I have been reading so many reviews about "300" (Glenn Reynolds has a roundup; these two both whetted my appetite) that I am beginning to think it was a major mistake sitting here on a Saturday night blogging about it instead of going out and seeing it. Via M. Simon, I especially like classicist Victor Davis Hanson's take (written in October when he saw the CD):

Recently, a variety of Hollywood films -- from Troy to Alexander the Great -- has treated a variety of themes from classical Greek literature and theater. But 300 is unique, a sui generis in both spirit and methodology. The script is not an attempt in typical Hollywood fashion to recreate the past as a costume drama. Instead it is based on Frank Miller's (of Sin City fame) comic book graphics and captions. Miller's illustrated novelette of the battle adapts themes loosely from the well-known story of the Greek defense, but with deference made to the tastes of contemporary popular culture.

I went to the Hollywood Premier of the "300" last night, and talked a bit with Director Zack Snyder, screenwriter Kurt Johnstad, and graphic novelist Frank Miller. There will be lots of controversy about this film-well aside from erroneous allegations that it is pro- or anti-Bush, when the movie has nothing to do with Iraq or contemporary events, at least in the direct sense. (Miller's graphic novel was written well before the "war against terror" commenced under President Bush).

Please.

I remember last year they spouted similar nonsense about "The War of the Worlds" and I went to see it, expecting ominous moral parallels and obvious references lurking everywhere. Instead, I saw an exciting SciFi film, which didn't seem like Iraq at all. Well, I suppose you could (if you were a paranoiac and hadn't taken your meds) imagine that Bush's gigantic evil walking warbots were sucking the blood out of every last Iraqi man, woman and child, but I saw them as giant bloodsucking aliens. And I wouldn't be surprised if I see 300 brave Spartan warriors holding out as long as they can until they're finally finished off with arrows by King Xerxes.

No, Bush is not Leonidas, and Ahmadinejad is not Xerxes!

I know I am prone to make comparisons about a lot of things, but please.

Not everything is about Iraq!

Not even Thermopylae.

Keeping the above in mind, I did like Hanson's conclusion:

Ultimately the film takes a moral stance, Herodotean in nature: there is a difference, an unapologetic difference between free citizens who fight for eleutheria and imperial subjects who give obeisance. We are not left with the usual postmodern quandary 'who are the good guys' in a battle in which the lust for violence plagues both sides. In the end, the defending Spartans are better, not perfect, just better than the invading Persians, and that proves good enough in the end. And to suggest that unambiguously these days has perhaps become a revolutionary thing in itself.

I just wish the flattened and nihilistic blogosphere would stop making me write movie reviews about films I haven't seen.

(As Senator Claghorn would say, "That's a joke son!")

UPDATE: Tom Maquire (guest blogging at InstaPundit) has another link roundup of reactions, including Wretchard, Armed Liberal, and his own.

Sounds to me like the Maguire version would be a gas.

But seriously, wouldn't such a plan both violate the Geneva Convention and cause Global Warming?