although some of it was bordering on ridiculously unnecessary.

I don't usually feel compelled to leave a movie if I don't like it. I usually just make fun of it or get gradually angrier.

brought tears of joy to my eyes

and I was attempting to be sociable. Sitting there through that film made me want to stab myself in the face.

I liked number 23.

I've never wanted to punch a person square in the dick as much as I have watching that film.

psycho remake
drop dead gorgeous

Who would have thought that a film about penguins could be so creepy and sinister?

connoisseur of these things. It's all in the nuances.

The singular most awful film I've ever seen.

Twas watching it round my brothers on dvd and felt duty bound to sit through it til the end because he's raved about how great it was when in essence, it was the biggest pile of turd I'd ever seen.

I thought the fight scenes would be good. Alas, I was proved wrong. Vampires versus Werewolves, how the fuck did they cock that up?

Que? It's got footer AND kung fu in it. What's not to love?

Yes. It's too late for her.

I was waiting for this, most people seem to love it, but I found it really dull.

Oh dear kevin, what the fuck happened to you?

to rip Hayley Joel Osmond's little robot head off?

Was he a robot? I seem to have blocked the story out...

the i see dead people kid was annoying but there was something very effective about the movie

even the end with the aliens... i can't really explain but it hit me somehow

and there were so many wonderful ideas, but unusually for spielberg a total mess

What it actually was, was a film that showed bodyparts being hacked off in inventive ways for 90 minutes. Well worth the door tax at the cinema.

Now, if you must be one of those tiresome people who want to read into a film like that as if it weren't closer to Commando than Pi, maybe you can consider the following:

1) That there is a narrator for the tale who turns out to be one of the soldiers at the battle, firing up the rest of the army for one of the subsequent battles after Thermopylaw (the battle of Platea (which actually happed). Bearing this in mind, you might suppose that this explains the highly stylised visuals and otherworldly and exaggerated phenomena that pops up during the film - why would a commander trying to fire up his truths tell a story not fantastical enough to inspire similar performances?

2) The parallels that some people are drawing to modern political situations and the whole thing with the Iranians (and some on their behalf) taking offense at their depiction doesn't really fit, when you know the details of the events the film is depicting. It's apparent to me the Persians as depicted in the film aren't much like the Iranians of today: Huge multinational, multi-ethnic population and military. Decadent and bloatedly wealthy society. Superior weapons and numbers. Driven by their regional ambitions to invade distant lands only to be faced by a devout and feirce convocation of homogenous tribes, battling insurmountable odds to defend their homeland against the occupiers, who force the invaders to invest vast amounts of manpower and money trying to supress the populations of the lands they thought it would be so easy to pacify. The army of the city state featured in 300 actually end up becoming martyrs in the course of standing up to the invaders - what does that remind you of?

P.S. Anti-Orientalism, shurely?

I liked Revolutions. 'Pointless' CGI and kung fu = good.