ROTTEN TOMATOES: Box Office Guru Wrapup: 300 Unleashes Box Office Bloodbath Comments

Box Office Guru Wrapup: 300 Unleashes Box Office Bloodbath

by Gitesh Pandya | March 12, 2007

Summary

The mighty Spartans won a glorious victory at North American theaters as the bloody war epic "300" exploded with a record-breaking opening and powered the overall marketplace to the biggest March weekend in box office history. Back to Article

(1-37 of 37 posts) | Reply

3263827 writes:
on Mar 12 2007 04:51 AM

[b]300 is exactly what Lucas order.[/b]
In the 90's as film prices soared George Lucas began talking about how digital would make epics economically feasable again. With only one scene shot outdoors and $70 million in the bank opening weekend 300 drives one more nail into the coffin of "that would cost too much." Now if only Lucas is right about the Indy script...

(Reply to this)

frogleg writes:
on Mar 12 2007 05:47 AM

That's an interesting observation. That method definitely works for "300", which was awesome. I wonder how many imitators there will be to that style and look? I can see it getting old rather quickly (remember "bullet time"?). "300" was awesome because it looks like the book and is pretty unique, but I hope we don't get too many jumping on this particular bandwagon.

(Reply to this)

red_wine writes:
on Mar 12 2007 06:41 AM

There was no way this movie wouldnt be a smash. Its like one of the greatest guy movies of the recent times and with trailers that cool, you sure dont end up with empty theatres. The movie will also do lotsa business with repeat viewings, which believe me a lot of guys would be doing. I'm already planning my third show with friends.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Mar 12 2007 06:51 AM

Not to rain on the parade, but this movie is going to drop quite a bit in it's 2nd weekend. Definetely over 50%. It's the definition of an Opening Weekend movie: the hype was huge, but all the fans saw it opening weekend. There won't be a lot to keep it going in the long run. That's how I see it, could be wrong.

(Reply to this)

FILMCZY writes:
on Mar 12 2007 07:03 AM

The movie was just okay. I was disappointed in the visuals: everything looked out-of-focus and blurry (and I saw it in IMAX). It appeared the backgrounds needed to be run through the computer one more time and cleaned up plus all the special effect shots were in the trailer--there was nothing new in the movie you had not already seen. I'm afraid LOTR has set the standard for fantasy films and this one just kinda laid there...perhaps a better director could have done something with what is an interesting story. I wouldn't call it a failure but it could have been much more...

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Mar 12 2007 07:30 AM

In reply to this comment (#857846)
Well, I haven't seen the movie yet (plan to Thursday) but I'm betting the reason the shots looked blurry and out of focus is because you saw it in IMAX. Unless a movie is shot specifically for that format (which I'm betting this wasn't) then there are going to be issues like that. Try seeing it again in a regular theater (if you liked it enough to see it twice) and see if you have the same problems.

(Reply to this)

adml_shake writes:
on Mar 12 2007 07:59 AM

In reply to this comment (#857846)
You need to go see it in another theater then, it was crisp and clear where I saw it. The graphics looked amazing and easily put anything in the LOTRs moives to shame. I don't see how this movie could have been any better.

(Reply to this)

Samwise Gamgee writes:
on Mar 12 2007 08:28 AM

Well, the styles of filming and editing were so different, I don't see how you could compare The Lord of the Rings to 300. For one, 300 was nearly all digital, hence only one scene being shot outside, and Lord of the Rings was nearly all shot with real elements. If they didn't have the exact background they needed, they blended two different, yet still real backbrounds rather than digitally create one. They shot almost everything on location, and even for the buildings, they mostly went with miniatures rather than computers. 300's goal wasn't to look real like Lord of the Rings' was. It was to look cool. Both succeeded, but since neither was trying to do the same thing, it's like comparing apples and oranges.

