I wanted something more realistic based on the battle itself, not a movie adaption of a comic/graphic novel/whatever based on the battle.

Seems like your problem is with the movie they decided to make, not the way they made it. Is that fair?

Characters:
King Leonidas:  Born into royalty and a warrior class with a passion for his country and its ideals that are only eclipsed by his love for his queen.  A master tactician with a fiery temper.

Xerxes:  Power mad tyrant who feels that there is nothing that freedom can't do that oppressive rule cannot do better.  His alien like physical appearance parallels his inability to understand how Leonidas can command free men to do what his oppressed people cannot. 

Ephialtes:  His desire to fit in blinds any sense of morality as he is willing to flip sides and betray his countrymen in order to play act in a role he doesn't have the mettle to earn, irrespective of his deformity.  He is given an opportunity to serve his king, but his ego feeds his rage, and he betrays a nation.

PLOT:  In the birth of the modern world a small band of idealists ignore the law and defy the odds to defend their home against an army the early world had not yet known.  By using cunning, geographic advantages, and superior weapons and strategy, a King was able to give his countrymen the time they needed to uncover a plot of corruption committed by their own brothers.

You're entitled to not like any of this, but an ad hoc dismissal of these elements like they don't exist is just silly and in no way accurate.

Air Conditioning and iPad sounds like a lovely afternoon to me.....

....and I fuckin LOVE 300.

I'll have you know I would hold my own just fine. I took a phalanx class in college.

Fine, Eddie, I'll elaborate. I wanted actual believable human characters, and a plot where things happened that actually made sense.

That better?

I get that some people like two-hour music videos. I'm not saying you're a bad person for digging it. I'm just saying that I was bored out of my fuckin' skull the whole way through.

Yeah, I get that that was the conceit. My problem wasn't with the fact that the movie's not historical. My problem was with the fact that the movie was not — to me — interesting or entertaining on any level.

That should totally be your new motto. "Down in Front: Where an opinion can be wrong."

You defend your broad generalizations with yet another (and a pinch of condescension).  Michel Gondry has directed 40 or so music videos.  As have Spike Jonez, David Fincher, and Mark Romanek.  If any of them make a 2 hour music video, I'd be there because Im a fan of those artists.

I'm a fan of Frank Miller, as well as a Zack Snyder fan.   The work they did was lyrical, not literal, and I like it.  You're entitled not to.  Your opinion is not wrong.  But if you're going to ground your opinion on something quantifiable like plot or characters, then frame your opinion as such.  I really don't know why Orpheus looks back into that cave for Calliope after being told not to.  It makes no logical sense.  But we don't dismiss it out right.  300 works much in the same way.  It is a mythical retelling of an historical event.  The characters are meant to be larger than life, the action is meant to be over the top and executioners are supposed to have bladed flippers for hands and goat people play the pan flute in harems, god dammit.  You're either on board or not, but its in no way less relevant for it.

I am clearly in the minority here.  I absolutely love 300.

I loved it at the time, but haven't been able to convince myself to watch it again.

This was probably one of the best (and least sober) theatre going experiences in my life. I have only seen this film that one time, and fucking loved it. I was scared to watch it again but now that DiF loves it I should give it a shot.