I've never really cared for the films of Zack Snyder. They may look great as the director gives each one his unique visual style but the films feel empty and badly scripted.

Apart from his debut feature as director, the surprisingly respectful remake of George A. Romero’s “Dawn of the Dead,” every Snyder film became more and more insufferable. (It should be noted that, as of this writing

I think we can all agree that whoever says blockbuster doesn't necessarily mean subtlety and intelligence. That's a fact. On the other hand, he who speaks "Christopher Nolan" speaks resurection, restoration and myth reinvented. "The Dark Knight" trilogy behind him, Nolan has been re-emerging as producer and screenwriter, on "Man of Steel," which to have added some zest and some pep. And who better than Zach "300"

Zack Snyder’s shortcomings as a director come through loud and […]

One Thanksgiving, a friend and I had a long, involved […]

The biggest problem with 300, Zack Snyder’s retelling of the Greco-Persian battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C., is its audience. Or, rather, two specific segments of that audience, to wit: a) Iranians, not happy at the humiliating—for them—last stand of the 300 Spartan warriors against the Aechemenid king Xerxes’ vast army. Chatrooms have been buzzing with furious bitching, much in the spirit of the Kazakhs taking offense at Borat and the Islamic Republic’s official protests at Persepolis, another graphic novel brought to the screen and much lauded at the recent Cannes Film Festival. b) Serious film critics, who have been analyzing and criticizing 300 as they would Carl Dreyer’s Passion of Joan of Arc or Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane.