tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10931739.post2861158196391340617..comments2023-12-11T15:35:23.779-08:00Comments on Pulp 2.0: 300 and CountingCunninghamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07137025404327426886noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10931739.post-59544792147991059072007-03-12T23:19:00.000-07:002007-03-12T23:19:00.000-07:00For me, the narration *killed it*. It did two thin...For me, the narration *killed it*. It did two things: made the film seem overly serious and full of itself, and taking away dramatic moments by telling instead of showing. I liked the film's look, but with nothhing emotional in the battle (except in the narration) I thought they became dull a repetitious. <BR/><BR/>They did a great job of setting up relationships pre-battles, like father & son, then those relationships were never used during the battles... until we had the single pay off at the end. Instead of showing the growth of father and son through the series of battles, they just had lots of fighting with no *character* or *story*. <BR/><BR/>I also don't understand how you are free men who depend on the man beside you who are fighting for good... but screw that hunchback dude. Seemed out of character. It might have worked had the hunchback dude then lead the Persians into a trap (after we thought he had switched sides) but just being a turncoat was dull and expected. (Also - if he had done the double twist, the King would have been proven wrong about him and *learned something*). <BR/><BR/>Nice looking - cruddy writing.<BR/><BR/>- Billwcmartellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18075242897910568801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10931739.post-6382154625819479462007-03-12T23:17:00.000-07:002007-03-12T23:17:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.wcmartellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18075242897910568801noreply@blogger.com