MovieChat Forums > 300 (2007) Discussion > Most homoerotic movie ever...

Most homoerotic movie ever...

posted 14 years ago by dan6pitcher
108 replies | jump to latest

300 was one of my personally most painful movie watching experiences. I went in expecting a historical drama about one of the most incredible true stories in the history of the world. What I got was some homoerotic computer generated version of He-Man or something. Why did they need so many slow-motion sequences? I understand the slo-mo in Baywatch, but in a war movie?

Why did so many straight guys like this? It's basically 90 minutes of nonstop half-naked men with digitally enhanced abs. How is that anything but gay soft-core?

I have nothing against homosexuality and am in no way homophobic, but this movie made me feel like I accidentally bought tickets to some gay fantasy film and not a movie about an event that actually happened.

And why were they so racist against the Persians? What was with the monsters?
Zack Snyder is such a horrible director...he directs movies like they're Video Game trailers. He makes me almost respect Michael Bay as a director.

reply

[–] elduderino09 12 years ago

I too found it painful. There was some homoerotica, clearly. The reference to the "boy lovers" of Athens provided homophobia, which I guess they thought made it balance out.

My complaint was they were glorifying war, not to the historic battle that took place. The extensive use of cgi blood spatter was everywhere. At the end of the movie is when I discovered it was based on a "graphic novel." Had I known this going in, I probably wouldn't have watched it. The emphasis was on the "look," not the story. Others liked it, I'm cool with that. Not my cup of tea.

reply

[–] SugarandIce 11 years ago

How come when we have sexy men in skimpy clothing, it's homoerotic? It's not called sexy, like how a skimpily dressed girl is called sexy?

reply

[–] mylesag 10 years ago

It's homoerotic because you have 90-minutes of well-buffed men in skimpy thongs...bonding together, and the camera feasting on their fitness. This was totally inauthentic because even the ancient Spartans wore some sort of armor and did NOT expose skin in the way this film does. Go watch the original "The 300 Spartans" and no way were the Spartans presented there as they are here. Also, whereas the Persian solders are all covered up from head to toe, except for the giant leader, the lead phag ;-) of the other camp!! LOL!!

reply

[–] vojkan087 10 years ago

Other things aside...Ancient Greeks, Spartans as well, often stripped for sports or fighting, they even went to battle naked.

Spartans might have had more armor than in average (which was like 1 breastplate on every 8 men according to archeology) due to the fact state provided armor, and the movie is certainly idiotic even in that, but don't think nudity, even on the battlefield, was inauthentic.

Of course, not in this battle, where they probably armed themselves as best as they could...

reply

[–] brushfyr 10 years ago

Wow.... so guys who are ashamed to be gay or bisexual try and turn it around and blame the media for making them aroused? Look, Travolta, if you got aroused seeing shirtless men in 300 does not mean it's homoerotic, it just means you're attracted to men.

I think you're the same type of person who would watch she-male porn. "It's not gay if the girl has a penis!!!"

Ok, relax, society seems to favor bisexual women more then bisexual men, but you're not fooling anyone by projecting your sexual frustration on the filmmakers.

reply

[–] myfavoriteritual 10 years ago

I think that straight men admire a well-built man's body, whereas gay and bi men lust after it. So just because a film features muscular guys doesn't mean it's homoerotic. Flirty banter and suggestions of love, however, do charge a movie with gay undertones.

reply

[–] doubl3 9 years ago

I think men look dumb if they're muscular personally. It looks weird, especially since all of them in this movie looked like they had boobs.

reply

[–] calvinhackbarth 9 years ago

So.... we should all be anorexic? That is the male anatomy and you think it's stupid? lol

reply

[–] snoho 10 years ago

Well, context is a very important factor to include.

reply

[–] moviemasochism 10 years ago

I went in expecting a historical drama about one of the most incredible true stories in the history of the world.

Do you generally go into a theater with expectations based on anything else but what the movie advertised? This movie came out in 2006, not 1986; there was an internet and any search you did of the movie would tell you it was based on a graphic novel. I mean, for F's sake, did you even watch the trailer?

reply

[–] mit800 9 years ago

This is the reason they added women fighters to the sequel.

so they could turn down the gaydar

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

4
5