(Reply to this)

mikeyh writes:
on Mar 12 2007 08:34 AM

In reply to this comment (#857846)
from my understanding, the movie, though shown in IMAX, was not shot specifically for it. Meaning that it was shot to be shown in a standard theater, but since it was shown in IMAX, all they did was just stretch out the picture to fit the screen, which I have heard makes it look grainy and such. I suggest seeing it in a standard theater as it was amazing.

(Reply to this)

Kid_Ikarus writes:
on Mar 12 2007 09:42 AM

In reply to this comment (#857846)
ive seen quite a few movies at IMAX here in Irvine, and they all seem to have that problem. I think it's probrably just the fact that with such a huge screen, there is going to be some image degradation invovled.

(Reply to this)

Pilgermann writes:
on Mar 12 2007 10:47 AM

I think 300 is worth seeing since the battles are well done and exciting, and a lot of the visuals are pretty neat, but it is NOT an amazing film that all of the idiot fanboys make it out to be. There is too much slow motion (the dancing Oracle is one of the most idiotic things I've ever seen--it looked like a bad perfume commercial or something), the acting is mostly crappy (Lena Headey continues to suck), the sex scene was lame, the blood appeared to evaporate, the music was generic and uninspired, and I felt like the film's pace was clumsy.

The goat-headed dude in Xerxes' Love Shack was pretty damn funny, though, and whenever anyone said the name of Daxos it sounded like "duck sauce".

FILMCZY you must've gone to a crappy IMAX theater 'cause it looked quite lovely where I watched it. Many theaters are also showing it in digital which is a good alternative (it should be the same price as a 35mm show).

(Reply to this)

lrm8 writes:
on Mar 12 2007 11:09 AM

i enjoyed 300, even if it wasnt spectacularly awesomely breathtakingly amazing... the dialogue could have been better (it was adpated from a comic book, so i understand the limitation) and yes, there was just a little too much slow motion, but the visuals were everything they were cracked up to be, and i really liked the digital blood. what surprised me is that the theater was packed with people of all ages and pretty evenly matched men and women (although, this one couple saw fit to bring their 5 year old kid with them, WTF?)...

overall, not the greatest movie ever made (that goat guy was pretty goddamn funny), but it was supremely original in its visuals, which is enough for me. however, 300 doesn't exactly prove to me that snyder can handle a huge story like watchmen, although that picture of Rorsasch looks spot on. i will be cautiously optimistic about Watchmen until we start hearing some casting and a trailer...

(Reply to this)

LEGENDc writes:
on Mar 12 2007 11:21 AM

I liked the movie alot and think the second week will bring in about 50mil.
Best movie so far this year to see in the theater, a reason to have HiDef at home & Stereo Surround. The Fight scenes were awesome! The dialogue was laughable especially the narrator, and I also thought it was funny that all the women were topless, and that sex scene, WHAT WAS THAT? Overall B+

(Reply to this)

dudemovies writes:
on Mar 12 2007 11:38 AM

That sucks about Black Snake Moan. It was a really good movie but I think it was too odd to be given a wide release this one needed to start out slow and then expand.

(Reply to this)

TheIceGhost writes:
on Mar 12 2007 12:22 PM

I'm not surprised at all that 300 did as well as it did, and I hope more of Frank Miller's stuff gets brought to the big screen.

Saying that, I must confess I wasn't really a fan of this flick. There were some amazing shots to be sure (and if you're going to see it, the theater is the best bet) and a plethora of boobies but the whole thing was kind of, well, laughable.

From the Spartans being able to PUSH AN ELEPHANT OFF A MOUNTAIN, to a laughably gay man-god (there was actually a lot of laughable gay vibes going on throughout the film), to that big monster guy who was stabbed in the head AND KEPT FIGHTING, to the freakin' bubbling mass of flesh with nipples pierced and FLIPPERS FOR HANDS...I dunno, I was expecting something different, and better. It was good, but I was actually hoping for MORE blood and less Lord of the Rings knockoffs.

Then again, one of the kids I went with said it was one of the best movies he's seen in years so, it might just be me. My rating would actually coincide with that of the Tomatoe Meter for once; Fresh, but far from what it should of been.

