Cool News
Talkback area for your thoughts on GLADIATOR!!!
Hey folks, I just got back from CHAT where they requested that I put up a subject place for you talk backers to discuss the positives and negatives of GLADIATOR. Is it the best Ridley Scott film, as Moriarty says? Is it the second best after BLADE RUNNER, like I say? Or is it the worst piece of fucking shit you've ever seen? If you want to read my review of GLADIATOR CLICK HERE or if you wish to read Moriarty's review CLICK HERE or click on the MORE ON THIS TOPIC button on the page below... Let the games begin...
-
+ Expand All
-
May 06, 2000 3:37:15 AM CDT
[]D[][]V[][]D's UP, Ho's DOWN while you motherf*ckers bounce to
by []d[][]v[][]d
Ridley's 2nd best next to BLADE RUNNER. Too long at 2 and 1/2 hours. CONNIE NIELSON gave me a premature ejaculation, might fine ho. By the way, I'm first cocksuckers.
-
I AM FIRST!!
ILOVEYOU.vbs
mohahaha GOT YOU! -
I don't think battle and fight scenes should be shot like a rock video. Pull the camera back a bit, I find that action is much more exciting if we can see it, rather than get a vaugue sense of chaos. The scenes weren't BAD by any stretch of the imagination, I just would have liked to have followed the action a little better. I prefer Bravehearts battle scenes. Other then that, top drawer, and certainly WAAAY better than Ebert said it was. Check his review online, he apparently thinks the Rock is in this, although I didn't see him, and I was looking. Casting Derek "Clau Clau Claudius" Jacobi was a nice touch. I STILL think he would have made a dandy Gandalf. Oh well no complaints. Yes it was enjoyable, Scotts best? Hmmm I shall have to see it again. Regards all-Withnail (Not the one who sends scoops, a different, Canadian one)
-
Norm McDonald and David Chapelle plus Danny Devito, shit sign me up.
-
Truly an awesome epic. Beyond words. Perfection in film making. I can't even describe how fucking great this film is. That's all for now as my brain is still processing this amazing film. Thank you Ridley Scott, Russell Crowe, etc for a film that truly deserves major recognition.
-
I loved parts of the first scene of this movie. The view of the battlefield from the top of the ridge was breathtaking when they showed how many fire arrows and catapults were going off at the same time. I didn't like the slow motion shots and how cramped the battle felt once it got going. I would have loved to see more drawnback shots of the battle. Maximus' escape from capture was cool, great fight sequence. The movie rocked from then on until the shitty ass ending. I kept thinking to myself that I was about to rank this in my all time top 5 fav's, and the only way I wouldn't is if it would end shitty. Well, my nightmare came true. I don't want to spoil the ending for others but to say I was dissapointed would be an understatement. I envisioned Maximus riding up to his army and them embracing him and joining in battle. They would ride into rome and set things straight. Not to be though. We got a totally lame ending instead. Sorry for venting but I just thought the film deserved a more epic ending. P.S. What was up with those 2 figurines Maximus carried around of his wife and son in that pouch thingie? That was a totaly blatant rip off of Braveheart when Mel has that flower or whatever wraped in a pouch and lets it go at the end.
-
A superb piece of artwork. I really enjoyed all of the "dream" scenes, even though I've heard some bad response to them.
The fighting scenes were just outstanding, all of the gladiator battles were just perfect. I had a little bit of trouble with the opening battle Vs. the barbarians, I know Scott was trying to get across the feeling of chaos that is attached to war, but it was really hard to tell what was going on.
All and all, an incredible movie, but one I could walk in on an hour into it and enjoy even better.
-Monki -
Gladiator was an insane film, i loved it. I seriously can not see how you could give it a bad review... sure maybe a person may not like this film, but you have to admit that it is a GOOD film... if not an EXCELENT film. Ya and I agree, those slow mo jerky camera shots were a tad distracting, would of loved to see some slow mo (john woo, matrix) kina work instead of just slowing down 25fps film... Also one note... HOW AWESOME IS IT THAT MAXIMUS JUST KICKED PLAIN ASS !!!! Never was there a moment where he didnt kick ass, he was always kicken ass... and when he well... the ending he kicked ass too !!! None of this 'get beaten up to a pulp then finally fight back shit' (ala karate kid hehe) he just plainly belt the crap out of eveyone !!! COOOL heheh yeah
THanks. quamb. -
The film rocked! I had a great time. The only minor complaint that I have is that it was hard to hear some of what they said. Some of their dialog was almost mumbled. Still rocked though. Loved the soundtrack! Russell Crowe is gonna be HUGE soon.
-
If only Episode I had lived up to the hype the way Gladiator did, I'd be a happier man today. But Gladiator more than makes up for it; everything about this film was beautiful, moving, disturbing, and oh so very very epic. And people.. it ain't Braveheart. Let it go already. Having the tight shots during the battles was a whole lot more effective in portraying the chaos and horror, in my opinion - Scott said he was emulating Spielberg, but he beat him. He really did. I'd have to see this and Blade Runner a few more times each to decide between them, though.
-
I can't believe you actually thought the ending of this movie would be the destruction of Rome. I mean, Scott has to work with a set history here, and as far as most texts go a Gladiator named Maximus didn't overthrow Rome and restore peace to the galaxy... oops, wrong movie. The ending was as it should have been, same as in Spartacus. I wasn't disappointed one iota by this film... utterly amazing piece of work. 2.5 hrs felt like 30 minutes, I wanted more butt kicking! hehehe. Those Roman names kept throwing me for a loop though, so in order to straighten everything out, I'm just going to have to see it again! Oh darn! Russell Crowe is my new god (so long Harrison). Best Picture of the Year? So far, hell yeah. But I wouldn't count a little movie by the name of Big Mommas House out yet... Maarrrtttiinn may surprise ya.
-
This was worth almost every penny I paid to go see it. The story was great, the music was great, the action was sensational! Was it a perfect film? Hardly, but I left the theater feeling very entertained, and has me remembering Crowe's brilliant performance. OK, so what did I not like about the movie? There were several sequences in the opening battle where the camera was shot (I think) in fewer frames per second than normal, and it was very annoying to the eyes, especially with its closeup action shots where all we saw were blurs of bodies slashing about. The fight with the african chariot archers was spectacular (and the best!), and Ridley should've used that queue on the opening battle sequence. The only other reservation I had was that I felt it could have been cut a little bit more. The dramatic scenes were slightly drawn out and too over-the-top for its cheesy dialogue. Granted, they were needed for character development, and I remember one of those scenes being rather good (no spoilers). But other than that, it was definitely a great start to the summer movies. Let the games begin!
-
If braveheart were never made i suppose this film would be better...still not GREAT but better...I liked alot of it but was never really moved...and the sense that he wanted the normal life (wife, kid ,farm) that he lost was never quite captured.
Russel Crowe is great though and he again proved he is The next Kick ass leading guy out there...
I'm sure one day there will be a better film than Braveheart...but I'm not holding my breathe... -
Who was in the fight scenes and what did they do exactly. I know there was alot of fighting, Maximus I'm pretty sure was involved in most of it. not sure other than that.
There was a chariot in one part. Other than that it was unclear. -
Ridley Scott and his team of writers BALLED OUT.
This is a fine film, but I stand disappointed by it for very good reasons.
For one, the ending of the film should not have been what is was. The emotional peaks of this film worked fantastically, and when Maximus is caught at the moment he's trying to leave Rome in order to bring his troops in and take over - I was shattered.
What a fantastic way that would have been to end the film. It would be along the lines of "A CIVIL ACTION" and the book "AZTEC AUTUMN".
You don't want Maximus to die, but in the real world he would have. The puny emperor kept him alive long enough and now, when Commodus had been betrayed by his sister, it was time to do Maximus in.
My shattered heart rebuilt itself quite quickly when it was soon discovered that Maximus was still alive and kicking, only he was chained up in the dungeon.
Then the worst atrocity hit us: COMMODUS DECIDES TO FIGHT MAXIMUS. That plays to the audience in Spielbergian proportions. Why do that? That's what we expect!!! DO THE UNEXPECTED!! Commodus would never get into the ring with Maximus. He's terrified of Maximus. Commodus in reality would have killed Maximus early off in the film and lived a fruitful life afterward.
I'll tell you what should have happened if you wanted a CLASSIC HELLYWOOD ending.
After Maximus reveals himself to Commodus, after the first battle in Rome, Commodus should have decided he was going to kill Maximus then and there, rather than balling out. So what if the people would dislike him. He was Caesar for crying out loud.
Commodus would have done the thumbs up gesture and then plotted to kill Maximus somehow. Instead, he brings in TITUS in one of the most useless scenes in the film.
The woman (I forget her name - she wasn't that memorable) should have tried to get Maximus out of slavery, so that he could get back to his troops right away.
To have a great ending, Maximus gets his troops and marches back into Rome, and kills Commodus, only the take his rightful place on the thone - and hand power back to the people.
That would have been a great hollywood ending.
Instead, the put a petty unbelievable fight between Maximus and Commodus, so that we can have a half limp ending.
Still, I would much prefer the gut wrenching ending of Maximus being killed at the end, just at the point you thought he was finally going to get back at Commodus.
NOBODY IN HOLLYWOOD WOULD EVER HAVE THE BALLS TO LET A $100 MILLION FILM DO THAT. NO ONE. I DARE ANYONE THERE TO DO IT, AND DO IT WELL.
We have to watch courtroom drama's like "A Civil Action" to feel our blood boil. This was a perfect opportunity blown.
Aside from that, the film wasn't bad at all. It just wasn't mind blowingly great like it could have been.
It is merely a classic film that will be remembered always for being a great generic hollywood film. People like me who yearn for something greater, more challening, and different though - will ALWAYS BE DISAPPOINTED by stuff like this.
Cheers. -
I just got back from seeing Gladiator and i am still tense from the battle scenes. Every time a fight was taking place I couldn't take my eyes off the screen. Each battle was truly intense, right up to the final one. But the battles were not all that were good about it. The story and acting were top notch. The music was good but certainly not great. Had this movie had music of BraveHeart quality, it would have been even better. However, this minor flaw did not take away from the whole experience. Russell Crowe, an Australian like me, was incredible as Maximus and stole every scene which he was in. Ultimately, a enjoyed this more thoroughly than Braveheart and I don't think this will pass. Unlike the Phantom Menace which I loved first but now only see as an average movie(not terrible), a have a feeling Gladiator will remain one of the best movies i've ever seen and definitely the best over the last few years. I was so glad that Gladiator was even better than I expected.
-
For what it is worth, the movie's depiction of the Commodus is not that far-fetched. And yes, I am refering to Commodus stepping into the ring with Maximus.
The real deal did have an incestuous relationship with his sister. He did love the gladiatorial games (he maintained his own personal cell at the barracks as if he were a real gladiator.) According to history, he was strangled in a bath by an athlete as part of senatorial plot prior to making his debut in the arena. SPQR! -
The figures that Maximus was carrying are called Lares. They represent household gods who protected the family. A Roman household who have an altar built to their lares to honor and house these spirits. Maximus has the altar set up in his tent with the army...SPQR!
-
May 06, 2000 6:25:32 AM CDT
Gladiator... it just doesn't get any better than this!!
by phantom cruiser
Once again, Ridley Scott takes us to a world that is completely believable. Along with "Alien" and "Blade Runner", Scott has created another epic that harks back to the epics of the past, such as Spartacus, Ben-Hur, even the Ten Commandments. I advise anyone and everyone... SEE THIS MOVIE!! And even more so, if you can see this film in a theatre that has just ONE theatre instead of a multiplex, DO SO! One large theatre will give you the true grand epic scale that this movie was meant to be seen in that I don't think a multiplex can give you...
-
Well I was lucky enough to see this earlier this week (in Australia) and have to say, a very good solid film, it's about time we had a Roman epic, I wish they'd make some more instead of Batman 5 billion. Russel Crowe and all the other actors were great, and for the most part so was the direction, the theater I was in was packed and people loved it. The only thing that let the film down at times was shoddy CG work (a shockingly fake looking first aerial shot of Rome), plus it was always overcast, Rome epics are meant to be sunny, in that sense the style just looked a bit off at times. The film could also have done with chopping about 20 minutes out, Scott can waffle on a bit, still don't let that stop you, this is still a really great film and much better then all the other crap 'movies' released the last year or so.
-
I liked it as well, though I agree that the ending was very unbelievable. It was, though, the best film EVER to effectively capture the time it depicts. Who wasn't in awe at the towering Colloseum and the streets of Rome. A great visual movie.
-
Gladiator was a good film, but Ridley Scott is no good when it comes to photographing action. To draw a comparison with another movie that isn't connected with Gladiator in any way, though The Phantom Menace didn't have as much action, it certainly photographed what action it did much better than Gladiator. Also, The Phantom Menace had the film rolling at normal speed in the final sabre fight, and Ewan and Ray were STILL moving fast!!! Scott's playing around with the film speed to make the fights more fast and furious was distracting to me. The CGI was well done, except for a lot of matte shots, but it certainly wasn't anything groundbreaking. It was good movie, but somehow I was expecting more. Maybe I was expecting Crowe to spend more time as a SLAVE before becoming a Gladiator, but that was just my feeling. It only seemed that he went a little too quickly from th smaller arena to the colluseum.
Oh, and ALIEN is Scott's best movie. -
I think it made sense.
ya gotta realize that Commodus was gone mentaly at that point. the inferiority complex from hell had wrapped itself up nice and tight in his head. he knew he had to kill Maxammus, but as he said; he couldent aford to martar the man. so he sabotaged the fight. if I saw that right he stabbed max in the lung. he only had an hour at best to live(and that would have been if he stayed still and rested) COmmodus thought he had it made. he only underestimated just how badly Maxamus wanted him dead, and how disgusted his army was with him. he had most likely been tutored all hsi life on swordplay, so its not so farfetched that he knew how to fight. I suppose he felt he had to prove to himself, his father, and everyone that he was not the sniviling coward they thought. sadly he was also an idiot. -
I love movies to the bone and have recently purchased a DVD player, as of now I have 1 DVD and that is 'The Matrix'. It was one of the only films I thought worthy of buying, which was until now. This was one bloody brilliant movie. I loved everything, especially how the gladiator fights made it feel like you were there in the arena with them. This one will be added to my collection in the near future.
-
It blew my little mind!
it's frikin' AWESOME!! it's the the BEST MOVIE I've seen since god knows when..
it just kicks too much ass to suck. -
Pro's: Russell Crowe, Joachim Phoenix, Connie Nielson, Richard Harris,Derek Jacobi, and above all, Oliver Reed's finest performance. The evisceration of the female warrior, the scenes of ancient Rome were breathtaking,the war against Germania with the thousands of flaming arrows, and the scenes of Elysium. Con's: The sped up battle scenes,the final fight with Commodus,and the Xena-like wailing.
-
If it wasn't for the internet, people wouldn't sign on and be able to become a 5 star movie critic before your very eyes... to the people reading this... Don't take anything these people say seriously, the only way to be able to make a judgement on this film is to see it for yourself... I saw it, and so did alot of other people, and the only time I knew if the film was great or not was when the credits started to roll... so see it if you want
Movie Critic's SUCK! Mind your own damn business and let us make our own opinions! -
This flick stole my senses for over 2 hours. Lights went down and the packed (constantly applauding) audience walked the streets of Rome and became one of "The Mob." Sure, the story's been done but Gladiator goes a long way toward proving that the director's vision is the key. Scott still has the vision. See this film many times.
-
Gladiator is a visually spectacular film, but overall it contains an extremely cliched plot as well as a very unoriginal ending. However, what saves the film including the fine acting (Crowe's Insider performance is now ever more remarkable) is Scott's directing. The fast cut editing style of the Gladiator scenes is probably the best way of conveying what the action in reality was truly like. The opening scene with the wheat is resemblent of Malick's use of scenery in The Thin Red Line. However, Gladiator will always inevitably be compared to the rest of Scott's films. Blade Runner is still his best work, and very possibly, Alien might edge out Gladiator for second best. Blade Runner's visuals will never be topped, and it continues to serve as inspiration for most sci-fi films even to this day. If Gladiator achieves the same in time then I'll probably change my mind over which film is best. Of note, it does seem that a majority of scenes were taken from an earlier and maybe superior film in some ways called, "Fall of the Roman Empire", directed by Anthony Mann. The ending of Gladiator is very similar this film. Gladiator is a great film though.
-
Crowe was the best thing in this movie, the only reason I watched the film to its conclusion. This was the first movie that I ever considered walking out on. Those damn fight scenes! What is the point? Make us all nausiated? Hurt my eyes, and i usually LIKE that kind of thing. Just not when it's so damn confusing. The ending was...obvious. The flash backs were disgustingly manipulative. All of the emotional stuff was shoved in my face, I hate it when it's done like that. And in a film that supposedly has so much to say about the masses, well, where were they? Were they those blurry things yelling during the fights? Did they have anything to say about their government ping ponging between republic and monarchy? I didn't feel like I got inside Rome, and I really wanted to. It was just a very misguided film. Crowe was badass, and so that was worth watching, but the rest, well, it sucked.
-
needed more gladitorial combat
-
First off, can someone PLEASE explain thoroughly why everyone likes Blade Runner so much? I thought it was extremely boring.. was I missing something here?
Also, I thought Gladiator was good but it I dont think it was great by any stretch of the imagination. The plot was simplistic and almost distracting. The opening battle scene was short and disappointing. The dialogue was horrendous. All it had was a few quality action scenes and some good actors. It was a good, fun flick but not classic material at all like some of the reviews say. -
May 06, 2000 9:25:10 AM CDT
Spoilers - About the ending (perfect) and Commodus' ability to f
by fogboy
Hotwire nailed the ending explanation for me. It makes perfect sense. He couldn't martyr a man so loved for his skills. So he had to prove himself the better man -- otherwise, everything he did all the way down to the escape attempt would just be winning over the crowd even more with his defiance. So, of course, he injured Maximus to the point where it should've been an easy kill. After all, he didn't have much courage on the battlefield, if you recall But once again, there's that underestimation. Villians do that. I do think it's important to point out, however, for those that didn't notice, that Commodus' ability with a sword was shown to us right in the first 30 minutes, when he is seen training with multiple sword-wielding "assailants" in the camp, and fending them each off.
-
The fights and imagery were impressive, and I liked the surreal elements in Maximus' assorted transitions. However, there's no escaping the fact that the plot isn't very strong. Granted, I'm not sure how one writes a brilliant, nuanced script based on Roman pit fighters, so this is probably towards the better end that can be expected. However, it really starts to trowel on the sentiment towards the end. And it _is_ like Braveheart, the primary elements are all there, with just different transitions. Anyway, it's good, Crowe is clearly gifted, but it still resides in the sphere of Summer Flash Film and not Best Picture. Maybe I'll eat these words, but I don't think so.
-
I enjoyed "Gladiator" from start to finish. I liked it better than "Braveheart" and I thought the opening battle scene was as cool as the opening to "Saving Private Ryan." Typically, I don't like big budget action fare, but "Gladiator" kicked a lot of ass because of two things - Russell Crowe's insanely great acting ability and (I can't believe I'm saying this) Ridley Scott's vision. I am not that big of a Ridley Scott fan, but he blew me away with the sheer scope of this project. I did think I was watching "Aladdin" at times because the matte paintings looked straight out of Disney animation, but other than that, I thought "Gladiator" was just an impossibly great piece of filmmaking and I'm very glad it got made. Can't wait for the DVD with the rumored extra hour and will be seeing it again later this week.
-
First off, don't assume I believe Blade Runner is Ridley Scott's best film. It ain't. My order is Alien, then Blade Runner, then Thelma and Louise, then Gladiator. Alien, especially when seen on a big screen, is an absolutely perfect film. Blade Runner (The Director's cut) is near perfect. My only beef with it is that the story, when really looked at, is nothing special. It's the atmosphere that really elevates that film into greatness. Thelma and Louise is a great movie for the most part, although I give more credit to the film success to the script and the chemistry of the leads. At times, I felt there was too much of Ridley the painter, whereas a little bit of grit and reality would've made the film even better I believe. Plus the ending is far too abrupt. I think a moment of mourning was required, or at least more sobering music on the soundtrack. No suicide is glorious, under any circumstances. And Gladiator is a movie that flirts with greatness, but never quite makes it. What surprised me was that the least effective part of the movie were the gladiator fights themselves. I concur with Ebert in that they are so shakily filmed and edited, you can't really follow what's going on, or see the strategies being employed by the fighter's. Seeing the give and take of a mano a mano duel is what makes a fight suspenseful... the anticipation of the blow is what keeps the audience on edge. But that's kind of hard to do when you can't see what's happening. I know Ridely wanted to show these fights in a new way, but the new way isn't always the best way. Sometimes, like in Saving Private Ryan, seeing things in a new way can yield the truth (what it's really like to be in combat). But Spielberg is such a talented director of action, and Michael Kahn such a brillitan editor, those sequences are still comprehensible. They teeter just on the edge of disorientation, which is what makes them so horrifying. But Ridley is unable to keep things focused in those fight scenes, and they quickly lose suspense. The best action directors (Spielberg, Cameron, Lucas, De Palma) shoot action like glorified suspense sequences. The action is there to punctuate the tension, not be an end to itself. The only analogy I can make is that the way Ridley (and most action director's these days) shoots action is like a porno director who shoots a sex scene with nothing but cum shots. The only fight scenes that are more or less effective is the first half of the opening (the build up of it is awesome, the battle itself a bunch of hacked up nonsense), the scene with the tigers (just because it's so nuts), and the end was pretty satisfying (if not very striking in its choreography). That all said, I felt the movie still works because the drama is so well drawn and performed. The first act brilliantly sets up the characters and the dramatic situation, the second builds the complications, and the third resolves them. I did feel they stumbled a bit in the third act. Commodus needed to be in a much more desperate situation and emotional place to make the decision he makes in the end (before ther big finale). And we needed to see that moment. The filmmakers kind of glossed over an important (actually the most important) plot point and because of that, the movie feels anti-climactic. But it's still a damn good way to spend a couple of hours in a theater...Russel Crowe is cool as hell...Connie Nielsen is hot as hell...Joaquin Phoenix is great as the villain...Richard Harris is phenomenal and the anchor of the movie...Djimon Honsou makes a nothing role shine with his charisma...and even The Rock is good. It's a shame the movie didn't have better action sequences and a better third act. Because it could've been great.
