All right, I went to the movie 300 and I liked it. Yes it is violent, how could it not be; it is the story of 300 men killing 10,000 other men in hand to hand combat, cut and thrust. No, it is not accurate history, Herodotus is spinning, but Leonidas and his band, where four thousand against three million once did stand, have surely not been forgotten. Herodotus is pleased with that.
A gigantic and determined enemy, sworn to their god, to acomplish the utter destruction of all freedom; their greatest weapon, terror. Against this seemingly insurmounterable power, a determined leader, willing to risk the anger of the masses, the ridicule of those who should share his burden, and danger to his life; for the preservation of liberty. Power grubbing politicians grasping for their devious agendas at the expense of their country’s very existence. It is America today. It is the story of the 300 Spartans.
It is impossible to present the story of Thermopylae without drawing comparisons to America’s fight for survival against the fanatic devotees, the mindless slaves of fear, who are the terror warriors of deviant religion; the monsters determined to steal the freedom of the people of Iraq and dominate the world.
I have heard that the director of the film (Zack Snyder) was actually asked if George Bush is Leonidas or Xerxes? He reportedly replied, he just wanted to make a movie. He did – but in spite of the liberties taken with history, that George Bush is our Leonidas is obvious to any rational observer.
The Ephors were misportrayed in the film, but the fact that these ancient ghouls look and act like mystic versions of Ted Kenney and Robert Byrd got right to the point.
I also felt the Athenians could have come off a little better – although it is quite clear Athens’s refusal to submit in part inspired Leonidas defiance, he goes on to call them faggots. In the epilogue, which takes place at Plateia, there is no mention of Salamis, without which the “wall of men” could not have stood.
It also irked me that the young king, and other Spartan youths, were presented with shaven heads. The Spartans never cut their hair.
Still, the film catches the essence of the epic struggle of freedom against tyranny. Where it best catches the essence of today's struggle is in the debate before the Council of Elders, the ruling representatives of the people of Sparta. Actually chosen from among warriors who have lived past sixty, they are also misrepresented in the film; presented as the US congress of 2007. It is as if the writer (Frank Miller) set aside his Herodotus and took his script from the rantings of John Murtha, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi.
300 does not pretend to be history, it is a comic book brought to the screen, but it is powerful. Unlike Troy, and Alexander the Great, both of which bit off more than they could chew in three hours running time, this movie sticks to a simple story and tells it very visually and very well. I thought it better than Gladiator – the violence is less gratuitous and although comic book graphic, more believable.
Those who find fighting for freedom become passé, who would rather live as slaves than die free men, who believe that world consuming evil can be stopped by appeasement, surrender, and flight; will find all sorts of things to be offended about in 300.
Those who agree with Queen Gorgo, “that freedom isn’t free” will find hope and motive in the actions of three hundred men and their great leader, who stood their ground although betrayed at home and beset by seemingly insurmountable odds upon the field.
We are left to wonder, will the free peoples of the world have the wisdom to unite once more in the face of Persian perfidy, or will we give up the “earth and water”, and at last allow the 300 to have died in vain.
74 comments:
"As for *Apocalypto* the admitted fact that you have not seen the movie did not prevent you from spouting authoritatively against it -- your accepted MO." -Lysis
Check the record.
My only comment then about *Apocalypto* was admitting I HADN"T SEEN IT!!!!
There were 140 responses that week, and very FEW were about the movie per se -- I don't recall anyone else at the time even admitting they HAD seen it, consequently OTHER topics (art and reality, the war, the boy scounts etc. were aired)
There were other Anon posters than myself, but NONE "were spouting authoritatively", or any other way, about the movie either.
Just more fabrication for the cheap seats, Lysis!!!!
Ares:
Nor vice versa!!!!
Flaccid;
So; have you seen 300? Have you read the account of the battle of Thermopile in Herodotus? I understand History Channel is also playing a documentary on the battle, maybe you have see that or something like it. Do you think that Americans will see the connection between their own fate and that of the Ancient Greeks? Can America find in the heroes of Thermopile and in this move, (the top grossing ever for a March opener), the inspiration they need to stand with our President? Or do you think that the liars and traitors will get the upper hand and we will watch the destruction of America in the years to come.
The following post is quoted from the discussion on Apocalypto. Perhaps it was not meant to be an authoritative spout against the message of the Movie. It clearly contains more that a simple admission that you had never seen it, that claim above is, at least, fallacious. Perhaps you are not even the anonymous who posted it, your identity remains as ambiguous as your comments, but since that is your choice you need must accept the responsibility for the confusion, as well as the attack on the message from promotional quotes about the movie.
Anonymous said...
Mel Gibson criticizes Iraq war during `Apocalypto' screening
Associated Press
LOS ANGELES - Actor-director Mel Gibson criticized the war in Iraq while promoting his new film "Apocalypto" at a Texas film festival.
Gibson, 50, drew parallels between the collapsing Mayan civilization depicted in the movie and the current situation in the United States, the Hollywood Reporter said Monday.
"The precursors to a civilization that's going under are the same, time and time again," Gibson said after the work-in-progress screening in Texas.
"What's human sacrifice if not sending guys off to Iraq for no reason?" he said. "What is the deliberate torture of foreigners if not the immorality of Abu Grahib?"
Ok. So that was the eternal truth he was communicating in the movie. That is what those symbols meant. Lysis' drive home needed to be a little longer for him to figure that out because - as usual - he got it wrong!” (close quote)
Gibson should have been as wise as Director Snyder of 300 and allowed his story to speak for itself. It is far more eloquent in its truths than he was in his attempt to sell tickets.
I have not seen 300 it probably will not arrive in Brazil until I am ready to return to the U.S. I would be grateful if you could explain a little more of the story and how it relates to the current war.
War movies don't do well in Brazil; even The Lord of the Rings didn't have much success. Brazilians pride themselves on being anti-war. This attitude has kept them for the most part out of every major war for most of the last two centuries.
I am glad that in American society we do not try to ignore war. I think we need films, or other works of literature, that remind us that war is awful, and that we must take an active stance against it.
When George Bush visited Brazil last week, there were several very violent anti-war protests. I tried to explain to a Brazilian friend of mine that the position taken by the U.S. in Iraq is truly an anti-war position. We are fighting against war. I reminded him what the true warmongers in the world (Islamic Extremist) would do to Brazil if they had the chance. How would Bin Laden view carnival?
You can't say you are against crime and therefore against the police. You can't say you hate medicine because you are against disease. War is terrible so is Chemo-therapy, but if you’re truly anti-cancer then…
Like Miller (the Crucible), Gibson misunderstands his own muse. Gibson can make good films, but he doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut.
I have not yet seen '300' but I will. My son has seen it twice and loved it. Blood, gore, violence, heroism...what's not to love?
The history channel did do a pretty good feature on the Persian march to Athens.
I love that the director allows for others to interpret and that he didnt rise to the bait of assigning meaning. The historical story is enough and from what I hear, the cinematography is stellar.
I think there are lessons to be learned if nothing else from the history of the players. The Persians spught to rule the world and punish Athens. In doing so they were willing to expend hundreds of thousands of lives...their own spilled blood was immaterial. Life was unimportant. Sound familiar? 300 died defeating many thousands. 3000 have died defeating many many thousands. Our opponents think nothing of the slaughter of innocents and even their own soldiers. Parallels? Sure.
Boy;
Here is Thermopile in a nut shell:
The Persian King, Xerxes, assembled the largest army ever; Herodotus sets the land forces alone at 1,700,000. Modern Historians are more conservative. The accepted number now is 250,000 land troops – and about a 1,000 ship navy.
Xerxes believes himself to be the divine ruler of the world (read Universe). He even forces the gods of conquered peoples to bow in obedience to him. You’ll remember that he was going to kill all the Jews in the world for not properly worshiping him, until one of his wives, a Jewish girl named Ester, convinces him to spar them.
He is particularly angry with Athens. Some ten years before, the Athenians defeated Xerxes father, Darius, at the battle of Marathon, and “ran” around bragging about it. However, it is his plan to subjugate all of Europe.
He marched his army across the Hellespont and along the coast of the northern Balkan Peninsula heading toward Athens; although he also planed to invade the Peloponnesus, the home of the Spartans. The Spartans hoped to hold Xerxes at the narrow Isthmus of Corinth, but Xerxes planed to conquer Athens, destroy the Athenian fleet and then use his gigantic navy to land his troops at several places on the southern peninsula and take it all. He could thus bypass any need to fight the Spartans face to face on the narrow neck of the isthmus.
Themistocles the Athenian leader (remember Athens was a Democracy) had convinced the Athenian people to build a navy to fight Persia with, but the land forces needed to be stopped, or at least be stalled and taught to fear the Greeks. He convinced Leonidas, the senior king of Sparta (he was in his fifties at the time), to lead the united Greek armies against the Persians and to make the stand north of Athens. Although Leonidas agreed, the Ephors and Council balked. They say no need to waist their army fighting to defend Athens, and besides, their religion forbad their marching before passing of the full moon. This would be too late for Athens.
Leonids therefore marches north with only his personal body guard of 300 Spartans, chosen from those who had living sons and wives who would support their sacrifice for their king and country.
The narrow pass at Thermopile is the ideal place to hold off the Persians, at least for a while. The steep cliffs next to the sea and the narrow gap between the mountains, defended by a wall, would reduce the advantage the Persians had in numbers.