(Reply to this)

dalonoman writes:
on Mar 12 2007 12:50 PM

I don't think some people have quite realized what kind of storytelling was going on with this movie. It was a mytholigical tale, and the creatures, feats of strength and steel were all fantastical because in mythology everything is grander and well- impossible in reality. That said it was a cool movie, but not an amazing mind altering movie.

BTW- the goat jamming on the harmonica was awesome!

(Reply to this)

the-russian writes:
on Mar 12 2007 01:20 PM

In reply to this comment (#857856)
Not to get picky, but I don't think they pushed the elephants off the cliff. I believe they mentioned in the film that they were big, clumsy beasts, and on top of that the ground was unstable due to all the dead bodies (I know for a fact they made a point of this in the book).

But I agree about all the mythical, monster-type creatures. None of those appeared in the book, and they made the movie seem sort of videogame-like. I'm wondering whose idea it was to add all of them. Ephialtes, the hunchback soldier, was the extent of any fantastic creatures in the book.

(Reply to this)

monkeyonaspring writes:
on Mar 12 2007 01:34 PM

In reply to this comment (#857856)
Dude they didn't PUSH the elephant off. If you had listened to the narration the elephants slipped on the mounds of bodies and FELL off. plus having a wall of spears in front of them made them a little jumpy and so as they backed up they slipped.

But anyway, I am very happy for the film's success and Miller's success as he deserves every bit of it. I personally loved the film even with its flaws (the acting, dialogue, etc) because its point wasn't to be anything more than pure guy entertainment which it scores perfectly at.

Cheers!

(Reply to this)

unbreakable_samurai writes:
on Mar 12 2007 02:49 PM

I enjoyed it, it wasn't a masterpiece, it was kinda like Gladiator meets Sin City but not as good as either one of them. It is the best film of the year so far though(A-). Supprisingly kinda predictable amongst other flaws but a really enjoyable film. Lena Headey is damn hot. I also saw Amazing Grace which was a solid drama(B).

(Reply to this)

Z-Man writes:
on Mar 12 2007 03:04 PM

In reply to this comment (#857845)
50% sounds right; the movie most likely will end 150-200 million. It may be the definition of an Opening Weekend movie but that doesn't stop strong word of mouth, repeat veiwings, and the lack of competition next weekend.

(Reply to this)

tanukizilla writes:
on Mar 12 2007 03:22 PM

Glad it did so well, and no surprise at the numbers. At my school almost everyone was taking about 300. I don't think it'll die off in the box office anytime soon because, like Zee-Mann said, there's a strong word of mouth.

(Reply to this)

GreenBastard writes:
on Mar 12 2007 03:32 PM

And 300 has 62% on the Tomatometer!
Some Critics just don't get it!

(Reply to this)

SleazyReaper writes:
on Mar 12 2007 04:55 PM

In reply to this comment (#857850)
I saw the movie on IMAX and it looked amazing.. I keep seeing a post here and there about "how the movie was not shot specifically for IMAX"

No it was not shot for IMAX.

But they do have a process where they can transfer a 35mm onto an IMAX screen... Anyone can read about this process at IMAX.Com

Movies filmed in 70mm IMAX format cannot exceed 2 hours.

The only two films that were redone to fit the 70mm format (Where they had to cut the movie to fit the 2 hour running time) , were Star Wars: Episode 2, where they had to cut 23 mins from the film.. And Apollo 13 was redone to fit the 70mm format and several minutes had to be cut.

