Meet the Spartans: Something Must be Done.
This is not a film. It is an insult. Do not abide it.
If I find out a single Cracked Blog reader attended this movie on opening day, even if it results in sex, there will be hell to pay. Besides, do you really want to have sex with someone who would watch Meet the Spartans? Do you really want that inside of you?
I feel strongly about this.
When not blogging for Cracked, Michael makes pandering, referential comedy videos as head writer and co-founder of Those Aren't Muskets!
{Great reading.. Very good information here}{Lady Gaga Is hotter than ever, see for yourself!}{Nipple slip.. and vagina slips all over..}
Replyi love asian girls they are so hot
ReplyNaked Girls Naked Young Girl Naked Teen Girls...
ReplyI can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view...
Naked Girls Naked Black Men Girls Naked...
ReplyI can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view...
"2) How the fuck didn’t said Spartan force (reminder: in its entirety), renowned for their keen senses and self-preservation instincts fail to notice this Persian galloping in on horseback on rocky terrain from a large distance away?"-ass_master3000
ReplyFor the same reason that Angel Eyes in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly can sneak up on Tuco and Blondie in the graveyard even though they're in a relatively flat valley and should logically have seen him coming the whole time: He's not in the same frame. You're free to argue the line between trickery and artistry, but this is not anything new they're trying.
Hot ones, too.
Replykingmonkey,
ReplySin City was done much better than 300. Marv smashing through walls...I had no problem with anything like that in that movie because it establishes early on that there are people that are superhuman. The problems of 'accuracy' in 300 stem not from a discontinuity of believablility, but rather from tacky, brainless decisions by the filmmaker that simply defy LOGIC. Such as, and I've even written a blog entry about this, the scene where the Spartan captain's son gets beheaded from behind. This scene defies believablility not because it spurns the laws of physics, but for these reasons instead:
1) Why the hell is this one Persian guy riding up to the entirety of the Spartan force after 1 bajillion of his comrades just got their asses handed to them?
2) How the fuck didn't said Spartan force (reminder: in its entirety), renowned for their keen senses and self-preservation instincts fail to notice this Persian galloping in on horseback on rocky terrain from a large distance away?
3) If they really wanted the Spartan captain's son dead that much, why didn't they just off him in battle, as opposed to this unecessary scene?
Your answer, I imagine, is probably 'who cares besides anal retentive nerds'? While I concede it is a good one, it is incomplete, because it fails to acknowledge that the director of 300 failed to think of these things because he frankly didn't have the foresight or sense to realize it actually does matter in terms of the films overall quality. And just because it only matters to a few people like myself, doesn't mean that it shouldn't matter to more people.
Finally, Sin City had more naked chicks in it.
At the risk of making myself out to be a geek (what a geek on Cracked? no!), a comic book is typically a regularly published, standard format comic magazine. A graphic novel is usually a trade paperback consisting of original maaterial (as opposed to a trade paperback collecting various issues of a comic). Also, comics are regularly priced, while graphic novels and trade paperback collections undergo a magical, geometric increase in price (if they're Marvel comics).
ReplyFrank Miller's work is never meant to be taken too seriously. He has fun in the genre he's writing, be it Sin City, 300, The Dark Knight Returns, or Ronin or whatever he's working on.
Did you go to Sin City and say "how did Marv bust through a wall, or Clive Owen jump down three storeys without at least pulling his ankle?" Propbably not, because of that thing called willing suspension of disbelief. If you've gone to 300 and said "none of this and this is possible" then either the movie was poorly done, or you're in the wrong theatre.
I didn't see 300 because I am one of those guys that says "this isn't faithful to the comic." I've liked some comic book movies in the past, but some are too far from the original to be enjoyed. (I'm looking at you, V for Vendetta.)
Tom... You obviously didn't read everything if the first thing you say is "Am I the only one that noticed 300 was based off of a freakin’ comic book?" Did you not read the last 5 posts between me and Ass_master? That's the whole thing we were talking about was that basing it completely on the graphic novel rather than better hostorical fact was a bad choice. It's not a bad movie, but it could have been better.