-
i loved this movie...i thought it was great. for once a movie lived up to the hype...sure its not the greatest film ever but boy is it fun...love crowe and oliver reed. but after seeing Joaquin Phoenix last night on letterman all i can think of is that creepy guy who married poor ol' martha raye. fo all you nitpickers save your money and go see i dreamed of africa....Long Live Richard Kline!!!
-
Anyone else think that the plot was a little like that of "the fall of the Roman empire." Not saying its the same movie, but they're got alot of the same characters, and one major conflict in common-a Roman general's (Livius in this case) desire to see the former Caesar's (Marcus Aurelius) dream of a peaceful empire is jeapordized by the acension of the Caesar's son to the throne. Others too, but i gotta go watch some rugby. snoogins
-
Great movie for sure...I loved the story...was totaly wrapped up in it...and the acting was simply amazing...what an incredible cast from top to bottom...Russel Crowe is with out a doubt the number one actor on the rise and getting better seemingly every performance...he is moved into the top level of actors with ease...he drips of intensity...and yet he still has a softness to him when need be...an incredable actor...though the matte shots should have been better....and why do we have to see birds every time there is a wide shot of the city???...and for sure Ridley Scott needs to back off the MTV style of directing action scenes...(not every thing has to be a close up with intense and fast edits)...LET THE FIGHT SPEAK FOR ITSELF...give me wide shots of the fights...still I would put it as the top movie so far this year...music and sound are great..a must see despite its short comings...hell see it for Crowe alone---out---
-
What can I say? It was a pretty good film and definitely, Scott's third best since Blade Runner and Alien.
As mentioned by others before, the weaknesses of this film was that the CG work was really shoddy. Not only were there fake birds flying by the Colosseum, there were tons and tons of fake people which you could pick out.
Another problem with the film? The ending. I mean, it is rather ridiculous to expect an emperor fight with a gladiator...
At the screening I went to in Australia, everybody laughed with what happened to Joaquin Phoenix right at the end...
The shaky action sequence of the battle in the woods was confusing and tedious...
But other than that, it was a pretty good film. -
I really liked this movie..the acting was great....phoniex did a really good job(though in some scenes he looked like a fatter rob thomas)..the fight scenes were spectacular..but iam sorry but the fat man with the ragaddy annie wig ruined most of it for me....maybe in gladiator 2 maximus can kill that guy...he can just say somthing like,"o i just remembered on top of restoring rome and all that the ceaser wants this fag with the wig burned alive"...come on ridely give me his death so i can finally come to grips with it....
ry -
Folks... in the Gladiator ending I saw, Commodus quite obviously stabs Maximus with a *poisoned* blade, ensuring a victory no matter what. This is why Maximus was staggering around just trying to hang on for the whole fight, and this is why he dies at the end after only being scratched by Commodus a few times. Now, perhaps this is all so obvious to everyone that no one is mentioning it, but if that's the case, how come no one is standing alongside me complaining that the ending's a basic, throwaway, and simplistic rip-off of Hamlet, but with Claudius actually fighting in place of Horatio? Not very original, there, Mr. Scott. And I'm sorry, I thought a lot of actors could have played Crowe's role... all he did was glower and crack a smile once in awhile to remind us he had a heart. Yes, his physical form was perfect for the part, but Mel Gibson could have played it infinitely better (i.e., with some emotion), though he already has. But what do I know? Braveheart is the only movie I've ever seen where the ending consistently has me tearing up.
-
i'd have to say, i agree with the ol' trigger slut on the ending. i thought the scene of maximus' capture by the guards was the emotional high point of the movie, and left me thinking -- wow, a REAL TRAGEDY. the chance to fight commodus? nah. scott couldn't have had maximus take rome (duh), but given that, something over than fighting commodus could've been done to close out the film, like ending it shortly after that capture. let's see, what else sucked? 1) bad overhead shots of rome. 2) sappy surrealism. a little heavy on the melodrama for me, but hey, it's an *epic*, so i can't say too much here. (i enjoyed the occasional flashes to elysium, however. what a great death thematic!) 3) someone already mentioned the time-line early on in the film. seemed very unrealistic to me. 4) the private-ryan scenes. yes, yes, i know, scott was trying to *perform* the fights' filming, as opposed to just staging them, but these scenes were just not as effective, to me. BUT did i like the film? yeah, sure i did. the gladiator combats were great, and phoenix as commodus IS the depravity of rome after marcus aurelius (the "bad times"). (believe commodus lasted several years, though, not a few months...) and i thought the way the audience was drawn into the fights was brilliant. (although it would've been better, as my friend said, had there been someone throwing loaves of bread out from the floor of the stadium theater). someone asked in an earlier post who ROME was in the film...ROME was US IN THE THEATER, DERRRRR! all of us sucked into seeing the film for the gladiator fights (especially if, as i hear, some theaters were chanting "MAX-I-MUS" during the film!!). didn't anyone else feel the tension there between absolutely wanting to see more of the fights, and the moral, philosophical marcus aurelius and maximus, who just wanted to go home? i thought that tension could've even been played up a litle more. i also enjoyed the dirt and air and shadows motifs -- good roman philosophy going on there. man as nothing in face of the forces around him... as for the critics who say the characters aren't very...well, personally engaging: nonsense. read the iliad, the odyssey, and the aeneid. those characters are almost all very surface; the depth of interiority we expect isn't often there. that being said, i felt for crowe, for aurelius, and even, to an extent, for commodus. i'd see it again. overall, i give it a B/B+ for all these elements, and for the gritty feel that i think is successfully grafted onto the epic side of this film.
-
and your damn right! screwed is gonna be the big movie this summer..think about it(just think about it) look whos in this movie:
norm mcdonald:he was in dr. doolittle and that movie grossed a lot iam not sure what the final tally was..lets just say 200 million okay
dave chappele:con air was what he was in and again lets say 200 million
danny devito:to be fair to people we want even add the grosses from throw momma(somewhere around 900 million i think)insted we will take his role in batman 2 at about 400 okay
then if u add this is a comedy and they do well and on top of the fact that the main leads seeem to be everyday types which the audience can get behind(like forrest gump,lion king and star wars)then this movie is gonna be huge...harry though doesnt want it to be so he's trying to derail it...i mean we get the hannible poster(ohh scary)but not the screwed poster...we get the lord of the rings trailer but not the screwed trailer..he reviews eevrything else not this..hell he makes those animated harry heads in homage to every other movie but not this one....come on hary get with it u cant stop screweds destiny as the number one m movie of the summer...we will see whos laughing come oscar time...except everyone laughing from this great movie
oh and on the rumor note i hear that ryan phillipe and christian bale and hanks son are up for roles in screwed 2:the new generation the best seqeul since flintstones...
ry -
I have much faith in Russell Crowe and I have had this faith since Confidential. I knew that he would make this movie a great experience for me and he did not fail. Although I think Bud White was a better role for him than this one(only very slightly though), this is without doubt his best performance, IMHO. I just haven't made the decision if this is Scott's best film yet, although I really want to say that it is.
wand elf -
Homo-Eroticism, you say? What about Proximo inspecting Honsou's Ass. Or the queer giraffes?
This movie rocked. Up there with Braveheart and Spartacus.
The CGI is fine. Better than SPM, certainly.
Crowe is on the A-list now (if he wasn't already). He carries the film, although Phoenix and Reed were excellent as well.
That first battle scene was a bit hard to follow. That herky jerky photography worked in Saving Private Ryan, but Ridley just misses here.... -
Great great film! Loved every minute of it. Ridley Scott is the best! The action scenes kicked ass, the story was awesome! Phoneix was evil as hell..but the reason to see this film is Crowe! He was SOOOOO COOL.!
-
I have mixed feelings about "Gladiator". Parts of the film were great, other parts were not so good. I thought the German battle scene was badly shot and edited to really allow you to see and feel what was going on. It was definitely not the ancient warfare equivalent of "Saving Pvt. Ryan". Except for showing armor and helmets that were several hundred years away from being made, the arena fights were good and close to being historically accurate. An historical nitpick for those who care: Thumbs up meant kill the person, thumbs down meant save him. I agree with the talk-backer who saw the ending as a replay of "Hamlet". I turned to my friend as it was ending and asked if the producers were going to give Big Bill Shakespeare a story credit. My major gripe with the film was the waste of the character of Commodus. MY GOD, you have a film called "GLADIATOR" about the games and you don't even show what the Emperor Commodus was famous for. He WAS a gladiator. He fought in several contests during his 13 year long reign. True, most of the games he participated in was as a Beastiarii, or big game hunter. But he also fought other gladiators at times. He also claimed to be the reincarnation of Hercules, and dressed up as Herc, and restaged some of Herc's 12 labors in the arena. What a wasted opportunity for this film! At least the earlier "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" showed/talked of Commodus doing this. This film ranks third on my list of Ridley's movies after "Alien" and "Bladerunner". Don't buy the hype that this is the greatest film, and you'll enjoy it.
-
THIS MOVIE ROCKED THATS THE BOTTOM LINE PEACE
-
May 06, 2000 11:21:55 AM CDT
Harry, I'm still wondering what you think about Ebert's review .
by samthelion
And also, I think the guy deserves some credit. He never panders to a popular audience by giving the "big" movie of the week a good review, and he champions smaller movies like "One False Move." As far as the David Lynch hating goes, he did give Straight Story a Four Star review.
-
damn thanks for reminding me about that part....that was a funny line...but seriouslly the movie was good...how anyone can say otherwise is beyond me...i mean it was almost 3 hours but it didnt feel like it...and sure some of the camera stuff was distracting but not as bad as it is in any oliver stone movie...and sure it stuck to a formula but name a movie like this that doesnt..and its the first of its kind in a while....remember not evryone out there has seen the amount of movies u all have...and for the ones who hated it maybe u need to rethink just how much u really love movies because u all seem very jaded. a movie is supposed to be a escape...u can sit around and nitpick the hell out of any movie if u want to..but why would u want to? if i go in and pay 7 dollars iam not gonna sit around and think of ways to trash it......this movie was good..not the greatest movie! but to come on here and badmouth it for no reason is kinda sad.....but u all will be able to redeem yourselves with the upcoming release of screwed!!!!
ry -
THIS MOVIE ROCKED THATS THE BOTTOM LINE PEACE
-
Hey guys, I've already put this yesterday in Harry's review. The movie was great but don't you think that there was not enough Gladiator action ? I mean the what was there was AWESOME (esp the chariot scene, everybody was clapping in the theatre) but there were only 4 i think plus the ending. Also didn't the after life sequences remind you of the hallucinations that Jeanne had in The Messenger ? But anyway, the flick was really good, and I disagree with some of the people who say this is like Conan. It's not. It's more like a less heavier version of Braveheart.
-
I don't know what Ebert's deal is, but he seems to have lost it lately. How can you give GLADIATOR and ERIN BROCKIVICH negative review while giving positive reviews to cow excrement like ENTRAPMENT, THE MUMMY, and THE HAUNTING??? Hell, he even gave FREQUENCY three and a half stars, and that movie absolutely went to hell after the first hour. I think the big man is loosing it.
-
just saw gladiator must say it was a very good movie. It very much captured the look and feel of THE EPIC. Any reviewer who didnt enjoy and appreciate this movie is only tring to get press for himself or playing devils advocate. Russel crowe was magnificient, as was the rest of the cast, I must say that he very much reminded me of Richard Burton
It was quite pleasing -
If you remember, near the beginning, when Commodus goes out to the battle lines to meet his father and (hopefully) take his place as emperor, there is a scene that shows Maximus watching him training his sword fighting skills against several men. Obviously, it's not battle, just training, but Ridley showed that Commodus did have some fight training, and was pretty decent at it too (he defended himself from a bunch of attacks at once), foreshadowing that last fight. He was confident enough in his fighting skills to think he could have taken Maximus, though he knew his only chance was if Maximus was injured (Max is a badass, after all), thus the cheap shot. I even found myself whispering to my friend next to me near the end "they wouldn't have shown that scene of him training his fighting skills if they weren't going to fight". Impressed the shit out of myself. Maybe there is a director in me somewhere =).
Anyway, that's my two bits.
Check out http://www.freelancefilms.com (or what little there is of it)
Captain Thinks-He's-Invisible -
I saw the movie at one of those previews here in Houston. I mean what I said above. I was left numb by the images Ridley Scott had chosen. He deserves everything he gets and I can only hope that those polticial monkeys come down on Ridley's side when oscar voting starts. Perhaps this will be the first-ever unanimous decision for best director. I would hope that if anybody got tickets to a premier where Russel Crowe was present they would start chanting "Maximus". An excellent film and for once the hype equaled the film.
-
May 06, 2000 11:48:51 AM CDT
How aboot a board to discuss Rocky and Bullwinkle???
by user id indeed!
Crowe can fight a tiger,but can he fight a moose/squirrel tagteam????Nooooooooo,he can't!!!!Boy howdy,Scott was smart when he tried to get Gladiator as far from the summer behemoth that will be TAOR&B as possible.I hope Gibson and Clooney aren't expecting good revenues at the BO come the following 4th of July monday,boy howdy!!!Pure cartoony goodness can conquer any war and/or boat movie not only in one WEEKEND,but also in one DAY.Hell,one hour!!!Bwaaa!!!!Oh,Gladiator was ok.I'll always have a place in my heart for scenes that involve flaying.This has been a Cartuna Reruns??!?!Moment w/User ID Indeed!
-
Dear Harry,
I just saw Gladiator, and I wanted to share my thoughts, especially in lieu of some of the tin-eared reviews I've seen about the film. I just wrote the cover story for Schwann DVD Advance about Ridley Scott, and I thought I'd throw my grist into your mill about the film. There are no spoilers here, just a point of departure for conversation. Hopefully, you might think it's worth posting.
Roman epics of Hollywood-past served the Roman empire to us on a silver platter for our indulgence, and self-consciously framed the images from a 20th Century perspective with gratuitously-themed establishing shots and a leering camping-up of its decadence for the titillation of our modern sensibilities. Gladiator does not do this.
Gladiator seeks to go back in time and carve out a piece of that world around a story arc that is right out of antiquity in its heroic classicism in order to bring back that world to us for the space of two hours and 45 minutes. This is not romanticism in the sense that it does not idealize the world or customize it to our expectations. But it is not unfocused realism, either. The romanticism of this fascinatingly original epic is fused with realism in a startling way: Gladiator takes the world of ancient Rome for what it was (with its savagery, treachery, slavery, bloodsport) and the worldview of its people (with its idolatry, antique religion, simplistic fetishism of worldly virtues, hero worship) and depicts a human hero in that context. We relate to the hero's humanness, not to his world, and we feel as does he the undeniable plenum of the barely civilized world Ridley Scott is so richly crushing against him. That world challenges humanity as it menaces ours, and we feel for him, we feel as confused and grasping as he is in this world of cruelty where life is so pitilessly cheap; we grasp with him at the available tokens of solace in the bleak and inchoate human culture in which he is trapped. He cannot come to our time, and we feel that as we watch, and it hangs an interesting melancholia over our own omniscience as we look back in time from our comfortable (or uncomfortable) theater seats.
Gladiator does this a lot for this type of movie. It points to us and caters to our modern perspective in a challenging and most unusual way. There is the originality of a great author in the conceptualization of its form and content, and the prose of this cinematic novel is the majestic imagery. The film doesn't try to be just a parallel of a narrow bit of modern culture (Wrestlemania, violent movies) but implies something far more universal and sobering about humanity. It shows how flimsy the layer of civilization upon which our own society rests really is and gives us an unflinching look backward at what we can so easily become. It suggests that it takes discipline, determination, and courage to keep that flimsy layer from ripping and madness and brutality from breaking through. It shows how destiny can be decided by the mob, or by the spectacle of an individual who inspires that mob to something higher.
It would be a pity if people go to this movie expecting an action movie. They may be disappointed if they were looking for mindless entertainment, like a spectator in the ancient Colisseum. The gladiator fights, though narrative enough to suggest a sequence of events, are almost impressionistic, as though deliberately (and honestly) rendered through a fine artist's imagination -- indeed, that is what they are. Each scene is a gallery of paintings, moving in their frames to splash and sputter the images across the centuries through the only time machine we truly have -- the modem of human imagination and the sympathy of artistic honesty. This is primarily a story about us, about humanity, about where we've come, where we are, and where we might be going.
-Casey Fahy, www.escapingamerica.com
-
I'm sorry but I just don't get all this excitement over a gladiator movie. It's a Gladiator movie!!! Somebody explain it to me because I don't see why I should be that excited about it.
Some people are saying it will beat MI2 and X-Men at the box office this summer. Why? Is there some sexual subtext I am missing?
"you like movies about gladiators?"- Airplane (1977) -
I wasn't disappointed by the movie; I wasn't personally invested in the film as so many people seem to be. I looked forward to seeing Russel Crowe and in that respect was pleased, though mostly because of Crowe's magnetism, and not what he was given to work with. The film is murky, with indistinct, low-res backgrounds of crowds which often left me squinting. There is no narrative to any of the combat, whether military or gladiator, just chaotic hacking. I'm sure this is intended to reveal, say, the chaos of war and is therefore chaotic. But, that here does not work. It's called the 'imitative fallacy.' Simply because something is by its nature frenzied or disordered does not mean it must be represented in like fashion, and often, should not be. The mistake that is made in Gladiator's depiction of combat is the assumption that its camera-work and editing style are less contrived than more seemingly choreographed battle scenes in other films. Both styles are equally contrived. It isn't war or armed combat. It's a film, and as such, needs structure to give meaning. Scott's decision here makes each and every scene hard to follow and thus less involving. The movie's exposition is also very weak at times: I chuckled merrily when I saw how it was the film explained Maximus being sold into slavery, basically consisting of his passing out followed by a fade to black. Was he picked up a roving band of gypsy slave traders? My final criticism is of the ending. While I think it ended exctly as it should have, there was no sense at all that Commodus could have been any true threat to Maximus. At all. Not even the early scene of Commodus engaged in sword play with several soldiers could imbue his character with anywhere near the awesome sense of capabilty, of super-competency, that Maximus radiated. Commodus was at every turn played as a simp, who desired to be the lover of his sister, and as such, could not possibly be any real counterpoint of energy to Maximus. At any rate, it's a pretty good film, worth seeing to marvel at Russel Crowe, but otherwise generally unremarkable.
-
I thought Gladiator rocked. The performances of the European contingent really made the movie, not to mention that Aussie. My biggest problem wasn't with the film, but the trailer missing before it started. The people at Fox are on crack. Why else be so stupid as to not include the X-Men trailer with one of the most anticipated and talked about movies of the year. I was sad to see that they let this opportunity slip through their fingers. So many different types of people will see this movie and talk about it and the X-Men trailer could have reached all of these people. Oh well, if it doesn't do well blame the inept marketing dept. at Fox; not those who love the X-Men. Did you see the Hannibal trailer? That's the way to create anticipation for a movie.
-
If I heard the emperor cry about his father not loving him on more time...UGH!
Plus, all of the action sequences were way too shakey. The only way You could tell that someone was hit was by the fact that they started limping and bleeding. I came home and watched Spartacus to get the shitty taste out of my mouth. UGH -
There's nothing wrong with Roger Ebert. GLADIATOR is yet another movie that has been heavily, heavily hyped on this site -- and was nowhere near the "masterpiece" Harry or many other people claimed it to be. Was it entertaining? To a degree, yes, but it's FAR from Ridley Scott's best work, and I was disappointed with it all told.
What was wrong with it? The script, for one. There's no dimension, no substance to it. It's all one-dimensional characters. Joaquim Phoenix has TOO MUCH screen time, and there's not enough conflict in the film: it's just him! He's a nutty Emperor! Great, but is this what great epic dramas are made of that run 155 minutes?
I was also surprised by the lack of depth in the supporting performances. The cast was excellent and I enjoyed all the performances, but they blew so many chances to develop subplots...it just felt shallow.
And as for the direction, all of this talk about the CGI and everything...it disappointed me. The movie felt claustrophobic. Was there some reason why the first shot of Rome was BLUE??
And I'm sorry, there was WAY too much BRAVEHEART stuff in this movie, right down to the ending. I also didnt like the lack of humor for a movie that was essentially a comic-book masquerading as a historical epic.
I found it amusing someone said "you geeks always complain." GLADIATOR is a perfect example of a movie that's gonna appeal primarily TO geeks who like anything that's flashy and cool but has no substance whatsoever.
Has everyone out there SEEN other gladiator films? Other Ridley Scott films? GLADIATOR fails to measure up in either category.
I didn't hate this movie -- I liked portions of it, and the performances. But this script NEEDED a rewrite and as far as I'm concerned, it was pretty disappointing.
Yet another movie heavily hyped for months on this site that really fell short of all the scuttlebutt.
Doc Michaels -
That's my favorite line from the film.
Best parts: (1) Russel Crowe. Perfect for the part. One look at him and you know the other guys are thinking, "this is the guy that can keep you alive and get you home again."
(2) Some nice CGI shots of the coliseum.
(3) Decent performances from Oliver Reed (ok, better than decent), Djimon Honsou, Connie Nielsen, and the kid who played her son.
(4) Nice Spanish horses.
Unfortunately, that's about it.
Worst parts:
(1) The camera work used for the battles just STINKS. If you want to see what actually happened, you have to watch the HBO special! I sure hope directors get a clue REAL SOON and STOP DOING THIS! I HATE IT!!
OK, so most people here probably haven't been in an actual Roman battle or gladiatorial combat, but if you've ever been in a comparable situation - where everything just suddenly goes to hell, like a car wreck or an earthquake or a horse bucking you off or even something like the Pennsic War - then you know that things don't get all wild and fast and jerky. They SLOW DOWN. You remember them as long, nightmarish images. Obviously somebody did film some way cool battle sequences, and someday I'd love to actually SEE them.
(2) The score. Weak. Drippy. Forgettable. Bring back the Conan music. Or (here's an idea) get a real composer to write a real score!
(3) The Romans did not use stirrups. Period.
Other stuff: Yes, there were emperors who entered the arena to take on the gladiators. Remember, Commodus wanted more than anything to be loved (I just wanna be loved! Is that so *wrong?*) and the crowd loved Maximus. Just like he wanted his father's love but it went to Max, Commode wanted the crowd's love too. But he knew he didn't have a chance against ol' Max, so of course he stabbed the guy with a (certainly poisoned) blade before he'd set foot in the ring with him. And as they've done before, the Praetorian Guard decided the outcome (they're the same bunch who took out Caligula.)
The ending reminded me more of Dune than of Hamlet.
Best scene: Max and Commodus on that lift, just before the last fight.