As I stated before they now have a process where they can transfer 35mm onto an IMAX screen

examples (The Polar Express, Batman Begins, Superman Returns, Harry Potter 4, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and now 300)

(Reply to this)

Gutsu writes:
on Mar 12 2007 07:09 PM

[b]Hail to the Spartans[/b]
As a fan of the graphic novel i couldn't be more pleased. the speacial effects were some of the best i've seen in a movie to date. the action is amazing i am sure this will soon be placed at the top of the epic battle genre.

as for the acting i feel that all the actors did an excellent job. most of you guys and gals out there are to involved in analyzing the acting that you forget to watch the movie. i can see it now you all sit there and nudge your poor buddy going see that guys totally didn't pull that scene off.

i feel that if you dont like a certain kind of genre then dont watch those movies and try to review them cause you will have nothing but negative things to say.

me for instance i dont like romance or romantic comedys for various reasons. but i'm not gonna go sit through one so i can tell everyone it sucked when i knew "in my opinion it would suck anyway" so if all you action haters would just stick to your love and wuss movies and stop being haters the world would be a better place

(Reply to this)

TheIceGhost writes:
on Mar 12 2007 07:10 PM

An elephant would be able to plow through men, I don't care what sticks are being pointed at it. They wouldn't 'slip' on bodies, they'd crush them as they'd charge down the Spartans' throats. I understand why they threw them in there and why the Spartans bested them so easily, BUT THEY'RE FREAKIN' ELEPHANTS!!

It was just silly is all.

(Reply to this)

Pilgermann writes:
on Mar 12 2007 09:04 PM

In reply to this comment (#857865)
IMAX films can be longer than 2 hours. A few examples:

HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE is 2 hours and 37 minutes long.
BATMAN BEGINS is 2 hours and 20 minutes.
SUPERMAN RETURNS is 2 hours and 24 minutes.

A number of years ago they could only release 2 hour films but they've improved their projection systems a bit.

(Reply to this)

ArmyofJuan writes:
on Mar 13 2007 12:47 AM

In reply to this comment (#857867)
Not really. If you have a mass of troops all waving around very long pointy sticks, not to mention you're fighiting on a very small pass on the edge of a mountain theres a possibility that the elephant would be frightened. And it could slip on bodies. Especially of the person riding the elephant is scared as well and can't control the animal.

Also it's based on a comic book so it's not going to be historically accurate.

Anyways, i thought 300 was really good. I enjoyed the style very mouch, although im hoping that not all epic movies try to emulate this. I think 300 only worked like this because it was based off of a comic.

(Reply to this)

patsloomis writes:
on Mar 13 2007 01:22 AM

[b]Can't wait to watch this film[/b]
I have high hopes for this film and I am happy with the word of mouth and web post from people who watched it. Me and my wife plan to watch it Tuesday night to avoid the huge crowds. I wanted to ask how Mr. Gerald Butler do in the lead role of Leonidas? I am a fan of his from his mainly British films. Hopefully he considers a role for the next Snyder movie "Watchmen."

(Reply to this)

Uncontested writes:
on Mar 13 2007 02:27 AM

[b]And Yet Again[/b]
The critics need to take their shoes out of their own mouths, wipe off the brown streaks on their noses from being so far up their own @$$E$ to realize that this is a good movie.

(Reply to this)

red_wine writes:
on Mar 13 2007 04:48 AM

You dont go to 300 to watch high drama and meaningful character acrs. You go to 300 to see the blood, the gore, the stylized action, the guy's buff bodies, the sex and all those nude women. 300 did not aspire to be anything other than a guy movie. The movie delivers exactly what it promised in the theatre and thats why I like the movie. I knew exactly what I was gonna get and was looking forward to it. And the movie, need I say, delivered it in spades.

I actually prefer dramas and well written movies but this movie just got me going. Its very entertaining. Its like one of the Bond movies, they are all about sex and violence and you watch them for that. Great repeat value like all the great guy movies.

(Reply to this)

frogleg writes:
on Mar 13 2007 05:37 AM

In reply to this comment (#857870)
I think it'll continue to do well. I loved the movie. I completely disagree that all the big effects shots are in the trailers, I thought it was remarkable that all the great looking shots just never stopped.
Also, I saw it on IMAX and it looked amazing.
I don't think the dialogue was bad (much of it was straight out of the book), and I thought the acting was pretty decent; I actually thought while watching the movie that Lena Headey was doing a really good job!

