If I could describe 300 in one word, I would say “exaggerated.” Adapted from a graphic novel by Frank Miller, knowing this I now understand why the writers and directors chose the route they did when creating this film. I am unsure, however, what exactly they were attempting to accomplish; was it meant to be comedic or was it meant to be taken in a more serious manner? Overall, this film did leave quite an impression but not in the positive way that one would expect. Going askew from the features that make up a traditional film based on historical affairs such as Gladiator or Troy, director Zack Snyder takes more of a hyper-stylized visual approach to depicting the Battle of Thermopylae, where King Leonidas of the Spartans and his 300 elite guards defied their Oracle and the odds to go to war against Xerxes' huge, unrelenting Persian army. Faced with the decision of submitting to Xerxes or waging war, Leonidas made the only choice a king of warriors could: fight. He also discovered that although he and his army are grossly outnumbered, they could embrace victory by funneling the …show more content…
Seeing that the trailer consisted of deformed creatures and grotesque monsters, I was already aware that this film was not going to heavily focus on historical accuracy so the focal point of this particular critique is not towards those aspects but rather towards how the film portrayed its version of historical events and towards its effectiveness. I will immediately mention that this is no masterpiece theater rendition of ancient history. However, it is at the same time impressive and disarming to see the 300 men delight in the "glory" of warfare and to see the Spartans, so drunk on warlust that they dismember, skewer, decapitate, and spear the enemy (whether it's human, animal, or something in between) perform so valiantly, but also with a bit