So: go see it, it's mostly cool, but it's one of those frustrating films that could have been truly awesome but went for too many gimmicks instead. Crowe is fantastic and the horses are pretty.
-
I have just one sujestion to all the people who have been a little to critical of this film. Lighten the fuck up. I really mean it. It was a good movie. Enjoyable. If people could just loosen their sphyncters and relaxe and open their eyes to WATCH the movie.
Did it live up to the hipe, No. What movie does live up to the Hollywood super promotional machine.
I really liked the battle scene being speeded up slowed down and herky jerky camara action. It draws the viewer in. If someone was in a battle like that things would seem to move faster, and action would be taking place on all sides. It didn't make it nice and cut pretty like Braveheart did. Braveheart, another great film, show the horable bloodyness of the battle but never draws the view to look at it like a combatant.
Also about the big HOLLYWOOD ENDING that someone wanted. This to me was done on the same plain as a greek tragedy. The Hero never lives. Simple ending Everyone dies, someone gets told the hero's wishs and then a contry morns. To me to get the army and march down the streets of Rome betrays the greek roots of this story. It is a form that has been efective for over 2 thousand years, why screw with it.
Overall everyone just needs to watch the movie, not anaylise it while it is play. After the credits role, reflect on what stood out, good or bad, and you might just ENJOY the movie you layed out $8 dollars or more to see. It might not be a great film, and it WON"T live up to the studios hipe, but there is a better chance that you will just plane ENJOY the movie
-
You know, I look at all the reviews of Gladiator so far by all these movie Reviewers and I have to laugh. I think most of them miss the point and start fooling themselves. But if they miss the point, it's their own stupid fault. The point is, Gladiator is a fine movie, directed by a fine actor and acted with zest from a great selection of fine actors. Gladiator is one of the best movie going experiences I have had in a long while. And if you enjoy movies like Braveheart, Conan the Barbarian (Not Destroyer mind you) and Excalibur then this will be right up your alley. It's fantastic. Let's stop picking them damn thing to pieces and enjoy what's there!
-
Why is Blade Runner so loved by all the people on here? Well, that's an easy one to solve. The vast majority of the people on this site are big, fucking nerds! It's the same reason they all champion The Matrix. It's the same reason The Phantom Menace was voted the best movie of the year in the polls on this site. It's the same reason any talkback pertaining to Lord of the Rings, or any comic book character is always so crowded with the eager masses of dateless dweebs just dying to post their awe inspiring messages. Hell, it's also the same reason there is always so much negative feedback around here. If it's SCI-FI, comic book, or anything else associated with nerds, they will love it. This is not to say that all of the people on talkback are nerds, but about 90% are. Don't try to rationalize it, there is no rationalizing the behavior of these nerds, or Geeks as they prefer.
-
May 06, 2000 12:21:31 PM CDT
Sorry "Gladiator" bashers, I HAVE to disagree with all of you...
by sexualchocolate1
First of all, as far as I'm concerned, the movie wasn't even all that hyped, so my expectations of the film weren't that high OR low. Secondly, in my opinion, I think "Gladiator", in comparison to any past feature film I've seen in my life, makes them all look like trash. I'm not claiming it's some sort of ultra-masterpiece, but has to be THE best film I've ever seen in my life. Although there were very, very minor flaws in the action sequences (the the "shakiness" of the camera during the action scenes), every action sequence rocked. The acting was superb and the movie was backed up with 100% storyline. "Gladiator" is definetly the first best film of the new year, maybe even the millenium. Although its not exactly a pure masterpiece, I definetly feel this film will become a memerable classic by the people, not the critics...
-
I kinda liked Gladiator. The batlle scenes were some of the best I have ever seen. The drama on the other hand was crap. I didn't feel anything for these characters and when Maximus dies I did not shed one tear. Three stars just for the battle scenes.
-
He's making too much sense! ;)
-
I was checking my CinamaScore e-mail and it gave Gladiator almost all
"A's" (one A-). In EVERY age group and
with men and woman. Not too shabby...then I read the Talkback and over all it was well received but with a great deal of "wine snobbery" going on which may or may not be deserved. But when I saw this film at Harry's S.F. Geek-Fest
back in Febuary, I knew then I saw a great film. An above average in some ways film and a kick ass in many ways film. You can nit-pick 'till the cows come home but if you got some great memorable scenes still floating in your collective memory, then you got your monies worth. Like many of you, I re-watch my faves on video or DVD
for the thrill of seeing some great performances and classic action. Gladiator has that... Gladiator makes the cut in my book. I've seen Raiders at least
40 or 50 times and it has HUGE glaring special effect shots that you KNOW are effects shots. When Indy is in the market, the punches are obviously fake but the action just carries you along and Harrison
plays it soooo cool that you just have to love that movie. Is Gladiator like that?
It was for me, it had some really fake moments...as fake as the City of Los Vegas...but a Vegas at night...when it looks so damn cool...it looks like a dream. --Syd. -
I remember when I was just a little tike, and I saw "Braveheart" for the first time. I was absolutely enthralled by the heart and brilliance of the movie. Let's be honest, you can't help but sniffle a little at the end of the movie. Nothing tugs at the strings like the word "freedom" being shouted from the lips of a dying man. "Braveheart" is a truly great movie, but not the best movie ever.
Everyone is talking about how there has never been a movie to touch it, esp. in the past few years. I think you guys are forgetting a little project called "Saving Private Ryan." It is the most intense, touching, gripping, and also the best movie of the 1990s. I would even be willing to argue that it is the *best* movie ever!!!!! Americans, all Westerners for that matter, when seeing this movie can't help but appreciate what those men did for the world at D-Day. A battle that Ambrose called the most climatic moment of our time.
"I am the Lizard King, I can do anything." -
I believe some one stated it earlier but it was very shakespeareish in the way that maximus was poisoned and they both died in the end. i thought it was a great way to end the movie and its been a long time since weve actually seen a tragedy like this on the big screen. another couple things i saw was an akira kurosawa like death scene where the man on the horse got killed by maximus and they panned out to see both men and they just stood there and a second later the man on the horse just collapsed..very cool. the other being the REALLY FAKE birds flying around in rome it seems they didnt use that great of lighting software, you couldnt see any shadows cast on them that actually went with the scenery. i enjoyed the movie thuroughly and believe the shakey camera was appropriate, if it wasnt there it would just be another battle scene thats really gory. i mean if you were in a battle like that i seriously doubt that your sight would be so perfect that everything was just nice and orderly. But anyway Russel crowe would play a perfect Gattsu(from an anime entitled berserk) and he is a badass (something u dont see often in movies) and i give it a good 9/10
-
Was The Rock in this film? I see some people mention that he was, and yet again, more people say that they didn't see him at all, even looking for him. I myself did not see him in it, nor did I see his name in the credits... if you did see him, can you point himn out for us?
I would give this movie 4 outta 5. Very good, but not great (WTF is up with all those LSD scenes?) -
What are you... kiddin me? Sons of beeches?!
Did everyone see the same film as I did? "GLADIATOR" is a TERRIBLE TERRIBLE piece of doo. This is the perfect example of a rushed Hollywood oiled machine product of the movie. The ENTIRE movie was basically 10 minutes long... and thats it. It was Maximus, respectable General... Jaquin Phoenix as a whiny little bitch. Some shitty fight scenes. Then repeat for two hours. The movie went nowhere and just WASTED the opportunity for excellence. I blame it on Ridley Scott who is so OVERATED as a director. Blade Runner was good... but thats about it. G.I. JANE?! Shhheeit. Gladiator was just so poor and so amateur. Look closer... I think we will all understand.
"Peeeple not animilz... Peeeple!" -
For an escapist Roman action movie it wasn't bad at all. I saw "Gladiator" on Wednesday at a free screening and was quite pleased. The cinematography was inspired, for the most part the CG was excellent (other than a scene with birds that looked like triangular black dots, you know the shot I'm talking about if you've seen it), and Russell Crowe had a great presence about him. The dramatic scenes, for what they were, still worked for me and I quite enjoyed the dialogue. The ending was excellent and beautiful. I was fearing a very cheesy Hollywood crap ending where they'd be chanting "Maximus! Maximus!" into the end credits. I was pleasantly suprised to see they didn't falter into the realm of cheddar and used silence to convey the tragedy and sorrow of Maximus' passing. As someone once said, "silence is so appropriate." Overall, I found it to be a good escapist film for the summer. 9/10. Take care, all. Mr. Sartre, and I am Spartacus...
-
Good flick. No complaints.
-
Virtually everyone who is saying negative things about Gladiator is misguidedly falling into the #1 trap of the critique: saying "they didn't make this movie how I wanted!"
First we have one bloated Roger Ebert, who represents the complaint that the movie didn't use a wide enough "palette," as if men killing each other for mere entertainment was something that requires sunny skies. It was a darkly themed, darkly executed story of betrayl - and people and asking why actors were so "brooding" and didn't "have more fun" with things? This isn't Disney fare.
The movie was much more visionary and much less visceral than I had expected, and while it initially displeased me, I can take a step back and see that it made for a deeper and more lasting film. Each action sequence drove the plot, especially the incredible Battle of Carthage "re-enactment."
People need to understand that this wasn't an action movie, no matter the title. As for the skip-frame shooting of the battle scenes, while I disliked it at first, I quickly got used to it and saw how it much better represented true battle that some silly choreography that makes everything flow just beautifully. Besides, it wasn't really used for the film's final duel, the only one where you knew both participants and their individual actions mattered.
Others have criticized the likelyhood of the character's travel schedules lining up, the improper representation of the Emperor's thumbs-down technique, etc. The female reviewer at USA Today complained that Russel Crowe didn't have his shirt off, and Ebert thought the Rock was in it... twits.
Anyway, people just need to make sure they can tell the difference between 1) something that is objectively bad, 2) something they don't personally like, and 3) something they didn't expect. Gladiator easily stands a terrific and ambitious movie. -
the rock WASNT in the movie, but another (almost) former WWF star brakkus was in it although brakkus never actually showed up in the wwf they had some spots for his coming....but he never showed :(
-
...that whenever a critic doesn't like a fanboy movie, it is automatically assumed that they "don't get it?" Are they not entitled to their opinions, just we are to our own?
-
OHH MY GAWD!!!!!!! At 2:30 minutes, this movie is perfect from beginning to end. Not a chessy bit of dialog, not a shred of overacting, the right amount of gore, drama and pathos. Dialog, philosophy, religion and battle all in perfect balance. Mr. Crowe is now truly a god among actors. Everyone in this film is spot on. I defy anyone to tell me which part of Oliver Reed's performance is digitaly created. I saw this movie at the Coliseum in Ottawa, Ontario and the projection and sound were both spot on. The speakers didn't pop during the THX logo like they are sometimes want to do. Mind you they are rarely taxed to the max in this film, unlike U571. Overall this film has to be seen to believed. You will be part of the mob and cheer the name MAXIMUS. I envy those about to see this for the first time. I go to far to many films hoping to see something this good. This is definately in the top 3 R. Scott films. I don't know if it is his best yet, only time will tell.
-
Is this film perfect? No, not at all. BUT IT WAS ENTERTAINING! By far one of the more entertaining films I've seen in a long time (well... not since last summer). True, I had problems with the flick, I did find the stop-frame slow down of the opening battle sequence annoying, and Scott could've pulled back with the camera. Constant close-ups in movies bother me. Next is Marcus Arauelius' murder by Commodus. Seriously folks, this was so poorly acted, I bit into my hand just to keep myself busting a gut. But then again, I'm just sick like that (I nearly pissed my pants laughing while watching the endings to Titanic and Deep Impact). Now for the things that were amazing. First off, I'm pretty sure most of you out there haven't studied Roman Architecture and art... so most people wont realize how damned accurate this movie was. Thank god we finally get to see Romans NOT played by aryan looking folk. (Kirk Douglas as sparticus? Please... that man isn't anything remotely close to mediterranean) Also, the film properly depicts the Romans as being religious, unlike other hollywood flicks that depict them as being god-less pagans who killed Jesus. Romans were very religious (even though their religion was imported from Hellas/Greece) And did anyone but me catch that the Undefeated Gladiator which Maximus is merciful to; his armor had the iconography of Hercules? Probably not, a lot of the detail in this film will not be appreciated by the masses. Despite the whole story being fictional, its depiction of that era is as close as hollywood has been yet. The gladitorial sequences were fantastic, I only wish Scott could've but in one more just for the hell of it. As for people who claim that this film is "just_like_braveheart" Anyone who watches movies and actually pays attention will realize that braveheart was JUST LIKE SPARTICUS. You can't claim that gladiator is a rip-off when the movie its ripping off is a rip-off itself. Word.
-
All I can really say about this movie is... wow. Sitting in the third row, those shots of Rome were absolutely amazing. If this film doesn't win some award for art direction or set design or something like that, it will be a crime. The opening battle sequence was incredible, considering there were NO COMPUTERS used in it! Russell Crowe, Joaquin Pheonix, Oliver Reed, and all the others were excellent in this film. Basically, it was all that I expected and more. (Plus it was cool that I got to see trailers for both Hollow Man and Hannibal!)
-
I'm thankful for Ebert's review, even if it was unfair. It brought my expectations down a little, and I enjoyed the film, although Ebert has a few things way off. I didn't think the visual effects were sloppy at all, except in the scene where Commodus returns to Rome. It looked like a drawing from a story book. Russell Crowe was very watchable, but why would a Spaniard have an Australian accent? With all the money spent, a dialogue coach would have helped.
Note to those who've seen it: Did the audience not howl when the scene cuts to Commodus playing Frank N. Furter (" Nobody luffs me!")? And how about those blue designer slave tunics? The movie was like Merchant & Ivory doing WWF...or vice versa. All the drama in between fight scenes is like the dialogue filler in porn. You're really just waiting for the "action" to happen again. Which brings me to another point: My partner and I ( yes, we be fags) went to see this film expecting totally unavoidable/unintentional homo-eroticism. They managed to avoid it for the most part. Compare this with a majorly homo-erotic film like Conan the Barbarian, and Gladiator is pretty straight-forward in that regard. -
The last two shots of Oliver Reed with Crowe were obviously the made up shots that they said they were insertng in because he died with two days left of shots to do. When we see him through the bars listening to Crowe, he looks so light( the film) and still, and when turns roaring he looks inserted in. Just wondering if people noticed.
-
Not a review - we still have another week before it opens here in London - BAH! Still, better than waiting for the seven months it sometimes takes - are you listening, Lucas, you money whore? Anyway, all I have seen are the trailers - the first one was great, the follow-ups so-so. We have also had scenes on tv as well, which didn't seem as dramatic as I hoped . . . I'll wait till I see it on the big screen. Hell, I've even managed to get the girlfriend excited about this one. I thinks it's mainly because she loves Russell Crowe. I keep telling her she can get prime New Zealand beef right here at home if she wants it. She just slaps me upside the head. Women, eh?
-
The reason that Ridley Scott played with the action shots so much was to convey the feeling of chaos in battles like that. In a real battle, you wouldn't be able to see everything that was happening, you would only be able to react to the chaos. You may not like it in the movie, but it was a great way to convey the action appropriately, and added a lot of depth to the film. As far as you people who are confounded by Commodus fighting at the end, that is one of the few historically acurate things in the film. The real Commodus was crazy, and often took to fighting Gladiators in the arena himself to impress the people. He was very skilled, and undefeated. He was strangled in his bathtub by a champion wrestler hired by conspirators.
-
Maybe it's just the excitement of seeing a big summer movie before everyone else that tends Harry (and crew) to make these movies seem like there going to be larger then life. Ebert was right when he gave Gladiator 2 stars. The speacial effects were lazy, the fight sequences were to chopy edited. I just hope the other movies coming out this summer live up to the reviews I've been reading on here.
-
WOW!! Gladiator is one of the most visually stunning movies I have ever seen.I was there with Maximus.I could feel the soil he touched and the wounds given and received.The cinematography was beautiful,as were the costumes and actors.I enjoyed 'Bladerunner' and 'Alien',but 'Gladiator' just demands that you FEEL-something..anything!The only problem I had/have is when I saw it I was one of two women out of approx. 150 people! That, and it's rated "R".Women SHOULD see this-if only to stop trying to make their men into women! Maximus loved his wife and son;I'm sure she accepted him for what he was and had to do...if only more women would be that way.BTW,whoever said Jolie should've been in this need his head examined;I've never seen such a bad lip job in my life......
-
The last film I paid full price for was the dissappointing "Romeo Must Die." I was leery of doing the same thing with Gladiator but I couldn't wait so I hauled ass to the multiplex for the 9 o'clock. Gladiator was worth the 7 bucks. The Glory, Majesty and the Terror of Rome was fully realized on screen. Russell Crowe, whom I've been a big of since "The Quick and The Dead," will be the THE MAN after this flick. Personally, I'm tired of all the overrated BradPittLeoBenMattDamonMcConaghy lameasses that the media has been foisting on us for last decade. My few nitpicks are that the film should have spanned the 12 year reign of Commodus; would've given the audience time perspective and showed the transition of Maximus from slave to fully-trained and experienced gladiator-OK I'm a sucker for the cliched training montages! Some will comment that Maximus wouldn't need much training since he was a General of the Legion. The flaw in that is Legionairres were trained as a unit drilled relentlessly in close marches and tight formations. Discipline was the creed of the Legion; they disdained one-on-one combat. Maximus would need the time to change his fighting philosophy. And, although Joaquin Phoenix's over-the-top performance was enjoyable, the real Commodus was a physically imposing man who thought he was the reincarnation of Hercules. Commodus actually trained as a gladiator and had them as personal bodyguards. I agree the score was strange, they should've played it save and used James Horner. The ending was subdued but it worked for me. In real history, after Commodus was strangled by a wrestler(I think) no Legion from Ostia marched on Rome. A senator named Helvius Pertinax was declared Caesar but was assassinated by the Praetorians; Pertinax lasted about a week. Didius Julianus bought off the Praetorians but he was killed shortly after. Septimus Severus took over and started his own dynasty. Sorry for the history lesson, but the Roman Empire was one of the few subjects in school that I actually gave a shit about!
-
Being the geek that I am I went home and looked Commodus and Maximus up in the encyclopedia. And low and behold Commodus actually did fight in the arena, and seemed to be quite good at it.
But in the end he was strangled to death by a wrestler not stabbed by Maximus. Dramatic license eh. -
Besides Hans Zimmer, Lisa Gerrard was the other one responsible for the soundtrack and vocals. Just in case that name does not ring a bell, she is the other half of what was the band Dead Can Dance, one of the finest ever, some really moving stuff. Since her and Brendan Perry decided to spilt it up after a decade of their music, she went on to a solo career, which also includes scoring music. She is rumored to be doing such for Dungeons and Dragons and Lord of the Rings. She holds a light at least to the same level that Loreena McKennit does, and it is quite likely that McKennit was influenced early on by Dead Can Dance. I thought her score with Zimmer was perfectly fitting. I will be the first to sing the praises of Basil Pouledouris' Conan soundtrack, but I think Gerrard's music fit this best.
-
thought it was pretty damn great.....only trouble with it to me was the opening battle......pull the camera back for petes sake! i new the shit was hitting the fan.........but couldnt tell who or what it was hitting.
crowe is now a star.....(although i already thought so from la confidential)
all in all a great movie...and one ill get on dvd the day it comes out. -
I went in expecting more than I got, so I was disappointed. It wasn't a bad film, but it wasn't a great film. Ancient Rome was fun to look at, but there wasn't much else to see. There were two good gladiator fights, but the rest wasn't anything incredible. The editing of the opening battle only revealed the limited effort put in to the fight choreography. The wide shots were good, but the sped up quick shots of the close-up hack-n-slash were poor. Then there was the predictable plot, Maximus' far too speedy gladiatorial unmasking, annoying cliched flashbacks, and a few questionable plot devices and events. Don't expect anything near spectacle and power of Ben Hur, this is just a very, very pale shadow of that film. In conclusion, I'd rate this as just barely a full price movie. If you can catch it at matinee, so much the better.
-
I have come to the conlusion that Gladiator-bashers 'round here like to bitch just to hear themselves.
This was a great movie that absolutely transported me to the streets of ancient Rome. The CGI shots looked great, Russell Crowe was great, the fight scenes were incredible, the ending was gut-wrenching, the 'dream sequence' shots were effective... These are truths. They can not be deconstructed.
Take my word... If anyone is bashing this movie, they're doing it because:
A. They're a malcontent shut-in who hates pretty much anything.
B. They'd rip apart Citizen Kane if it came out today.
C. They're moody, unhappy AOL subscribers - those guys that used to carry around sandwich boards that read: "The End is Nigh" only now they're online. Period.
Great film. Go see it. -
Jeez. I never knew there were so many people like the Simpson's "Comic Book Guy" in the world. Nitpicking is useless for this great movie...so save up all the stupid gripes for Binks' triumphant return in Episode II. There's plenty of time for that, so store up that Binks-hatin' goodness. Okey day?
-
Since his 1991 hit 'Thelma & Louise', 'Gladiator' sees Ridley Scott finally making a film which is complete in every way. Totally entertaining, totally satisfying. I won't dare compare it with Blade runner,(why the hell should we have to) this is a completely different film. Scott's unique vision as a director turn what could have been something akin to Van Damme's (fucking awful) 'Legionnaire', into a moving, rousing and impactful experience.While it's not breaking any new ground,Scott delivers a fantastically involving movie,he is at the peak of his form here - his last few films (GI jane, 1492,White Squall) have been quality efforts, but they leave you feeling ripped off.'Gladiator' is some of the best entertainment i have seen in quite some time.Russell Crowe is fucking magnetic, and considering the film lives & dies on his performance - he pulls off what many considered to be the impossible.This is an awesome flick!
-
I will recommend this film to all my friends. Impressive acting, solid storyline, beautiful scenes. There hasn't been a film this wonderful in years.
-
Gladiator is far from original, but who cares, it is 2 1/2 hours of adrenaline. Granted, Ridley decided to mix in a story that combines the whole family element of Braveheart with the slave revolt deal of Spartacus. But the point of this movie is to make you cheer with the crowd in the Coliseum while simultaneously feeling Crowe's angst, not redefine a genre.
-
Ebert is way off-base with his review. He's the same Ebert of the past two decades--if he GETS the movie he likes it. He obviously had no clue that Ridley Scott was going for his close-up, scattered style of the battles to give a genuine tone of confusion and distraction that the participants within these battles are experiencing.
Also, Ebert says in his review that the coliseum looks fake, like in a video game. I think he's lost it. Roger can no longer distinguish reality from fabrication. You could probably show Ebert a picture of something "real" and tell him it was CGI and he'd have the same comment. So have another 22 submarine sandwiches Rog--maybe they'll help clear your vision.
