| fantail | 24 Jul 2010 11:25 p.m. PST |
The follow up film to 300 is called Xerxes is is about the Battle of Artemisium.
link |
| doug redshirt | 25 Jul 2010 2:53 a.m. PST |
I didnt care for 300. But what is interesting from that site is that Brad Pitt is starring in "World War Z". |
| Scutatus | 25 Jul 2010 2:57 a.m. PST |
Or rather it won't be. It will be about Conanesque fantasy warriors riding fantasy rhinos in a fantasy world. I'll stay clear thanks, just as I stayed clear of 300 the first time around, which had about as much to do with Sparta as it did Hyboria. |
| Steve Hazuka | 25 Jul 2010 4:01 a.m. PST |
|
| Condottiere | 25 Jul 2010 4:05 a.m. PST |
is about the Battle of Artemisium. It's not about the battle of Artemisium. It's fantasy. Just look at how 300 portrayed the Persians (an advanced civilization)--they appeared to be a dark, evil, orc-like horde that had more in common with Lord of the Rings than history. I will avoid the movie. I suspect the sequel (pre-quel) will be much the same. Shouldn't this be on the Fantasy Discussion Board instead? |
| Dave Knight | 25 Jul 2010 4:29 a.m. PST |
Enjoy these films for what they are, not what you would like them to be |
 JammerMan  | 25 Jul 2010 5:16 a.m. PST |
About the movie 300, another example of improved technology/special effects doesn't mean a better movie. I think the production done in the 50/60s? was a much better movie. |
| Scutatus | 25 Jul 2010 5:23 a.m. PST |
Or don't. I don't like that approach, the style or the content. I don't like that it has encouraged such abominations as Blood and Sand. So that instead of stories based on actual plot and drama with clever creative dialogue, now the trend is fantasy warriors grunting like savages and behaving little better, fighting mostly naked, leaping about implausibly, with the latest of umpteen subtle as a brick soft porn orgies just around the corner and everything painfully graphically explicit. I HATE the modern approach. Too much special effects and gratuitous explicitness, not enough substance. No class, no quality. Now that anything goes and anything is doable, filmakers have gone wild. But personally I don't think that is a good thing at all. We've lost the subtleties, the suspense, the anticipation, the imagination. The power of suggestion and the cleverness of dialogue implying said suggestion. Now it's all in your face, spelled out in minute detail, utterly unsubtle and far far too graphic. The magic has been lost. Just because you CAN do a thing, it does not automatically follow that you SHOULD. One can have far more suspense from what you don't see than from what you do. We have imaginations, and good stories allow us to use it. We do NOT need it all spelled out blatantly, move by graphic move. Less is more. Modern film/tv has forgotten that. Bring back Sir Laurence Olivier, Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis. At least their writers knew how to write dialogue with creative suggestion and drama, knew how to let us use our imagination to fill in the gaps. Back then they did not dumb it down to the lowest denominator. Back then they were actually clever. Like Jammerman, I would much rather watch "The 300 Spartans" from 1962 over "300" from 2007, anyday. |
Mal Wright  | 25 Jul 2010 5:31 a.m. PST |
now the trend is fantasy warriors grunting like savages and behaving little better, fighting mostly naked, leaping about implausibly, with the latest of umpteen subtle as a brick soft porn orgies just around the corner No wonder some commentators have branded 300 as one of the new 'Gay Icon' movies running regularly in certain venues!  |
| Pictors Studio | 25 Jul 2010 5:44 a.m. PST |
I really liked 300. I thought it was a great comic book and a fantastic film. The comic book was better, probably as it didn't have the sub plot with Gorgo in it that I think was bad in the movie. To get all bent out of shape because the Persians were portrayed riding war rhinos is a little silly when you consider what the story was trying to do and in many ways accomplishing. I saw the 300 Spartans. It was boring. The action scenes were less than enthusiastic. The acting was staid and the Persians certainly didn't seem like that much of a threat. They looked like a bunch of softies in pajamas. In 300 the Persians were obviously an alien civilization and a powerful, threatening one at that. They were portrayed in the way the Greeks would have seen them at the time, they looked dangerous and foreign. It was stylized but it did a much better job of showing the perception of the time than any accurate representation of Persians wearing Median dress would have. And what it really did was inspire people to read and learn about the actual battle and that time period. Maybe not a the majority of people who saw the film but some. I'm sure that 300 Spartans did the same in its day but probably kids learned something about Sparta in school when that film came out. Today they really don't. At least not on the usual course. When that film came out I took my history club to see it and a bunch of them wanted to learn more and many of them looked stuff up on-line. One of them read Herodotus and Thucydides because of it.
