300 Reasons Not to Watch This Rubbish

From the makers of Sin City, a film spoken of in hushed tones by critics and punters alike, a film that after thirty seconds I was literally screaming at my friends to turn off as the pompous, appallingly over-stylised and pretentious drivel was having the same effect as the US military’s new vomit weapons, comes another graphic-novel-inspired thing they show in cinemas.

With 300 however, I actually managed a full minute and a half (or however long the trailer lasted) of the exact same symptoms. Perhaps the small size of the player in my browser lessened the effect of the hideously stylised CGI. Even the non CGI visuals are ghastly, using that dated over-saturated look that advertisers like to depict black children in hot countries with to sell mobile phones or savings accounts. Piles of gut wrenchingly awful slow-motion (I mean is this actually in the film? I thought film makers had stamped out this hideously naff effect) and turgid soft metal make it seem more like a music video than a film. I suspect this may not have been unintentional but then why not just show it on MTV rather than wasting cinema screening time?

And when will filmmakers realise that CGI effects are just ugly. You don’t hear about people asking for their portrait in CGI. It just looks bad. Sure you can create lots of action sequences that would cost a fortune to actually film but they never really look convincing let alone artistic. Both the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Star Wars prequels are more like cartoons than films, with battle sequences evoking as much visceral thrill as an elaborate game of skittles. I mean, when a character can surf down the trunk of a giant elephant as it crashes to the ground it’s hard to feel any real vicarious thrills in the way that, say, Raiders of the Lost Ark, evoked. I’m presuming 300 at least doesn’t have anything quite so ridiculous as this but apparently the film is very violent.

Duh. Of course! Film morons are bound to love it. It’s ‘shockingly’ violent, hence credible (think Scorsese, Tarantino, Peckinpah etc.). What I don’t get is why the idiots who thank that violence = quality don’t make a feature length Tom & Jerry compilation and put that at the top of their best film lists. Of course, they would need to intersperse the violence with periods of relentless boredom, a la Raging Bull, Taxi Driver etc, and lots of macho bravado, perhaps Tom peeing and scratching the furniture, thus making it a study of ‘machismo’ or something. Tossers.

I don’t even need to see this film to know that it’s dreadful. There shouldn’t even be any need to write film reviews when it’s patently obvious that 99% of films released these days are a complete waste of time. Sod the cinema. Get a book from the library and give the money to a charity instead. Idiots.