There were about 4,000 Greeks at Thermopile (the hot gates, or gates of fire). When Xerxes arrived he waited for four days for the Greeks to run away. When they did not he was so angry he ordered his generals to bring the insolent Greeks before him alive for individual punishment. When troop attacked they were slaughtered by the better armed, better trained, and more determined Greeks. All the Greeks, not just the Spartans took their turn in the slaughter house. The Persians, with no armor and shorter spears could not kill the Greeks, but the Greeks killed them by the thousands. It must have been like running the Persian army through a meat grinder.
In the end a traitor, Ephialtes, taught the Persians about a path that will lead them through the mountains to surround the Greeks. When Leonidas learned that they are about to be surrounded, he ordered the other Greeks to retreat, which most of them did, but since Spartans never retreat or surrender, he and his three hundred stay and fight.
In the end, when their spears are broken, and their swords lost, and their king dead, the Spartans fought on with their teeth. The Persians surrounded them and kill them off with arrows and stones. Spartans think missile weapons are for wimps, and thus they are killed by the weapons they despise most.
Xerxes has lost ten to thirty thousand men and killed barley over 300 Greeks, his army is scared spit-less. They march on Athens; the Athenians desert their city and cross over to the Island of Salamis. From the Island they watch their city burned to the ground. But a few days later their 300 ships destroy the Persian navy as Xerxes watching from his golden throne on the hill. His navy gone or rendered useless by the Greeks Xerxes runs for home. Knowing he could never cross the isthmus now, he leaves his army in Greece to be slowly worn down. About a year later they are completely smashed at Plataea. Greece is free and the golden age of classical civilization is about to begin.
Because the three hundred and their allies stood at Thermopile, the Persians were delayed enough to give the people of Athens time to escape to Salamis, and once the Persian navy was destroyed Xerxes was forced, by hard lesson he had learned at the Hot Gates, to abandon his dream of world wide domination.
Though I think the movie does look great, I won't be seeing it (until it comes out on TV).
However, I did see an hour of the history channel special. Unfortunately, it didn't start til about 11pm, had another two hours or so to go, and I had to get up early the next morning. So I missed it, both my wife and I eagerly await it to be replayed on the history channel as it was very interesting.
Regardless of where people's stance was in the last thread, I hope you have all gone and seen Amazing Grace.
Color me shocked. From the New York Times no less...
"Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. “Climate change is a real and serious problem” that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. “The cacophony of screaming,” he added, “does not help.”
So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.
Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said on a blog that Mr. Gore’s film did “indeed do a pretty good job of presenting the most dire scenarios.” But the June report, he added, shows “that all we really know is that we are warmer now than we were during the last 400 years.”
Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.
“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.
Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.
“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”
In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.
Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”
Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”
Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.
“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”
"To the Spartans, homosexuality was like a part of their military training. Every soldier knew it was IDEAL (early absolutists) to have an older LOVER to train him in the arts of war. The young boy was referred to as the "beloved" while the older man was the 'lover'. Both the beloved and the lover would fight side-by-side. Since the lover did not want to shame his beloved, he fought harder."
Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) and Pindar of Thebes are suggested to be an intimate couple of that time also.
Other great poets and philosophers of Ancient Greece are also rumored to be gay. These include Anacrean, Euripedes, Sophocles, Socrates, and Plato." -Angelfire
The more historically accurate description and title for this movie Should have been "The Fighting 300 Faggots". If Lysis sees, in his distorted analogies, Bush as Leonidas I sure hope that he doesn't see the "fighting 300 faggots/pedophiles" as the American troops in Iraq!!!!
I say this in view of what American general Peter Pace (what an odd name) recently claimed about the IMMORALITY of gays . . . er . . . faggots) serving in the military.
He hasn't declaimed about "fighting pedophiles" as of yet, however.
NO, I haven't seen the movie, nor am likely too now!!!!
I wonder why it bothers you when someone thinks something is immoral?
(there are good arguments for not allowing openly gay individuals into the armed forces, beyond moral issues.)
I think homosexuality is immoral. That does not equate to me going around yelling insults at people.
Saying homosexuality is immoral does not equate to calling someone a faggot.
General Pace's comments were very direct and straightforward. He was asked about the 'Dont Ask, Dont tell policy implemented by Clinton. His response was that he supported the policy and believed it should continue. He was asked why. He stated that he believed the 'act' of homosexuality is immoral, as is adultery. He believed both had no place in the military.
He was asked his opinion. How dare he actually express it.
He did not attack homosexuals. He did not call for a witchhunt to purge the military of homosexuals. He stated his belief that the act of homosexuality is immoral.
He probably believes in God...maybe thats another good reason to ridicule him (I mean...aside from his name).
I wonder...anonymous...if your son came home and announced he was gay and in a relationship, would you swell with pride? Would you run down to the bar and declare your son to be gay and committed? Would you announce it at work? Wouldnt you just be splitting with joy and pride? No...you would probably feel sick...a little knot in your stomach. Why? Because you know it is wrong. You believe it to be wrong. That doesnt mean you shouldnt love your son. It doesnt mean you shouldnt hope for his happiness. It doesnt mean you cant support him. But is it 'wrong'?
I have always found it interesting that many 'liberal', 'open minded', individuals feel that while we should all be able to do, think how we want without judgement, if you disagree with any of a certain number of sacred cows, you are branded closed minded.
Or, more likely, a label such as 'homophobic' is applied. Interesting, I have never actually feared a gay man. Odd how the fact that I disagree with the lifestyle has labeled me 'homophobic'.
The ratings for "300" should be changed to XXX and each ticket that is sold should be affixed with a picture of Ann Coulter and a "Faggot Alert" warning!!!!
Also NAMBLA supporters, as this movie surely encourages them, should be ID'd and barred from the movie and the premises.
Anyone gaining admittance should be required to take the "I am not a faggot" loyalty oath and have a parent signature of approval!!!!
Anon:
It is as WRONG as thinking worse of him if he had acquired a lethal cancer because he had sinned and I had believed he were being punished by God.
I haven't seen 300. With some arguing that it should have an NC-17 rating, I'm not sure that I want to put that kind of wall-to-wall gore into my head.
However, I did kind of enjoy David Kahane's review of the movie. Kahane says that even the most Marxist Hollywood folks used to love to make movies about "Impossible odds. Quixotic causes. Death before surrender. Real all-American stuff, in which our heroes stood up for God and country and defending Princess Leia and getting back home to see their wives and children, with their shields or on them."
He laments, "But then came psychiatrists and psychologists and Ritalin and global warming and racism and sexism and homophobia and the enlightened among us said the hell with John Wayne and Gary Cooper. Hollywood became one big Agatha Christie novel in the last chapter — you know, the one where the survivors of the homicidal maniac gather in the drawing room and realize: The killer must be one of us!"
Kahane thinks that the unexpected success of this flick that "has no stars, the look and feel of a video game, and the moral code of the U.S.M.C. might have something to say, even to audiences in New York and L.A." He thinks it once again makes moviegoers feel good about being the good guy.
I am sorry I can’t tell which Anonymous is which. The first Anonymous above seems so prejudice that I cannot believe it is Flaccid, who, for all his wrong headedness, has never displayed such vitriol against anyone but me. It is doubly confusing when arguments within the two anonymous posts are also self contradictory.
I would first point out that, while many Ancient Greeks saw sexual acts between boys and men as a different kind of love than that between men and women, and therefore were, “not at all adverse to the love of youths . . .”, the Spartans were different. I will quote from *The Laws and Customs of the Spartans* by Xenophon. Xenophon was a student of Socrates and one of the Great Classic Historians. He actually moved to Sparta after the Peloponnesian War.
(quote) “It appears to me that I must say something also of the boys as subjects of affection; for this has likewise some reference to education. Among the other Greeks, a man and boy either form a union, as among the Boeotians, and associate together, or, as among the Eleians, the men gain the favor of the youths by means of attentions bestowed upon them; but there are some of the Greeks who prohibit the suitors for the boys’ favors from having the least conversation with them. But Lycurgus [the Spartan Law giver], acting contrary to all these people also, thought proper, if any man, being himself such as he ought to be, admired the disposition of a youth, [in Sparta one became a youth at age 20 and a man at 30], and made it his object to render him a faultless friend, [this means no sex!] and to enjoy his society, to bestow praise upon him, and regarded this as the most excellent kind of education; but if any man showed that his affections were fixed only on the bodily attractions of a youth, Lycurgus, considering this as most unbecoming, appointed that at Lacedaemon suitors for the favors of boys [7 years through 19 years old in Sparta] should abstain from intimate connexion with them, not less strictly than parents abstain from such intercourse with their children, or children of the same family from that with one another. That such a state of things is disbelieved by some, I am not surprised; for in most states the laws are not at all adverse to the love of youths; but Lycurgus, for his part, took such precautions with reference to it” (close quote)
Therefore, it is obvious, that to the Spartans, homosexuality was considered unbecoming and pedophilia on a par with incest. I am not saying this position is superior to that held by other Greeks, I am pointing out that our angry anonymous is wrong about the Spartans. He provides a perfect example of the danger of uninformed bigotry.
The attempt to link General Pace’s comments in anyway to anti-homosexual attitudes is belied by the fact that General Pace, in the same sentence, said that adultery is also immoral. Not even our irate anonymous is foolish enough to misconstrue his comment as signaling a prejudice agents heterosexuals.
I believe that the two posts by anonymous often using faggot, and pedophile, and displaying much anger where attempts to be sarcastic. I took them as such, though the argument (if seen as sarcasm) was ridiculous. About on par with the ridiculousness of the argument were it serious.