Some of the dialog in the film was taken directly from what is alleged to have been said by the historical personalities, how much more clever you would want to make it I can't imagine.
In short the 1962 film is boring. Releasing that today would send it straight to DVD. No one would watch it. If you think that releasing such a thing would be a good idea you should try to put one together. You probably have the technology to do it now, if you can recruit some friends you might have some success at getting it filmed. But it will fail as today's audiences want something more. Given its success they wanted 300. When I saw it the first time the theater was packed. I was sitting in the front row nearly and I got there early. If you can get that kind of exposure to any kind of ancient historical story that was as true to the original story as this was, then I think they did a very good thing. |
| Scutatus | 25 Jul 2010 5:56 a.m. PST |
Different people like different things. No one is the same and just because you find something boring it does not follow that everyone will. Your "boring" is my fascinating. Your "clever" is my despair. They may have "used lines from historical sources" but they put them in the mouths of shouting comic book Conan type fantasy barbarians! You might as well have Xena quoting Xenophon. The rest of the dialogue – when it could get a word in amongst all the explicit nonsense – was pretty standard dumbed down egotystical posing fare. Not really what I call clever. To take my point, these days, in certain films or shows I could mention, if one wants to portray an abusive slave holder who likes men as well as women, you get a graphic sex scene or three with few holds barred. Lazy poor unimagiative writing and graphic explicitness for graphicness'e sake. In 1960's Spartacus with Kirk Douglas, with the same situation, you don't see a thing, but you do get the fantastic clever subtle scene with Laurence Olivier going on about "liking both oysters and snails." Point made with class and cleverness, your imagination has been allowed to be employed, you have been allowed to smile and nod knowingly and marvel at the writer's skill. When Tony Curtis promptly dissapears and is next seen running with Spartacus we all know why and sympathise with him – and not an unnecessary gratuitous explicitness in sight. That to me is "clever". And while "the 300 spartans" may not have aged well I challenge you to say films like "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" and indeed, "Spartacus" did not capture the public imagination and inspire people to take up gaming and/or learn more. I realise times have changed and so have the approach to filmaking. But I am old school and prefer the old style. If the new way works for you, well good for you. But it doesn't work for me. |
| Formerly Regiment Games | 25 Jul 2010 6:05 a.m. PST |
Scutatus post #1 (and #2)… roger that. Well said. |
| Pictors Studio | 25 Jul 2010 6:11 a.m. PST |
"Because it's simpler, speels it out without ambiguities and is more likely to bring attention to the show. In Spartacus with Kirk Douglas, with the same situation, you don't se a thing, but you do get the fantastic clever subtle scene with Laurence Olivier going on about "liking both oysters and clams." Point made wuith class and cleverness, your imagination has been allowed tobe employed, you have been allowed to smile and nod knowingly and marvel at the writer's skill, and not a gratuitous scene in sight." It might be more clever, I don't think so, but it is probably less realistic. If we are dealing with people that are illiterate for the most part, say a group of Roman field slaves or gladiators, then we would likely expect them to be simple people for the most part, certainly of the lower classes. To have them being "clever" with witty dialog that avoids swearing and graphic illusions to sexual situations would be absurd. Imagine the same thing happening now with a film about a group of people live in a trailer and having all of them speaking in upper class British accents and avoiding any swear words because swear words are explicit. They see some hot chick walk by in a tight skirt and come up with something witty straight out of Saki to say about her. It wouldn't make any sense. This is the same thing. You said you wanted clever dialog, the dialog in 300 was clever. The Spartans in the movie were not dressed significantly differently than they would have been at the time. They would have been wearing an exomis possibly with a cuirass over it. They would not have worn the cloak into battle in all likelihood. But they would have been wearing a helmet, they would have been carrying a shield and spear. Their masculinity was exaggerated as that is the way the narrator was telling the story within the film. You do know that the film was told as a story to the Spartans before the battle of Platea, right? So the Spartans actions were exaggerated for that part as well, so was the power of their enemies. The new way not only works for me, it works for modern audiences. If you don't like the new films the old ones are readily available for very cheap on DVD usually. You can keep watching them. |
| Scutatus | 25 Jul 2010 6:18 a.m. PST |
