chewbecca
Posted : 4/9/2007 7:23:53 AM
ORIGINAL: Xerxes
I agree that it is an artistic film, painted as a triumphant tragedy. The film was very well done. There are several details that are historically inaccurate but most people won't notice them.
I thought that the Persians were exaggeratedly bad, and of course Xerxes himself was made into a larger than life figure-better for the story. But as far as gore goes, I thought that this movie concentrated more on the story than on the "gory details." In fact other than a couple of scenes, there really wasn't that much at all.
You really think they were exaggerated badly? I thought so at first, but then I got to thinking about it as I watched it and I thought that since Xerxes was thought of as a God-King, that exaggerating him in the movie was about as a word by word definition as one could hope for. I think visually, adding the exaggeration really emphasized the arrogance that almost only a "God-King" could have. And I think that by making the Persian soldiers grotesque, magical, and weird kind of was a crack, not just on mythology, but the weird mystery and, well, mysticism that kind of would encompass people that were bold enough to worship a human "God-King".
I thought, overall, the movie had a wonderful balance of timing for its emphasis. During the battle scenes, it wasn't too gory, but it got the point across that it was not easy battling. It had a cheesy effect of the whole "the most determined team can win a battle no matter how small the team is" for a while and it showed it well. It was kind of predictable, but well put.
Damn, now I'm all deeply analyzing this movie and I'm being a HUGE dork.