ReplyFYI, it's a graphic novel not a comic book, I'm not quite sure what the differences are myself, but there are differences somehow.
Am I the only one that noticed 300 was based off of a freakin' comic book? How are you going to bitch and moan about historical inaccuracies when it was based on a freakin' comic book? If you went in to 300 expecting a history lesson, or anything less than a comic book on celluloid, you're an idiot.
ReplyTotally agree with you, Sir. That would have made for an amazing movie instead of just an okay one.
ReplyTrue, THE Guy.
ReplyBut why limit it to that. If it's BASED on the graphic novel, couldn't it then differ in some fashion?
Why not take the best elements of both? Say, the graphics from the graphic novel, and the history from, well, history...? Doesn't seem like it should take a massive intellect to come up with that one. And to those who would then say: 'What a piece of shit! It wasn't faithful to the comic!' I would say shut the fuck up and be thankful the director had good sense.
Ass_master: It's because it was based on a graphic novel and not historical fact, which in turn is the director's fault for choosing a poor source to base a movie on.
Reply@Pantera:
ReplyPerhaps I'm being over-critical, but the point I was trying to make earlier was this:
Even though it is a steaming pile of rot-turd, Meet the Spartans has no pretense of being anything other than that, while the people behind 300 appear to be taking themselves deadly serious. Movies need to put their money where their mouth is; if they are claiming to be a gritty, realistic action movie, well, make it gritty and realistic. What we have instead is a fanfare of stylized bullshit that defies simple logic at times, and any movie that takes itself seriously needs to cover their ass in that regard, or else the (objective) audience loses interest and respect for the film.
Why bother paying that much attention to detail? Because it really is the difference between a masterpiece and an average movie. Watch the movie No Country for Old Men if you haven't already done so, and pay attention to the incredible detail in every scene. These details aren't there as pedantic self-references that only beret-wearing, scarf-toting, poetry-writing douchebags understand. Rather, they are subtle reflections of the story and imagery that develops as the movie goes on.
So back to 300...
obviously not to be taken AS seriously as No Country for Old Men, but why not have the same attention to detail? It would only serve to enhance the overall effect, and it would stop whiny asses like me from writing interminable comments like this one that serve only to irritate you further.
The history channel kicked ass with it's "documentary" of the real Blair Witch. OMG that shit, (while proven to be made up) was about a million times scarier than the actual movie. If somebody can find it somewhere let me know.
ReplyThe killing was great. It was that the stuff that was inaccurate was so FAR from accurate that it was distracting. It was an okay movie, I mean I still bought it, but the reason that the spartans did so well is because they had really heavy armor, not because they had abs you could crack a walnut on. Their shields would have each been painted with thier own symbol too... I blame the history channel for ruining this movie for me.
ReplyWhat's with this bashing of 300? That movie was awesome. Albiet, it wasn't very historically accurate and we're pretty sure Leonidas wasn't that buff, but it was 2 hours of people being stabbed, slashed, decapitated, and killed in various other gruesome manners. How much more awesome does a movie have to be in order for you to like it?
ReplyAlso, if you read up on the real way the Greeks fought, it was probably one of the most intense things you could ever encounter in your life.
Those people that make movies purely for the red necks demographic (Talladaga Nights, Walk Hard...) should be castrated....
ReplyYeah, Costner got a good one finally with Mr. Brooks: Good plot, really creepy, boobs, and death. I think it's because his slightly monotonic acting works with his character to make him more creepy instead of just making him boring like in 95% of his other films.
**spoiler**
The idea of hiding a dead body in the ground of an open grave where a coffin will be placed over it the next day is awesome. That's how I'm going to hide a body should the Mafia ever call in the favor I owe them...
SHUT UP! JUST SHUT UP!
ReplyTHE best movie to beat all other of these movies is WALK HARD!
Captain Ross, my main man. How about Daddy-O? Jack Frost? I could go on for days. MST3K is the finest comedy ever put on TV.
Reply**SPOILER ALERT**
Dane Cook rocked in Mr. Brooks only when Costner slashed his throat with a shovel! I was like "YEAH!!" Costner was genius. What's with Dane Cook having his own gang sign? Lame.