Reach Upward;
First, thanks for the review. I don’t know much about David Kahane. Why does he have to write under an assumed name? Is it because he is writing from Hollywood and doesn’t want to be savaged when he publishes the truth? Sounds reasonable. I particularly liked the following lines:
“So now along comes a bunch of schmucks nobody’s ever heard of — graphic novelist Frank Miller, director Zack Snyder, and a couple of other writers — to pull in $70 million over the weekend with a movie about a handful of brave warriors who stand up against the limitless central-Asian hordes, iron men vs. effeminate oriental voluptuaries, and patriots against robotic slaves. How was this picture allowed to be made?”
“Help me out here, because I’m having trouble wrapping my mind around a few things: When, early in the film, a sneering Persian emissary insults King Leonidas hot wife, threatens the kingdom, and rages about “blasphemy,” the king kicks him down a bottomless well. And yet nobody in Sparta asks, “Why do they hate us?” and seeks to find common ground with the Persians on their doorstep. Why not?”
“Beginning to wonder if a $70-million opening weekend for a picture that was tracking at $40 million will get somebody’s attention. Beginning to wonder if a movie that has no stars, the look and feel of a video game, and the moral code of the U.S.M.C. might have something to say, even to audiences in New York and L.A.
But most of all, I’m beginning to wonder what it feels like to be the good guy.”
(close quotes)
The “left” was very determined that this movie should be a flop. The thought that it would stir patriotism and revel the devious nature of the Democrat’s cut and run mantra must have terrified them.
Reach, I don’t think you would find this film out of line, nor would it sear your mind. It is no way like the chain saw killer and zombie flicks out there. I never thought of it as computer generated, the graphic quality is more in the way the pictures are framed. When the boy Leonidas stands up after a fight, one eye swollen and the other eye flashing with courage and determination, it’s a real thrill.
The “sex” scene is between a husband and wife – and is tasteful, not crude, tender not titillating. But then sex has never offended me.
MSNBC Live Poll
Do you think Gen. Pace should apologize for calling homosexuality immoral?
31586 responses
Yes 27%
No 71%
I'm not sure 1.3%
polls mean nothing.
Even when I agree with them
Dan:
I used the "F" term because I thought it would make a "funny" joke --apparently that only works for Coulter against Edwards and NOT against Greeks.
Also, I thought PC was to be avoided at the Agora -- for Lysis and others, slanderous epithets are seen to be tokens of POWER and persuasion, but I see now that the Agora PC just depends on whose partisan ox gets gored!!!!
Dan:
With yourself excluded I am happy to say.
Lysis-
Truly a remarkable post, due to it's broad nature, but I wish to adress the origial post, and I hope I can serve as a beacon of truth as all of us have on certain subjects.
Again, a truly remarkably controversial post! You see George Bush as a Leonidas, a symbol of hope and strength to those who think themselves too insagnificant to make a difference fighting against larger powers that seek to opress and force their evils upon the rest of the world. Truth in every word, and a striking resemblance to a certain camp director I know. I will recount the story that was told to me about said camp director. The story goes that a certain camp sits within 2 miles of a certain National Park. The Boy Scouts of the area would hike to said Park and enjoy its immense beauty and have many an adventure that would lead to growth and valuable lessons utilized later in life. Anyways, to make a long story short, the freedom of the happiness of these young boys was put in jeopardy when a certain Park Ranger said that there would be restrictions placed on the scouts "for the good of the general public". A Xerxes in the modern day world (No doubt she was democratic in party)! Well she was challenged by a daring Leonidas! A leader of men, a good friend of mine, and one of the greatest teachers of lifes lessons that I have ever had the opportunity of knowing. He stood up and went to war with a seemingly hopeless cause. And hopeless it was while he stood alone, but one day he was joined by an army! I hate to cut the story short, but in interest in time, they went on to victory that is, was, and always will be appreciated by the once youth, now leaders of our modern day country. A truly remarkable story. Who knows? Maybe they will make a movie about the above mentioned story next!
Any ways, either way if George Bush is a Leonidas, he fights a good war, if a Xerxes, a Leonidas will stand up and fight him. But in whatever situation, may we be men like unto Leonidas and fight with a zeal that will lead to overall victory! Fight on brothers, fight on!
Apollo
Anonymous: while I am glad that you recognize my opinion of Coulter, I would point you to the fact that nearly everyone resoundingly denounced Coulter. So, I am not sure who you are referring to when you imply that everyone here (with me as an exception) was okay with Coulter's comments re: Edwards.
Apollo;
Said Camp Director thankfully had the support of his country in his fight, but thank you for recognizing some small resemblance in the conflict. I’ve been thinking; if they do make a movie I’d like Tom Welling, the guy who plays Clark Kent on Smallville to play “said Camp Director”.
I was interested to read anther review on *300* today. The author is Scott Holleran, and it is posted on *Box Office MOJO. Here are some interesting quotes.
Quote 1 -“Prepare for gory: the overblown 300 slices, dices and largely decimates any sign of intelligent life in a computer-generated, music video-styled monster mash that calls itself a movie. It's more like an all-out blitzkrieg against one's perceptual senses, but it is consistently locked in attack mode.”
***Here Holleran takes on the mantra of the liberals spinners. He’ll have to hurry, soon there won’t be any MOJO readers who haven’t already seen the movie and know he’s pumping sunshine. I am very critical of obvious “computer generated” movies. The latest Superman, which I liked, was far more computer gameish than *300*. Perhaps it was because *300* was presented as a sketch rather than a carefully crafted finished piece, that it was even more believable. I wonder if Holleran is usually tricked by the screen into thinking he is actually watching the real thing at the theater?***
Quote 2 - “The script is filled with words—tyranny, freedom, reason—that go completely unsupported and have no meaning. The Spartans, portrayed as snarling animals seeking hostility for its own sake, claim superiority over mysticism, but cartoonish mystics inflict real damage, thereby negating the power of reason over faith.”
***I found the words _ tyranny, freedom, and reason – all well supported in the film. I guess in Holleran’s economy, anyone who despises tyranny and loves freedom and reason is some kind of an animal.***
Quote 3 - “But with a military philosophy—the Spartan king regrets that he has so few lives to sacrifice—resembling the Bush administration's foreign policy, the mighty Spartans lack the mind to match the muscle. If sacrifice is noble, why bother to fight—why not hurry up and die? And why—oh, never mind, this latest message of Doomsday nihilism, which sidesteps history, serves one purpose: to validate chronic fear.”
***I’m afraid that Holleran’s fails again, he misses the REAL history of the Thermopylae, were the military tactics of the Spartans saved the West from tyranny. We can take some comfort that even Holleran recognizes the similarity of Leonidas’ tactics and those of President Bush and the American military. Again, I would like to remind Holleran that Thermopylae saved the West, and if the cut and runners don’t undermine victory – Bush will do the same.***
Quote 4 -“300 looks fake and it delivers action in that tentative, stagy, slow-motion style. It deafens with noise, clatter and blaring guitar that sounds like Black Sabbath for the elevator and when heads start to roll, literally, it's hard not to burst out laughing, which is exactly what happened. Wild, radical and what the kids call Kewl? Not unless you're jacked up on mindless video games and are itching to fry some brain cells. 300 doesn't get past zero.”
***I’m afraid it is Holleran’s review that gets a big Zero, a big fat F, from this teacher. After reading his article I am forced to wonder if he saw the same movie as the rest of America, and the world, is watching; if he saw any movie at all. His inaccurate criticism might be an attempt at cutesy sarcasm, but like some other such we have recently endured here in the Agora, this sarcasm also falls Flat. It always amazes me how far off the critics tend to be, especially the liberal agenda driven ones. That *300* probably passed the 80 mil. Mark sometime today does not verify its accuracy as history or even the correctness of its politics – but it surly demonstrates its popularity.***
It is at least interesting to see the transition that has occured. When this movie first came out both sides were claiming it as supporting their positions. As the movie has gained popularity and as the Iranian representatives expressed resentment that it characterized them by using an incorrect modern day storytelling to drum up resentment about them, the left has abandoned ownership and instead begun to attack the movie.
And the disparaging comments directed towards the Spartans for their homosexuality and possible pedaresty? Why...if this WERE adocumentary and it was the right making such comments...there would be OUTRAGE.
Several historians and critics have reacted and not just in a 'movie critic' manner...they have reacted ANGRILY to the portrayals and spun history in their own way to attack the movie. A historian from Canada was thouroughly disgusted by the historical inacuracies. One cant help but wonder if he expressed the same disgust for recent movies like 'Troy' and 'Alexander'.
Meanwhile...the creator has still maintained...guys...it's just a comic book retelling of a historical story. Exaggerated? Sure...but when was the last time Hollywood DIDNT hype history? Historically inaccurate? Well...OK...but it isnt meant as a documentary. It is a MOVIE. It is meant to entertain. And MAYBE along the way it will inspire reading of the actual details and historical facts...what can be so wrong with that?
Ah, but by definition of the multi-culti crowd, the terms "tyranny," "freedom," and "pride" cannot be applied to any type of nationalism -- except in cases where a nation achieves the refined position of victim status -- the highest honor accorded in multi-culti circles.
According to the "all cultures are equal except for ours, which is evil" gang, pride in one's nation (especially if it is a first world nation, and particularly the U.S.) is anathema to reason. These self loathers brook no place in their hearts for national pride (except as noted above, but certainly never pride in the U.S.A.).
Why, how could you be proud of your country simply because you were born there?, they ask.
As noted by Bill Bennett, the U.S. has its warts, to be sure. But some would see our nation as all warts, completely ignoring all the good and positive it has done and does do.
So, for people like Holleran, tyranny and freedom cannot be understood if they are to be applied to a good guys/bad guys scenario, but only when applied to an oppressor/victim scenario where the oppressors are us and the victims are hapless and incapable.