-
Nowhere near the best Ridley Scott film. Instead of going for an 'Alien'-like tension, he opts for the meandering, slow pace of 'Blade Runner', which is fine IF it were a character study. It's not. It's an action film. I read in EW that they began filming the first third of the film without having a second and third act written. It shows. The character of Maximus is a brutal killing machine/moral pacifist. It doesn't add up, even with all the fabulous acting. I give it a thumbs up though, since it beats 95% oo the other action movies that will come out this year (but doesn't even touch U-571).
-
...Maximus's son is played by the same kid who played Roberto Benigni's son in Life Is Beautiful.
-
Although this film didn't have any pretensions toward insight into the human character, I think that it did reveal something. There was an underlying theme of revulsion on the part of all the 'good' characters (Gracchus, Maximus, and Commodus' sister) to what was happening in the arena, while all of the evil characters whooped and cheered when people got decapitated and so forth. Remember the quick shots of Commodus almost choking with laughter as the mock-Carthaginians get killed? I mean, the fact that Scott was pointing to violence as a means of pandering to and controlling the mob is pretty clear. Everyone in the movie knows that you have to sink down to the lowest common denominator to stay on top. Remember the poster for the games, which bore the word 'Violentia' as its only description? Well, with that in mind, I think that GLADIATOR says a lot about how times really haven't changed. In all the gladiatorial combat scenes, you can hear the 'oohs' and 'ahhs' of the crowd over the sound track, and in the theater that I was in, they matched almost perfectly with the sounds of the movie's audience. When I looked over, I saw people with the same gleeful expressions as the spectators at the Coliseum had. I'll be the first to admit that it's hypocritical of me to point to the misuse of visceral elements to attract crowds to the movie, since I basically came to see the bloody, epic battles. But my point, at the risk of being morbid, is that sometimes movies and popcorn seem a lot like bread and circuses.
-
I got exactly what I expected, a Ridley Scott film. All of his best films, Bladerunner, 1492, and now Gladiator, work in a visual shorthand style, relying on the intelligence within the images rather than a literate script. He reminds me more of the silent film era than todays movies. His best films take on larger classical subjects and paint them in broad strokes. That's what he does best. It is the atmosphere in his films that is the protagonist, not especially the characters. You can really see that in a film like Bladerunner. He kind of lost it for awhile, trying to make ordinary films with more commercial appeal. It didn't work for him. I'm so happy to see him do something like this again. The only real theme that came forward out of the usual Ridley Scott muck (and I don't say that to criticize him), was Maximus's nobility and loss. It ran throughout the film. He believed in personal good, didn't need christianity to invoke it, and it was his family that represented this nobility in him. When he lost that, he was already a dead man and fought like a man to maintain it for an afterlife. Russell Crowe was just perfect for the part. What a man, not the hollywood kind of man that usually gets a part like this, but someone that seems to come out of real life. He had that same quality in LA Confidential. Ridley Scott really nailed it with that image over and over of his hand trailing the wheat. It's all gold, and you can just barely touch it.
-
I know few readers will make it down in the talkbacks this far, but I thought I would give my two cents anyway. I thought this movie was great! I was very disappointed in Ebert
-
Gladiator: Okay matinee, but better video rental.
*****************************
Acting was solid. Visuals fairly good - save for that horribly fake looking shot of the tiger going after Crowe. Action was boring as all get out. Watching an old episode of A-Team provides more exciting action that the banal, basic fighting in Gladiator. Supposedly people dig on the fighting...got me why. I would essentially tell people not to waste their money on a rather long, predictable and boring movie. Beyond the quality acting the movie lacked any thing of note.
-
This talk back forum is a perfect example of whats wrong with society. All people do is bitch, bitch, bitch, "this movie sucks"
"this movie is inaccurate" etc etc. You know, id like to see anyone here make a better movie.
Do you people enjoy going to movies just so you can tear them apart after? or do you go just to enjoy yourself? I personally didnt find anything wrong with this movie, and I dont understand what you people are complaing about. bleh.
-
Gladiator was the most visceral movie I've ever had the pleasure to view...It was pure genius and went straight to my top 10 movies of all time...To those who think the digital compositing sucked...well...maybe you went to see it at a suck-ass theatre is all I can think of, because at the mgm grand, my fucking god did it look real....put SW:EP1's compositing to shame...and a british digital effects house no less...shame on you ILM for letting the Mill beat you out...and roger ebert is one big living hypocrisy...4 stars to braveheart and 2 to gladiator? What a puss...this was every bit the movie braveheart was...to those who haven't seen it yet...race to a theatre with the biggest fucking screen you can find and piss your pants when you enter the coliseum with maximus.
-
It was a pretty good film overall. However, the two things I didn't like were the characters were a bit shallow (all though not too bad) and you couldn't see shit during the gladiator scenes. In Braveheart you got gore and the cinematography was excellent. Gladiator is too jerky and off center (during the battle scenes). Although there is this one badass part where this chick gets cut in half from some kind of blade extending from a wheel of a chariot. Bad ass.
-
"Maximus seem like a spectacle.
-
I can't explain it exactly but this movie lacked something. I am a big time sucker for epics like Gladiator but something about it did not keep my interest for the entire movie. What was it about it? I dont know. I thought Phoenix was unbelievably brilliant in it and he was no doubt the highlight of it. Oliver Reed was also wonderful and its a shame we won't see him in a movie ever again. However it certainly did look more special than it really was thanks to the great Ridley Scott.
-
Gladiator was close to a perfect movie in my opinion. Apart from a few minor flaws, hardly worth mentioning, it was a masterpiece.
It's sad to see the aspiring critics in this forum bitching and moaning about merky visuals and annoying camera work. Roger Ebert is obviously still in mourning if he says the same. These "merky" visuals are designed to create a darker mood, life isn't always a Technicolor dream like in Ben-Hur. And the low frame rate fast film was a brilliant way to convey a battle from the pov of the foot soldier.
-
"Gladiator" was a very entertaining movie. I thought that all of the performances were great, and luckily the script had good material for the actors to spout. Historical accuracy? I didn't care about that. Those guys are long since dead, and from the stuff I paid attention to in high school history classes, I learned a long time ago that I don't ever need to be in a swordfight. Especially while wearing (essentially) a leather dress, sandals, and a sun-heated metal helmet. Regardless, I wanted to point out that the fight scenes weren't necessarily "sped up," like some posters have mentioned. But I'll agree that the battle scenes were a challenge on the eyes... but there's a behind-the-scenes reason for that. They used shutters of lesser degrees (45-degree or 90-degree instead of 180-degree) to get a quicker exposure time. This reduces or eliminates as much motion-based blurring as possible. Well, since it looks so unnatural, why do it? Because although filmmakers will B.S. you with the "it looks more realistic and edgy" shtick, the bottomlike is CGI is quicker and easier to render when you don't have to calculate motion blurring. It also looks better, because frankly, it is EXTREMELY tough to motion-blur something and make it look real 100% of the time. It's usually too perfect-looking, not random enough... a clue-in for the untrained eye to go, "Hey, wait a sec. That's not real." CGI artists/programmers were able to spend more time on things like having a living tiger apparently get close enough to claw Russell Crowe, or having someone thrust a sword THROUGH a shirtless opponent on film and pull it back out without a cut scene, or gorily swing a morningstar into some guy's all-too-fragile face. This way you could fire blood this way and that way (which is tough enough to model & render, when you think of the physics of multiple droplets of ever-varying shapes, sizes, and trajectories) without having to worry about putting the right blur on it as well. And that's not mentioning the digital compositing for the coliseum alone: they only built a third of the coliseum interior for the actors to work in... the rest is digital, including the crowds. And they used at least seven different CG suites for modeling, light effects, animation, rendering, color enhancement, and more. So if you want to slam the CGI in a flick, especially this one, do it for a living first, and realize that it is probably tougher than acting in a movie. Otherwise, sit back, eat your popcorn, and suspend your disbelief for a while. In the long run, it's just entertainment, and Ridley Scott and company certainly offered up a heaping helping of it with "Gladiator."
-
When it comes to summer movies, I don't really care if there isn't much plot, is predictable, has a contrived ending. BUT THERE MUST BE LOTS OF ACTION. And it must be FUN! I'm not saying Gladiator is an awful movie. Russell Crowe does a great job, the CGI effects are stunning, and the five battle scenes or so are incredible and exciting, and this part of the movie is awesome. Unfortunately, the other two hours of the flick is just people talking. God if there had been one more minute of Phoenix lusting after his sister... that was just STUPID! Hopefully we get a summer movie that promises to BE a summer movie soon. Hopefully MI-2. Okay, I'm outta here!
Brian -
AICN is a good place to write your thougts about a movie on a Saturday afternoon.I'm a fan of Scott, his best movie is Legend.It just seems that the CG shot of the coliseum was the only reason Gladiator was made. Dreamworks seems to be putting out movies on a assembly line. {We'll do the Romen epic, put some people to work on the script, we have computers, make sure you show the CG shots in the trailer,plot- maximos's women has to overhear a the sceam to kill her man, make sure maximos dies at the end because when Braveheart died people cried}I thought Crowe did a good job though. The only part that got my attention was when he used the swords as scissors to chop off a head.
1.The opening battle ground looked like it was filmed at a contruction site. The trees looked like they were cleared for the construction crew to start building a sub division once they were done filming.
2.When maximos is taken to be killed in the woods, the guards dont notice that he is wearing full body armor.
3.When the camera pans for the shots of the coliseum it's almost as if the CG artists got desperate and put a flock of birds in ever shot for a last chance to make it look real(Im not talking about the valtures).
4.I noticed sometimes, when people were fighting (in the coliseum the most) you could see the punches and kicks miss by a mile and half the time you dont know whos hiting who. Since so many people are comparing this movie to Braveheart, the battles and 1 on 1 combat shot for that movie are nicely spaced, and the chaos seems much more real.I dont know why this movie was rated R. Gladiator was almost as violent as Man In the Iron Mask.
im gonna go eat some pizza
-
May 06, 2000 6:56:37 PM CDT
Ok, I've only read through half of this talk back so far but...
by lostoptimist
I can see where the 'conversation' is going. Just to throw me two bits in: 1) Phoenix doing Commodus--I though he did a great job BUT for some reason I couldn't help but think Alan Cummings would've done more with the role. Of course, he doesn't have the bulk Phoenix put on for the film and he would look a little silly in a swordfight but that was just my impression. 2) The opening scene--I'm not going to say anythig about WHAT was wrong with it or HOW it could've been made better. No point in crying sour grapes but whoever said it was on the level of 'Saving Private Ryan' needs to get their head checked. There was not nearly as much carnage, it wasn't nearly as long, and I certainly didn't feel like I was 'in' it. It was ok. Nothing special and not that intense. The Gladiatorial games were. But not the war in Germania. 3) Crowe was great, so was Reed and surprisingly Connie Neilson. I know she's probably been in more films than I'm aware of but all I remember her from is her 5 sentences of dialogue in 'Devil's Advocate'. I didn't know she could act. Now I do. Wow. 4) The death of Maximus' family--Honestly, did this really have to happen? Couldn't have Maximus have just been hurt during his escape/scuffle at Germania and been picked up as barter for the slave trade? He was chained and cuffed the entire time. He couldn't have left and returned by his own free will. He'd have to fight in the games to get back to them. Seems a Hell of a lot more noble then being yet another Avenging Angel. Obviously certain elements of the plot would have to be re-worked but it would've been a nice change of pace from the Braveheart/Patriot thing.
-
This was a very entertaining movie. Joaquin Phoenix was perfect as the simpering emperor-wannabe, & Russell Crowe has finally made it! Too bad they couldn't get him for the role of Wolverine.
-
First off, He must have seen it in a shitty theater, because I found the special effects to be entirely OK. Not just OK, quite good in places. I didn't see what he was talking about. As far as the color palette, I also didn't see anything wrong.
Second, The Professional Wrestler Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, was not in this movie. I think Ralph Moeller from the Conan TV series was who he was thinking of.
When Ebert doesn't get his facts straight, I lose respect for him.
I thought it was a pretty good movie, Not a masterpiece, but it entertained the hell out of me. -
Hmmm.. This movie was a HUGE letdown!!! Go see it for Joaquin Phoenix... That's it. It's a good film but NOT a great one. What's with the dumb strobing slow motion scenes?
-
One thing did bother me. Joaquin Phoenix's repaired harelip. It was a constant anachronism. It was my only quibble.
-
Gladiator is a flick, plain and simple, stop calling it a film . . .. and a comparison with Blade Runner is absolutely absurd. . . .
I don't think I need to repeat all the problems with the plot , ,just read Roger Ebert's review. . .he is absoultely bang on.
To add my take on things. . .the movie just went down hill after the great battle in the beginning. . . . the plot lacked in scope, since 3/4 of the movie we're trapped inside the coliseum. The ending really sucked as well. . .
Everyone's alway talking about the the cinematograpghy, I thought it was nothing special . . . (other than the battle, I didn't mind the saving private ryan rippoff)
Alien and Blade Runner had great cinematorgraphy along with Stormriders (which I jsut saw at my friend's house, what a movie! if only X-men have fight scenes like that!)
I am gravely disappointed by Gladiator. . .last thing before I go. ..
is it me . ..
the dream sequences in Gladiator are exacly like those Audi commercials with the same music and desaturated colors. . . .
poor bush . .. -
May 06, 2000 8:08:51 PM CDT
thevision, actually individual skill of swordsmen was one of the
by pallando
Rome is also one of the only things I give a shit about in school, being a Latin major and all. After Gaius Marius the tactical unit was the individual soldier. Rome had the best swordsmen.
-
Well, here in Seattle we waited for about an hour in the wind and cold at Cinerama (Seattle's Best Screen). Everyone was feverish with anticipation, including a freezing Ethan Hawke. Unfortunately for some, the centurions at the gate said "Halt, we have oversold the theatre!". Some of us, a well-placed sling shot from the door watched helplessly as they started passing out refunds. Instead of being amazed at Russell Crowe, we were amazed at our refunds (minus the service charge of course!) and a free ticket for next time. It was no use charging the concession stand or accosting the poor doorman in Roman garb (His day was going bad enough..coming to work in a toga.)
but...I'll be right back tonight waiting to see this thing for myself. Toga or not Toga? That is the question. -
First: Movies are not diamonds. Flaws do not necessarily ruin a movie. Some movie are endearing because of what is done within the limitations. Second: What we consider flaws often depends on what we like and appreciate. Although certain flaws can be objectively observed and can also be nearly universally appreciated as flaws, this is not always the case. Unfortunately, there are quite a few people out there who believe their perspective universal, and who are unwilling to admit that what they dislike about a film may not be the filmmakers fault. Third: If you go to a film with expectations set in stone you will not like the movie. This is one reason I resent critics who compare films constantly, because a battle may not be so great when compared to that from Braveheart, but it may work perfectly within the story of the film. ----------------------------------------- The problem is that people expect that films are going to naturally get better and better as things go on. Or they expect the exact opposite. The truth is, the only thing that really happens is that movies change. Movies changed when the ratings system allowed new and more realistic content and storytelling. Movies changed when sound was added. Movies changed when Lucas and his people revived the effects business, and changed even more with the advent of digital effects, non-linear editing, and with the advent of regular 8 and 9 figure budgets. But movies have never changed so much that these things don't hold true: There are a few great movies, a number of good movies, a whole bunch of average movies and a million movies that don't even cut the mustard. Everything else is a variable.
-
Are you mad, man? The final fight scene with Maul/Jin/Kenobi was NOT at normal speed, that also was indeed sped up. The only difference is the fights were choreographed and then filmed with the actors moving in slow motion, so when it sped up it was fluid. The fights in Gladiator that were sped up were done with the actors moving at regular speed, and THAT was sped up, making it look a little different.
There are certain parts in TPM that are not sped up (when Darth Maul spins his saber) but the fighting was all sped up. Someone tell me if I am wrong.
And it was not THAT noticable in Gladiator. Maximus could kick Obi-Wan Kenobi's ass any day. At any speed. -
"..the color was all wrong.."And the lasttime you were in ancient Rome was when? "BladeRunner was SO much better".Yeah,after you saw it a couple of times,and finally understood where the damn movie was going."..the dream sequences.."What the f*** are you talking about? ".Dull..".DULL?! Go back to those martial arts movies pal...right up your alley. "Don't call this a film.." Okay. Flick.Happy? But what I really want to know is....When did Ebert become a god to THIS crowd? Nit-picky anal shmoes.YOU go make a movie.I really want to see your vision.I know I can't, so I appreciate those who can.
-
Saw it yesterday. Brilliant. Flawless acting, seamless effects(despite talkbackers bashing), great cinematography, perfect length, perfect ending. I guess you all missed that scene where Commodus fought 5 guys at once and one. This proved his abilities. I've already read the official word that the DVD will have an hour of extra footage. Can't wait.
-
Maximus NEVER took on more than one guy at a time. The suppsed scene where he fights 5 buys was as silly as kung fu movies where the bad guys go at the fighter one on one. If all five of them had moved on his sorry, flabby, unmoving ass that character would have died due to Crowe's lack of skill, finess and vision. The fight choreography - if there was any - was sorry. It made me long for the sweet, beautiful, fluid fight scenes in Batman, Lethal Weapon, The Crow, The Phantom and TPM. Gosh, some dumb lug lumbering around with a sword is not impressive. It's so...so blah.
-
After seeing this amazing film tonight and after seeing Russ's awe inspiring preformance I cant help but saying "HOLY SHIT I WISH HE PLAYED WOLVERINE". Now Jackman may turn out to be very capable but stil RUSSEL IS WOLVERINE. Wow.... There better be a X-Men 2 and our Aussie friend better be Logan--- BUBB
-
Through and through.
-
After seeing this amazing film tonight and after seeing Russ's awe inspiring preformance I cant help but saying "HOLY SHIT I WISH HE PLAYED WOLVERINE". Now Jackman may turn out to be very capable but stil RUSSEL IS WOLVERINE. Wow.... There better be an X-Men 2 and our Aussie friend better be Logan---
----AND THATS THE BOTTOM LINE
CAUSE COHEN SAYS SO---- -
This movie rules. Everything about it. I think its as good as Spartacus, not better, but as good. The action is spectacular and so is the acting. I think Oliver Reed needs to win an Oscar. Not just because he died, but he ruled in this movie. I don't think the ending was bad at all, I thought it was pretty cool. Hotwire is right, the emperor was psychotic by this point. Most emperors were in that time period anyway. I also think that this is Ridley Scott's finest work. Better than Alien and Blade Runner (sorry, Harry). I can't stress enough, how much I love this movie. I'm sure I'll see it many more times before it leaves the theaters and even more on dvd. I hope it wins all the major awards at Oscar time. Go see this movie now, if you haven't already.
-
WHAT DO THESE COUPLES HAVE IN COMMON--RUSSELL CROWE AND DJIMON HOUNSOU, KIRK DOUGLAS AND WOODY STRODE, TONY CURTIS AND SIDNEY POITIER?
WHAT DO THESE CHARACTERS HAVE IN COMMON BESIDES RUSSELL CROWE? BUD WHITE AND MAXIMUS?
WHAT DO THESE ACTORS HAVE IN COMMON--RUSSELL CROWE, ROBERT TAYLOR, RICHARD BURTON, STEPHEN BOYD?
WHAT DO THESE ACTORS HAVE IN COMMON---RUSSELL CROWE, VICTOR MATURE, AND CHARLTON HESTON?
WHAT DO THESE ACTORS HAVE IN COMMON--JOAQUIN PHOENIX, PETER USTINOV, LAURENCE OLIVIER, JAY ROBSON, MALCOLM MC DOWELL, JOHN HURT? WHAT DO THESE ACTORS HAVE IN COMMON--RUSSELL CROWE, KIRK DOUGLAS, LIAM NIESEN, MEL GIBSON, RICHARD BURTON, ERROL FLYNN, ROBERT TAYLOR, CHARLTON HESTON, VICTOR MATURE?
-
altho i did watch young guns but hey! i'm partial to man-eating lions!
-
May 06, 2000 9:57:05 PM CDT
Joe Holleman over here in St.Louie gave it 2 stars also!
by user id indeed!
Don't that just put the "Wowee" in "Wowee Zowee"?Nobody seems to care,though...This has been a Moment w/User ID Indeed!
-
On the down side:Ive seen this before-it's called THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.Scenes are copied a bit too directly from other films and directers. A lot of the armor is WAY off(gladiators in Viking spangenhelms? Praetorians in black?Who the hell would put on a dead bulls head to go into combat- think of the weight, the bad visibility, the SMELL in there for chrissakes!)and of course the history is wrong;but this is Hollywood so we expect and accept that. On the upside:This is the first time that I ever saw a movie that made me feel that I really WAS in Rome, as opposed to Hollywoods IDEA of Rome. This Empire LIVES, and thats a major accomplishment.The acting is good, I liked Phoenix even more than Crowe;playing a week willed borderline nut case is a challenge,and when you look in his eyes you can see lots of gears going around.But what impressed me the most was the photography-this is one of the most wonderfully photographed movies I have ever seen.I'm not talking effects photography either.That's superb,but the set work, lighting, and use of extreme close-up, work better than almost any film I've seen.I'd of paid my money just to see that opening battle scene alone.And Scott should get kudos for FINALLY putting the shrine to the Roman household gods into a movie-they were very important to the Romans,and yet almost never seen on film.Over all rating:story-B,acting-B,sets-A,photography-A+.
-
I must admit, the film did not quite live up to my expectations, but the first battle in Germania really blew me away, one of the greatest battle scenes ever. I especially got jazzed on the overhead shots and the great contrast between the dull grey landscape and the flaming arrows. very cool. Its a shame the rest of the film did not live up to the opening. Only other great scene was the "battle of Carthage". Overall a pretty decent flick. lacked the fireworks I had hoped for, but was definitely worth seeing.
-
Ridley Scott's best film by a long shot is The Directors Cut of Blade Runner. Check it out if you haven't seen it yet.
