The New York Times A:O Scott wags his bony finger, saying,, "'300' is about as violent as 'Apocalypto' and twice as stupid."  The invocation of Mel Gibson in his review betrays the fact that "300" really got under his skin.

The Boston Globe's Wesley clark hisses:

The title of "300," the new piece of Hollywood action porn, refers to the number of Spartan warriors who futilely but audaciously took on the Persians oh-so many centuries ago...They appear to have spent the entire production at whatever gym Hercules went to. Indeed, if you happen to enjoy spending almost two hours watching a bunch of worked-out UK thespians battle for the survival of Hellenism in only sandals, leather codpieces, and vermilion capes, run don't walk."

Now they're making seeing the movie a challenge to my masculinity.  Even if it stinks, how can I look myself in the mirror if I don't pick up this gauntlet? 

Even the Wall Street Journal's Joe Morgenstern, for my money the country's finest film critic (DAMNING WITH FAINT PRAISE ALERT!!!), concurs:

The giant-screen IMAX version, to which I unwittingly subjected myself, ups the ante from striking to assaulting -- so many depictions of impalements, eviscerations, amputations and graphic beheadings that you don't know what to worry about the most, the body count or the head count. Being a Spartan, the movie tells us, was about pride, pecs and abs. Being a Persian was about leering, body piercing and, particularly in the case of the bass-boosted Xerxes, bejeweled preening; his costume would be a stunner on any runway in the modern world.

As the say, let's all go to the movies!

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com