Ares and Reach Upward;
You both make most excellent points. The panning of the movie before it came out were attempts to discourage attendance at the movie. This has utterly failed, now there is an attitude of mocking those who have found it instructive. If the arguments against the lessons of Thermopylae were legitimate they could be presented outright, instead the “peace at any cost” crowd is required to retreat to sarcasm and smear. This tactic is proving ineffective as not only the popularity of the movie but curiosity about the real events is growing. Now there is increasing fear among the anti-war cabal that people will start thinking. Isn’t it interesting to observe the relativist formula of disinformation in practice; disparage, mock, and dissemble and then ignore. Isn’t it gratifying to have a venue, the movies, which the left had thought their wholly co-opted tool, turned as a very effective force against them?
I've often wondered what the peace protestors thought of inspiring "war movies" like Braveheart etc. History is full of situations where noble people have risen up and defended noble virtues.
Cameron:
At the time Braveheart was put out, the protestors were not protesting – there was nothing to gain by it. It is important to realize that so-called war protestors, or peace protestors, (in their relativist conundrum they don’t even know what they are protesting), are really only motivated by their desire to grab power. It is impossible that they have thought through their espoused position, they are simply seeking attention. Once the war has been won and their freedom insured they will set about re-writing their deeds and covering their actions. You ask, “what peace protestors thought,” they don’t think.
Personally, I prefer Clint Eastwood's "Flags of Our Fathers"
I found the TRUE story of Ira Hayes to be profoundly moving itself WITHOUT disrespectful cartoon analogies to Iraq and Bush.
What Hayes found to be so disgusting in the need for hero worship is the compulsion to worship FAKE heroes -- he thought ONLY those who died on Iwo Jima to be heroic and said so every time he had a chance -- it was feelings of being FAKE that ruined his life and eventually killed him.
The "heroic" flag raising of Iwo Jima was the raising of the FIRST flag -- the raising of the SECOND flag only occurred because an American politician wanted the first flag for his selfish souvenir and had Marines ordered to risk their lives to get it for him. The Rosenthal photograph is an INCREDIBLE icon of war and victory even though the TRUTH was everyone cheered and waved for the FIRST FLAG!!!! -- afterwards, no one paid any attention to the "phoney" unstaged raising of the second flag that made the photograph. The raising of flags on Suribachi occurred on the fifth day of battle -- TRUE victory took 35 more incredibly bloody days that most of the flag raisers of BOTH flags did not survive.
It is ironic that the need for hero worship disregarded one of the MOST VALIANT soldiers who had TRULY paid the price to be one of the first atop Suribachi. Also, he had provided the "base" for the raising of the FIRST flag, and was killed shortly thereafter -- his surviving relatives were NOT invited to be recognized at the Commemoration of the Iwo Jima memorial in Washington D.C. because he wasn't in the "picture" of the second raising and consequently HIS TRUE heroism was ignored.
Draw what-ever analogies you want, Clint Eastwood has made an effort to EDIFY his audience with a TRUE account of war and an account of TRUE heroism!!!!
Flaccid;
I honor the Heroes of Iwo Jima and Thermopylae. I don’t see why one of these movies would be any more “fake” than the other. Both tell the story of the endless battle against tyranny and terror, both can encourage us to likewise battle on against today’s tyrants and terrorists.
I do not know the details of the second flag raising at Iwo Jima, if it was fake, it does not diminish the heroism of those who conquered that island so that the freedom of the world might be preserved and freedom provided to the people of Japan. Their heroism was surely in the tradition of Leonidas. I would point out that there was nothing fake about the sacrifice of the 300 nor the effects of their courage.
Herodotus memorized the names of all 300 Spartans who fell at Thermopylae as men worthy of being remembered.
I find it ironic that you, Flaccid, trumpet the heroism of those who fought in WWII while you denigrate hero worship. I am indeed sorry that any hero should be forgotten, that any hero should feel that his sacrifice for freedom is not respected.
This is why I will continue to point out that those who call our soldiers “child killers” and compare them to the terrorists they defend us against, enable and encourage our enemies. I challenge the patriotism of those who attack our heroic President, and the forces he leads, in defense of our freedom.
It seems to me, Flaccid, that you should take lesson from those who misrepresented the heroic actions of those who fought at Iwo Jima or Thermopylae.
I am glad Eastwood edified his audience with a true account of heroism. I hope you will go to 300 as see how Snyder and Miller do the same. Until you have seen the film and understand the battle, you remain an outstanding example of the very phoniness you pretend to decry.
An interesting aside: The total domestic box office for Eastwood’s *Iwo Jima* since Dec. 20, 2006, (84 days) us $13,542,850. The total box office for Snyder’s 300 since last Friday, (6 days) is $85,017,803. I would seem that a lot more people are getting their dose of “hero worship” from Thermopylae than from Iwo Jima.
I just returned from the movie. A little gratuitous...OK for a worldly adult...I'm not thrilled at the easy access to teens, but hey...anyone that goes (or lets their teens go) and doesn't expect that is suffering from a lack of that little thing we like to call 'reality'.
I do not know how you can not see the movie and read the history (and allow for the historical extravagances)and NOT see our world today. The most powerful line for me was not delivered by Leonidas...it was delivered by Xerxes to the traitor..."evil Leonidas expects you to stand, and all I ask is for you to kneel".
Wow.
How can people not see the obvious truth to this? To be free...stand. Identify your values. Identify what you are willing to LIVE for. and then STAND, MAYBE to die. Or kneel...suffer enslavement...and call it living.
The terrorists that are seeking to enslave the world, to enforce the modern will of Xerxes are not discriminating in who they slaughter and they arent bashful in their stated goals.
Have we become so bloated with comfort and excess that we forgot what it means to be free?
Anon...
Leaving aside for the moment that we can both agree mistakes are made by mortal men, does that REALLY justify the ilk that descends on the warrior heroes and continuously ignores the enemy?
To put it more plainly...in your hatred for Bush, I have NEVER and I repeat for emphasis NEVER once seen your ilk take on the enemy. NEVER.
MM
MY ILK????
What group(s) do you imagine that I command, or that command me?
The, sophomoric "with us" or "agin' us" partisan political perspective, often espoused in this forum, is NOT one that I can take seriously -- it's godawful boring and dumb!!!!
I am disappointed that you would believe that I PERSONALLY supported every excess and whim written or spoken by any idiot who professed himself a liberal.
I personally DO NOT believe that you subscribe to ANY perverse association I could cook up linking you to the KKK or the Skinheads -- you would be inscensed beyond coherency if I were to marginalize YOU to THAT ILK!!!!
So, what's the deal????
Mindmechanic;
I am glad you saw and gained from the movie *300*. As I intended to indicate it is not for the faint of heart.
The line you mention from Xerxes to Ephialtes is indeed meaningful. I hope his memory also “lives forever!” Of course the “real” Ephialtes was not a Spartan, although he was a Greek. I felt the movie gave this traitor way too sympathetic a presentation. Ephialtes sold out his country for money and a shot at the power it brings. His ILK now sit in the halls of our own Congress, appear as comedians and news commentators and reporters in the phony left wing media, and post resentful obfuscation in the blogosphere.
Flaccid;
It would be impossible to associate Mindmechanic with skinheads and the KKK for he has never said anything in his many lines of posting here in the Agora to indicate he is so inclined. You, on the other hand, parrot the very words of the cut-and-run anti-patriots that now control the Congress and the media. Your endless attacks on the President are enough to designate your ilk. All I can say is your “sophomoric "with us" or "agin' us" partisan political perspective, often espoused in this forum, is NOT one that I can take seriously -- it's godawful boring and dumb!!!!”
Anon...
Play with words all you want...do ANYTHING but refuse to engage in debate. That has been YOUR mode and the mode of virtually every other Anon poster here and BTW your ILK is every one of you that is so filled with hatred of a man that you spend so much of your poisoned lives spewing hatred and rhetoric and refusing to address the very problems that the country faces.
Your ILK? How about EVERY democrat candidate that spewed rhetoric and hatred about Bush but never once has offered a solution to ANYTHING?
You ILK? How about EVERY ONE OF YOU that is so firmly trapped in your cycle of hatred that you make baseless accusations against the man, spew sound bite rheotric, ignore your obvious hipocricy when it comes to democrats and their positions, and do nothing but attack America and Americans and ignore the fact that extremist muslim terrorists around the globe are slaughtering innocents, have been for decades, and wont stop.
You are disappointed? I would think you would be embarassed...but not disappointed.
Lysis...
I think there is such an easy comparison to Xerxes and the current Iranian president...the soothing speech, the ploy of benevolence...but there are actually people sopping up his gravy with every last crumb of their biscuit. Sad.
As to the movie...the only part I was truly disappointed with was the ending. I could overlook the mishappen disfigurements...after all...we are talking mythology as history. But the ending of the movie seemed so incredibly anticlimatic to what history teaches as the ultimate end. Warriors that fought til spear and sword were done and then used teeth and nails to carry on the fight. The reality was far more powerful than the movie ending. IMO.
Anon...
I dont know if you will accept this but I apologize for snapping so quickly. I saw the "cartoon analogy to Iraq and Bush" comment and it set me off...primarily because I heard nonstop blathering from people of the 'ilk' I later described for the last three days and honestly...I'm growing a bit weary of all of it. So I immediately directed my generic comments to you. Your latest post didnt deserve it.
It all just gets so exhausting. Every talk show, every radio program, every comedian, every news story, heck...I listen to sattelite radio and I cant even escape it on the sports shows.
