voice of the ruler xerxes!


Interesting that this film started such a discussion - an obviously necessary one? To ask, for example, whether we Germans could not slowly come to a more relaxed relationship with the Nazi past? (To prevent this right away: this does NOT mean forgetting!) After all, the resistance fighters of the White Rose also fought for their honor (as people, as what else?). Without their willingness to make sacrifices, there would have been no resistance, and of course we still refer to these people as heroes today. OR SOMETHING NOT ??? So, and now this whole thing again from the point of view of the Spartans attacked by Xerxes at the time ...
So: don't just stylize such terms as a problem and therefore generally reject them, but always look at them in context!

I have enough·16.04.2007

I think Cheiron is absolutely right when he says that democracy depends on different opinions. Just because Frank Miller supports Bush's politics doesn't have to be negative, he just has his own opinion (doesn't apply to the majority of Germans) and that's why you can't just drag your works into the mud.


Excuse Thomas, if I mistakenly assumed that you were @cheiron! I agree with you that there may be different opinions about the artistic value of this film. I would have preferred a film that would have been historically correct. Above all, I didn't like the absurd portrayal of the Persians, even as a Greek! But we are doing the work an injustice if we accuse it of the lack of historical accuracy, because the film is based on a comic! No more and no less!!! Also, only the quality of a work itself should be the basis of a factual criticism and not the political views of the artist. Would you also criticize an artist and his work because he is politically left? In a real democracy, both right and left opinions and views are not only permissible but necessary! The only thing to do is to avoid the extreme! In both political camps. I fully agree with you on one point, the fuss that is made about the film bears no relation to its artistic content


Just for clarification:

"Cheiron" or "@cheiron" is not the same as "Thomas" ...

This is only in order to clearly separate the positions from one another.

And "I've had enough" is absolutely right when he says that the film is basically nothing special and that it will soon be forgotten.

After all, as a regular moviegoer you have seen such effects several times.

All that remains is the political, and that looks to me calculated in such a way that a) one is afraid, and b) that apart from Greek historiography, it is simply quite a twisting of historical facts with the means of today.

And please do not forget: The author of the template, Frank Miller, has often allowed himself to be carried away with very right-wing comments.

But why so much fuss about such a stupid film in the end?

I have enough·14.04.2007

All the left-wing idiots in this country are gradually driving me to white heat. Just because they don't understand values ​​like sacrifice or bravery, they dismiss them as fascist. I don't think these people understand anything about it because they have never had to fight and live in a peaceful democratic state.


Before all of this turns into a discussion about Greek history, a few words about the film. I found it visually impressive, but otherwise more than just well. Heroic phrases are thrashed for half an hour and then heads roll. If you have fun with it, 300 is just right for you. Otherwise just another film, about which there was far too much riot and which will soon be forgotten.


PS: Regarding your admission regarding the military coup, you unfortunately missed the topic again! My remarks related exclusively to an existential threat from outside! Since I did my military service myself, I also know the exact wording of the oath. In this, the recruit undertakes to respect the constitution and the laws, but also undertakes to follow and carry out all orders of his superiors "without contradiction" (aneu antilogias)! The soldier does not have the right to refuse an order! When formulating the oath, the author (s) of the oath had the defense case in mind and not a coup by parts of the officer corps! In their daily orders to the troops, the putschists gave the impression that the army would defend the state and the constitution before a communist one Protect the assumption of power! These officers have violated the oath of obedience to the state and the constitution and, with their authority, abused the obedience of your soldiers! It was not blind obedience that led to the coup, but the simple lack of this secondary virtue among the "colonels"


Dear Thomas (I'll just call her that) as far as my, in your opinion, lack of thinking and reading skills, I would like to reply with Socrates: "The type and content of an abuse say more about the spirit and character of the author than About the person to whom it is valid! You claim certain terms and "secondary virtues" were disavowed by the Nazis in Germany and then ironize the next sentence, the adherence to these virtues in Greece and elsewhere. In contrast to you, I do not evaluate these virtues per se but only the purpose or goal they serve! I actually thought I had made this sufficiently clear by my Sparta / Stalingrad comparison! For me there is a significant difference whether you defend your homeland against aggression, or whether you are the aggressor yourself Your syllogism: 1. Nazis were bad 2. Nazis appealed and used these second virtues 3. These second virtues are bad!
For me this is an inadmissible simplification and does not take into account the historical experiences of other peoples! The Spartans and Greeks (and that's what the film is all about!) Fought against an invasion! To strengthen morale and military strength, it was essential to honor and to appeal to each individual's willingness to make sacrifices! Even more so if you consider the numerical superiority of the attacker!