-
First, let me say this is a geat movie. Whether his best work or not isn't relevant. It's a strong piece unto itself. Something that surprises me in this talkback is that nobody has mentioned the countercurrent story that is happening just underneath the surface of the movie, and runs in the opposite direction. This is a study of the subtleties and passion of power. There is a cynical view of power that mirrors Kubrik's views in Spartacus. Throughout this heroic epic saga, Maximus is purely a pawn used by all sides to their own ends. None of the supposedly "noble" characters has the courage or drive to seize power, not the senators, not the army, not the Emperor's sister. All use Maximus, yet none truly support him. Each acts in their own interest. Emperor dies-point advantage. Maximus dies-point advantage. They are all "survivors", and will bend direction to any outcome. One holds little hope in the end that any of them has the capability to effectively govern or rule. The heroic struggle of Maximus for the republic, for "the people" has been a fool's errand. If you look and listen you'll catch how Scott has set this up. Dark nasty and deep.
Despite the lack of heroic ideals, the only one who truly does understand the "mob" is Commodus. For whatever personal motivation, he is the only character with the drive, ambition, and passion to govern. All the rest are too content with whining while they let someone accept resonsibility. Even Maximus has neither the ability or desire for statehood. The tragedy is that his own misplaced loyalty pushes him into self destructive acts. He doesn't know how to play politics, and thereby, becomes a threat to the very Empire he claims to serve. Are the lives of three people, a General and his family, too much to ask for the security of the Empire?
The beauty of Joaquin Phoenix's character, is that it falls in line with Ridley Scott's previous work, the replicants from Bladerunner. Who deserves more to live, when it is only the "evil" enemy (replicant or Emperor) who displays a passion for life. All others merely accept their role, even Maximus, who has been prepared by everyone, including himself to die. Boy oh boy, there's quite a study of power going on underneath the main story line, worthy of Kubrik and yes, worthy of vintage Frankenheimer. It's a deep and nasty one and I really am surprised that it's gone unnoticed. You guys have been weened on too many shallow popcorn flicks. Kudos to Ridley Scott. Thumbs up for Gladiator. -
Now, I am not saying that Gladiator was the best thing I have ever seen, but I AM shocked by Father Deaths total smashing of this film. Believe me, I am all for everyone having their own opinion, and am not judging you at all. I am not surprised that some didn't like it as much as I did. I guess I just don't understand your thoughts. I respect them, but don't understand them. That's all.
-
Just wondering what everyone thought of the Hollow Man trailer. I read the review of someone who saw a test screening, and frankly I am a bit disturbed about the whole invisible man rape stuff. What would Claude think? I love Paul Verhovens work, but I hope he didn't go over the line with the rape scenes.
-
one person said the battle in Germania at the beginning of the film was the best part and the battle scenes were the best ever, to me that was the WORST part of the film. i thought the beginning dragged quite abit and I did not like the battle scene at all, you couldn't even tell what was going on. The dog was the only thing I could clearly make out. To me the battle scenes in braveheart were WAY better, even though I enjoyed Gladiator far better as a film. This film was very good and it seemed to get more thrilling as the film went on. Everyone is complementing Crowe, but Phoenix was incredible IMHO. I can't think of an actor who could have done a better job. I really hated him, he was perfect!
-
Alright, overall consensus seems to be a pretty damn good movie with some weighty flaws. I can agree. But the film score was so good, and so shitty~! I liked the ethnic touch, the sting-like east asian influence. Out of place, yes, bad touch? No, it worked, and the final scene music was cool, it somehow fit, and was powerfull. I didn't know who wrote the score upon seeing it, I was interested. But as soon as I heard the first action sequence I knew, the score sounded like The ROCK, and it totally ruined it for me.
Hans Zimmer was NOT the right choice for this. He contrasts great original ideas with the most trite, cheesy, and pathetic phrases. Just listen to the theme for africa and you'll see what I mean. First, it sounds egyptian because of blatant phrygian mode, and second the line is sooooo cheesy, just listen next time.
Also listen to the escape from the prison in rome scene. It sounds no different from Sean Connery and Nic Cage escaping from alcatraz, horrid. His idea of harmony is identical bass and melody lines an octave apart. His saving grace was the first thirty seconds and the last ten minutes, I liked the female voice, it was an interesting and emotional line, but I'm willing to bet it was improvised by the performer and NOT written out, but hopefully I'm wrong. This guy just does NOT impress me. -
May 06, 2000 10:47:47 PM CDT
There's one thing that is definately true about Gladiator...
by pips orcille
...It isn't crap like that Disney Inspector Gadget "CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP" movie!!!!!!!
-
I just got out of the theater not two hours ago, and I don't think I have a single complaint. Russel Crowe was perfect as Maximus, a man who just wanted to do his duty and serve his Emperor and people. Joaquin Phoenix made a great Commodus, a lost and bitter man who was strangely sympathetic at times--one felt almost sorry for him in one scene, and then in the next he'd do something heinous and you'd want to garrote his ass. And what are all these complaints about Connie Nielson's performance? The reviewer in the local newspaper called her "a very weak link" in the film; I thought she was fine. So too, was Djimon Hounsou as the Nubian Juba, Maximus partner in mayhem in the games. Instead of just being a one-dimensional sidekick he was a more-or-less fully fleshed out character. So, too, was David Schofield as the German gladiator Falco (heh heh--whenever I hear that name I can't help but think of that cheesy '80's pop star--"Oooh, rock me Amadeus!"). The battle scenes were magnificent and epic, as befitting a film of this scope, while the political schemeing and intregue did not lose my interest. And the CGI was great--the Rome of the Ceasers never looked so good. God how I love historical epics! I hope there are more in the future. I'd especially like to see an epic film about the life of Toussaint L'Ouverture--imagine seeing the great rising of the Haitian slaves against their masters, and the huge land battles against the British and the French on the big screen. Glorious. It would make SPARTICUS look like the Summer of Love. In any case, great film all the way around. Not as good as BLADERUNNER, but within striking distance. Ridley Scott, I salute you!
-
I'm surpised that there has been so little comment on the one staple of gladiator movies (indeed almost all Roman epics of the past) I mean of course Christianity-Maximus doesn't toss out his household gods and put on a Crucifix.He stays pagan right on through, and goes to Elysium, not Heaven.Way different from 1950's Sword and Sandle epics. Commodus of course, being a classical Roman, would have known (after murdering his father)that the reason that Maximus was still alive is that Jupiter had released the Brazen Winged Furies for the sin of Patricide, and that he, Commodus, was toast.
-
I've been a history buff long before I could even walk. Some of the first people I ever read about in my entire life weren't Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny or Spiderman. They were Ramses II, Genghis Khan, Leonardo daVinci and many others. These men managed to carve out the pattern of their very souls in the web of history. They never truly died, they became legends and gods. Yes this is not a fast paced film, but then again the point is to show the life of a man who will never die and how it became that way. War does not make one great, neither does killing, nor being the best and the brightest. What makes one great is that you believe implicitely that you are great with such a fervor that the people who watch you come to admire you, then to love you. If this movie's point had been to show cool Gladiator fighting then it would have been a failure and those who would have loved it would have been no better than the Roman populace screaming for the blood of men who were given no choice except to kill or die. It shows the journey of one man as he makes his way into destiny and history, pushed into action by forces greater than he and beyond his control. This isn't literal history oer-se, but it is close. Many men have been like Maximus in history and many of them have met a much less glorius fate as he. This is a timeless story that is told well as a grand epic. Was it perfect ? No. Was it good ? Yes. Was it the best thing Scott has ever done. Arguably so. Do I reccomend it for everyone ? No, a lot of people won't understand it. It is merely a great story, it has no other reason but to be what it is.
-
The only thing decent about this 2 and 1/2 hour snoozer was Crowe. He was in the film most of the time but he not enough. J. Phoenix who I loved in 8MM was worthless in this flick. I am still trying to figure the stupid plot out. Braveheart was on HBO on Wednesday, and Gladiator is a very expensive cheap knockoff of the Mel Gibson classic. I hope this shit doesn't represent what the 2000 summer movie season has to offer. M.I. 2 had better make up for this joke....
-
Oh come on, somebody had to say it. God, I'm actually a little shy about posting here, here among the great film critics and visionaries of our time. Those who could make every film perfect if only given the chance. They have the Midas Touch if they only had the means to get where they want to go. Anyway, Gladiator kicks ass, and I'm pretty sure that there's a lot of deep stuff going on under the surface that I didn't pick up on the first time. I'm going back to see it tomorrow, which is good. This film was MUCH better than Braveheart (speaking of bad endings, that "Freedom" cry was so bad it made me want to heave), and Saving Private Ryan (great Discovery channel documentary, bad movie). I'm no Ridley Scott fan, but I would certainly give this film a thumbs up. And Eternal, is all irony lost on you? TPM talkbacks
-
...go pound sand. First let me say that I'm an English teacher. In order to enjoy a movie, you have to go in w/the "willing suspension of disbelief". I did for Gladiator and I was blown away. Indeed, I was unsuccessfully fighting tears at the end, but not of sadness, but because I felt as though I had witnessed a moving spectacle of beauty. As soon as I heard Maximus mention the Elysian fields at the beginning, I knew that that was where it would end. Oh yeah, and the use of the phenomenally evocative voice of Lisa Gerrard, formerly 1/2 of Dead Can Dance, should bring chills to anyone.
My girlfriend didn't like it b/c of the gore and the tragic ending, but she doesn't understand that it wasn't truly tragic, and that tragedy is meant to show people a lesson in morality anyway; tragedies from Oedipus through Macbeth are to demonstrate how someone can fall, usually to death, due to a character flaw. There wasn't really a flaw in Crowe's character per se; instead, much like Duvall's character in Deep Impact, a broken hero feels no fear of death when family has preceded him, if he believes in the immortality of the soul and reunification with loved ones when we die. Overall, fighting and dying for something you love and believe in carries honor beyond words. -
Ridley Scott's masterpiece! Although extremely slow at times, this work of art called Gladiator definitely makes up for itself in it's action scenes! I'm telling you, nothing beats roaring tigers, swords clashing and blood flowing in complete surround sound! This movie must be seen on the biggest screen in your neighborhood. Warning: Contains extremely slow points though. Get over the slow stuff and this movie will kick you in the ass for a week!
-
If you want to know my opinion of Gladiator, I have a review for it up at my website at:
http://msnhomepages.talkcity.com/LyricLn/truul/movmaniacpage.html
To sum it up I liked it. -
I and a oohort played hookie yesterday to see Gladiator at the Cineramadome. Later, someone asked how it was, and I said "It's worth seeing." Seems like faint praise, but I think this movie IS WORTH SEEING, even tho it's not what some fanboys led me to expect. I thought I'd come out exhausted from being pummelled by the violence and action, with veins in my teeth, etc. That I was not. The battle and gladiaitor scenes were ambitious, awesome, and fascinating. I cheered when Maximus cut his arena opponent's head off. Maximus' line: "No matter what comes through that door ... [Carthage]" is still echoing in my head. I read someone's comment that the Germania battle scene was - disappointing. I DUG that scene - the camera angles, color shift and pacing conveyed the sense of hyper-adrenalized perception I imagine I'd have wading into the mud to seriously kick ass on the barbarian hordes. The style was repeated in the first arena fight, and it was way cool there, too. Also, I thought the CGI Collosseum shots were really good. That's an awe-inspiring structure even now all busted up, and RS's version was a pleasure to view.
The overall quantity of action just didn't pay out, and I fear the amount of dialogue used for plot development may seriously diminish this film's returns. Plot hole: Marcus Aurelius tells his daughter that she would have made a great Caesar [salad maybe] but she spends the rest of the movie as a teary wimp. Would have been better if she'd had bigger cojones. A lot of the plot after they got to Rome was pretty trite.
I liked this movie. Go see it, if even just for the great individual scenes. Thank you again, RS.
PS - I suspect the MPAA got their grubby hands on the final cut, and I look forward to the missing bits on DVD. -
This is the first time I've ever posted on Talk Back, but this film certainly merits it. First of all, let me say that Gladiator was my most anticipated film of the summer (Russel Crowe is a god). That being said, Gladiator met or exceeded all of my demands. This is by far Ridley Scott's best work (sorry Harry, but I feel you on the nostalgia aspect of Blade Runner). It is this degree of impeccable filmmaking that I think we've all come to expect from Ridley Scott, who's attention to detail pays off in a film of these proportions. The performances are fantastic, especially Joaquin Pheonix, whom I personally wanted to kill by the end of this film. And as for Russel Crowe... well, badass does not begin to describe him. Excellent, excellent movie.
-
Every movie since the creation of the motion picture has had its flaws. From the trendy indie films to the sweeping epics of days gone by, no movie has acheived perfection, and no movie ever will. After a movie has been out for at least a decade, people tend to forget a movie's problems and place it on a pedestal, such as Ben-Hur or Spartacus. They are not perfect movies. Gladiator has it problems. Some of the scenes drug on a tad too long. Some of the CG of the city of Rome was a bit shoddy. There were some borrowed cliches scattered about, but is anything truly and absolutely original anymore without wandering into the insane? Movies like this do not get made anymore. It was a grand epic, with flawed and very human characters. The violence was graphic, but it was *not* gratuitous. Scott wanted to portray the barbarism and the horrors of the gladiator games, and he did just that. Violence does not equal a work of Satan, for all of the uptight conservatives out there (of course, that is a bit redundant.) Every actor involved turned in a stunning performance, and despite its shortcomings, this movie was grand and spectacular. In a crowded cinematic market of brainless fodder, this film stands out as a flawed, but wonderful, piece of art. I hope it does well so others will be persuaded to follow in its footsteps.
-
I admit to having high expectations for this film...the effusive prerelease praise was very convincing.
I tried to like this movie. I really did.
After watching it Friday night, though, I came away feeling as though I had just witnessed a car full of teenagers wrap around a telephone pole. Very gory, lots of senseless blood spurting, and no real understanding of "why".
Frankly, I don't care for violence, but I can tolerate it in a movie if it's framed in the proper context. And by context, I mean an overarching moral theme set in conflict with the violence, or an eventual moral redemption. Gladiator simply didn't have that; Maximus was spilling blood and lopping off body parts left and right, all with the hope of exacting revenge on Commodus. And then he does. The End.
What spirituality there is in the movie is of the Roman pagan variety; empty of morality and social responsibility.
I know that life was pretty harsh back then, but this is a movie, not a history lesson. Perhaps it's an indictment of the times we live in that the heroes of our stories are little better than the villains and that vengence realized is more important that the lessons of mercy and forgiveness.
Two thumbs down for Gladiator. -
Just about anything that can be said has been said but anyways.... to everyone who complains they can't see whats going on in the battle scenes cuz of the editing etc... I'd say one part of filming a fictional event is to make the audience feel as if it is there experiencing the event in real life. Do you really think that, if you were involved in that battle, you would have been very aware of everything going on around you with a clear, unmoving perspective? No, you'd be flying all around, with just glimpses of your enemies and sounds and fragmentary impressions of the carnage. The only time the battles did suck was when they went to post-production slo-mo... WHY??? It was so awful. AND the music sucked, I could tell in the first battle scene it was gonna bother me.
-
I definitely enjoyed the movie, of course it got flaws, and check out my full review at www.geocities.com/gandalf524/gladiator.html. I thought Russell Crowe was great when I saw him the first time on Virtuosity, and he has definitely improved drastically since then, keep up the good work Russell! I'd heard that Gladiator DVD is already in the works, supposedly Ridley Scott is including 1 hour of deleted scenes, hopefully its true :P
-
Off the top of my head, there are five films that have something in common. 1) Saving Private Ryan 2)Any Given Sunday 3)The Blair Witch Project, 4)Three Kings and, of course, 5)Gladiator. The similarity that binds them together is their cinematography. They all have very shaky movements of the camera in multiple scenes. This type of filming only causes confusion and motion sickness. It first appeared in the battle scenes of Saving Private Ryan, with the work of Januscz Kaminski (sp.?), where it was innovative and interesting, simply because it was fresh (at least somewhat). You could at least tell what was happening some of the time in that film. Next was The Blair Witch Project. With it's camcorder usage, it's obviously not going to be shot with a tripod, but all the same, made more than a few stomachs drop. I worked at a theater that played it and not one showing, not one, went by where at least one moviegoer vomited somewhere not in the commode. Next was John Newton Siegel (?)'s work on Three Kings. The whole herky-jerky movement and changing speeds were there. It was kinda cool, but losing its welcome fast. Then it appeared in Any Given Sunday, the latest Oliver Stone film (Does it seem like it's become "Amateur Hour" with his last few films to anyone else? I fear he's becoming a hack, following in the footsteps of DePalma. Anyways, the game-time scenes were so confusing, me and everyone I talked to had given up hope of determining what was happening. If they didn't have the announcer's voice to give the paly-by-play, I'd have been screwed. The cinematography was very poorly done and the shaky, jerky motions were beginning to piss me off. Now, in Gladiator, John Matheison's work continued to piss me off doing the same movements of the camera as the other films. Could anybody tell what actually happened in that opening battle scene? I sure as hell couldn't. Neither could anyone I was with. It was irritating. The battle cinematography was the film's second biggest flaw, the first was the lack of script, and the recycling of Braveheart's story. The third biggest complaint was the computer effects. I have no faith left at all with computer graphics. When I get into film, I sure as hell am using as little as possible. Very few computer effects look good, and when they are really badly done, it detracts from the movie (Pitch Black and Mission to Mars, anyone?). With that all said, however, I really liked the film. It was a hell of a lot of fun and it was intense. It sure didn't seem like two and a half hours. Russel Crowe continues to be up near the top of my list of favorite actors and Ridley Scott has moved back in the game (This was no Alien or Blade Runner, but just barely underneath). If you live in the Seattle area, I highly recommend seeing this film at the Cinerama. It is the ultimate presentation for a film such as Gladiator It's worth standing in line for a couple of hours and paying $8.50 at the holy palace of Cinerama. Paul Allen, I salute you.
Grade: B+ -
Delete the whole fucking movie. For all you Ridley Scott fans, Check out "Someone to Watch Over ME". A cable TV staple but Tom Berringer at his once best. Scrap this hunk of shit and don't waste your money on the DVD
-
whoa, with all this positive talkback it looks like we've got the 1st summer smash on our hands! Great film, a bit long, and Phoenix kinda sucked, but it was totally engrossing. Duh, and forget Screwed, cuz Center Stage is gonna tear up the box office:)
-
Gladaitor was a good film, the camera shots are kind of jerky but the story is good as well as the acting.It is the best movie out there right now.I enjoyed the battles although I was expecting more. I still think Conan The Barbrian is a better Sword play and action movie.I don't think it will win any oscars although Crowes performace is definitly worthy.It is worth the money and good enough to see more than once.I still think that Alien was a better movie when you talk Scott,but overall I enjoyed it.And both times I saw it the theatre was packed.I hope the rest of the summer movies are within the same reach as Gladiator.
-
Testing
-
The art direction was so-so plus the battle scenes were muddled by close ups with shaky camera work. Why? possibly to hide bad special effects or to hinder the violence. Needless to say, the ending was typical and would of been far better if they simply stuck to what they built up in the movie (him coming back with his army). All in all, a good movie but far from great as well as far from any Braveheart. Thumbs up but could have been a lot better.
-
Most of you will hate me for this post, but what the hell. Am I the only one who thought Blade Runner (dir. cut) was merely average? Sure, it looked great and had an interesting edge, and you could even say it shaped a vision of the future to be ripped off by The 5th Element and countless other films. But (never start a sentence with "but"), I personally found it uninteresting and overly long. The story wasn't engrossing or particularly poignant (I saw it merely as a commonplace questioning of the essence of the emotions between and among machines and humans), and the characters didn't seem particularly innovative. However, in all fairness I must admit I have only seen the film once. (Ok fanboys, unleash hell now).
-
Ridley's movies, no matter how much they are hyped as "action movies" or "summer fare", are always more than that, and nearly always require years before critics catch up to everything that was being done in them. Gladiator is no exception.
-
Its always the same with you guys... you gotta respect the movie for what it is, not what it isn't. Its Ridley's vision and not ours, we should appreciate what amazing peice of artwork he has brought us. It we bitch picked about all the small things in life, it would be hell on earth. Everything in this film was done the way it was for a special reason (ie. mattes, fast editing, flashbacks). So instead of critisizing the small things... look at the film as a whole and realize thats its a truly great picture.
BTW Harry: That fuckin animation of your face with that mouth popping out is like rat poison on the eyes. -
Maximus was a warrior, nothing more, nothing less. As such, he was bound by duty...in this case I think he was just carrying on the dying wish of The Duck of Death (neat-o casting btw) because that is what is honor and sense of duty told him to do. That is also why he sought revenge for his family by killing the new emperor. There was no higher cause like in "Braveheart"...it was purely a sense of duty. All things considered he just wanted to live a simple farming life, and leave the bloodshed behind him, but the emperor wouldn't allow that.
-
I was bored and disappointed for the most part, but I must also report that judging from audience response, mine was a distinctly minority opinion. It's another Ben-Hur -- a huge moneymaker that will win a slew of Oscars, and a mediocre movie. I'm amused at those critics who are praising it to the skies -- sacrificing any hope of being regarded as serious writers to nuzzle Dreamworks' collective bottom. Russell Crowe is overdue for stardom, but it will be a huge joke if he becomes a star on the basis of this performance. I thought he was butch to the point of parody -- a mass of dull rectitude spiced with a bit of vengefulness here and there. My feeling was one of sadness, really. Once upon a time in Hollywood, there were filmmakers who tried to combine spectacle with brains, in Spartacus and Lawrence of Arabia. These movies had their problems, but they weren't dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Alternatively, you had Victor Mature entertaining himself and us in spectacles no one was expected to take seriously. Now we have this -- a movie dumb and violent that is sanctimonious about its dumbness and violence. Well, go ahead and go. The men who will make themselves rich off this picture know their audience,don't they?
-
Will people ever stop preaching their sermons on the talk back.Gladiator is a great film that hit me on a real gut level. Im not going to change anyones opinions or even try. To compare this film to any other would be a mistake. This goes so much deeper on every level. It is not an action film and should not be talked about as such. It has truly great action scenes but this film is driven by something much bigger than explosions and one liners. Scott is in fine form. Hes the Muhammed Ali of filmdom. You can never count this guy out. Who does not want to be Russel in this film. That is the sign of a truly great performance. I have never seen a film, set in this time period, that was as richly conjured or more believably executed. This film is here to stay. Time will prove me right.
I should also comment on SHADES disturbing tyrade, but to do so would be as big a waste of time as reading his post was. Must we listen to one more person go on about Braveheart. was I the only one wondering why Mel was the only person in his village with a shave razor. nUff said -
By the way Shade, what was Maximus supposed to do, sit there and get his fucking head sliced in two, or fight for his life?
