Sin City versus 300

Sin City, I like film noir.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
if im going for a story i have to go with sin city. Seeing as there is no story in 300.

Hmmmmm i wonder what this is

Spartan King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) and 300 Spartans fight to the last man against Persian King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) and his army of over one million soldiers, while in Sparta, Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) attempts to rally support for her husband

sin city is a better film, no question. i can see why people may prefer 300 as the battle scenes are very good, but these people obviously don't care about story, great acting and smart films.

Originally posted by king leonidas
sin city is a better film, no question. i can see why people may prefer 300 as the battle scenes are very good, but these people obviously don't care about story, great acting and smart films.

Yeah, I can see what you mean.

Although, to be fair, the poll/thread is about which film you prefer, not which is better.

I would agree with you though.

300 for me, was a much more exciting film with a better graphical style and a lot more impact. I just watched Sin City for the first time last night and I can't understand all the hype, its quite boring to be honest, with the dialogue nothing special either.

For anyone who said that 300 lacked story, read Gates of Fire. That should have been the source material that was adapted for the movie instead of Miller's graphic novel.

Oh, and 300 was the better movie. Sin City was visually cool and all, but it was really really disturbing. I mean, Bruce willis rejected Jessica Alba. I was disturbed.

Originally posted by Kazenji
And thats what people are like these days with some of the movies, see it 2 or 3 times boring wait for the next best thing to come along..... 🙄

the short attention span generation

Originally posted by Kazenji
Hmmmmm i wonder what this is

Thats not a story, thats a backdrop. Just because i put mickey mouse in a film about the revolutionary war leading a squadren of other mice in a fictionalized battle doesnt make it a story of substance. sin city consisted of several different stoires intertwined and connected by a backdrop. 300 was merely for emotional reactions rather than a story of epic proportions....millers exact words there, and he wrote the story so he should know

Sin city by far. 300 was way over hyped, I was frankly quite dissapointed by the lack of action and the poor flow of 300.

Sin City is a master piece... 300 is just a cool movie

Ask this question again in a year, when the boner people got from 300 has dissipated, and I think most people will tell you Sin City was a better film.

300 had a simple story at heart, as do all grandiose movies about war. At heart, it is simply a bunch of people facing death and not being afraid to sacrifice for a greater good. it was kind of a shame that the movie focused a lot more on the cool factor, instead of the storyline. Anyone who has read Gates of Fire will tell you at once that it was excellent storytelling, and had some of the best psychological discourse and characterisation I have ever seen in a novel. 300 was and still is a good movie, but it could have been much better.

Sin city was not really any different. The storyline, I dare say, was just as simple as 300's, but without the grand scale of the former to back it up. Both had great visual shots. Sin City had Dwight's red shoes, while 300 had that scene where the Spartans used their shields to block the rain. Sin City imo was considered a good movie because of what it dared to do, and that it had a decent, albeit simple storyline to back it up.

Never saw Sin City but 300 was astounding and I think it would be very hard to top.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
Ask this question again in a year, when the boner people got from 300 has dissipated, and I think most people will tell you Sin City was a better film.