hey i dont know about Mr RAJA, but if you want to see the movie in US theatre, forget this week, all are house full, movie is going to be a blockbuster
there is genre of novel writing, known as graphic novels..and if you would kindly note this film self proclaims being adapted from a graphic novel.. hence the effects, locales, brutal action seems different to an average guy.. considering this and movie itself.i feel this is one helluva movie to watch.. so i would personally give it 5 stars.. u gotta watch the movie to experience it..thats all i gotta say .. till then cheers
if u realise, this is a graphic novel adaption. and being true to that, its unreal. seen sin-city? guess you guys would have rated it in the negatives as its completely unreal.
"extreme, stylised unreality" is what its suposed to be. and a 3.5 rating is what it deserves.
Eh Raja..what a review man. I guess you are seeing this movie straight after DDLJ. Try understanding the concept before blabbering any crap. sorry to say so but i think this was short of a masterpiece.
I think Mr. Raja you should watch the movie with subtitles on...You actually did not understand the concept....the movie clearly says that its an adaptation of the graphic novel(comic to make it simpler for you!). i think you should stick on mithun da's movies....those suit the best for you!
So wat did u expect when u watched the promo?? Citizen kane?? Learn to appreciate dynamism as it comes or people like you should only review movies which are " Popular with the audiences". It is based on a comic book and I think you haven't ever reviewed any movie which is out of the box. So take your DVD player and go to the cave you came from, cause that's where you belong.
RE:What did u expect
by Abhinav The Great ! on Mar 18, 2007 07:27 AM
Mr. Banerjee I completely agree to you....this guy is actually disrespecting a beautiful piece of work!
raja sen what an interesting guy . not even a single review of him I found good. If raja sen gives bad review to a film then its a must watch is whatmy experience till date .
RE:300
by Indranuj Dey on Mar 18, 2007 11:57 AM
egggggzactly!!! as i have read a bad reveiw by this guy,now i will surely watch the movie in theaters as this is bound to be good!!!!
I posted something similar last time, but rediff felt that referring to people attracted to the same gender is somehow abusive. So, a repost :)
It's a visually stunning film, great action sequences. I saw it about a week and a half ago, and it was playing to full houses in the united states. However, I agree with Raja in that it would have been a much better film had they not been so loyal to the dumb cartoon that Frank Miller penned.
Here's what history has to say: Leonidas did lead 300 spartans into war with Xerxes' army at Thermopylae, killing 10,000-20,000 persians. Spartans actually had a lot of armour on them, which helped them against the Persians who fought without it. They were sent to buy time so that the other greek city-states could mount an army (everybody busy with the olympic games, important religious event). They were betrayed by one of their own who showed the persians an alternate path. However, the senators were not bribed.
What was really bad, IMHO, was the depiction of the Persians. They have depicted persians employing an army of slaves. Cyrus, Xerxes' grandfather had made slavery illegal. In fact, Cyrus' cylinder is a famous piece of history, on display at the UN, as the first declaration of human rights. Xerxes himself was probably a Zoarastrian (aka Parsi) and he didnt consider himself as a God. Persians dont even look like that. Most are fair, almost white. A few of arab descent have brown skin. The Persians seem to have an army of mutants, with blades for hands, or extra strong and tall ogres. Gunpower wasnt invented until 1200AD or so in China but it seemed to be used here. I dont know if this part was shown in India, but Xerxes' camp is full of naked women kissing each other and stuff like that. Xerxes himself is portrayed as effeminate. The persians in those days too kept long beards!
If you ask me, it sounded like propaganda for war on Iran, with one side going on about freedom, liberty and democracy and against tyranny and slavery. All very nice, if only it had been true... This could have been a great film had it been true to history instead of Miller's version of history... It is, as it stands a gore fest, like Apocalypto. They could have fictionalized everything or nothing. However, by using real names and events but presenting a distorted version of history, they've reduced what the film could have been. As it stands, a Gladiator it is not.
RE:Nice graphics, but distorts history
by roshan rawal on Jun 01, 2007 06:04 PM
Maximus,
I donot know how are you and where you belong. But your observations are very straight, that of looks of persians, that of gun powder, that of slavery, that of Nude women camps etc. This movie sometimes sounds baised and one sided. But the very fact that few hundred man opted to stand up against a huge army, what ever the number could be, is thrilling! esp when king himself comes and dies.
RE:Nice graphics, but distorts history
by on Mar 18, 2007 10:56 AM
lol know ur histroy you wrong us greeks didnt need the armor to fight. We actually had long sheilds and no armor the persians had light armor- This war (persian war) lasted 27 years and this specific battle defined the entire war. Get your facts straight!
RE:RE:Nice graphics, but distorts history
by Maximus Decimus Meridius on Mar 18, 2007 12:35 PM
Really? US GREEKS? Yeah, right, I believe that. FYI... google up spartan armor... you'll be surprised at what you find... :D
I know my history, I just dont care for your version of it.
RE:Nice graphics, but distorts history
by on Mar 18, 2007 10:55 AM
lol know ur histroy you wrong us greeks didnt need the armor to fight. nice try try hard!
RE:Nice graphics, but distorts history
by Maximus Decimus Meridius on Mar 17, 2007 09:57 PM
PS: Arab influence in persia didnt happen until around 1100-1200 AD. That's when the Parsis fled Persia for India...
It would be great if you could let the audience set their review ratings, and put that up against the reviewer's rating. It gives everybody two perspectives. Rather than just having one point of view. I just guess from the comments, that a lot of people felt not only do they wanted to comment on just how bad the review was, they would also ideally want to put in their rating as well for the movie.