-
Was actually not to far from the truth in that the real Commodus was killed by a Gladiator...actually it was more an assasination but that probably wouldn't of worked for most filmgoers. The fight scene technique is not my favorite style but I can understand why they went that way. Russel Crowe is a genius and even most of the people who don't like the film seem to agree that he was good. As to the question is this Ridley Scotts best film....to each their own...Alien was a brilliant re-working of the Haunted House/Sci-fi horror genre...Blade Runner was pure Sci-fi gold...Gladiator is a wonderful return of a genre that has basically been dead for almost 40 years...heck why argue about which is the best (hey he has made other films which appealed to people on different levels other than these too) lets just say that this guy has made some truly memorable films (like em or loathe em) which have influenced modern filmakers and especially the look of films in a way few other directors have this century.
-
May 07, 2000 3:44:56 AM CDT
My short review - very disappointing (my extensive criticisms ha
by dave_f
I was going to write a lengthy dissection of Gladiator's weaknesses, but this Talkback is long enough as is. Basically, I found the movie wholly unaffecting. It tried so hard to convince the audience it was a GREAT EPIC, but the reality is that it was just a simple revenge flick with stylish production values. I didn't care about any of the characters - being generically honorable and a good fighter doesn't necessarily make you interesting. Crowe's a great actor, but he had nothing to work with. Frankly, I doubt I'd have any reason to see "Gladiator" a second time - even the action scenes were muddled, and I never got the feel for being *in* Rome I was hoping for. I'm pretty much in agreement with previous-poster Father Death on the general criticisms, and Shade for the moral criticisms. They're the two smartest posts on this long Talkback, so just read them again. ****** One sidebar: anyone who posts here whining about things like "overanalyzing" movies...you're just BIG FUCKING IDIOTS I'm afraid. I'd like to phrase that more delicately, but it's true. Y'see, this ENTIRE SITE is dedicated to talking about movies, and if you're a movie fan of any intelligence, you should be open to talking about them in a bit of depth. Get a thicker skin, kiddies, and learn to deal with critical responses to films you like. And hey, if you've got half a brain, maybe you can even make a legitimate defense! Intelligent debate...what a concept!
-
Pallando, you're right on the individual sword prowess of the legionairre. But, the Legion emphasized the Gladius(?)short sword over the long swords favored by the Celts and Gauls so the individual Roman soldier could stay in close formation while forcing his opponent to enter his "kill zone." Short swords also allowed the individual to carry a shield at the same time and also gave him a wider range of movement-note Maximus' skill with blocks followed by 360 spin counterattack. The Scots in Braveheart couldn't do those moves with the two-handed broadsword. Its too bad the martial arts of the Roman Legions and the Gladiators are lost to history; they would've given the Samurai a hard time.
-
You know, I think its funny that one person can say that this is the best movie they had ever seen in their entire life, while another thinks it sucked ass =)
As for my thoughts... I thought this movie was really cool, and my only problem was the camera during fight scenes. I thought that the first battle was awesome, and the gladiator fights were cool... I have mixed feelings about the ending but I snickered when they all carried off max and left commodus on the ground hehe
All in all? Good movie. DOES NOT LIVE UP TO HYPE AND IS NOT AS GOOD AS SPARTICUS/BRAVEHEART/BEN HUR. Those are much better films. But Gladiator is good if you just go to enjoy it, not compare it. -
Remember the scene where Maximus unmasks and reveals his identity to the crowd? Okay, what I'm wondering is - why didn't all the senators in attendance then stand up and say, "Holy shit, that's MAXIMUS down there! He's one of our greatest generals! He's a longtime friend of Emperor Aurelius no less! Let's get him the hell out of that gladiatorial arena RIGHT NOW!" If I'm remembering right, we saw the audience react, of course, and that vile mustache-twirler Commodus was pretty startled, but what about all the senators that must *surely* be familiar with Maximus? Sorry, but the lone assistance of that one nice-guy senator later on doesn't even begin to cover the reaction I'd expect. It's hard to imagine that Commodus has poisoned Maximus' reputation so greatly that no senators would stand up in shock. I presume that Commodus had concocted some tale of treason or desertion to excuse dispatching Maximus after his mighty victory against the Germans, but why would anyone buy it? Commodus is a known sleazeball, admired by...well, no one apparently. Were the senators too fearful of reprisal to pipe up in defense of Maximus and save him from the arena? Maybe, but I wish Ridley Scott had bothered with a few seconds of story to make it clear. After all, it's suggested that Maximus the general is a hero to almost everyone but the jealous Commodus...I'd think the entire senatorial body would've done a collective double-take on seeing him in a gladiatorial arena, and then promptly bailed him out. Maybe I'm forgetting some key scene that explains this - if so, please inform me.
-
You know, with so many people dissing on gladiator, it makes me wonder what the hell you people were expecting? Two hours of random folk getting hacked into a thousand pieces non stop? Duck Raping? Old men getting the shit kicked out of them,then being shoved into a furnace? Children by the hundreds gored by sticks? What WOULD impress you cocksuckers? Go watch Wild Wild West and The Rock and leave Ridley's masterpiece alone...
-
Y'know, I really enjoy films...except when they're bad. "Gladiator" was such a film - bad on many levels. In light of the effusive praise coming from many Talkbackers, I wanted to give my two cents of differing opinion, same as Father Death or Shade or any other guy who wrote critically at length. "But movies are designed to entertain!" you say, as if that means it's a crime when I don't find the same things as you entertaining, and dare to explain why. Believe it or not, many movie buffs like talking about movies at length - if you don't like reading reasonable arguments (pro or con), then move on to the one sentence "sux!" or "roolz!" reviews and knock yourself out. As for me, I think talking critically about movies is okay - it's not always cynical and negative. Just the other day I posted at length in another Talkback about why I *like* the first Superman movie so much, and even find it meaningful. Would you consider such extended praise to be "overanalyzing", the same charge you level against extended criticism? I doubt it, and yet a thoughtfully-written critical opinion has just as much merit as thoughtfully-written praise. You're just steamed because you liked "Gladiator" and some of us didn't, and we have the gall to express our differing opinions intelligently (what a sin!). Well brace yourself for a shock, but not everyone thinks like you and expresses their opinions like you - deal with it.
-
Gladiator is like SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, EMPIRE OF THE SUN, THE COLOR OF PURPLE in that it starts out as a 5 star classic and tragically drops a couple stars before the end. All of these films has brilliat beginnings, pretty good middle bits and downright silly endings.
Damn shame. It could have been right up with the best of them.
Finally, if you lot like the big sweeping epics you cannot go past RAN by Akira Kurosawa. It simply cuts everything else in the genre to pieces..Gladiator included. -
...because I just did not revel in 'Gladiator' as much as I hoped. Harry and the other pre-release reviews of this film were making it out to be both exhilirating and powerful. For me, it was neither. Seriously, I really think I have been completely de-sensitised to any form of violence on screen. The only part that made me flinch was when the female warrior got chopped in half by the chariot blade. Generally though, the movie is great. The CGI did not bother me, although sometimes it did look a bit fake. The arena fights were pretty cool, but the opening battle in Germania did not impress. As for the emotional impact, it didn't hit me. Maximus' death lost nothing on me, but nevertheless it was better that he die than come back with an army to reclaim Rome. And was he even a slave?! If he was, it didn't last more than 2 seconds! >>>
Perhaps I am just a jaded movie-goer, but these days alot of movies never impress me...and I'm only 19! They all come off being quite standard. That is where things become subjective and ultimately that is what liking a movie is all about. >>>
I know this is pretty dumb, but like mmbond, I was quite surprised that no X-Men trailer was attached to this film. In fact, I even became angry. By the way, did anyone else know that here in Australia, 'X-Men' is following in the stead of 'Gladiator' by opening here A DAY BEFORE THE US ON JULY 13!!! The release date has been bumped up a week yet again. I LOVE IT! While there was no trailer, I was quite happy to see that some of the character posters were up in the cinema. -
May 07, 2000 7:23:33 AM CDT
"Strength and Honor" or, Was that Watto selling the Queer Giraff
by nikod
I know the actor sounded quite a bit like Watto. Anyone know by chance if they are one and the same ?
--Niko -
At least it had some spirit. What was the point of this film? I guess it was to get all horned up over people being sliced in closeup. Is that what it takes to get a reaction out of audiences? The battle scenes were poorly stages, especially the one with the tigers that were fake looking CGI in half the shots, and inserts from some stock footage company for the rest. And in between the battle scenes it was just boring and cheesy. I'll take Arnold Schwarzeneggar fighting a man in a bear suit in Central Park any day over this brooding piece of...
-
Yeah, well the movie IS called "Gladiator" and not "Mother Theresa". If the "morality" of this movie - or lack thereof - is too distressing to anyone I think they have bigger problems to deal with. Just as inane is the round after round of dorky nitpicking that's run through this talkback. You know, just for anyone who hasn't noticed - this movie is one Van Damme away from being Bloodsport. Some dolt wrote about the fact that this isn't mentally challenging enough for them. Uh, yeah. When I saw the ads for this with guys fighting to the death with swords, maces and whatnot my first thought was how challenging I hoped it would be. My second thought of course was how I hoped it would pay the proper attention to good morality. As a life-long film buff, I love to discuss film but every film needs to discussed at its appropriate level. And I think I just discussed Gladiator about as much as it ever needs to be.
-
Why is it that a person can't explain why they dislike a film without the typical "Screw you" lines, or "Don't talk about it" or--I love this one--"You're an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about!"
And why is it a person can't enjoy a film without the others saying "you're a moron" or "IT SUCKED, and you just don't see why!"
I like the talkback section as an exchange of ideas. It's both entertaining and thought-provoking to hear the several sides of an arguement about a film. But do we need to insult each other about it? Can't there be people who like the film, and those that don't? WHY ARE PEOPLE SO PASSIONATELY HOSTILE ABOUT THEIR OPINIONS? Let's end that.
And to the person who said that we should all just mind our own business and let people see the film for themselves, i say "Well, duh." OBVIOUSLY, people should make independent judgements. But the PURPOSE of talkback IS to post opinion. It should just be done without the hatred. -
The real Commudus was known for finishing of gladiators once they were fatally wounded. So it's realistic that he'd get in the arena with Maximus once he'd sabotaged the fight.
-
Just saw Gladiator.
Wish I would have stayed home and watched Xena. At least the action scenes in Xena don't give me a headache.
I didn't have high expectations for this film, so I am amazed at how disappointed I am by it.
If you want a Roman epic with well defined characters (complete with motivation), stunning action scenes, and brutally perceptive social commentary (more so than violence bad) go rent Life of Brian.
I feel better now. -
Just got back from simplyscripts.com. They've posted a link to an early draft of the script. Needless to say, waaayy different from the final movie. Check it out.
-
You are right about one thing shade.That last post did sound "pretty stupid". You just brought up all the points that you said were lacking from this film. You refered to them as "cinematic devices". Silly me I thought thats ghw movies were made
-
It's just great and lived upto all the hype. And Russel Crowe is the man.
-
First off let me just say that the fights rocked. Saw the film yesterday and I'd go see it again today if I didn't have to sit through the talk talk talk between Commodus and Lucilla. I do have some comments that aren't exactly negative, just stuff that my husband and I talked about after the film. 1) We both thought the little dolls were Lares (as mentioned by an earlier talk backer) and were a bit confused when they weren't. 2) Why didn't Lucilla poison Commodus? We both thought that's what she was doing when she gave him the headache powder. 3) Every time they showed the "close-up" of the stands in the Coliseum it took me out of the movie because I kept wondering why the stairs were so empty. Where were the folks coming back from the necessary? Where were the food and drink vendors? I thought the small-town arenas in Spain or Morocco or whereever it was supposed to be gave a realer crowd feel.
-
May 07, 2000 10:25:37 AM CDT
The Film still lived up to the hype more then Blair Witch projec
by gilmour
Harry really fucked us in the ass with that one. I must say I am glad I'm not the only one who thought Blade Runner was an average film, i just don't get it at all. Sometimes when films have excellent visuals film geeks get so caught up in it that they think the film is excellent as well ( The matrix and Phantom menace) are prime examples. Gladiator was a very good film, i'm mystified that a couple of people are knocking the performances of Crowe and Phoenix, they were both perfect and superb. But the fight scenes were far from the best ever, you couldn't tell what was going on!
-
but I have to agree with Harry, it is not as good as BLADE RUNNER. But that is for two personal reasons: 1) I love Science Fiction above all other genre and I have for about 35 years. 2) I love Vangelis. He is the greatest composer of the 20th Century. Not, this is not to say that GLADIATOR is not one of the best films that I have seen in a long, long time. Just because diamonds are more precious, does not mean I can not cherish a ruby or an emerald. GLADIATOR is definitely the best film of it's type, of this era and the score with her most beautiful Lisa Gerrard and friends does as she always does and "takes me to places better than any we have ever been promises". There is an irony with such beautiful music with such beautiful cinematography but that is signature Ridley Scott. And it is GREAT!
Oscars are in order.
P.S. I got home and did some research and this tale has little historical basis except for the scenery and Marcalis Aurelis did have a son named Commodious who almost was an emperor. This in no way is a negative thing. I go to movies to see storys, not history lesson. -
I saw the movie yesterday and my only problem with it was that it was a half hour too long. I would go and see it again today had I the chance. I tried to read through all the talkbacks but it seems that people are going on a moral crusade here. It's just a movie. It's supposed to entertain which I felt it did. It's not one of those movies that needs to be analyzed over and over and over and over again. He kills on the battlefield and he kills in the arena. He kills for Rome and he kills to survive. What is so hard to understand. It's a simple melodrama with a few badass fight scenes thrown in. So just enjoy the film for what it is and quit your bitchin.
-
My buddies and I had an argument over which film was not just better, but was more fun to watch, Gladiator or Braveheart.
I want to know what you guys think. We were split. -
It's one thing when they never get the science right in science fiction movies. I've come to accept that. But for an "historical epic" I still have higher standards: GET THE HISTORY RIGHT!
I have news for all of you: no Roman Emperor EVER died in the arena, and the Roman Empire DID NOT go back to being a republic once Emperor Commodus was killed.
Surprised? Ridley Scott and the makers of this film are hoping that people are just too apathetic or just too ignorant to howl in protest at the way this movie ended. And you know what? People ARE apathetic and ignorant.
It would not have taken much to make this movie historically accurate. Commodus was assassinated in a plot that brought an ambitious politician named Helvius to power. AS EMPEROR. Not as head of some new Roman republic. Real history has its own drama. It didn't require the absurdity of that final duel in the movie.
Okay, so I'm being a nerdy snob to hate this movie for failing to be true to history. It's better than being apathetic and ignorant and blindly sucking up the swill that comes out of Hollywood nowdays. -
But I disagree that Siskel didn't support "Fun movies" as well. The Mummy was fun, but Wild Wild West wasn't and Ebert didn't hesitate to hang it down on that one. Siskel gave the crapfest Armageddon three stars while Ebert voted it as the worst movie of the year (I'll go a step further - WORST MOVIE OF THE DECADE) Siskel was all right, but I'll never forget when he, incredulously, dissed "Mulan" for not being as good as "Yentl" . . .? Also, Siskel had, on different lists, "Kingpin" and "There's Something About Mary," on his year end top 10 list. So he wasn't necessarily the arty one. Ebert has given bad movies good reviews (Case in point - Speed 2, and Where The Money Is More Recently. And he gave Boiler Room 3% stars) and good movies bad reviews (Usual Suspects, Blue Velvet, Brazil). But at least he's got his reasons, as so many internet critics don't. And at least he's not like Janet Maslin or all these eclectic critics who don't like movies with guns or cuss words (that aren't "arty"). Maybe he missed the boat on this one (still haven't seen it), but I'll still check his page every week.
-
Gladiator never says it's a "true story" so what if no gladiator never really got killed? the film is meant for entertainment only. I'm sure the film would suck if people only got cuts and bruises during the fight scenes then we'd really see moaning and bitching by film geeks like there's no tomorrow.
-
I really enjoyed Gladiator. In fact, I'd probably rate it as a solid 3.5/4 movie. Braveheart, however, is a solid 4-star film. The only problem with Gladiator was, I think, the ending battle didn't live up to the rest of the battle scenes in the movie. I didn't have a problem with the one-on-one dual, it just seemed too short.
BTW..This movie brings hope back to the "summer blockbusters". I can remember in the past few years in May going to crapfests like Deep Impact and Godzilla. -
I've read the talk backs and A LOT of people don't seem to see any sense in the movie. When was he a slave, why did commodus fight him, why didn't they get him out when they realized he was Maximus "the great general"? To my knowledge a deserter is a slave, and so is a gladiator. As for Ebert's thumb... well, is it positive to do a thumbs up? and what about a thumbs down? Why didn't the senators react? Roman Senates were scared shit of generals, they had the real power, they have the roman legions' loyalty as it was said many times in the movie. If he got out and called his army, Rome would be his. Commodus going into the ring? a bad ending?!? I've even read it was too much of an "Hollywood" ending... sure bring in the troops, march on Rome, then you'll have a truly original, "non-hollywoodian" ending (?!?!). Commodus was a troubled kid... not the type to be up on the throne has Marcus Aurelius knew. He was proving his father wrong by having Rome's (Mob)acclaim. He wanted to be in the spotlight, but couldn't be because Maximus was such a badass (it's funny that people compared it to Rocky..."the little tug boat that could"...). So anyhow, by killing Maximus in the Arena, imagine the crowd's reaction... their own emperor beating the best Gladiator... greatness of Rome anyone? It was common for Emperors to battle in the arena for the crowd... it got them crazy... it got the Mob on their side... even if they didn't get their sewers (!)... As for the editing and closeups in the first battle (Germania), the only part that could have changed was the Dog riping someone apart (we could hear it... but that's a bout it)... but besides that, the blur and quickness and chaos are good to use in sequences like that... it puts more emphasis on the fighters rather than the battle itself... it's part of the characters' development as you see what they go through and what they've done for 12 years... they showed enough of the fight by showing the legion advancing and closing in together for protection and the horses going around in the hills, hitting them from behind (side), we had enough data to see what was going on. As for people doubting the naval technology??? Do I really need to comment that... do you have any idea how important rade was a that time? Transport was pretty advanced at that time and the naval technology was WIDELY sufficient to cross the darn Mediterranean and the Strait of Gibraltar. Spain is VERY close to Morocco, it take just a few days to cross it. Merchants (who were walking everywhere to buy and sell at the time) probably saw the burning house and went to scavange any valuable remainings (Maximus).
So the timeline is good. People asking for more violence and gore (well, you're the mob in this movie...) Blue skies... SHUT UP EBERT!!! You see plenty of blue skies, but often there's a lot of sun in the foreground (things apear brighter) so the light blue background apears much darker. Anyhow... that's about it for talking back... I really loved the movie, one of my all time favorites. Anyone who has done any kind of contact sports (football, hockey) will truly enjoy this movie... you can just imagine the adrenaline flowing, how completely insane it must be to be in there and know you're going to die... about like Aztec Ball... where the losers were sacrificed. I liked the part when the guy was pissing himself in front of Maximus. You rule Harry... -
This movie has some problems that keep it from being really great but lack of historicity is not one of them. Unless a movie makes a claim that it is true to historical facts (as, for example, Fargo did, as I recall -- which was a lie) then it should not be criticized on this basis. Movies often put historical characters into fictional stories. Movies should not be anyone's source for historical information. Try a book for that.
In this case, about all that is true to history is that Commodus was the weak and loony son of Marcus Aurelius and that he did stage lots of games and gladiatorial contests and that he did "fight" against gladiators, almost certainly pre-weakened or chained, since he supposedly killed hundreds of them. But the story is pure fiction, as it was in an earlier incarnation, "Fall of the Roman Empire".
In my opinion, "Gladiator" succeeds mightily not only in terms of a vehicle for time-travel back to Rome but also because of the action scenes, all of which are superb and one of which -- the "Battle of Carthage" -- has to be one of the best ever put on film, if not the best. The acting is excellent throughout.
The only problem is the -- yes, non-historical -- story, which is flat and boring. The characters don't really go through any inner changes as the story plods along in pretty much the way you expect it will if you have ever seen a movie before. Standard 3-act Hollywood action-movie fare. Little if any sub-text.
But, on the bright side, the dull story gives us plenty of opportunities to go to the bathroom and not really miss anything. You don't have to wait for the love scenes. And the action scenes are worth seeing and seeing again. In fact, they could have just put up blue-screen when the action scenes weren't on and this movie would still have been worth seeing. -
It was an entertaining movie. Until the very last scene. It is the last scene that makes or breaks great movies, and that scene broke this movie. And you people who are raving that this is the best movie of all time, need to get out more.
-
Just read your review below.. I was wondering why you think there was a suicide in the film? Did you miss the scene where... well, I don't want to spoil it for anybody.. But there were no suicides in this film that I can remember. Also the Rock wasn't in this movie, even though you seemed to think that he acted his scenes well.. Weird...
-
Brilliant picture, of course, and though I love Lisa Gerrard's music, her voice inparticularly, I felt that the score could have been a bit better. I wonder what the movie would have been like if Vangelis had done it? No doubt it would have changed the whole feel of the movie. And I'm not talking about changing a single cut either. Just replace Zimmer's score with Vangelis. Something moodier. I think it would have made the film even larger than life.
-
I'm glad that someone finally pointed out that Rome did not become a republic again, which is what the ending of this movie implies. Yes, the movie is meant to entertain, not to teach history, but does entertainment sometimes go too far? The plot of this movie more accurately belonged to a fantasy setting. In the fantasy Whodat Empire, everything that happened in this movie could have still happened, and the ending would have been a little more plausible. Remember: entertainment requires a "suspension of disbelief." Plausibility is still needed, even for pure entertainment.
-
Over all I thought the movie was great! It looked spectacular, presented wonderful performances from all the actors and was an epic in the truest sense of the word. I am not about to sit and nitpick the small stuff that could have been better, because I don't see the point. I loved it, and thats all that counts in my book.