And its all the same thing. Bush bad. US bad. never any discussion about change. Never any acknowledgement or even recognition of the possibility of change or positive movement. US is evil...terrorists are insurgents...people like Kim, Hugo, and Ahmadenejad are to be trusted...Bush is bad...Bush lies...Bush is a nazi...Bush fires 8 US attorneys and he is evil, Clinton fired 92, and it's not even a news story...and on...and on...and on...
Tom Tancredo was speaking the other day and said that when he goes into elelmenetary schools he always asks the kids "who thinks they live in the best nation in the world?" and the result is usually less than 10% feel that way. Our politicians are playing games for power. Our teachers are preaching defeat. Across the country millions of 'useful idiots' support a candidate who's claim to fame is she was married to a rock star, or is black, and NO ONE has a clue what they believe or stand for.
How easy was the council swayed by one traitorous politician.
The DAILY spewing of hatred award goes to the Agora lunatics . . .
The LAST time I wrote about George Bush was MANY postings ago. Yours and Lysis' EVERY EVERY EVERY posting shouts MINDLESS rantings against the demonic liberals from hell. Hell's bells, I post about *Flags Of Our Fathers* pointing out that the movie made a distinction between fake heroes and true heroes, and Lysis falls all over himself sputtering venom about how GWB's heroism was neglected and how "300" righteously celebrates it because of gate receipts -- just dumb. *Flags Of Our Fathers* was NOT about Gerorge W. Bush -- it was about how FAKE heroism can destroy REAL heroes and the TRUE story of Ira Hayes, an Indian that experienced all kinds of racism and bigotry in spite of his heroism at the battle of Iwo Jima.
I do not believe that Lysis can post on ANY topic without we quickly arrive again and again worshiping at the temple of George Bush -- check the record -- paranoid AND dumb!!!!
As far as Skinheads and the KKK -- Lysis' out of the KKK closet postings about faggots and his smug anti-black posturings will soon have sympathetic bigots throwing on their white sheets, and hairless swastika bozos shouting, seig Heil, seig Heil in adoration!!!!
"I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan," Mohammed is quoted as saying in a transcript of a military hearing at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, released by the Pentagon.
"For those who would like to confirm, there are pictures of me on the Internet holding his head," he added.
Mohammed-said he planned and supported a series of terrorist attacks, topped by 9/11. The gruesome attacks range from the suicide hijackings of Sept. 11, 2001 — which killed nearly 3,000 — to a 2002 shooting on an island off Kuwait that killed a U.S. Marine, according to an account released by the Pentagon.
Mohammed made clear that al-Qaida wanted to down a second trans-Atlantic aircraft during would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid's operation.
The military began the hearings last Friday to determine whether the 14 should be declared "enemy combatants" who can be held indefinitely and prosecuted by military tribunals.
If the 14 are declared enemy combatants, as expected, the military would then draft and file charges against them. The detainees would be tried under the new military commissions law signed by Bush in October.
Legal experts have criticized the U.S. decision, and The Associated Press filed a letter of protest, arguing that it would be "an unconstitutional mistake to close the proceedings in their entirety."
The transcripts refer to a claim by Mohammed that he was tortured by the CIA, although he said he was not under duress at Guantanamo when he confessed to his role in the attacks. The CIA has said its interrogation practices are legal, and it does not use torture.
Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, questioned the legality of the closed-door sessions and whether the confession was actually the result of torture.
"We won't know that unless there is an independent hearing," he said. "We need to know if this purported confession would be enough to convict him at a fair trial or would it have to be suppressed as the fruit of torture?"
So...this scumbag has admitted to at least 39 terror plots, many succeeding and the death of thousands of innocent men women and children. there is videotape of him sawing the head off a man.
And the US is the bad guy...
It's the '24' conundrum...if you have a terrorist and have reason to believe he can give you information that will stop an attack that could kill thousands...what do you do?
I hope that all the innocents that die are loved ones of the lawyers and leftists that would rather see 3 thousand people die than have one scumbag (who has been videotaped murdering a bound and helpless individual) water-boarded.
Anon...
Perhaps you missed the apology...
Regarding "Flags of our Fathers" and a need for heroes...
Does the need for heroes and the restaged second photo REALLY diminish the heroic acts of the USMC? I dont know of anyone that can cite the names of the individuals that raised the flag at Iwo Jima (except of course the VERY few that heard JC's Ballad of Ira Hayes and then watched this movie). The flag raising at Iwo Jima signifies EVERY US Marine, living and present, active and inactive (because there ARE no 'former' marines). Just as the Tomb of the Unknown Solider isnt a tribute to the soldier buried there but is instead a tribute to EVERY soldier that served and just did his or her job...no heroism, no glory, no accolades.
Can I see how it could have been tough on them? Sure...I guess...especially if they already had previous problems. But can I understand why the photo was taken? SURE! It was an inspirational photo. It wasnt a pretend photo op...it was a very real enactment of sonmething that had just previously happened, only with a larger flag and different players.
Perhaps someone could have talked to ira Hayes and helped to see that every action he took from the moment he boarded the train to boot camp till the day he left was heroic. Perhaps someone could have helped him see his very service was far more heroic than raising a flag...first time, second time, or every time thereafter. Maybe if someone had helped him to understand the inspiration he was to millions of citizens around the world...not because he was in a picture, but because he stood against tyranny and oppression.
Maybe the world NEEDS heroes.
The Axis leaders slaughered millions upon millions upon MILLIONS of people. The actions of every person that served...from the combat troops, to the stenographers, to the supply troops, ALL were heroic and aided in stopping Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito from continuing their slaughter.
Maybe someone could have helped Ira Hayes see that.
Lets talk alternatives. No photo. No inspiration. No hope. No funds raised for fighting the war. Axis wins.
No...raising a flag (or recreating the photo-op of the flag raising) didnt win the war. But hero's one and all contributed to it.
Is that REALLY all that bad?
The directors of the 300 stated that it isnt about anything other than a comic book retelling of a historical theme...but if we can see obvious parallels and those parallels can inspire people...is that REALLY that bad?
Examine the alternatives. THATS what I want to see from others. Examine the alternatives to success.
Is the alternative better???
MM
Thanks.
The turning and shifting of the American political will can be terribly callouse and amazingly painful when it seems to move away from what we personally cherish with such hallowed reverence. I too feel that Bush-bashing has reached a supersaturated condition, but the momentum FOR was just as strong a few short months ago as it is AGAINST now -- certainly, this too shall come full circle!!!!
The heroes of the second Iwo Jima photograph, that came to be the iconic representation of heroism in the imagination of most Americans, were FORCED to participate in a "whilwind" bond drive that was incredibly successful -- 62 Billion at that time of the war was instrumental for OUR success -- ironically these heroes were threatened with returning to the front lines if they didn't participate -- Hayes said he would rather return, but that all his buddies were dead. After the war the Iwo Jima heroes, having outlived their fundraising usefullness were ignored and abandoned to the dark corners of history!!!!
Hayes was one of the last Marines to be identified in the photo. He had threatened to kill a "friend" who knew it was him if he told -- the faces in the original photo were pretty much unrecognizable and Hayes felt happy that for a long time the Marine at the end (himself) who is just releasing the pole in the photo, should be left UNIDENTIFIED and be known only as ANONYMOUS!!!!
He didn't need counseling, he needed and wanted to be left alone.
Let me begin by saying that I find nothing offensive in finding fault with Presidents. However the key word is “finding”, honestly finding; not just making them up for political power.
The example you give over the firing of flawed federal prosecutors is a perfect example of the make evil good and good evil double talk we get from the left.
I was once in a position to where I had to fire a bunch of unsupportive and misdirected workers. The screams for my head were darn near deafening; not because the clutch of creeps I got rid of were worthy of defense, but because people hated me, people who didn’t even know me, who had no rational reason to doubt my desire to do what was right. The success of my efforts was soon evidence enough of the justice of my actions. I survived the defamation of the kooks; I believe to the betterment of my little world, but I am truly saddened by the opportunities to do good that these people lost because of their irrational anger.
I was interested to listen to Zbigniew Brzezinski on the NPR the other day. He has just published a book called *Second Chance* in which he grades the Presidents Bush One, Clinton, and Bush the Second. He said he had given Bush One a B, Clinton a C, but Bush Two an F. What a laugh. Brzezinski was a foreign policy advisor for Jimmy Carter, the one true failure as President in the 20th Century. (Clinton gets D-, not because he did anything right, but because he didn’t do anything.) But Carter – what a disaster for the world. Carter almost handed the world over to the Stalinists (no doubt with Brzezinski’s advice), allowed the Islamic Republic of Hell to gain power in Iran, allowed for the year long humiliation of America in Tehran, helped get Arafat a Nobel Prize, gave Communists free rain in Central America, and made America and Americans the target of every terrorist nutcase and plane hijacking fanatic on Earth. He dragged America into malaise (his own word for America’s condition) and shame, ruined the economy and . . .
Now for Brzezinski to come forward to fuel the fires of the Bush haters with his disingenuous drivel, in a blasphemy attempt to tar over his own administrations real and disastrous failures, is a telling example of the depths to which the left is willing to twist the truth in order to regain the White House.
It is no wonder that the same media monster despises the movie 300, were a real leader, faces real challenges and does real service to his country and the world. No wonder millions of thinking people are seeing the parallels between President Bush and Leonidas and between the Democrat leadership and the portrayed Ephors and Council of Elders.
This same Media will decry the virtues of heroes while pretending to honor them; will dig up failures of the past to critique the success of today. I am so tired of hearing claims that the War has been mismanaged, that Mistakes have been made, that somehow it is all American’s fault, our President’s misdeeds.