Do you read posts before replying? Do you think before you write? What the forerunners of your highly acclaimed recruits of oaths of allegiance to the Constitution really thought was evidently demonstrated in 1967.


To @Cheiron aka Thomas?

I did not make these associations, but those that assume the film is close to the Nazi ideology. The film takes place in Sparta in ancient Greece and not in Stalingrad! So what does the use of these terms in the film have to do with the Nazi dictatorship? Missed the topic, put a sixth mark! And as for the secondary virtues in Greece, we owe our existence to them! But for that one would have to have a minimum knowledge of Greek history. There have always been men and women in history who fought for the culture, freedom and independence of the country to the point of self-sacrifice! In my opinion, they have all the attributes and virtues of a hero! To honor you and to keep you a worthy memory is the least. The recruits do nothing else through their oath and the obligation to do the same in an emergency.There are still people who call their own even higher values ​​than their own physical integrity! But you and those like you will not understand something like that after 60 years of "re-education", where even deserters are stylized as resistance fighters ... By the way, I do not believe that you are in the position to speak for the entire German people, only yours Give your own left-tinged opinion for the best! The opinion of your "compatriots" draws a much more differentiated opinion here than you would like to present here!


You are on a website on which mainly Germans post. In this country, terms like "honor" + "heroes" + "heroic death" are abundantly disavowed due to their excessive use during the Nazi dictatorship. It's wonderful for you that people in Greece still hold onto such secondary virtues. I hope you enjoy it.


Dear Thomas, in your opinion, terms like "honor", "heroes" and "heroic death" are terminologies that only Nazis use and that need to be "overcome". Accordingly, the ancient Greeks were the forerunners and pioneers of Nazi ideology because they used precisely these vocabularies in their struggle for freedom! And what will surprise you even more is that the Greeks still use this choice of words! Some of the recruits take their oath at the monument of Leonidas today! Just like him and his Spartans, they vow to fight for the freedom of the fatherland and, if necessary, to sacrifice themselves for it! All Nazis? Safe in your simple worldview, because I am convinced that you have never made fun of it when a director has expressed himself "extremely left-leaning" ...


Dear Asad, on the quality of the film one can certainly be divided, but your statement "the 300 Spartans were quite brutally torn apart by the Persians" I can only reply that the numerically superior army of the Persians only succeeded through the betrayal of Ephialtes to bypass the Thermopylae held by the Spartans and encircle the 300 Greeks. Up until now the Spartans had "brutally torn apart" the Persians, as you would put it. Even the attack of the elite Persian troops of the so-called
"Immortals" were thrown back at heavy losses for the Persians. If you have different information on this, historians will certainly be interested. lol


Well, don't become a politically correct do-gooder right away. It's just a modern film. Or is Iran attacking Sparta now?


Well, it's not just about current political references, but also about those that were long believed to have been overcome. After all, the "heroes" who slaughter everything and everyone here speak as if it were a "chainsaw massacre", just like the Nazis of "honor", "heroic death" and maintain a worldview that is not dissimilar to that of the Nazis. Especially since the author of the comic, Frank Miller, has already made extremely right-wing statements on US talk shows and thinks George W. Bush and the Iraq war are great. So it's no wonder that you can see parallels to the current political situation, maybe even inevitably have to, right?

And let's be honest: what's new about this film? I've seen the effects in dozens of films like this or something like that, and director Zack Snyder hasn't reinvented the blue-screen process either.

And just to see people being slashed or beheaded in slow motion isn't just cynical, it's just plain junk.

For me the most annoying film in a long time!


So I saw the film in the pre-premiere on Wednesday! All I can say is that the film is awesome! That's why I go to the cinema ... to see something I've never seen before! The film doesn't have a political touch (the comic has been around for a while now, so you can make political connections). And since it took some time to finish the film, the poetic parallels will only be a coincidence! For me one of the films of the year, it will definitely find itself in my quite respectable DVD collection !!


So the film is not that intoxicating, far removed from reality with stupid dialogues and great butchery interludes, one tries to win the favor of the audience. A "timepass" film and not a monumental film as described on some websites. Because it has nothing to do with reality - because the 300 Spartans were pretty brutally torn apart by the Persians and not as shown in the film. ; )
The film is a comic adaptation no more and no less.

Joachim Lang·07.04.2007

Now it may be a coincidence that Zack Snyder is trying to build on the success of Sin City by again filmed ingenious comic strips by Frank Miller. It may well be a coincidence that the first two letters of the main actor's last name are identical to those of the American president. But the intention was definitely to lure stiff, inflexible lovers of realistic and ironic social satires to the cinema.
Conclusion: A complete idiot who sees parallels to the current political situation in the Gulf region.


