The Ides of March review

Here: http://meetinthelobby.com/a-vote-for-george-the-ides-of-march-film-review.html

300 Review

Director: Zack Snyder

Starring: Gerard Butler, Lena Headey, David Wenham

When a film is best known for a single line of dialogue, and that line has become infamous for its recyclability and sheer insaneness rather than its quality or humour, you can forgive me for not having the highest of expectations for it. Telling the story of the Battle or Thermopylae, 300 pits a group of (wait for it) three hundred Spartans against a Persian army of approximately one gajillion. If you’re already questioning exactly how historically accurate this film is, stop. According to director Zack Snyder the previously historically accurate battle formations were changed to ones that made the film ‘look cool’. ‘Nuff said.

Snyder has been Hollywood’s go-to guy for any project with the word ‘stylised’ (or anthropomorphised owls, if Legends of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole is anything to go by) in the description since this 2006 outing, and it’s difficult to argue against this reputation. The film’s look is certainly distinctive, distinguishing it from the sword and sandal epics of old, and the darker visuals lend themselves to the gory violence nicely. However, there is a thin line between ‘stylised’ and indulgent, repetitive crap, and Snyder doesn’t so much walk it as jump across it, spit on it, and then remove the line’s existence from history because it was stopping the group from ‘looking cool’. The visuals are all well and good, but so much of the action is in slow motion that it both stops being noticeable and simultaneously slows the action to a snail’s pace at points.

There are two basic formulas for successful action movies; relentless, balls-to-the-wall action for virtually the entire film, or more thoughtful, ambiguous movies which combine action with non-action sequences. Around ninety percent of 300 is the former, but the remaining ten percent drags to an almost impossible degree. The dialogue sounds as though every line has been specifically designed to be as hyperbolic and kitschy as possible. Whilst fans of the original graphic novel may claim this is part of the film’s appeal, for the casual movie goer, there’s only so many times you can hear one of umpteen variations on ‘FOR SPARTA! FOR FREEDOM! TO THE DEATH!’ before simply tuning out.

Speaking of tuning out, it’s probably best done for the soundtrack too; a frankly bizarre mix of Lord of the Rings-inspired operatic numbers, interspersed by anachronistic electric guitar pieces, it reeks of a film so desperate to be successful with its target demographic that it’s a wonder they didn’t give the Spartans M16s.

The two warring sides, the Spartans and the Persians, are moronic to say the least. The portrayal of the respective armies is so black and white that they may as well be referred to as ‘goodies’ and ‘baddies’. The Spartans are shown to be muscle-bound demi-Gods whose penchant for violence is all for the good of their country. The Persians, meanwhile, are deformed freaks (their king Xerxes is nine feet tall for no apparent reason), stupid and barbaric. As loosely as the writers (Snyder, Kurt Johnstad, Michael Gordon) use their historical basis, it’s difficult to see these respective depictions as anything other than both revisionist and racist.

Given the amount of post-production and CGI-enhancing the film went through (only one shot wasn’t done in front of a blue screen) it’s a wonder Snyder and co. decided to use real actors at all. Despite some considerable talent (Dominic West, Michael Fassbender), the ‘acting’ in 300 essentially amounts to yelling epithets whilst waving their loincloths around. Gerard Butler’s acting brief appears to have been to growl two lines, shout one, repeat.

A 2013 prequel to 300 has been announced, which may well prompt a critical reevaluation of 300. I’m sure that the prequel will, rather than focusing on violent action, seek to answer questions raised by the first instalment, such as what happened to Sparta’s clothes? Why are all Persians shown to be subhuman barbarians? Why did everything happen so slowly back then? Until then, however, these questions will unfortunately go unanswered.