I agree with you the real end of the 300 was far sadder, and far more heroic than that depicted in the film. It is important to remember that the Spartans fought on after the death of Leonidas to preserve his body and his honor. I hope Americans who understand the meaning of words like honor, duty, and freedom will continue to fight for the honor of our nation, its military, and its President.
wait a sec, Anon. Assuming that both anon posts are yours, how do you reconcile these two statements:
...After the war the Iwo Jima heroes, having outlived their fundraising usefullness were ignored and abandoned to the dark corners of history...
...He didn't need counseling, he needed and wanted to be left alone....
Okay. So a Woman is running for president. So is a black, and also a mormon. Who do we vote for???
How about Gladice Knight.
Isn’t this interesting:
“Iran accuses Hollywood of 'psychological warfare'
Robert Tait in Tehran
Wednesday March 14, 2007
Hollywood is already firmly established as a source of cultural decadence in Iran's pantheon of hated western symbols.
But now the country's Islamic leadership has accused it of "psychological warfare" over its depiction of the battle between the Greeks and Persians at Thermopylae in 480BC, regarded as a key event in the birth of western democracy by some historians.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government has joined MPs, bloggers and local media in denouncing the newly-released Warner Brothers epic, 300, as a calculated attempt to demonise Iran at a time of intensifying US pressure over the country's nuclear programme.
Mr Ahmadinejad's spokesman branded the film "an insult to Iran" while four MPs have urged the foreign ministry to pressure other Muslim countries to ban it.
The film, directed by Zack Snyder and based on a novel by Frank Miller, grossed nearly £40m in ticket sales in three days after opening in north American cinemas last week. It portrays the heroic endeavours of 300 Spartans, under King Leonidas, who are shown resisting an invading force of 120,000 Persian troops led by Emperor Xerxes.
The plot depicts the tiny Spartan force repeatedly outmanoeuvring the invaders and being defeated after a three-day stand-off only through treachery. Iranians complain that it represents them as savage, murderous and warmongering.
The film's availability in Iran has been limited so far to pirate DVDs, but that has not stopped an outpouring of official condemnation.
The government spokesman, Gholamhossein Elham, described the film as "cultural intrusion" and an attack on Iran's ancient civilisation. "Such a fabrication of culture and insult to people is not acceptable by any nation or government," he told reporters. "[Iran] considers it as hostile behaviour which is the result of cultural and psychological warfare."
The reformist newspaper, Ayandehno, accused the makers of trying to set international opinion against Iran to fit President George Bush's description of the country as belonging to an "axis of evil".
"In the film Iranians are considered to be monsters devoid of any culture, humanity and wisdom who know nothing except attacking other lands, threatening peace and killing human beings. There is no option other than to confront, fight and destroy this wicked tribe so that the world can be saved from this axis of evil," the paper's film critic wrote.
It is not the first Hollywood production to cause upset in Iran. There was widespread anger over the favourable portrayal of Alexander the Great in the 2004 film, Alexander. The Macedonian king is reviled in Iranian culture for destroying the seat of Persian imperial greatness at Persepolis after defeating Emperor Darius III in 330BC.
On Guardian Unlimited
Guardian Unlimited Film” (close quote)
It seems that Leonidas is still thrashing the Persians after 2,500 years. I think this is definitely a case of “the woman doth protest too much!” Note that Tait even cuts the conservative 250,000 number used in the Movie in half. I guess that is to make the Iranians feel better to allow that they only a 12,000 to one handy cap to beat the Spartans. And look who is rooting for Ahmadinejad? MPs, bloggers, and the local media. Tate forgot to mention the Democrats in Congress and Flaccid.
I was interested to read that there are demands to ban this movie in Muslim countries because it insulted Persian culture. How conveniently the Islamic extremists forget how Arab Jihadists and Muslim Mongols obliterated the Persian culture in the name of Allah.
What is most telling is Ahmadinejad’s fear that the peoples of the West will see in Leonidas and his heroic band exemplars of George Bush and the heroes that fight now for the freedom of Iraq and the end to the rule of terrorist, whether they be Al Qaeda types hiding in caves and sewers or the despots manipulating the Middle Eastern hub of the Axes of Evil in Tehran.
I dont disagree with the notion that the role the 'heroes' were asked to play was difficult. i also dont think it was any less necessary NOR any less valuable.
And OF COURSE it could have been handled better. Counseling was pretty much dedicated to the rich or had in the form of career counseling. Things HAVE gotten somewhat better. But not completely.
Similar things happen all the time...missions that leave you feeling dirty because of your involvement. Its easy to get lost in the little picture and hard sometimes to see the big picture.
I dont deny his pain. I also still believe the PR effort was heroic in bringing an end to the Nazi and Japanese threat.
"He didn't need counseling, he needed and wanted to be left alone."
I disagree...he definitely needed counseling. But also...more importantly...his country needed him to be the public face of heroism. Not just his country...the world. Because I dont speak German very well.
The abrupt reappearance of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM)—and his brazen comparison of himself to George Washington—four years after the alleged 9/11 mastermind was captured in Pakistan should provoke some serious self-examination in the minds of Americans. The first question we need to ask ourselves is: does the Bush administration have any clue any longer how to fight the “war on terror” legally? The next question should be: can’t our next president, whoever he or she turns out to be, do any better than this?
Let’s hope so. Because if there is even a shadow of a doubt that the United States is losing the battle for hearts and minds to the self-confessed murderer of 3,000 people—that would be KSM—then something is very wrong. Let’s get one thing straight: despite his touching claim that he doesn’t like to kill “kids,” KSM is a very bad man. Most people frankly wouldn’t have much of a problem if he were waterboarded or beaten to an inch of his life in a dark room somewhere—which is almost certainly what happened to him in one of the CIA’s secret prisons.
But the fact that four years to the month after he was captured—near Islamabad in March 2003—KSM is just beginning the process of being deemed an “enemy combatant” at the “Combatant Status Review Tribunal Hearing” at Guantanamo Bay shows that something is indeed very wrong. The Bush administration has argued, with some legitimacy, that this is a new kind of war in which new rules are needed. Fair enough. But should it really require all this time, such a complicated series of court decisions and legislative maneuverings, to decide what those rules are?
The issue that the administration confronted after 9/11 was what to do with evil people like KSM. The Bush team decided that this was a war rather than a criminal matter—and a war unlike any other. Therefore, none of the previous rules of war, like the Geneva Conventions protections, applied, in their view. That left culprits like KSM in a legal limbo for four years while they were ferried around to secret prisons, long after their intelligence value had been milked dry (a process that by the estimate of most interrogators should take no longer than a year). Even some CIA officials were privately upset by this, fearing that the agency would be the fall guy in the end (they were right). “Where’s the off button?” sade one retired CIA official quoted two years ago in Newsweek in February 2005, before the military tribunals that KSM and others are being judged at—at long last—were created. Lawyers for the agency “asked the White House for direction on how to dispose of these detainees back when they asked for [interrogation] guidance. The answer was, ‘We’ll worry about that later.’ Now, we don’t know what to do with these guys.”
John Sifton of Human Rights Watch says the case of KSM and other key detainees—as well as some who are likely innocent—shows that the Bush administration has simply never defined what kind of enemy KSM is. Sifton adds: “This really is an example of how the war paradigm for counterterrorism—that it is only armed conflict—has backfired. Now we have a man comparing himself to George Washington. It might have been more appropriate to just call him a criminal and indict him in federal court, to say, ‘You’re no warrior, you’re no George Washington. You, sir, are a criminal'.”
Scott Horton, another prominent human-rights attorney, agrees. Had the case been handled properly, KSM’s confession to plotting 9/11 and many other actual or planned terror acts could have made him a “showcase defendant” for America’s cause, rallying support and allies around the world. “He could have been charged within six months of his detention and prosecuted in a proceeding, which would have added to the reputation of our country for justice,” says Horton, “and would have supported the righteousness of the cause of going after KSM.”
Instead, the legal black hole is only getting deeper. The transcript released Wednesday night indicates that KSM’s references to his previous treatment are all carefully redacted. Sifton and others say the redactions clearly indicate that KSM was referring to his secret interrogations—during which he might well have been physically abused. The question of whether such dubiously extracted testimony could be used in any legal proceeding will probably prolong his case for years to come. (Once KSM is determined to be an enemy combatant, he is expected to be tried.)
Sifton notes, accurately, that the administration has been wildly inconsistent over the past six years. Some terror suspects are held without recourse to habeas corpus at Gitmo; others have been prosecuted in the U.S. courts. In one case involving a Pakistani father and son living in New York, Saifullah and Uzair Paracha, the two have been treated completely differently. “The young Paracha is in federal prison. The older is at Gitmo,” said Sifton. (The father, Saifullah, was arrested in Bangkok; his son in the United States, both on suspicion of agreeing to help an Al Qaeda operative sneak into the United States to carry out a chemical attack.) “There are no principles guiding this. It would be fine if the “war on terror” were just a metaphor, but it’s not,” says Sifton.
Now America finds itself with too few allies in fighting the war on terror, often reviled abroad for its inattention to its own standards of justice. Worse, Washington is sometimes identified with the terrorists themselves in the minds of some people around the world. Why? Perhaps KSM said it best in his broken English at his hearing. “Same language you use, I use,” he said. The Americans, he declared in his rambling statement, “said every law, they have exceptions, this is your bad luck you been part of the exception of our laws … But we are doing same language … Never Islam give me green light to kill peoples. Killing, as in the Christianity, Jews, and Islam, are prohibited. But there are exceptions of rule when you are killing people of Iraq.”