I don't klnow how you can talk about "realism" when talking about a film like 300 or it's sequal. Now THAT does not make any sense. Regarding "Realism": one can get the point that people are being intimate without having to actually see it in all it's glory. Just because there are lots of naked heaving bodies that doesn't make it any more realistic, it's just more graphic. Similarly, in battle it is not realistic to see leaping warriors (as we always do now)– a real soldier leaping like a frog in battle would be dead with the first simple upward thrust. The spurting blood has become completely OTT unrealistc as well. There is simply too much of it now. We've gone from too little all the way around to far too much. It is gorily Graphic, but it is not realistic. You might have a point about language, but then if you want complete realism where do you draw the line – shouldn't they be speaking latin or Greek? In the old days, we knew that stuff was going on – we just didn't have to SEE it. One can well imagine that, in that famous Spartacus scene, after his clever dialogue, what followed out of camera shot was Laurence having his wicked way with Tony. But we don't have to see it to know or at least suspect it's happened – the point has already been made. It's not about realism at all (NO so called "historical" story is truly entirely accurate or realistic), it's a matter of having taste, style and class, something the old films had and the newer shows have simply abandoned completely. Thanks for the recomendation concerning the old films on DVD. By a strange coincidence I do have them all aready and do indeed keep on watching them. I will leave the newer overly-graphic, dumbed down subtlty and class free offerings to others. |
| Garand | 25 Jul 2010 6:42 a.m. PST |
Personally, I have to agree that "300 Spartans" was a bad film, especially with the romance sub-plot shoe-horned in. However, in no way does that make "300" a good movie. And I think there is something to what Scutatus is saying: the quality of dialouge has been on a decline for the last 20 years. When it came out, I argued about the quality of dialoughe in JJ Trek, compared to say STIV; IMHO there was no comparison, and I think a lot of movies do go for style rather than substance. While 300 might have motivated some to read about the events, it would have done the same if it had been a well done movie of the "conventional" style rather than what we got: a superhero movie. Damon. |
| Rudysnelson | 25 Jul 2010 6:50 a.m. PST |
The original 300 Spartans is still one of my favorite movies. A remake that was better could have been done before the release of 300 but now sadly no one would touch it. |
| greghallam | 25 Jul 2010 6:59 a.m. PST |
I'm a librarian, and after "300" came out, on several occasions I had Greek women, all in their 30's, come into the library and ask for books on the Spartans. They had all seen the movie, and it had stuck a chord with them – they were passionate and proud about their culture and they wanted to learn more about this significant event in their history.. (at least I think so – I don't think they just wanted pictures of the Spartans' abs – lol) So you never can tell how people will respond to things.. |
| aecurtis | 25 Jul 2010 7:08 a.m. PST |
I need a shoulder massage… Allen |
| Scutatus | 25 Jul 2010 7:12 a.m. PST |
:) Now THAT was Clever Allen. Reference noted. :) |
| Stradbroke | 25 Jul 2010 7:14 a.m. PST |
Many thanks to Scutatus and Pictors Studio. Thouroughly enjoyed the debate. For me, I enjoyed 300 a great deal as did my friends, one of whom borrowed Paul Cartledge's "The Spartans" from me – the first book he has read since leaving school (took him 3 months to finish it). I do believe that Scutatus is correct in his criticism of modern cinema to some extent. Hopefully you enjoy the next offering a little more. |
| greghallam | 25 Jul 2010 7:24 a.m. PST |
Plus one must remember that unlike The 300 Spartans, "300" was never supposed to be a 'historical" movie in any sense at all. It is a movie adaption of Frank Miller's graphic novel. And as such it is completely faithful to its source. |
| aecurtis | 25 Jul 2010 7:34 a.m. PST |
Zack Snyder: "The events are 90 percent accurate. It's just in the visualization that it's crazy. A lot of people are like, "You're debauching history!" I'm like, "Have you read it?" I've shown this movie to world-class historians who have said it's amazing. They can't believe it's as accurate as it is." link And I'm like, "Meh". Allen |
| RelliK | 25 Jul 2010 7:36 a.m. PST |
And as such it is completely faithful to its source.-Greg ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Frank Miller's graphic novel, is completely UNfaithful to its source. I get it but, why relate to Spartans? |
 BigRedBat  | 25 Jul 2010 7:41 a.m. PST |
I marked 300 down as a film of the comic book, and the family enjoyed it on that basis. We enjoyed "Meet the Spartans", too, which had a few very funny moments. However, I would love to see a proper, modern, historical film covering the same ground… |
| FatherOfAllLogic | 25 Jul 2010 7:45 a.m. PST |
A good film is a good film, a bad film is a bad film. They made plenty of each 50 years ago, and they make them still. Social perceptions change with time and some people are ahead of the curve, some behind. Some folks are bored with subtlety and have no patience for implied actions, others want to be slapped in the face. Why fight? |
 John the OFM | 25 Jul 2010 7:48 a.m. PST |
To say that a movie like this is "about" anything historical is a joke.