3/10

Three films I'm looking forward to: J. Edgar, Lincoln, and The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt

J. Edgar

Director: Clint Eastwood

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer, Naomi Watts

Release: January 2012 (UK)

Compared to the other two films in this article, J. Edgar Hoover is arguably the least important and, dare I say, the least interesting. However, that is putting him up against two of the most recognisable faces of American history. Hoover’s place in history is fascinating and hotly contested, having been the face of the FBI during Prohibition and the Red scare, two eras in which the relationship between right and wrong became confused; criminals like John Dillinger, who was killed during Hoover’s tenure, was a hero to many, and from a contemporary point of view, the issues with the time of HUAC and the John Birch Society are plentiful.

Unlike many actors, Leonardo DiCaprio has never shied away from a challenge; after Titanic, he could have quite easily settled into taking roles in romantic dramas and raked it in. Instead, and to his credit, he’s consistently taken difficult, varying roles, most notably those from his partnership with Martin Scorsese, portraying an up-and-coming gangster with ulterior motives in the nineteenth century (Gangs of New York), the neurotic Howard Hughes (The Aviator), and a US Marshall (Shutter Island). It’ll be very interesting to see him try to tackle such a complex character.

Eastwood’s output has been somewhat erratic of late, but he is always able to make the audience think about what they’re watching and make an emotional impact, so a complex character portrait may well be a good match.

Anticipation rating: 6/10

Lincoln

Director: Steven Spielberg

Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Tommy Lee Jones

Release: December 2012

I’ve never been much of a Spielberg fan if I’m being totally honest – aside from his first few films, he seems to direct three or four average films to every good one. However, this biopic of America’s best known president Abraham Lincoln has all sorts of potential for one reason alone; Daniel Day-Lewis. Notoriously selective with his roles (he’s starred in just three films since 2005, including his Academy Award winning performance in There Will be Blood), Day-Lewis can stake a serious claim to be the greatest actor of his generation. Admittedly, for all his selectivity and his scarce appearances, the number of truly great films he has appeared in is disappointingly few, but this doesn’t take away from his ability. As much as my anticipation for Lincoln is fuelled by the wishful belief that he’ll simply carry his Daniel Plainview (his character from There Will be Blood) persona over into his portrayal of Honest Abe, complete with scene-dominating intensity and vein-popping anger.

I... drink... your... slaves... I DRINK THEM UP

As with all historical films, there’s the problem of accuracy and revisionism (as I mentioned in my review of The Help), and with Spielberg directing there’s always the risk that things could take a turn for the saccharine, but hope springs eternal.

Anticipation rating: 8/10

The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt

Director: Martin Scorsese

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio

Release: 2013

The final film of this piece, The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt is yet another historical biopic, this time directed by the inimitable Martin Scorsese. Very little is known about the project so far, but Scorsese’s new favourite leading man Leonardo DiCaprio is widely believed to be lined up to play the former president in the film, which focuses on his formative years and his role in the Spanish- American war.

Whilst I’m no fan of Spielberg, and I do like Eastwood, Scorsese has a similar affect on me than Day-Lewis does; anything he does, I want to see. If those two teamed up again, I’d look forward to it no matter what it was, a Will.i.am biopic, a Plan 9 for Outer Space remake, literally anything.

Teddy, clearly thrilled that his love for Mean Streets has paid off in the best way possible

Another reason for looking forward to Roosevelt is that I like seeing people get their dues. To the young generations of today, they most likely associate Teddy with the eponymous bears named for him, Robin Williams in Night at the Museum, or his various Chuck Norris-esque achievements, such as being shot before giving a speech, and opting to give the speech before going to hospital. Whilst this is all well and good, and helps keeps the legacy of the man alive, it also sells him short. Read any book on Roosevelt and it will tell you how undeniably vital a role he played in the creation of the nation of America we know today. Lincoln ended secession and brought the North and South, but Roosevelt was critical in developing national pride and united the people under a national identity. He has a place on Mt. Rushmore for a reason beyond his feats of bad-assery.

Whilst there has been some dissent towards the casting of DiCaprio as Roosevelt, I suspect much of it is fuelled by people growing tired of Scorsese’s repeated use of him (just be thankful it’s not Burton and Depp), particularly as the film focuses on Roosevelt before he becomes president.

Anticipation rating: 9/10