“Same language you use, I use.” This, more than anything, is an indictment of the way the Bush administration has conducted this fight since 9/11. To paraphrase Thomas More in “A Man for All Seasons,” if we cut down all the laws to get at the devil—as the administration has done against Al Qaeda—then we will find ourselves without protection. This legal and conceptual void has cost America its high moral ground—ground that was so hard-won through so many honorably fought wars (with lonely exceptions like My Lai) during our history.
The Bush administration has maintained from the outset that it could give no quarter to the terrorists, and that unusual methods were required to extract information from suspects in order to pre-empt another attack. But now, by letting KSM and others remain in legal limbo and gradually expanding his definition of the war on terror to include all Islamic “extremists”—among them Hezbollah and Hamas—President Bush may have condemned us to a permanent war. A war in which we are, again, waging an uncomfortably lonely fight, since almost no other country agrees on such a broadly defined enemy.
The next American president will be well advised to replace the “war on terror” with the kind of coordinated effort that the fight always should have entailed. In other words, the hunt for the culprits of 9/11 was never simply a war or a criminal manhunt. It was always both, a hybrid covert-war-and-criminal roundup—one in which clear legal rules should have been set to brand terrorists like KSM as outlaws in the international system. The Geneva Conventions should have been applied; suspects should have had lawyers; cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment should have been expressly prohibited. Only if the next president sets the rules more clearly and does a better job of discriminating who the enemy is can we have any hope of winning.
Fav Student...
Gladys Knight is AT LEAST as qualified as two of the three candidates you mentioned.
Seems like the only historical movies that should be made are the ones that portray white European and Americans as evil and monstrous. As long as everyone gets that only white anglo capitalists have done anything wrong in history, then the message is acceptable.
Comparing bedfellows can teach interesting lessons.
The abrupt reappearance of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM)—and his brazen comparison of himself to George Washington
Actually he compared Osama Bin Laden to Washington. The big difference of course is that Washington was a colonist fighting for freedom for America against the control of another Country while Osama is a Saudi, killing Arabs and anyone else he can, fighting for the freedom...of who again?
-The first question we need to ask ourselves is: does the Bush administration have any clue any longer how to fight the “war on terror” legally?
No. I disagree. The first question you should ask is "SHOULD we fight the war against terrorists?"
The SECOND question should be "what are our options in fighting the war on terror?"
The THIRD question should be "Why isnt congress...the constitutionally provided legislative branch of our government...not involved in combating terrorists and leaving it to the president to dictate policy?"
The FOURTH question should be "what is the democrats plan or solutions if they dont like what is the current plan?"
-The next question should be: can’t our next president, whoever he or she turns out to be, do any better than this?
Lord...when will we learn? It is the job of CONGRESS to enact legislation. WHY oh WHY do we seek to return to monarchy?
Because after all...Bill Clinton spent 8 years appeasing the terrorists and 'winning; friends. Bill Clinton spent 8 years ignoring the problems of terrorism in America and around the world. Bill Clinton spent 8 years paying off the UN and North Korea and Iran...giving them money whenever they rattled their saber but then sticking their head back in the sand to ignore the fact that they were still developing weapons.
-shadoow of a doubt that the United States is losing the battle for hearts and minds to the self-confessed murderer of 3,000 people—that would be KSM—then something is very wrong.
The only thing that is WRONG is that politicians in this country since day one of the Bush administration have been plotting the day when they could retake power. How on EARTH can we expect there to be positive progress in the war on terror or winning the hearts and minds of others when 3 days after 9-11 democrats are clamoring for Bush's head because he didnt panic and run out of the school when he was told about the first attack. Because he spent 5 minutes transitioning his exit so a bunch of kids didn't freak out, he is labeled and ridiculed...and that was just the beginning.
He followed the nations security plan and what was the democrats public response? Where is the president? Where is the vice president? Why are they hiding?
It was less than two weeks later that the first claims started that it was the Bush administration that orchestrated the attacks, that there WERE no attacks, that the Bush administration knew about everything in advance and allowed it to occur, that we flew Saudi terrorists out of the country covertly, that the whole thing was a sham that allowed us to attack al qaida, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and ultimately Iraq so he could finish of his fathers war. Bush orchestrated everything so he could pay his buddies at Haliburton billions to rebuild the damage. Bush caused the war so he could steal their oil. And on and on and on.
How many times have our distinguished senators taken the floor and railed against Bush, against our own soldiers, against everything we have done?
You wonder why we have not won the hearts and minds of others?
How large a role has the media played to destroy this nations credibility? Did the media ever once question Clinton and his actions? Have they ever stopped to compare the statements and intel of Clinton and Bush? When the cries of lies and treason go up, why dont they examine the words of Clinton, Albright, Gore, and every other significant leader in the democrat party over the course of the last 10 years?
The Bush administration has argued, with some legitimacy, that this is a new kind of war in which new rules are needed. Fair enough. But should it really require all this time, such a complicated series of court decisions and legislative maneuverings, to decide what those rules are?
I dont know. Do you? What WOULD be the right amount of time? I mean after all...this IS a new day. It IS a new war...a war not on countries but on people that seek to slaughter innocents. We have never fought this kind of wear before (and that is pretty sad...dont you think?).
maybe it WOULD have gone faster if we had unity in our government. Maybe it would have gone faster if both sides agreed fighting murderers that thought nothing of executing a school full of children was a worthy battle. Maybe it could have gone faster if we didnt have people clamoring for the US constitutional rights of people that would rape, mutilate and slaughter a family of children before their parents eyes.
The issue that the administration confronted after 9/11 was what to do with evil people like KSM.
YES. That IS the issue. Unlike previous administrations and no doubt like future democrat administrations, this IS the issue. The Bush administration didnt bury their head in the sand following terror attacks. They pro actively waged WAR against the terrorists. And until you give me ALTERNATIVES, then you have little room for complaint.
John Sifton of Human Rights Watch
I wonder if Mr Sifton ahs ever bothered to address all the terrorists or if he ONLY directs his human rights scorn at the country where he KNOWS damn good and well that he will be safe in...PRECISELY because there are people that DO fight for his safety.
That people give this credibility is MIND NUMBING. That they use this as an argument against Bush is corrupt. “said every law, they have exceptions""Never Islam give me green light to kill peoples. Killing, as in the Christianity, Jews, and Islam, are prohibited. But there are exceptions of rule when you are killing people of Iraq.”
Except of course these scumbags have been doing it for 50 years. They have been executing people in wheelchairs, children in schools, families in Tibet...sort of hard to blame that all on Bush and Iraq, isnt it? Well obviously...no. It is ALL TOO EASY when your audience LOVES your message.
“Same language you use, I use.”
Lets see...we stop fighting terror and what happens? They stop slaughtering innocent men women and children and what happens?
This is the type of posting I was referring to yesterday. This is the ILK I was referring to.
As if the person writing that post gives a DAMN about winning the war on terror. They only have ONE ENEMY they want to defeat.
"Lord...when will we learn? It is the job of CONGRESS to enact legislation. WHY oh WHY do we seek to return to monarchy?"
Because Congress is full of selfish cowards, that's why. Even in his first term, Bush acted like he had nothing to lose. Whether you agree or disagree with him, he stands up to do what he sees as the right thing. And what do we get from the legislative branch? The exercise of any checks or balances? NO! Nothing but commentary, both for and against. They might as well be media pundits as legislators.
So what do we do? Some would point to this as evidence of the need for congressional term limits. I say let's limit their terms ourselves. Vote out the do-nothing incumbents! They need to fear doing nothing more than they fear doing something unpopular. It looks like that's the way the president feels.
unless mr michael hirsh himself has posted his most recent article here at the agora... then it would appear that anonymous has once again proven he can't think an original thought of his own
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17630160/site/newsweek/
and
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17630160/site/newsweek/page/2/
not that any of us are really surprised.
The immature, simplistic idea that Mohammed (KSM) is solely responsible for the murders he has confessed to, is so childish as to hardly merit response. However,Mindmechanic responded very well. I simply reiterate.
Of course this terrorist murder did the evil things he admits, or at least a good share of them, and his life and freedom are forfeit. but his guilt does not absolve the evils of his cronies.
As for the Battle for the Hearts and Minds – it is not the Islamic Fanatics that are winning that battle. It is America’s media the leaders of the Democrat Party, and their minions such a John Sifton and Human Rights Watch that are carrying the terrorist’s water in this fight. These un-patriotic Americans are far more interested in their own power than in the safety of their country, and have foolishly betrayed America in that fight. There is little consolation in knowing that the liberals they pretend to represent will be the first to die under the Islamic Republic their infamy may well empowered. Like the movie Ephors in *300*, they have sold their country of gold and power. But for George Bush and the forces he leads, they would bring their own ruin along with that of the rest of us.
It is painfully obvious that it is the clear parallels between the misapplication of law by the traitors at Sparta and the misapplication of law by the smooth tongued lawyers such as Scott Horton, here in America, that has got so many “liberals” in knots over *300*.
How stupid does Mohammad think we are? To claim that Americans are killing Iraqis while it is the Muslim terrorists that are killing Iraqis and American soldiers that are risking their lives while our nations spends its treasure to save the lives and freedom of the people of Iraq.
The internment of illegal combatants is completely within the law. Thomas More would have no beef with George Bush, a man with whom he would find he had much in common.
Like Muhammad, Flaccid makes nonsensical claims with no evidence or reason to support them; and when all else fails, they lie. The Geneva Conventions are always applied by the United States. It is the terrorists that commit war crimes daily with the unmilitary and criminal attacks on noncombatants that are their only weapon.
Favorite Student;
I agree with Mindmechanic – Gladys Knight is far more qualified than Obama or Clinton to lead this nation. We can once more be thankful that none of them are. We will be in danger indeed if any of them do become President.