No, it is a cgi fantasy that occasionally makes a historic reference or two. Maybe three, if you are lucky. However, I would love to see a proper, modern, historical film covering the same ground… Good luck with that. Would not make a dime. Of course, that's Hollywood for you. Apparently "Star Wars" never made a profit either. |
| greghallam | 25 Jul 2010 7:56 a.m. PST |
Lol… I dont think any of us are fighting? But yes – we all would like to see a modern historical film for this period.. chances are… probably not. |
| JJartist | 25 Jul 2010 8:03 a.m. PST |
I want to see how Xerxes got so big….
JJ |
| Condottiere | 25 Jul 2010 8:15 a.m. PST |
|
| elsyrsyn | 25 Jul 2010 8:31 a.m. PST |
In 300 the Persians were obviously an alien civilization and a powerful, threatening one at that. They were portrayed in the way the Greeks would have seen them at the time, they looked dangerous and foreign. Poppycock. The Greeks had been interacting, in one way or another (and often peacably) with the Persians for hundreds of years by virtue of the Ionian colonies and intersecting trade routes all around the Mediterranean. They might have seen them as threatening due to the sheer size of the Persian empire, but there's no way in hell they would have seen them as 9 foot tall, ebon skinned, alien refugees from a body-piercing shop. Doug |
| Mulopwepaul | 25 Jul 2010 8:40 a.m. PST |
Xerxes got big by inheriting his father's throne. The king is always drawn bigger than anyone else in the picture… |
| Mulopwepaul | 25 Jul 2010 8:58 a.m. PST |
"The Greeks had been interacting, in one way or another (and often peacably) with the Persians for hundreds of years by virtue of the Ionian colonies and intersecting trade routes all around the Mediterranean." Except the movie was narrated by a Spartiate, not some generic Greek mercantile sophisticate. |
| RelliK | 25 Jul 2010 9:07 a.m. PST |
I want to see how Xerxes got so big…-JJJ That boy has some serious bondage! Have you seen his son Prince Albert or his hunchback love muffin? |
| doug redshirt | 25 Jul 2010 9:32 a.m. PST |
In the 300 Spartans I felt for them when they died under the arrows at the end. With 300 when they died at the end I looked at my watch to see how much longer it would last. Which one do you think I found boring? |
| Prince Rupert of the Rhine | 25 Jul 2010 10:14 a.m. PST |
I enjoyed 300 as a Fantasy film nothing more nothing less. If I'd gone looking for a historical acurate moive I'd of been pretty upset but I didn't so it was quite enjoyable. I've been toying with the idea of a couple of HoTT armies based on the film. As an aside has anyone seen the Southpark rip of 300 very funny. This is Lesbos! |
| Norman D Landings | 25 Jul 2010 11:02 a.m. PST |
Let's face it, though… Heaven forbid you should ever kick anybody down a bottomless pit. But if you absolutely, positively have to… …you're sure as hell not going to shout a line of dialogue from 1962's 'The 300 Spartans' as you do so. |
| Ivan DBA | 25 Jul 2010 11:59 a.m. PST |
In enjoyed 300 as a movie. I'm well aware that it was not meant to be a faithful historical epic, but rather an adaptation of a fantastical comic book. I'll probably see the sequal, and hopefully it will be good too. I don't get folks who refuse to see a movie because its not a historical documentary. It's entertainment. Yeah, I know, it's misleading ordinary viewers. I don't care, ordinary people don't know anything about history, and never will anyway. So no harm is really done. |
| Ivan DBA | 25 Jul 2010 12:01 p.m. PST |
Pictors said: In 300 the Persians were obviously an alien civilization and a powerful, threatening one at that. They were portrayed in the way the Greeks would have seen them at the time, they looked dangerous and foreign. It was stylized but it did a much better job of showing the perception of the time than any accurate representation of Persians wearing Median dress would have.