Actually, though, one of my only complaints involved Butler. Overall, I thought he did a fine job as King Leonidas. But I thought it was funny that all his lines were delivered with a Scottish accent (it's really not any worse than any of the other actors, all of whom use a British accent). Actually, does anyone know why almost anytime we see a period piece, the lines are all done with a British accent? I've always found that funny.

(Reply to this)

timov writes:
on Mar 13 2007 07:31 AM

i hadn't looked forward to seeing a movie this much in a long, long time. i wasn't disappointed. i knew i wasnt going to the theater to see an intense period piece that would move me emotionally. i was going to see carnage and amazing visuals. '300' delivered EXACTLY what the previews promised.

as far as some of the complaints concerning the fantastical beasts, monsters and other outlandish creatures, i think a statement was being made here. the spartans were a people founded on democratic ideals - love of their political ideas, their freedom, their families. they were pure fighters with integrity and purpose and a desire to protect their homeland and all it stood for. then you have xerxes, a power hungry would-be god, who unleashes his unholy horde on the spartans as well as the rest of the known world. by having all these half-humans and creatures, all it does is illustrate how xerxes and the persians were the TOTAL OPPOSITE of all the spartans believed and stood for.

(Reply to this)

FILMCZY writes:
on Mar 13 2007 07:44 AM

In reply to this comment (#857848)
Considering the budget was $60 million, I don't think Warner Brothers used the top tier of CGI houses hence my overall disappointment in the visual effects. You can always tell when directors/studios cut corners on CGI: most of the "money shots" last less than 30 seconds. Come on, if you are going to spend the time to design some elaborate visual effect, then hold the shot for god's sake and let the audience LOOK at it instead of quickly showing then editing it away. The CGI in this movie lasted about as long as what was shown in the trailer. At least Peter Jackson and crew allowed the audience the pleasure of looking AND admiring their work. Why are the visuals in this movie considered so "awesome" by people? Give me one example of anything original in it that you have not seen before (or at least done better.) Giant elephants? (LOTR did them better) Thousands of arrows shot in the sky ("Hero" anyone?) Slow motion fight scenes (hello, "The Matrix"). And while we're at it, the make-up on the Oracles and the hunchback dude was chintzy too. Xerxes looked like Jaye Davidson ("Stargate") on 'roids.

(Reply to this)

monkeyonaspring writes:
on Mar 13 2007 08:23 AM

In reply to this comment (#857867)
Not really. Elephants are terrified of water, Xerxes had to put walls on his bridge over the Hellespont just to get them across. It's amazing that they made it that close to the Spartans at all if you want to nitpick.
But regardless the point is that the elehants were clumsy and since the coast was too curvy to gain momentum to charge down, plus the horrendous amount of slippery bodies they slipped off of the cliffs and into the water.
The movie was good, stop complaining.

(Reply to this)

okito writes:
on Mar 13 2007 09:27 AM

[b]No suprise[/b]
I wouldn't say that it was a suprise, it's a no brainier, 300 rocks so hard i almost cried. it's great on so many level and Wow ... i just have to say It's about time this guys at WBros gives us something really incredible us ( i like to call myself a movie freak). after
05-06 i was wondering when we were goin to see some sirious action?

07 is shaping up to be a geat year especially this summer hope the major release follows in the step of 300 in keepin us entertain and knockin off our socks.
too bad it was kinda short.

(Reply to this)

okito writes:
on Mar 13 2007 09:34 AM

In reply to this comment (#857852)
[b]dude you so right.[/b]
fuck, you are so right it's like you reached in my mind and saw exactly what i saw.

Don't get me wrong i like it, the idea of 300 was original and the visual were great but something was missing and the music wasn't in harmony with the movie and the sex scene i agree was lame. but the fight scenes were awesome.

(Reply to this)

skasforfags writes:
on Mar 13 2007 09:54 AM

Why does everyone care so much about the elephants. This is ridiculous.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Wild Hogs

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links