Is Frank Miller's 300 Politically Motivated?

I was watching some show on Fox News when I heard something--well, let's just say, "retarded."

One of the anchors had seen Frank Miller's 300, a soon-to-be-classic gorefest retelling of the battle of Thermopylae. He remarked that the movie was obviously pro-Iraq war, and that it's hard to imagine that a pro-Bush movie could come out of leftist Hollywood. At this point, I promptly realized that I was watching the Fox news channel and I turned off my television.

I can tell this is going to crop up a few times, though, so we should address this now: 300 is by no means a political movie.

In fact, it barely has any point at all.

I've been a Frank Miller fan for a while, and I was pretty intrigued by the previews to the 300; it looked stylized, beautiful, and contains some of the best CGI this side of Lord of the Rings. Therefore, I made sure I had tickets on opening night.

I sat through the whole thing, despite some teens next to me who really, really thought nudity was funny, and I have to say that I enjoyed it. There's lots of cutting and bleeding and screaming and I felt pretty masculine. That being said, twenty minutes after I left the theater, I wasn't thinking about the movie at all.

That's not a bad thing; in fact, it's the point, in this case. 300 isn't so much about war or freedom or glory as it is about how cool it is to watch peoples' heads roll off their shoulders in slow motion with the contrast turned way up. 90% of the movie involves men fighting each other, monsters, freaks, and elephants (I still have no idea why there were elephants). The other 10% is a loose collection of cool speeches thrown in so critics don't bash it for being brainless (it is) or ultraviolent (it very, VERY much is).