My problem though comes from something other than the movie itself. I went with two friends to watch a movie that we were all looking forward to. We sit down and know from the minute the previews start to roll that the asshole in front of us is gonna make this miserable. He might as well have been having a kegger right there in the theater with all the beer he drank. He was rude, obnoxious and very loud. My friends got up and sat somewhere else half way through the movie. And I was forced to think about why soemone comes to a movie like this. In my mind it all goes back to a problem I had from the first commercial I saw for this film. The advertising campaign was awful. It was all wrong for this movie. It cross cut action scenes from the movie, with football players on the gridiron, all playing to Kidd Rock. From the minute I saw this commercial I was confused. I knew what they were trying to say with these ads, but I knew it presented the wrong image of the movie. It made you think the movie was all about the action, when in truth it was much more about the drama. Now I know that the studio wants to get as many butts in the seats as they can, so they play to a very large demographic. But it was ads like these that brought jerks, drunks and loudmouth kids to the theater. And maybe I'm generalizing here, and maybe this was an isolated incident. But this guy detracted from what was truely a great film. And I'm not yet ready to let it go. I would very much like to hear other's thoughts on the subject, and see if anyone else had similar experiences with guys who just didn't get the point. -
I think it's interesting that the film was about audiences gathered to view violence and death for entertainment. Here we were gathering and watching violence and death for entertainment. Sure it was slow a couple of spots but that was just slack in the line to reel you back in at the action. Overall, that kicked ass over Demetrius and the Gladiators, but that was the slave who becomes a general...but Commodus? Commode? blah! Oliver Reed...fantastic!
The only thing I can complain about it the first scene where Commodus rides..uh..the score was so heavyhanded..it was like the old coyote and roadrunner cartoons with the caption underneath (Badguyus Terriblius).
-
May 07, 2000 12:23:47 PM CDT
I question the opinion of anyone who bashes "Gladiator" then pro
by gilmour
How could you possibly watch the film and think the Rock is in the movie?
-
I don't have much time, so I'll come back and say more, but this movie is great. I saw it twice in a row with two perfect Berkeley audiences. Actually, it's much much better the second time around, because after it ended the first time, I was thinking that there should have been more Gladiator fighting. But after some thinking, I realized Gladiator was not an action movie, but a definite drama. This surprised me, caught me off guard, but most of all, pleased me incredibly. Ridley Scott has made a film that matches Blade Runner in emotions and story, adding some damn bloody fighting. This movie is a masterpiece, and one of the coolest films ever made, with beautiful photography and one of the best soundtracks I've ever heard (of course, I got the soundtrack a week and a half before the movie came out. 'Nuff said.
-
Harry is wrong about both.
-
...and whoever thinks other wise obviously has their head so far up their ass that they can't tell a ood film from a bad film. I bet those who don't like this film probably enjoys such films as SHE"S ALL THAT, STARSHIT TROOPERS, and BATMAN & ROBIN. Yeah, that's right. The scenery is beautiful, the plot is great, and Ridley's eye is pure genius. I thought the ending was pretty decent, i can't really see the ending any other way without him dying. How do we define heroes? By how much they get to the top OR they die trying which leaves their name legendary. I prefere to define it as the latter. Not all heroes live you know, and it seemed all the more triumphant with his death. Did you notice the gaurds and everybody else carried Maximus's body out of the Colosium and not that cranky wussy, Comedose (spelling?). Great movie. I wouldn't be surprised if this ran for best picture in next year's Academy (along with best sound, directing, costume design, visual FX, music, and possibly actor)
-
unlike a hoplite in the phallanx, a leginiare could fight alone effectively if not in formation, though this was never preferred. I just dont think that it is that ridiculous for Maximus to be skilled at one on one combat. Good idea with the samurai thing. Wouldn't it be cool if they did a "what if Caesar never got assasinated" movie and depicted his march on Parthia and then north past the black sea and maybe east... Shit forget that, I think that we need to see a good historically accurate movie about C.J.Caesar's life and Augustus and Alexander as well. evn father back how about Alcabiades or Kimon? All great characters and stories that are good enough without having to invent anything else. What do you think?
-
I loved this movie, even knowing the little things that were wrong. It was badass. The CG effects of the city were superb, fuck Ebert. The birds did suck though. One warning though :Don't let this movie trick you into believing that the Romans were bloodthirsty morons. Most were like Maximus , willing to die for Roma but really wanting to live in peace, just like any one of us. Romans actually loved the charriot races in the Circus Maximus far more than the gladiator games in the Flavian Amphitheatre (real name that the Romans used for the Colleseum). Think of the charriot races for Romans as baseball or football for Americans or Soccer (or football whatever you wanna call it)for Europeans. The gladiator games were popular but think of them as the same as NASCAR or WWF are for Americans. Popular Sports but do you want America remembered for them in the future
-
Aliens... just kidding. Just to get you guys pissed off, and to get a couple "Cameron directed that, fool!"s outta ya. Anyway, to my point. Gladiator is not Ridley Scott's best. Great action flick, NOT a film. A little bit to much talking for my liking, and really only 4 major battles gladiator battles... Blade Runner is severely overated as a great artistic movie, and everybody, I DO OWN THE DVD, and it made the thing EVEN MORE BORING. The characters were bastards, all of them. The dream sequence is nothing but artsy fluff thrown in to make you think you're watching something "way, way deep, man". Dark and drippy is another formula for sci-fi cities that I just don't like. PEOPLE WON'T WALK OUTDOORS IN THE FUTURE IF EVERYTHING IS THAT GRUBBY. Blade Runner is a technical achievement for 1983 and a great piece of eye candy. Give it a rest, fan boys. I was hoping Harrison Ford would explode by the end of that movie along with Rutger Hauer and Edward James Olmos. That would've been an ending... for Ridley's best, check out 'Adam Adamant Lives!" (how 'bout that reference, info-freaks), or go and see Hannibal whe it comes out, because THAT will be his best... Oh, and the Adamant thing is a joke.
-
What's wrong with this movie. First, it's not personal, it has no intimate, complex moments when we learn about the characters. That is not to say that Mr. Crowe did not do an excellent job, he did, but the story itself lacked moral dilemmas. It oversimplified its politics and its vengeance. I wanted to like it more and be caught up in its grandeur but it felt like it was the product of corporate Hollywood both in its scripting and its direction. Ridley Scott is a talented visualist but he really can't tell a story - he never could - Bladerunner was interesting for everything but its story - its atmosphere and gadgets - the problem with this movie was the same - it lacked seriousness.
It wasn't really satisfying entertainment because it didn't have enough spectacle and the fight scenes were shot and edited in that method where we really can't see the gore - its whispered through fast cuts and extreme closeups - give us a wide shot now and then - let us choose to view the action unfolding without being manipulated - this is what Mr. Scott does with his images - he manipulates and dazzles us through salesmanship but he will never be an important filmaker. -
I don't know if this has been mentioned, but do you guys see the similarities between Maximus(Gladiator) and Johnathan E.(RollerBall) ?
-
oh my god this movie ruled.
-
May 07, 2000 3:00:00 PM CDT
HEY DOORKNOB Laertes used a poisoned blade on Hamlet. Horatio w
by zubalove
Just letting you know. Its okay to get screwed up, but this is Shakespeare so don't do it again.
Anyway, Gladiator was great but Hamlet is still better because its got Rosencrantz and Gildenstern.
OUT -
As I read these posts, I wonder if there are any actual, mature adults on this list. Let me guess . . . the average age is 18-21? And male, of course. Seems so from the level of dialogue, profanity, oh-so-clever references to bodily fluids and advice about what you'd like to do to one another.
Grow up, people. With any luck, you will. You'll find there are better ways of expressing yourself than with lame profanity and ridiculous comments. I suppose right now you're all rushing out to see ROAD TRIP and SCREWED, about at the mental level of many of you -- not all, thank goodness. I've actualy seen a few truly intelligent, thoughtful comments here. Just not enough.
Yes, I'm a woman over 40, (in your eyes, decrepit and pathetic, no doubt) and also a long-time movie and SF/fantsay geek, with the best of them. The difference is that I'll take time to analyze a movie, not just post "clever" comments. I take no pleasure in trashing another's enjoyment in something, I don't make statements like "GLADIATOR SUCKS' without backing it up. I've actually had enough life experience to have developed compassion for suffering, to see the need for real character development in movies, to understand the classic "Hero's Journey" pattern that makes GLADIATOR work on so many levels (Go check out THE WRITER's JOURNEY by Christopher Vogler), despite its flaws.
Some of you boys will change your tune when you have your own families, and start to realize what really matters in life. And lest you think I didn't enjoy the fight scenes, I loved them. I'm no prude. But I'm able to enjoy the WHOLE story, even when, perhaps, it could have been more.
I walked away from GLADIATOR deeply moved and with many thoughts going through my head. Analyzing them now isn't important. The fact that this movie made the impact it did upon me speaks for itself, largely because of the subtle, brilliant performance of Russell Crowe, whom I'd never seen before this movie. If any of you bothered to watch his face, really watch it, you'd know what real acting means.
I am a published writer by trade. It's my business to get into the heads of characters and create a story structure that's meaninginful. I also live for escaping into fantasy worlds, either my own or those paintstakingly created by others. While GLADIATOR might have been better, it worked in the way it was meant to work--it followed the classic structure with which mankind has been familiar since ancient times. And that's why there are lines for this movie, and why women and men are coming away largely satisfied.
I, personaly, couldn't get through BRAVEHEART, but I'm not going to spend my time trashing it for my own ego's sake.
Grow up, boys. Give it a few more years' life experience, and you may actually find that you have something more intelligent to offer, some depth of character that may enable to to actually deconstruct a story meaningfully.
Good luck.
Grown Up
P.S. . . I know the kinds of responses I'll get from the most immature among you, undoubtedly full of profanities, so rest assured I will not be checking the e-mail to this account, nor will I revisit this board. And yes, I'm looking forward to X-Files, and I enjoy comic books. So much for the stupid old lady . . .
-
okay
i read eberst review, and i have to say, im never watching his show again. This was the WORST review i have ever seen. Oh the thumb has to go in the fist,thanks ebert, who the hell cares. He goes on to compare gladiators script to shakespeare. Yeah good comparison. Does anyones script look good compared to shakespeares plays? ah
fuck you ebert
-
I'm writing this after getting through approximately a third of the talkbacks 'cause I can't deal with any more. I saw the movie and loved it. I thought it had good acting performances, good characterization, awsome fight sequences, and an early battle that, while vague, smacks of realism. Several people were less than thrilled with the story, or the performances, or the way the action scenes were shot. I can't argue with them, it's a matter of independent taste. Some of the complaints are simply ridiculous however, such as these allegedly huge plot holes.
-
10 seconds into the Germania battle I was wishing Mel Gibson had directed the scene. Say what you will about Braveheart as a whole, but there have never been better filmed battle scenes. The action was brutal but clear. Here it was just confusing and headache inducing.
-
I'm writing this after getting through approximately a third of the talkbacks 'cause I can't deal with any more. I saw the movie and loved it. I thought it had good acting performances, good characterization, awsome fight sequences, and an early battle that, while vague, smacks of realism. Several people were less than thrilled with the story, or the performances, or the way the action scenes were shot. I can't argue with them, it's a matter of independent taste. Some of the complaints are simply ridiculous however, such as these allegedly huge plot holes.
The most irritating one by far was the complaint about stirrups. "Romans didn't use stirrups..." No shit. But stunt men in movies DO! Otherwise, we'd have stunt men falling all over the place. The fact that romans did not use stirrups is why they did not use spears or lances from horseback.. that sort of head on shock would tumble the rider. Note, that in this movie the riders used 'spatha' (long swords)which is consistent with the weaponry of roman calvary. Stop friggin' nitpicking...
Next, we have questions as to how Maximus became a slave. Hmmm... let's see, first of all... WHO CARES!! It's fiction. But if you require some sort of historical explanation, it comes from just a basic knowledge of the time period. The slave trade was a bustling economy, and although it was illegal to make slaves of Roman citizens (at least in Rome), this certainly happened. 'Barbarian' civilizations routinely raided outlying villas and farms for slaves. In this case, they had a great opportunity for plunder (A smoking villa) and came across and unconscious man clearly left for dead. What do you do if you're a raider... MAKE A SLAVE OF HIM.... jeezus, don't gripe just because you have no imagination. Maybe if you folks would stop nitpicking movies to death, you'd actually enjoy one or two... (there are still people griping that the Matrix sucked.. come on).
Just my enraged two cents...
Peace through random violence
-
this morning, I witnessed the spectacle of GLADIATOR and I can say I was deeply, DEEPLY impressed with this motion picture... it suceeded on EVERY level that I needed it to - from deeply symbolic and richly mythical all the way up to the special effects and "movie magic" (wincingly painful scenes of violence and explorations of the fragile nature of the human condition - the maggots; you will know what I mean).
This movie does for the days of swords and arrows what SAVING PRIVATE RYAN did for the horrors of WWII combat. It reveals it all in all its horrible, ugly, terrifying but fascinating glory... the color red is justifiably under-used sparingly in the movie, even the Roman Legions uniforms range from Imperial Blue to a deep legionaire's maroon, so as not to de-sensitize you to the color RED when you see it in the horrifying form of fountains of spraying blood... if any movie DEMANDED to be violent and bloody in order to be true to the spirit of the age it is set in ... it IS a movie like Saving Private Ryan or Gladiator... this is a movie that does not glorify violence but rather savagely EXPOSES it for the tendon tearing, artery slicing (you can hear various membranes of flesh being cut), bone snapping hell that it must be to die in such a traumatic manner.
And the SOUND. Ohmygod. This is an instant SOUND EFFECTS OSCAR, I guarantee. (I can easily see it as nominated for Movie of the Year and Russell Crowe as actor of the year as well)... WARNING!!!! DO NOT see this movie at a Carmike theater. You will get two measly hissing stereo speakers feebly dripping sound from BEHIND the screen.
But at the CENTURY THEATERS, you will EXPERIENCE the sound in all it's glory... just like you heard bullets whistling and plinking in Saving Private Ryan, so shall ye hear swarms of arrows whistling and plinking with the same flinch-inducing effect. During quieter scenes, I heard dogs barking around me, sqwaking birds, and the SNARLS of the tigers were so sudden and unexpected that I saw people jumping in their seats.
I will tell you nothing of the plot, of course from what you already know, but suffice to say it had a completeness and resonating balance that "old-fashioned epics" used to have... the real classics... while it works on a totally realistic level, i.e. this could be a true story complete with believable characters and emotional involvement - there is also a mythical quality to each of the character's, in that they represent various aspects of the oh so fragile human pysche... I won't go too deep into that other than to say a lot of characters are negative reflections of their counterparts and this is pulled off with a subtelty that I appreciated and applauded.
I noticed that during the battle scenes the people around me were really getting into it, cheering, popcorn flying and clapping... there were "OOOOHHHHSSSS!!!" after gruesome hits and "OOFFSSS..." all in their appropriate responsive places... watching and listening to the audience really demonstrated to me how the ancient Romans could have detached themselves from feeling empathy for these men who were dying for their pleasure and just took it on an emotionally detached level as merely "entertainment".
Just as when Joe Thiesman snapped his leg in half on national TV, and the audience watched the gruesome replay a few hundred times for months afterwords (I don't watch football and I've seen it at least 10 times), people THRIVE on that kind of mutilation and dismemberment... that is of course why this movie will probably surpass 200 million worldwide and THERE WILL be a Gladiator PC/PS/DreamCast game and a slew of blood pumping clones...
In fact, all games like QUAKE ARENA and UNREAL TOURNAMENT are all about the very thing I am talking about, so I am no exception in that I find these games entertaining myself.
I cried openly and unabashedly at the end of the film. I just let it go. With all I've been through in the last year, I have a lot of repressed tears so it wasn't hard to let them really flow once I had accessed them. So did the two guys behind me. I heard one's wavering whisper to the other, "God I want to hug my kid right now."
I haven't felt warm tears drip down onto my arms in a long time... it was a cathartic experience. I was glad for it.
Thus in conclusion - thumbs up. I highly recommend the movie. Minus the gore, if the new Star Wars trilogy would turn to this kind of ADULT multi-layered story telling, a truly great tale could be told. Kids are sophisticated today... any kid 6 and up could understand this story; it doesn't have to have farting aliens and Jar-Jar getting shocked in the ears to speak to kids... (The underlying themes were in fact very similar to Star Wars: about the rise of an emporer, the disbanding of the senate, and the hope of restoring a lost Republic)
Just remember, see this movie with a SSDS or DTS or THX surround sound system... anything else wouldn't be worth ruining the experience. Plus, I don't think I'd even care to see this movie on VHS. It is a cinema experience 100%. I don't see myself even renting it. If I don't see it on the big screen, I really don't care to see it again, and I plan on seeing this moving several more times. Ridley Scott rocks. Director of the year? Maybe...
DUGULUS the Sadiator -
I never got a good sense of Maximus' fighting skills. You'd see him wielding his sword, then after a series of disorienting Close-Ups involving blood and moving bodies, you'd see him standing above his slain enemies. I still can't figure out what caused those chariots to go sailing into the air. And what was with the lighting? In every indoor scene, you'd have half the actor's face obscured in shadow. Those murky CG effects had me thinking the projector bulb was dying.
-
Braveheart is my favourite english movie ever!!!!! Nuff said. (Gladiator doesn't even come close (but its still ok))
-
great movie. Russell Crowe was excellent. The fight scene with the tigers was the coolest fight scene ever.Alien was Scott's finest work ever
-
How would you respond to the recent review of the other fat critic, El Ebert? He gives it a pretty amusing smackdown, imo. (which is a pretty appropriate phrase considering his comparisons to professional wrestling) As for me: I think this will be another of those Geek Movies that I'll tiptoe past on my way to something with actual dialogue, but since you're so enthusiastic about it, maybe I'll catch the video. As good as watching writhing men in loincloths may be. Ha.
-
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blue blah blah blah blah blah.
-
I feel betrayed. I've always at least respected the E-man's perspective. Who cares if it's overcast or sunny? The film looked beautiful. And it rocked! Russell Crowe IS the great man. Joaquin Phoenix did a great job. I was absolutely disgusted with his villian. And yet, every now and then, felt sorry for him. Gladiator is completely entertaining and genuinely touching. Being the audience watching the audience watching the carnage was unnerving, to say the least. Though many fanboy/girls would disagree, NO movie is perfect. Gladiator had a lot going for it, and it paid off.
-
Hey, I was doing some research on Orson Welles' unfinished film "The Other Side of the Wind" and came across a response by "Moriarty" aka Jeff Meyer. Is this the same as our much beloved and much loathed Moriarty? Anybody? Huh?
-
Having just left the theater, I can best descrbie the feeling in my stomach as unsatisfied. The movie is at its best when it is leading up to the final battle, providing both suspense and excitement. Yet the climax of this buildup just doesn't work. After the Emperor is killed, my reaction was similar to the crowd in the film: silence. The first thought in my head was "That's it?" I don't think a movie of this scope needs a plot twist at the end. A battle at the end would have nicely bookended the film. It would be straight forward and would provide a nice, satisfying climax. With all of that said, I still think it is a film that is worth seeing. The acting is much better than I expected for such an epic film. Go see the film, but don't expect the masterpiece that this website promises.
-
As a history buff, I'm hoping that Gladiator will set the trend for more costume epics. Gladiator was vastly superior to the earlier incarnation "The Fall of the Roman Empire." Although, Christopher Plummer's Commodus was more true to form. Anyhoo, I agree Pallando- MORE HISTORICAL EPICS!! A great one would be about Queen Boudicca of Britain. She was Queen of the Iceni but her husband ceded their lands to Rome. Her daughters were raped and killed in front of her and her lands pillaged. She raised an army against Rome and slaughtered several legions. The Romans eventually sent their best troops and defeated her army and she was killed. A great plot, think a female Braveheart.
-
Who cares if it wasn't historically accurate? Commodus did actually take part in gladiator battles. He wasn't killed in one, but it made the ending better. And the same thing is true with Spartacus. He died in combat. Would you rather see that instead of one of the best scenes from any movie ever (the "I am Spartacus" scene)? No. I'm glad they changed it a little bit. Who cares? Most people aren't watching it to hear a history lesson.
-
GLADIATOR was the first good film that I've seen in the theatres this year..... I absolutely loved it, Russell Crowe was great. The best part of the film was Joaquin Pheonix's surprisingly amazing job acting. I knew he had promise in films like 8MM, but shit, he needs more movies. So very menacing, yet so wounded and timid as well. The action was great, the story was well put together, and I was actually expecting much less from the film than I thought. It was just plain great.
-
All I can say is, damn! I wish I could make that much in three days. Then I'd just go out and buy Natalie Portman instead of jerking off to pictures of her head pasted on playboy centerfolds.
-
Ridley Scott just took me prisoner for two and half hours and stole seven dollars from me. At least the nachos were excellent. Seriously, though, this was a horribly disappointing film, it was the one I was looking forward to most this summer. All of the fight scenes were atrocious; you had no idea what was happening. Look at Stirling Bridge in "Braveheart" or Omaha Beach in "Saving Private Ryan;" those scenes captured the chaos of battle but were engrossing because we could tell what was happening. In the former you could pick out the individual engagements, in the latter you could understand the objective and the tactics. In "Gladiator" you could do neither. The gladiator scenes were similarly garbled, although not as badly simply because of scope. As Ebert points out, these sword fights pale when compared the meticulously choreographed and perfectly shot fights in "Rob Roy." Even beyond the awful action, you had stiff dialogue, dull characters and a jumbled narrative. Half of the dialogue sounded as though the characters had spent hours writing crafty, Shakespearian lines and were just waiting for a chance to spring them. Characters behaved without concern for motivation: Why did Quintus, after betraying Maximus and allowing his family to die, suddenly turn on Commodus at the end? Why did Proximo suddenly become a "good man" and let Maximus escape (yeah I know, Lucilla was 'persuasive', but how pigheaded good he have been that he didn't see what he was doing just a few scenes before?). The narrative lacked cohesion. Most of the time, Maximus wants just to go home, literally or figuratively. Then he wants to win the crowd. Then he wants to carry out the wishes of Aurelius and lead his legions into Rome. Maybe its not fair to compare to "Braveheart", but the films are similar. In "Braveheart," the over-powering theme was freedom and everything Wallace after losing his bride was directed toward the freedom of Scotland. No such unifying force can be found in "Gladiator." One final note: Ridley Scott is a fucking hack. He made his reputation on one brilliant horror film ("Alien") and has done nothing of note since. "Blade Runner," for all its influential visuals, is a dull film with characters I care even less for than those in "Gladiator" (and yes, I read Philip Dick's book and enjoyed it). Stop giving Ridley Scott money to make movies before he ruins another good idea.
-
For those bitching about some of the CG effects of Rome did any of you see the possible symbolism? When Commodus comes back to Rome the city is cast in a dark shade. There are no bright spots only shades of grey. Yet when Maximus arrives in Rome the city is bathed in light. Maybe I have fallen victim to over analyzation but oh well. Just curious if anybody else noticed the light dark motif.
