From a longtime reader:

“300 director Zack Snyder says he feels no resentment towards the critics who pummeled his movie. ‘Nah, I love ‘em, they were funny,’ he told Los Angeles Times columnist Patrick Goldstein in today’s (Tuesday) edition. ‘The reviews were so neo-con, so homophobic. They couldn’t just go see the movie without trying to over-intellectualize it.’” (From IMDb news.) “NEO-CON”? Every neoconservative review I read of it (Weekly Standard, etc.)- every conservative review, period- loved it. No one- conservative, liberal- mentioned a word about homosexuals that I know of. If anything, it was mainstream media liberals who hated it. And the Iranians, of course. So now, “neo-con” doesn’t mean neoconservative, Jewish conservative, conservative- nothing even political. It just means “someone I don’t like, and by the way, I don’t like Bush.” Lovely.

Me: Several readers disagree with this readers interpretation. For example:

I think your longtime reader misread 300 director Zack Snyder’s remark.
Try it as “The reviews were ‘This movie is so neo-con, so homophobic’. They
couldn’t just go see the movie without trying to over-intellectualize it.”
I always take “neocon” to mean pro-war, which is a common complaint made by
critics of 300, so if I am right Snyder was mocking those who said his movie
was U.S. propoganda.
(FWIW, while I understand some will always see neocon as a codeword against
Jews, I think the label has moved far past that and is a label to be
embraced. Just as social-cons are concerned about values and financial-cons
are concerned about taxes and spending, neocons can describe those concerned
about enemy regimes.)