Excellent point. |
| Garand | 25 Jul 2010 12:35 p.m. PST |
I don't get folks who refuse to see a movie because its not a historical documentary. For some people going to see a movie based on a historical event is to be immersed in that period. If all you're interested in is seeing a fantasy movie, then by all accounts 300 delivered. However, if your interest in such movies is to see history "come alive," then it failed. If one cannot appreciate (though agree or not) the difference, then… Damon. |
 Parzival | 25 Jul 2010 12:41 p.m. PST |
I've seen both films. The 300 Spartans is a travesty. It's a boring film, from start to finish. The dialogue is absurd, the acting is bad, the direction is pedantic, the pace is plodding, and the camera work is mundane. And I'm not talking from a modern perspective— that was basically the response when it came out. As for the battle sequences, they're even worse— they looks as if somebody shouted "Okay, everybody fight! But don't hit anybody, especially the actors!" So you have a bunch of people obviously trying not to hit each other, just each others' shields and weapons. Pathetic. I wound out the movie wondering why I bothered to watch it. As for the final takeaway as to what the filmmakers wanted me to feel, I can't remember any emotional response— aside from, "Well. Watched that. If that was Thermopylae, a session in batting cage with a blind batter is the World Series." If I was able to come up with a theme, it would really be more because I was thinking of my own knowledge of Thermopylae and what it meant to Western Civilization and his my reaction to that than to anything the movie attempted to instill. I certain can't remember any thematic elements of note today. In short, touting The 300 Spartans as a comparison to 300 is ludicrous. 300 is a great film. The action is solid, the violence looks violent, the camera work is imaginative, the script is effective, the acting is strong and the direction supports the themes and mood intended for the film. It's about independence and freedom, about sacrifice not only for yourself but for your civilization, even if they don't appreciate it and even if those at the top are corrupt and foolish. You do what's right, and you do your duty. I walked out of the theatre knowing what it was about, and caring that I knew.
And yes, despite the war rhinos and Xerxes the Drag Queen and the ninja Immortals and the leaping, jumping and "THIS ITH STHPARTA!!!!"-ing, I came away feeling like this movie was more like the meaning of the real thing than The 300 Spartans could ever hope to be. Is it the best film ever made on the subject? Yes. But the other was putrid, so that's really not a solid argument. Is it the best film that could be made on the subject? No, not by a long shot. But it was a good film. Were parts over-the-top? Yes. I do think Xerxes' hedonism was overdone, the war rhinos were too much, the individual heroics were overdone, and the violence was too gory— but then, in defense of the latter two points, let's face it, chopping and poking at people with sharp objects is not going be a clean experience, and the heroics as filmed could have come right out of Homer's descriptions in The Iliad. If a Spartan poet were telling the tale to other Spartans (which is what this movie was), it would look and sound just like this in his narrative, even if the reality was somewhat different. Is it as good a film as the original Spartacus? No, of course not. But then, few films of any sort reach that sort of calibre. Is it historical? If you were ignorant enough to go in expecting a documentary or even a historically accurate movie, you were either completely cut off from all forms of advertising for the film, or you were being willfully foolish. 300 was about the myth of Sparta and Thermopylae, not the reality— that was the whole point of the movie, and it was obvious from the trailers. If you criticize it for not being historical, you're missing the point of the film. (Which is par for the course for wargamers, sadly.) Could a good historical film be made of Thermopylae? YES. I think 300 qualifies as a good film about the myth of Thermopylae. I'm still waiting for a good film about the history. |
| Captain Gideon | 25 Jul 2010 1:03 p.m. PST |
Hey Parzival i think you got it wrong there The 300 Spartans is a fine film with decent Action/Battle scenes,plus the actors involved were pretty damm good as well. And as far as history goes i'll take The 300 Spartans over 300 many day of the week,yes the history may not be perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than 300 will ever be IMHO. Captain Gideon |
| Garand | 25 Jul 2010 1:36 p.m. PST |