A Quiet Listener:
Thank you for your efforts to keep Flaccid honest. Good luck!
Lysis,
I enjoyed the movie review. I haven’t seen the movie so I can offer no real opinion; however, as always I read the comments generated with great interest.
Mr. Michael Hirsch (thanks, quiet listener),
Concerning President Bush and the war in Iraq, you post: “But should (the prosecution of the war) really require all this time, such a complicated series of court decisions and legislative maneuverings, to decide what those rules are?”
I think you ask a rhetorical question here, Mr. Hirsch. Of course it shouldn’t have taken so long for the President to wade through the malaise of secret, unconstitutional (FISA) court decisions and power grabbing (liberal) legislative maneuverings to decide what the rules are to prosecute the war.
Bush’s failings have not been connected to “a complicated series of court decisions and legislative maneuverings to decide what those rules are.” His “failings” are connected to not fighting those fights more vocally and aggressively in the public eye. His “failing” is that he has not educated the people of the nation in his constitutionally granted powers as Commander-In-Chief. Sadly, that responsibility was turned over to a liberal Academia years ago, and we can all clearly see those results.
You continue: “Now America finds itself with too few allies in fighting the war on terror, often reviled abroad for its inattention to its own standards of justice.”
If what you post is accurate, it is saddening the world lacks the ability to recognize the enemy. What is more saddening is your own inability, as a seemingly informed American, to recognize the enemy.
You conclude: “It was always both, a hybrid covert-war-and-criminal roundup—one in which clear legal rules should have been set to brand terrorists like KSM as outlaws in the international system. The Geneva Conventions should have been applied; suspects should have had lawyers; cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment should have been expressly prohibited. Only if the next president sets the rules more clearly and does a better job of discriminating who the enemy is can we have any hope of winning.”
The “international system?” Is that the same system the Germans, French, and Russians belong to? On one thing we can certainly agree, Bush certainly should have been more discriminating about who his enemies really are. They are those who thirst for power at the expense of everything dear, even their own nation.
MindMechanic,
I find it very interesting to watch those who decry the war on terror. I often feel like you do when you suggest ““It all just gets so exhausting. Every talk show, every radio program, every comedian, every news story, heck...I listen to sattelite radio and I cant even escape it on the sports shows.”
What might the result be if those who fight the war on terror are silenced? I shudder to think about it. Being silent at this most critical time, especially in the face of such outspoken opposition, could spell certain defeat in the prosecution of the war.
I have no desire to revisit the abortion debate we discussed a couple of threads ago; I have immense respect for your opinions and posting; nevertheless I do think this discussion is instructive on why I believe that debate can’t be pursued quietly and behind the scenes with any success.
I only wish to perhaps persuade you to view that debate from another perspective.
If the supporters of the war on terror are silenced, America will be defeated. If the critics of abortion are silenced, the slaughter will continue unabated.
Rumpole...
Thanks for caring. And I agree...I dont want to revisit the abortion debate either. I hope you understand...I don't want the anti abortion voices SILENCED. I just want them to engage the debate in a manner 'I' deem constructive. Which is of course subjective and may be different from what 'you' deem constructive. But thats what 'I' want.
I wouldn't mind the anti war voices either...provided they weren't based solely on hatred and DID actually offer something realistic and valid to the debate.
I was walking along the street yesturday under the overpass there is a stand where they sell pirated film, on a little T.V. they were showing Apocalypto. It was the part where Jaguar Paw comes out of the water and shouts his challenge to his persuers. This is one of the only sceans in the movie that I like, when he said that this is his forest and his children and grandchildren will play, I mean hunt, in it after he is gone, I was of coarse reminded of that certain camp director who protected and preserved his forest for his children and grandchildren to play, I mean hunt, in. Rage on, Blog warrior rage on.
Last night I was walking along the street, under an overpass there is a little stand where they sell pirated dvd´s on a little screan they were showing Apocalypto. It was the part where jaguar paw comes out of the water and shouts his challenge to his persuers. This was one of the only parts in the movie that I liked. When Jahuar paw said that this was his forest and that his children and grandchildren would play, I mean hunt, in this forest after he was gone, I was reminded again of that certain camp director who saved his forest so his children and grandchildren could play, I mean hunt, there. Rage on blog warrior, rage on.
I don´t know why that post posted twice and once under a different name but it´s really me Boy, I also can´t seem to erase the thyna post.
Boy:
I'm so glad you saw the clip from Apocalypto and that it brought such pleasant thoughts to your mind.
I am also very proud of you and the adventures you have chosen to seek in your life.
Note;
To all who are kind enough to read at the Agora - I am in the middle of making changes to my computer programs. My Philosophy Master/Computer Geek, also boy friend to my Latin Translator, has just installed our new Windows Vista. Many of our other programs are yet to be updated and I am relearning the hows and wheres of much of the computer.
I'll keep you updated – but it might be a few days before I can put up this weeks topic for your discussion here in the Agora. So sorry, I will rage on, and I hope you will stick with me.
is it not true that Leonidas had destroyed parts of persia before this battle and that is partly reason for the attack on sparta by the persians?
be kind, i am only wondering, not trying to spout false acusations; i am only trying to gain a basic knowledge of the actual battle it'self and the history before it.
(and now for my watered down review of the movie, as if any of you actually needed it)
the last battle of the movie seemed quite lame for lack of a bettter word. not the very last scene but the scene where leonidas finally made xerxes bleed.
i'm fairly sure that those 300 spartans would not have given up so easily in combat as they did in that scene. it felt like they had given up and from what i understand of actual history that battle last quite a while and leonidas actually died and there was a fight over the body. (resulting, of course, the persians had his head put on a pike) it just didnt seem right, all of the soldiers just threw their shield down and let the beating come in.
in my opinion, the movie was amazing enough to go see at least 300 times, (if you see it at the imax theatre at least 150 of the times) but there were some things i thought the movie could do without, such as the awkward sex scene. ok, i understand that it was the last time that leonidas and his wife would have the chance to show their feelings for each other in that way, but! on the other hand, it could have been done without making everyone in the room cringe.
hmm. i cant think of any higher contingents than that, but there was one thing that bothered me the whole time and it was the hunchback of sparta... i realize that there was a deformity involved in the story, but they giant eye was a little much. (haha, i just realized what i said, and have come to remember that there were many other creatures in the film that were just as strange if not more so. =S)
so basically. if you havent seen this movie, you probably should, and you should go in the spirit of action, not reality.
this movie has everything, action, comedy and romance, (aka, "everything" in the eye's of me) there were scenes in this movie where there was not a single person sitting in their chair; and scenes that made every woman in the room pant; and on a more threatening note, scenes that made every guy in the room have a strange need to go to the gym or beat somebody up.
if you have seen 300, but in a regular theatre, than you pretty much wasted your money, because imax is sooo much better, considering that you get soo much more picture in imax than in a regular theatre)
done and done...
>JD<
(wannabe spartan soldier)
nd someone please inform me of how i may recieve an idendity in this blog, in stead of being known as the ever tedeous, anonymous...
Anonymous said...
is it not true that Leonidas had destroyed parts of persia before this battle and that is partly reason for the attack on sparta by the persians?
be kind, i am only wondering, not trying to spout false acusations; i am only trying to gain a basic knowledge of the actual battle it'self and the history before it.
(and now for my watered down review of the movie, as if any of you actually needed it)
the last battle of the movie seemed quite lame for lack of a bettter word. not the very last scene but the scene where leonidas finally made xerxes bleed.
i'm fairly sure that those 300 spartans would not have given up so easily in combat as they did in that scene. it felt like they had given up and from what i understand of actual history that battle last quite a while and leonidas actually died and there was a fight over the body. (resulting, of course, the persians had his head put on a pike) it just didnt seem right, all of the soldiers just threw their shield down and let the beating come in.
in my opinion, the movie was amazing enough to go see at least 300 times, (if you see it at the imax theatre at least 150 of the times) but there were some things i thought the movie could do without, such as the awkward sex scene. ok, i understand that it was the last time that leonidas and his wife would have the chance to show their feelings for each other in that way, but! on the other hand, it could have been done without making everyone in the room cringe.
hmm. i cant think of any higher contingents than that, but there was one thing that bothered me the whole time and it was the hunchback of sparta... i realize that there was a deformity involved in the story, but they giant eye was a little much. (haha, i just realized what i said, and have come to remember that there were many other creatures in the film that were just as strange if not more so. =S)
so basically. if you havent seen this movie, you probably should, and you should go in the spirit of action, not reality.
this movie has everything, action, comedy and romance, (aka, "everything" in the eye's of me) there were scenes in this movie where there was not a single person sitting in their chair; and scenes that made every woman in the room pant; and on a more threatening note, scenes that made every guy in the room have a strange need to go to the gym or beat somebody up.
if you have seen 300, but in a regular theatre, than you pretty much wasted your money, because imax is sooo much better, considering that you get soo much more picture in imax than in a regular theatre)
done and done...
>JD<
(wannabe spartan soldier)
9:09 PM
Anonymous said...
nd someone please inform me of how i may recieve an idendity in this blog, in stead of being known as the ever tedeous, anonymous...
Ηello, Νeаt post. There is an issue alоng wіth
your site іn internet explorer, coulԁ test this?
IE still is the maгket leaԁer and a good paгt of people will ρaѕѕ οveг уour excellеnt writing due to this pгoblem.
Look at my ρage :: Lloyd Irvin
This ρaгagraph will aѕsist the internet useгs foг
сreating new weblοg or even a blog from stаrt tο end.
my blog: reputation management
Post a Comment