The famous quotes from Herodotus are all dropped, otherwise it is of course a testosterone-charged comic book adaptation.
Very entertaining and well worth a second visit.
It is your own fault if you want to interpret current historical developments in the action popcorn cinema!


Whether you've seen "300" or not - egel. As soon as you leave the cinema, you have already forgotten the film. References to US politics are just as obscured as the historical reference to "real" events. Nice to see, interesting pictures - but nothing that lasts.


Pretty lousy film review. Rarely read something ridiculous. Haven't seen the movie myself so can't tell if it's good or bad. The criticism itself is absolutely pretentious, the author should relax.

Marco Seibt·05.04.2007

Anyone who loves graphics - likes artistic, impressive images - should definitely watch this film.

Anyone who - like "Joachim Kurz", takes a look at this film - although it is neither his genre nor can he appreciate the artistically or graphically impressive performance and evaluate it correctly should by no means go into it. It's a shame - when a film is denigrated by such people in the criticism. ..... because he draws an absolutely nonsensical connection to today's Iraq war ... (madness - everything is political - even my right shoe) ..... Who writes reviews - shouldn't try - to imitate Dumm-Phöny and do not judge films based on personal opinion. As everyone in the German class of 7th grade has guessed: sober, neutral!


For my part, I'm glad that there are other forms of film criticism on the web than "boah ey, I've seen the trailer, it's awesome the film ..." and read hundreds of times in other places.

killer game player·03.04.2007

I have to say that I am really amazed that in almost all (German!) reviews of this film it can only be read by fascist propagander for the Bush government against Iran. People claim the Spartans should only reflect the us marines, even the film was financed with funds from the pentagon? Wild suspicions are made, and everyone sees what he wants to see, the Iranian insinuates that the evil ami wants to hezten against them, the Persians and their king are portrayed too bloodthirsty and horny, that's actually true, whoever strives for world domination is neither violent nor Hungry for power, maybe we should say in the next (anti) war film in which "our" Adolf and his men appear that we are no longer like that and see something like that as an attack on our culture. The masked modern German, able to think and behaving like an idiot, sees fascism again - whatever else, a film where blood and honor are the talk of the town (at that time a completely normal thing, just like swastikas on roman tombstones) the stupid German can't accept that, he already sees nazis behind every tree, evil imperialist Americans and killer games players ... uh gunmen, jumping out. I wonder when you will finally broom your broom iel pull out of your anus, relax then go to the cinema and maybe see what I see too, namely a comic film by frank miller, which hopefully bursts with blood and effects, and is full of spartans who spend the whole day with fame and Talking about killing, because that's why I watch a film like that.

Spelling mistakes are intended to underline the character of the author.


Quote: "That is certainly the best that can be said about this" slaughter plate on celluloid ", because 300 does not have much more to offer than show values, permanent slaughter and stupid dialogues from the pool of less gifted war rhetoricians, least of all self-irony. "

That may be true, but I see it more positively than negatively for the film. If a comic film adaptation fulfills these criteria and is not overcrowded with boring, philosophically high-quality and historically correct dialogues, then for me it has really succeeded.

Quote: "Now it may be a coincidence that Zack Snyders 300 just in the days of a possibly imminent armed conflict with Iran"

As if he could foresee today's conflict 2 years ago when the shooting started * laughs * And I don't argue that there were conflicts with the East 2 years ago. There have been conflicts with the East since I was born and long before that, so now there is no reason for such a thing
Not allowed to shoot a film.

"A film that can only be valued as trash, but which as a film is at most given the rating" particularly worthless "- a propaganda film by George W. Bush to continue his" war on terror "could not have been worse."

It was so clear now. Now then, I can only pity the author of the review if he can't just relax while watching an action film and enjoy the carnage instead of looking everywhere for signs of war propaganda.

more dad·02.04.2007

i was born in iran and still find the excitement of iranians ridiculous.

27 years of islamic dictatorship were probably enough for the iranians to forget things like "freedom of expression".

not a comic film from hollywood ruins our reputation, but the monkey ahmadineschad, the clown chamenei and the other damned islamists in iran.


I believe that the Germans have something against our 7,000-year history.
Well here is Germany and you can speak your mind, and that's a good thing!
We all have to learn from history. our common enemy today is the mullahs barbaric system.
We have to mobilize our energy to fight against the mullahs' regime.
Mullah's system threatens all of humanity.
A Persian


One more note on the comment by "reza" that democracy and culture originate from Persia; then they told us the wrong thing for centuries! Then democracy is probably a Persian word as well as architecture, mathematics, physics, philosophy etc. and then probably all the great thinkers of antiquity who we previously assumed were Greeks were actually Persians! You should communicate your "profound" knowledge quickly to the historians in order to point them out to this error .......