300 Keeps Shattering Records

300 Breaks IMAX Theatres Opening Day/Weekend Records

But the criticism is STILL pouring in. How many movies in the history of cinema continue to receive criticism and spark debate days after their debut? Maybe Mel Gibson's "Passion" comes to mind, but not a whole lot else (at least in recent movie history).

Yet, a critic wrote yesterday Movie Review: 300 Reasons Why You Shouldn't Feel Bad About Skipping 300:

Not since Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhastan has watching a movie made me snort and chuckle as much as Zack Snyder's adaptation of Frank Miller's graphic novel about the Battle of Thermopylae. I imagine Zack Snyder as a director who, showing up on set at 6:30 am with his venti latte in hand, started filming 300 with, “We need more lip gloss and body glitter for Xerxes!” And that’s what 300 is — a lip gloss film if ever there was one. It’s the equivalent of Showgirls for male audiences.

And what the hell is this comment?

The one visual effect I did like was the oracle scene with the girl swimming in the air. It would have been really great if she hadn’t looked so pained in the process of trying to hold her breath.

After all the half-witted jabs and obvious and oblivious observations:

Needless to say, I was highly entertained by 300. Rarely does a film miss its mark so cleanly that it becomes fun to watch. So whether you go because you’ve heard it’s the best thing since buttered toast or because you’ve heard the opposite, one thing’s for sure — you’ll be entertained.

By the way... where are the 300 reasons?

I'll give you one great reason to see 300: Iran Ticked Off Over '300'. Centre Daily.com has more, noting that Iranians outraged over hit movie '300,' calling it an insult to ancient Persian culture. Clearly, it's the American government's fault:

That's the headline in the independent Ayende-No newspaper Tuesday as Iran reacts with anger to the Greeks-vs-Persians blockbuster "300."

Javad Shamghadri, cultural adviser to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said the United States tries to "humiliate" Iran in order to reverse historical reality and "compensate for its wrongdoings in order to provoke American soldiers and warmongers" against Iran.

But Ben Shapiro explains Why The Left Hates "300" (and apparently Iran).

The Spartans, by contrast, say they are fighting for "freedom." In which case, "300" is an old-fashioned battle between the forces of freedom and the forces of oppression.

And the left doesn't like it at all. Many reviewers have panned "300" not on artistic grounds, or even on grounds of inanity, but on the grounds that the Spartans in the film are a bunch of jackbooted thugs; that the tyranny they fight is less tyrannical than Sparta; that good vs. evil is too simplistic. "His troops are like al Qaeda in adult diapers," writes Kyle Smith of the New York Post. "Keeping in mind Slate's Mickey Kaus' Hitler Rule -- never compare anything to Hitler -- it isn't a stretch to imagine Adolf's boys at a "300" screening, heil-fiving each other throughout and then lining up to see it again." A.O. Scott makes the obligatory racial point: "It may be worth pointing out that unlike their mostly black and brown foes, the Spartans and their fellow Greeks are white."

The Iranians don't like "300," either. Javad Shamqadri, an art adviser to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, proclaims that "300" is "part of a comprehensive U.S. psychological war aimed at Iranian culture." "Following the Islamic Revolution in Iran," explains Shamqadri, "Hollywood and cultural authorities in the U.S. initiated studies to figure out how to attack Iranian culture … certainly, the recent movie is a product of such studies."

This goes back to what Joe Lieberman said, what Zawahiri has recently said (or quoted from), and what I cannot help but notice every other day in the news: Democrats and war critics, posturing, like naming a timetable for withdrawal (Terrorists say "Allah be praised" to that). They have fallen into the trap of taking a stance opposite to that of the administration... to the "nth" degree... which leaves them siding with our enemies.

They side with Iran by advocating talks (Though thankfully, Democrats recently backed down from trying to limit the President's authority to take military action against Iran), decry Bush's tough stance against a regime that has stated it would like to annihilate Israel, and they provide fodder for terrorist leaders like Ayman al-Zawahiri to quote from liberal press outlets and columnists. Many terrorists have come to draw support by default from dissenters here at home.

Which leads me to this: Democrats, liberals, anti-war activists... I certainly hope that you truly believe in your ideals. I certainly hope that your rhetoric is honest and true. Because if it's not - if you are simply pandering to your base, acting contrarian, or speaking with your emotions rather than your brains (as I suspect you are), then you should be held responsible as terrorists marshal their resources to heighten attacks and further dishearten the American public, and increase the inflammatory critics at home.

You are being played.