Oh, yeah, you want to reason out why 300 is a bad movie, for example? I can give you a few very good reasons why, including the fundamental and often unappreciated difference between print and film media. And the other part about having bad effects while being marketed as visually spectacular, I suppose the right way for you is to just accept whatever you get
Ok fine maybe your right, you are looking at it from a different perspective, but let me tell you one thing, the physical prowess of those Spartans was real, they truly worked out like animals. Here is the routine they had to complete
The Director of the movie wanted to depict a Spartan army that was lean and cruel, rippled with muscle built from the hardships of living in Sparta. He wanted his actors to train like those warriors would have trained, with the trust in each other that would show onscreen and captivate (and forcibly salivate) the naughty dreams of women around the world.
So he called up Gym Jones, notable insane training facility - it's basically Fight Club for fitness - and these guys ripped the actors apart and sewed them back together with ironwood bark!
For a little taste, here's the circuit that they do to measure performance:
"25x Pull-up
50x Deadlift @ 135#
50x Push-up
50x Box Jump @ 24 box
50x Floor Wiper @ 135# (one-count)
50x KB Clean and Press @ 36# (KB must touch floor between reps)
25x Pull-up
300 reps total"
....in less than 20 minutes.
So you say the movie had bad effects that may be, but from the physical standpoint these actors, truly were ripped up and sewn back together. Not only did they look like what a Spartan soldier would look like, they trained everyday with sword, spear, and shield.
The best thing I find, well done, about this movie was the way in which Snyder brought to screen the look and feel of a graphic novel. Additional credit goes to cinematographer Larry Fong for devising a unique lighting scheme - with a mixture of saturated and desaturated colors - that reinforces the movie's aura of unreality.
Warner brothers from an economical standpoint, lost a bunch of money, from big budget pictures like Troy and Alexander. So of course, they are going to want to make a picture, about 300 Spartans facing off against a quarter of a million Persians, for less money. The movie was done in front of a blue screen in a converted locomotive factory in Montreal. Ancient Greece was filled in digitially, really in many ways ground breaking, and it was done at a third of the cost.
To me the film is unique, when I first watched it, I never saw anything like it. 300 was meant to bring Frank Miller's graphic novel to life on screen, everything including 90% of the dialogue and scenes. The studio did what they set out to do, and I believe did it well, and saved money in the process, from a business standpoint, I see no harm. However this is a rendition of a graphic novel and that is fine, but if they think they can reproduce everything about History in this manner, they are sadly mistaken. For instance, say they wanted to create a real(not comic) life picture of the battle of Waterloo, you are going to use CGI technology for sure but you are going to have to use a larger budget, another words there will be a risk of loss. My point is not every picture can be made from in front of a blue screen, people live in a world of reality, and when its comes to History will always want realism, something they can relate to.
Basically its the difference between say Gods and Generals, and the film Beowulf. I would not want to watch a rendition of the Civil War filmed liked Beowulf. The way the movie is filmed has to match the style and reality of the story, and to me money has no consequence to that. If you film in reality you are going to have to spend, thats all there is too it.
I wanted to say one more thing about 300, it seems that many people say the dialogue was unintelligent and so on. First off its from a comic, and whoever accused Spartans of being brilliant, it really just shows me how ignorant some people really are.
I am also going to tell you this aelf, I am ready to accept whatever I get, as long as it fits the purpose of what the film-maker is trying to bring to the screen. ( I have one example, you may not agree, but to me, Schindlers List should have been filmed in color, it was not a documentary, it was based on something that happened in real life, this is my opinion.) I will judge the movie when I view it, I may or may not like it. However, when it comes to 300, of all my friends and even my own brother, everyone loves the movie. One person may not and that might be my Dad, he is not into the unrealistic, fantasical genre. He loved say Gladiator and the Patriot, but would not watch Lord of the Rings.
Sorry for any misspelling
In any case this foolish arguement between us is going nowhere. At least I know why you are critical, and to me it's understandable. Have a good night. 
