Stars indicate entertainment value (out of a maximum of five stars).

Happy males indicate pro-male content, or honest treatment of important aspects of men's lives.

Male-bashing & negative stereotypes (puking).
                                        300 (2007)

I went to see this hyped up film on the word that it was superior to Troy.  What I got was essentially the same ideas only swirled around a little.  I am not sure about the historical accuracy of this film but this was certainly not going through my head as I watched it.

Essentially Spartans (the good guys) led by their King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) are under threat of engulfment following war by the Persians (the very bad guys) led by a man who sees himself as a God, Xerxes who commands over a million men.  After some clever taunts from Queen Gorgos [Lena Headey] which caused her lap dog husband to jump to her defence, the Persian Messengers are killed thus signaling the start of war. Leonidas decides to take with him 300 of the elite warriors of Sparta to fight the millions of Persians after defying a Priest and his Oracle warnings.


This film has some great points.  The cgi is very convincing, the overall scenery and effects are a masterpiece and the music gives the action sequences some real adrenaline to them and is certainly better than Troy.  The action sequences themselves you will have mixed reactions to most likely.  However, to please female viewers they went even further than Troy when it comes to costume and decided to dress all the Spartan warriors in red capes and underwear leaving the rest of them uncovered with six-packs and tree-trunk thighs.  That really annoyed a lot of male viewers.

This film did a great job of proving just what it meant to be a man 2487 years ago.  Being a man was complete utter slavery and bondage.  We see graphic violence against very young boys from the very start of the movie, fighting grown men and being tortured and being taken from their mothers at the age of 7 and only once they have proved themselves after fighting nature itself in a battle for survival in complete isolation are they accepted back into their society and only once they have sworn to go to war and have had adequate experience are they worthy of a woman.

The women were in comparison completely free of violence and somehow their sons being taken away from them was a harder time for the mother than the son. Feminists love to drone on about how war and violence are the realm of men when the fact of the matter was they had no choice in the matter whatsoever.  What greater oppression against men can there possibly be than this?


Leonidas after being manipulated by his wife after a rather corny sex scene decides to defy the gross old priest's warnings not to go to war as well as the Spartan council's and does what he and his 300 men were born to do.  Die for women to live.  You could see the terror frequent phrases like "They will kill all the men down to the last boy and the women they will keep as slaves or worse" invoked in this mighty king.

Naturally the message of male expendability is extended into the vast Persian armies where masked and covered up men are whipped into battle as virtual killer ants all fighting for some 7 foot androgynous man (Xerxes).  This film has of course sparked immense controversy due to its heavy demonisation of Persians.  Apparently they were below fighting for women which is why the only women we see of the Persians are harlots who convince a hunchback who Leonidas knocked back to betray his country."


The one thing that really ruined this movie for me was the Queen.  She was absolutely abhorrent.  When we first see her she says to the Persian messengers who question her permission to speak amongst men that "only Spartan women give birth to real men". Later on in the movie we see her trying to manipulate two men who are high up in the council so that she may tell all the men that their sole purpose in life for glory is to go and die for all of us helpless women.  She does just that.

Here we see what makes a good man and what makes a bad man.  One of the men sides with her and refrains from touching her and agrees with her so he is good.  The other man who is against war bribes her into sleeping with him and when he betrays her in the council she stabs him to death while taunting him, while all the men call him a traitor.  They made him look like a monster because he was doing it for self-benefit and he was a sexual pervert when the idea was he was against war.  A man who didn't want to fight was the bad guy.  It made little sense to me.   Would it not be she who manipulates him to agree with her?  Not as a woman.  She has to be squeaky clean and perfect.

One thing this film did do is make me judge myself harshly as a man as I look at what has changed today.  Men are still expendable cannon fodder and have not been freed from their roles.  Indeed feminism has seen to it we have no rights at all while freeing women from their gender roles and letting them have everything.  I reflected to myself just how screwed up the world is.
                                             - by Mr. Doesn'tGiveaDamn

Rated: 15 in UK, R in USA, 18A in Canada
Runtime 117min
Portal to Other Reviews & Info