300 was about the myth of Sparta and Thermopylae, not the reality— that was the whole point of the movie, and it was obvious from the trailers. If you criticize it for not being historical, you're missing the point of the film. (Which is par for the course for wargamers, sadly.) The counter-argument is that the point of the movie was not the one that many Wargamers were particularly interested in. Damon. |
| Ivan DBA | 25 Jul 2010 3:11 p.m. PST |
Garand/Damon-- I safely assure you that I fully appreciate the difference between wanting to see history come to life, and wanting to see an entertaining film. The whole point of my post was premised on that very difference, and wondering why some people are ONLY interested in the former, and boycott the latter. I like both. It baffles me that some people don't, and frankly I think a lot of folks around here derive a great deal of snobby satisfaction from sitting on a haughty high horse, refusing to see any movie that deviates in the slightest from historical accuracy. They then derive more satisfaction from pontificating at length about how some movies are a complete travesty, corrupting the youth by teaching them false history, etc. More power to them, whatever they got their jollies from is fine, but personally I don't think there is any harm in just being entertained. |
| elsyrsyn | 25 Jul 2010 5:25 p.m. PST |
Except the movie was narrated by a Spartiate, not some generic Greek mercantile sophisticate. The Spartans weren't monks, you know. Nor were quite the provincial boors some would make them out to be. They got about a fair bit. Tarentum, for example, which became quite the commercial center, was founded as a Spartan colony. Doug |
| lutonjames | 25 Jul 2010 6:11 p.m. PST |
I agree with Ivan :) I was entertained! PS- Also agree with Parzival- It's like criticising 'The Good The Bad and the Ugly' for not being enough like the real old west. |
| Theword | 25 Jul 2010 11:47 p.m. PST |
I haven't read all of this, but the movie was based on a comic that was very loosely based on what we know of history. I find it amusing that you would take the 'it wasn't historically accurate' axe to it when it was never meant to be. And I actually thought some of the battle scenes quite nicely portrayed the 'scrum' that Hoplite warfare 'may' have been like.. Good movie in my opinion. Historical accuracy was never really on the agenda. TW. |
| Ssendam | 26 Jul 2010 1:51 a.m. PST |
In my book it's like comparing Apples and Pears, (I think someone else might have said that). "300" is supposed to be a super-fantastic and over the top representation of events because it's a story being told to the Spartan Soldiers before the Battle of Platea. The story teller (Dilios I think) is rev'ing his boys up for the big fight. It's a fun movie and really should be seen as such. Frankly I wouldn't expect ANY movie to give me a true historical insight into a battle. "300 Spartans" is a product of it's time. There were a lot of films made about the ancient world in this era and a lot of them are real gems BUT are they historically accurate? Errr mostly no. I loved "300 Spartans" as a kid but I think as we get older we become more critical (or discerning) and forget how to enjoy a film instead seeing all it's flaws. The Battle scenes are rubbish … but I never felt that when I saw the film for the first time all those years ago. Stay Frosty … |
| Mark Watson | 26 Jul 2010 2:25 a.m. PST |
I saw 300 Spartans again the other night and I was surprised by how good it was. Bear in mind, even at the time it was not a "big" film and the equivalent now would be something made for a cable channel, not a theatre release. The production values shouldn't be compared to "Fall of the Roman Empire", and certainly not to Spartacus. Miller's graphic novel was actually based on the 1962 film, not on primary sources. So 300 is a film based on a graphic novel based on a film based on history. Dilios would have had difficulty giving an inspiring speech to the Spartans at Plataea – the historical survivor (Aristodemus) had been ostracised and had to fight with the Tegeans. By the way, 300's version of Xerxes is a good example of what happens when you buy your command characters from a different manufacturer. |
| Madmike1 | 26 Jul 2010 5:23 a.m. PST |
300 was a great film, taken as an action movie I enjoyed it and its a great DVD to play in the background while painting Greeks :) |
| skinkmasterreturns | 26 Jul 2010 6:00 a.m. PST |
I actually have both versions on DVD. Perhaps the next full moon I'll throw them into a box,let them fight it out and the one that emerges alive is the better film. |