-
I enjoyed the movie very much(even more the 2nd time). I have been a huge Russell Crowe fan since Romper Stomper, and I enjoyed his performance as I expected I would. The huge surprise for me was the late great Oliver Reed. My god what a performance, and at the same time, what a terrible loss for the world of film. I see a posthumous Oscar coming here.
-
I haven't seen the movie myself but my bro says its a "watered down 'Braveheart'".
-
What was Ridley Scott thinking? The way all the action sequences were shot was a ridiculous puke fest. There isn't a single action shot that lets the scene breath, even for a few seconds. The camera is moved violently, not in a speilberg/spryan way, where you can actually understand what is going on tactically, but in an epileptic way, so that you can't really focus on anything in much detail.
The special effects hinder the visual style of the film. The CG is mediocre at many points, especially the lighting in the main coloseum overhead. It makes me wish for the more expansive and detailed set pieces and matte/background paintings of days of old.
The plotline is watered down in detail and reduced from a potentially great epic to a dumbed down crowd pleaser. The film is sculpted out of the current state of the film industry, where blood splatters and cheesy heroic lines are more important than character development and realistic political events.
What is included in Gladiator is all mediocre and clearly attracts a dumbed down playstation culture.
I feel sorry for all those who think this movie is a great epic, because it may very well lower the standard again, and we may never see a Roman Epic like Spartacus and The Fall of the Roman Empire again.These are not perfect films, but none are. Gladiator simply pales in comparison.
And it shows that younger/less historically conscious consumers forget the classics of the past and are satisfied by lesser projects. -
Yeah, right. Let's have a remake of Spartacus where the hero marches to Rome with his slave army and becomes the new emperor. That's about as plausible as what happened with this dumb Gladiator movie where the producers decided to restore the Roman republic at the end. Or, in the new Mel Gibson movie about the American revolution, let's have it end with George Washington being crowned King of America. The public will buy it and rave about it as long as the special effects are good and the battle scenes are powerful. The makers of this movie were right in their estimation of the utter ignorance of the public. The fact that so many people liked this trash proves that.
-
May 07, 2000 6:43:12 PM CDT
PLEASE! somebody tell me I saw a butchered version of this film
by mmm_free_wig
It was only rated M.. i'd say thats equal to a PG-13 in the states. Even Final Destination was rated MA here.. which is your R. What was with the opening fucking fight? After being compared to.. and trumpeted as a graduation scene from the opening battle of Saving Private Ryan (which still easily holds that bar).. I was "What the fuck was with that camera work" jupming around like a frickin episode of NYPD Blue on steriods. And the Gore.. or complete lack there of. There was NONE! no flying limbs, hardly ANY blood, sure we got a version where we saw the barbarian throw the head at the start, and we saw the chick get cut in half by the chariot.. but there was no splatter, no innards. There was more gore in the first 5 minutes of Lake Placid, there was more gore the the fucking BEACH!!! PLEASE, somebody tell me I have better things to look forward to on DVD. I don't want morons re-posting to this saying i'm sick for wating gore.. you can fuck off, what i want is for someonw to tell me the R rated Gladiator in the U.S. had all the gore, and that Australia as been raped and cheated insulently by Paramount and our version of the MPA.
Our rating system goes G, PG, M, MA and R.
our MA is your R. An uncut Saving Private Ryan was MA here. An uncut Eyes Wide Shot with the lickers scene was R. And we get a lousy M Gladiator. "WHAT THE FUCK?!" Mission to mars was M here, U-571 was M here, The Whole Nine Yards was M here. And Gladiator was M here. Can you see why I am so upset. I'm saying the cut Australia has does deserve its M rating. It is that tame. IS AUSTRALIA BEING SCREWED? -
The high speed camera work was NOT done first in Saving Private Ryan and copied by Ridley, you guys need to watch GI Jane again- Ridley wasn't the first to use it, but he certainly didn't copy Spielberg.
-
This is one of my patented late as all hell posts. Especially since I saw 'Gladiator' last Thursday eve, but what the hey. I'm interested in Pater Death's comments. Curious reaction. Apparently only certain types of people - ie. those who never participate in a violent action and live peaceful, beautiful lives - are allowed to have morals. As if morals and those who have them are simplistic, when, in fact, complex people have complex and fluid morals. They can fight in a dubious war one second and the next be after bashing someone brains out in a revenge driven killing spree. Weird but true. As for Chuckie Rudolph, he is that type of critic who no doubt prides himself on his inconsistency by thinking that it makes him look unpredictable. Why else would he rave about 'Deep Blue Sea' and damn 'Gladiator'? Okay, 'DBS' runs a few nice ideas around, but ultimately it is a film that also revels in violence (whilst playing the morally daft line of showing the characters being upset by the deaths. Hey, it's okay for viewers to be thrilled by it as long as your a little upset afterwards!). It also damns, once again, technology as a source of beneficial research. It's the ol' Frankenstein thang - don't mess with nature boyo. And, of course, Chuckie has no problem with sharks as 'evil man-eating machines' as per the usual Hollyood cliche, although there are many biologists who would quite rightly disagree. Morally dubious? - yeah, let's demonise, incorrectly, a whole species yet again. Chuck, what a lovable ol' curmudgeon. Having said that, in 'Gladiator', our hero Maximus ain't a complex character. He's given a kind of solid weight by Rusty, tho', and that counts for something. As for the rest of the characters only Richard Harris and, occasionally, Olly come close to the same kind of performance. But 'Gladiator' isn't about complexity. It's a myth and, therefore, the characters are ciphers only. Given a different setting, and some six-guns and we could have the traditional Western story of revenge. Sure, it is a sword and sandals film that, perhaps wrongly, makes some vague grasping at an 'idea' which it can't quite reach. But I reckon we should be thankful that we don't have the usual pious Christian palaver that ruined so many films of this ilk. I think that history is full of either moralistically dubious times and characters or of times whose morals we can't really comprehend. Running a logic that damns the violence of a film like 'Gladiator' because the characters don't seem to be consistent - what with their nasty fighting one second and their philosophising about good and evil the next - is to basically shit on every single member of an empire's army and senate that lasted over 5 or 6 centuries purely because they don't fit in with some comfy early 21st century morality. Which is clearly quite daft.
-
It seems like most talkbackers have missed something about all this. Whether its Gladiator, Saving Private Ryan, or Braveheart, we still turn out for carnage just like the Romans. Our colisseums are smaller, but theres lots more of them. Would Saving Private Ryan gotten the attention it did without the battle scene at the beginning? My guess is no. Humans are a bloodthirsty bunch, like it or not.
-
Why is everyone complaining about this movie? After months and months of mediocre mish mash We get a huge film with great performances, great effects and overall... well, just brilliant. You can nit pick all you want and side with Ebert, a man I usually respect, but remember- under his ratings system, "The Whole Nine Yards" was better than "Gladiator". Show me a man who agrees with that, and I'll show you a fool.
-
I can't believe my eyes when I read that you say the music is not that good! Oh my GOD, the music was my favorite part about it;I still have the themes stuck in my head!!! Hans Zimmer is the best and the music did not fall short at all!!
-
...about wasting their hard-earned $7, and then the first thing they do is hop on the internet to discuss how much they disliked this movie. Whether or not you enjoyed it, Gladiator is a powerful film. It's fascinating, really, no matter how many technical problems it has and no matter how much the camera needs to pull back and stop cutting. The fact that people took it personally that it didn't meet their unrealistically high expectations just shows that the movie got under their skin and made them think. And I feel that any movie that can get this many people talking about its good/bad qualities is a huge success. You may want your $7 back, but you'll still be thinking about this film for quite a while, and that just might justify your monetary "loss."
-
May 07, 2000 7:53:17 PM CDT
GLADIATOR DVD BETTER HAVE THE MISSING SCENES!!!!!!!!1
by midgard serpent
I saw Gladiator again today and still think this is Ridley Scotts best film.I do however have 2 things that i thought were flaws in the movie. The first one is a scene with the battle of Carthage with Russells sword having blood on it, then the next shot the blood dissapears, its really nitpicking i know but they could have fixed it. The second problem is the preview version i saw back in March had more of the opening battle and more gore!!! Hopefully the dvd will have that definitive version of this truly great film.I really don't understand how anyone who claims they love movies can say that this movie was terrible??Too many people that post here are unhappy sad fucks that spend their Saturday nights popping zits and rewatching Buckaroo Banzai!!HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!
-
May 07, 2000 8:22:11 PM CDT
Why the ending to this movie was completely necessary. *SPOILER*
by cyclopticjackass
Did any of you people who are complaining about the ending being too far fetched, or just plain dumb, actually watch the movie? Every scene with Commodus in Rome explained why he absolutely had to fight Maximus at the end, in the arena. For one, like an early Post-er said, he had a massive inferiority complex going. The only thing in his mind that would put his demons to rest, was to kill Maximus with his own hands. The other, and far more practical reason, is from a political standpoint. Throughout the film, phrases such as "Rome is the mob." "The heart of Rome is not the marble of the Senate, it is the sand of the Coliseum." give complete justification to Commodus getting into the ring with Maximus, in FULL PUBLIC VIEW. Commodus was brilliant, if fucked in the head. He understood that in order for him to take Rome to the heights that he wanted to take it, he had to have the support of the mob. The way to do that was to show them that their leader, their Caesar, was more powerful than the overnight legend Maximus. It was the absolute ONLY way. He couldn't afford to have him murdered, and appear a martyr. So all of you who are bitching about the ending, come up with a real reason for disliking the movie rather than spit out assinine bullshit.
-
Unless you have PMS, no one cares about your views... let them make their own decisions,
Oh yeah for your info the dvd is supposed to have 1 hour + more footage... yeah!
-
Someone mentioned Ebert's rating system placed the Whole Nine Yards above Gladiator...well I'd watch the Whole Nine Yards ten times before I'd ever go near Gladiator again. While Gladiator was well acted it lacked an interesting plot and did not contain a single scene worth a repeat viewing. No good dialogue, no laughs, no action scenes that ever made me think, "Wow, that was cool looking." The film was just blah. It was like an NBC "event" miniseries - all show, no go. I'm glad so many people found it engaging, but I just left the theater feeling rather placid. It wasn't a horrible movie. It just existed...
*****************************
BTW, I did not really care that much for the Whole Nine Yards either, but at least I laughed once in awhile and there was the factor of Amadan Peet showing off that cute little bod. -
I like Ebert because he is one of the only mainstream critics who will admit to liking utter crap like Anaconda. (his thumbs up to Speed 2 still has me shaking my head) Good point about Whole Nine Yards, he called that film hilarious.It was a total shitfest. But I still like how he can just sitback and enjoy a crappy popcorn movie without bitching. He's still the critic i repect most. And fuck off to all you pussies saying Gladiator sucked, you probably were expecting too much anyway. Go watch crappy Blade Runner again.
-
I can't believe you called "Gladiator" a "snoozfest" while saying you'd rather watch whol nine yards. WNY was the slowest, most boring film of the year, nothing happens untill about an hour in that film! the jokes bombed, i was bored out of my skull. I can't believe you said that.
-
Sir, make some changes and rerelease this like you did with your, ahem, masterpiece BR. First, delete MORE talking - if you already did this, go even further because the some of the scenes run kinda long. 2nd and most important - ADD MORE GLADIATOR ACTION!!!! The Battle of Carthage WAS AWESOME!!! WE NEED MORE STUFF LIKE THAT. Also, put back in the gore, extend the battle scene at the end and the beginning and IF YOU WANT TO GO ALL OUT, have the FANTASTIC ending that EVERYBODY was expecting - Make Maximus sack Rome, kill everybody, and THEN, have Commodus challenge Maximus (for honour's sake) to a gladiator fight. Then the winner would control Rome. Reshoot the final gladiator fight, make Commodus die and then let Maximus die with honour and dignity - in the gladiator fight itself, not by cheating and literally backstabbing. All of these changes would make it more exciting while keeping intact your main themes of sacrifice, bravery and the triumph of the popular will over the dictatorship-like government.
-
JRKerr! If you thought that anyone else on this site had bad reasons for liking/disliking "Gladiator," then you must scroll on up to this morons post. I mean it is not possible to have a more idiotic excuse for not liking a movie (err film as you all seem to have to go out of the way to call them) then bad sword skills. Holy shit, you actually expect us to go out and learn fencing so that we can better grasp such small details in this damn movie? Get a life, please. All kidding aside, you have ascended all the other nerds here with this new, revolutionary style of loserly activity. I mean come on, do you expect me to take knitting lessons before watching "How to Make An American Quilt." Maybe I should never have seen any movie set in outer space since I am not an astronaut. Anyone in here ever see "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer?" I hope you have a good kill count under your belts, less you should not understand how it feels to murder someone and how to properly stab someone. Fuck, now I can't go see "Shaft" since I am not a black, private Dick that's a sex machine to all the chicks. It's nerds like JRKerr that make the rest of you look bad.
-
Don't get me wrong, I loved the movie. It was fun. It had gladiators. It had Russell Crowe, an extremely manly man! (Woo hoo!) The special effects were fabulous. The story wasn't bad. But was I the only person who knew that Commodus ruled for over a decade? It was annoying, to say the least. Would it have been so hard to write a story that fit into the actual historical events? Guess so.
-
Why can't people just enjoy a movie. Most people on this talkback are complaining about the most mundane details. The sword play wasn't accurate enough. WHO GIVES A SHIT. It looked real enough to me. If these types of details are your only gripes then that is wholly pathetic. So they made a FEW technical mistakes. Oh well. Life goes on and so does the movie. How can people bitch about the fight scenes? Ever since the hype started on this film everybody wanted to see blood and guts. Well they got it and people are still not satisfied. Christ, lower your expectations from the stellar hights that they are at and just enjoy the movie.
-
We are just enjoying our youth, and having fun. What's wrong with that? Sometimes movies are just for fun. But, maybe you grew up too fast to realize that. (While I'm on the soapbox) age is a state of mind; you'll only wind up wearing diapers and sipping prune juice if you make yourself old.
-
About the high expectations thing. It's ok to have high expectations but I don't think it's fair to complain when the movie is less than what you expected. If you build a film up to stellar hights and it only delivers a mediocre to good performance then you shouldn't condemn it because it failed to meet your impossible standards of perfection. Damn that was a long sentence. Anyway, about the death thing. When Maximus kills on the battlefield he does it because he feels it is his duty to Rome and his emperor. He even says he would rather be farming. When he is killing in the arena it is for survival and he also plays to the crowd after the man is already dead. Yes he goes to far at times but oh well. And he gets to see his family because he was a dutiful and yes, good man. What he did he was forced to do. Anyway, I enjoyed the movie I hope most other people did too.
-
Gil, I pointed out quite clearly that I did NOT really like the Whole Nine Yards much. I laughed once in awhile and it had the benefit of Amanda Peet. Beyond that...well it wasn't so hot, but it wasn't nearly as mindnumbingly boring as Gladiator. Sorry but yawn-inducing fight scenes and lack of story depth do not intrigue me. Add in a total derth of jokes (one good line in the whole movie: "I'm terribly vexed.") and horrible CGI and I see no reason to ever sit through Crapiator again. Crowe is a fine actor, but this movie did nothing for me. I just wanted to be in awe. I wanted to say "wow!" once in awhile. Instead I found myself fighting sleep DURING the fight scenes which were the worst part of the movie. How can someone make a movie about gladiators and not include one friggin' eye-popping battle scene? Scott has lost it.
-
BITCH, BITCH, BITCH. That's all you guys do. Get a life you jack asses. Hell, i must be the only other person on this talkback that understood EXACTLY what valcache (sp?) was talking about. This was a spectacular film that was full of glory and revenge. To all that beleive that the only goal that Maximus was trying to accomplish was killing one man, screw you. Look deeper. He wanted what Commidus's father wanted, and it was not to have Commidus as the Emperior of rome because he is incapable of doing it. If it ment haveing to kill him off, then so be it. Yes, he could have brought down Commidus some other way, but it wouldn't be as affective. I didn't expect that Commidus outsmarted Maiximus's plan of escaping to get the army. I didn't expect that one freaking bit. yes, Maximus is a hero, he is more than just a freaking killing barbarian you all think that he is. He is a loyal soldier to Rome, and Commidus would bring Rome down, so he just had to get rid of him. I know some of you guys are already typing away to jsut repeat your excesive and pointless rantings, but i will repeat: this is a good movie. Now you all are also comparing this to Braveheart, and saying that Braveheart was better. Don't you all think you're being a little hypocritical concerning the historic accuracy of Gladiator, but praise Braveheart. Please. There were far more things out of place in Bravheart than in Gladiator. At least in Gladiator, they just made up their own charactor, while in Braveheart, they decide to take other historic charactors and throw them all in one story (last time i checked, that french queen wasn't around during that revolution) Hell, they didn't even get armor right in Braveheart, in actual illistraitions of William Wallice (who looks more like John Malckovich than Gibson) had full suits of armor, while in the movie, he had scraps of leather and a kilt. Quit being a bunch of fucking hypocrits and watch the movie again (sometimes i don't even think that some of you who say that the movie sucked even seen it) Also, on another note. Someone mentioned that there are still some people that think THe Matrix sucks. That person is so right, cause i think it sucked. Okay, sucked is a bit harsh to use. It was WAY over-rated . Sure, good special FX, but that was it. The acting was like watching a bunch of blocks of woods talking. I think the script was written by monkeys casue the dialouge was HORRIBLE. Keannu Reeves is the worst actor of the 90's. How bad of an actor do you have to be to be able to screw up a hand signal? he does some pretty cool fancy stuff with his hands in the subway fight, then when he stops and puts out his hand and signals "come here" with it, he couldn't even make that very convincing. It seemed like he was hesitating. The villians stank, especially the Tommy Lee Jones wanna-be. They were very unintimidation and talked toooo ssslooowly for me to be at all thrilled by them. The Matrix stank, face it. Gladiator is a good film, face it.
-
How could you give this movie a bad review? Shallow plot? Well it's not a fucking political drama it's an action movie, and it's absolutely great. Movies like this & fight club are what keep me going to movies.
And thank god we have a new action hero to take the torch from ahhh'nold.
Russel Crowe kicks ass. Major, major ass. Even if he is an aussy.
to summarize, GLADIATOR FUCKING ROCKS. (I can say 'fucking' right?) -
Did anyone see his show? The chick-critic didn't let up. I loved it! And did you notice how every clip they showed had gorgeous, golden, sunlit, daylight illuminating it? And then Ebert has to go and say Being John Malkovich is the best film of '99. Something I agree with. I'm so damn conflicted!
-
Just out of curiousity what do you consider a rousing example of a fight scene? If you could give a few examples for us less educated individuals it would be much appreciated.
-
Fuckin' AAAAAAYYYYYEEEEEE!!! That is all.
-
May 07, 2000 10:16:09 PM CDT
Ha! All of you who hated Gladiator still lost 7 bucks in the pr
by scala
-
I don't care what anyone says, Screwed is gonna rock hard! Dirty Work was one of the funniest movies I've ever seen (Yeah, it didn't have a very original plot, but plot in those movies is just a device to get to the jokes. The Fish Scene is a classic moment in Cinema) plus Dave Chappelle, who was great in Half Baked, and SHERMAN FUCKING HEMSLEY, people! How could this lose? Well, the fact is that it will lose. Bad. Most people haven't reached the point where they can laugh at something like this, so how Adam Sandler got an audience as large as he did with material that is mostly similar to the stuff that Norm is doing is a mystery. Note To Adam Sandler fans: Rent Dirty Work. If Screwed is half as funny as that one, I'll be satisfied. Norm MacDonald is a god.
-
Just saw the movie last night on the monster screen. Personally, I think William Wallace from Braveheart would have kicked Maximus' ass up and down the stadium. I thought the story was a drag. I didn't care about the characters because none, beside Max, were very well developed.
-
You knew going in that the film involved a lot of carnage. Don't try to play innocent and exclude yourself from the rest of the mob. Unless one was absolutely stupid they would realize that a movie called Gladiator would involve death. I don't know how well it speaks to our society but people enjoy seeing a bit of FICTIONAL carnage. If you can honestly tell me you have NEVER seen some FAKE carnage or death and said "cool" or "wow", or something to that effect, then you can exclude yourself from the rest of the mob. But I sincerely doubt that you have done that. You are as guilty as the rest of us.
-
OK, in my humble opinion, this was a really well made, fun film. People's problem with the ending being "unbelievable" makes me think people weren't paying attention. Whatever Commodus did to try and bring Maximus down didn't work and only made people love him more. He wouldn't just kill him, outraging the "mob" and making him a martyr. However, if he defeated him in the pit, it would show courage, devotion, and fair play on him part to the crowd. They would have loved it. And Scott showed us him swordplay abilities after the opening battle.He fended off 5-6 men as he was training, and his movements were fluid and strong. He had trained his whole life, he was just too much of a coward to fight in war.
My ONLY gripe with this film was that we needed to see more of Maximus developing as a gladiator. He just suddenly *became* this great figure. But, when the movie is 3 hours long, adding more ain't a good idea.
Overall, loved it. -
I thought that Gladiator was very good. The ending was great, I didn't expect Maximus do die.(I balled my eyes out when he did) But, I do agree with the comments others have made about the shoddy CG in the film. Who did the effects anyways? Its all about honor!
-
Gladiator is the first of the summer movies. Are we going to bitch and complain like this all summer long. What if x-men, the patriot, chicken run, or hollow man does not live up to our expectations. Are we capable of enjoying a movie without nitpicking every detail because it's not the way we think it should be. "Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens"-Gimli. I can't wait till that movie comes out so we can bitch about it too and not enjoy it. Just like all the rest.
-
Seriously. You remind me of the kid who came out of the theatre with his friend after I saw 'Gladiator'. "They talked too much," he said. Fucking idiot. And you are too, if you bash this film. It's a decently done gladiotor movie - might I remind you that those DON'T EXACTLY COME OUT VERY OFTEN? And if that isn't enough, some fucktard assmonkey draws an allusion to Hamlet. I guess "Love and Basketball" is a rip-off of Romeo and Juliet? Fucking highbrow moron. Here's the real deal on what was good and bad about Gladiator.......good: Russell Crowe. This fellow delivers authority...and there is something dangerous in his eyes - something that says "Don't fuck with me or I will kill you." He makes you BELIEVE that he is the most competent, most badass killer out there (recommend watching "The Quick and the Dead" where he holds his own against Gene Hackman...not exactly an easy acting job). The sets and MOST of the CGI was breathtaking. The story was decent. The ending was fine - it was not predictable and anyone who says otherwise will also tell you that they 'predicted' the end to the 6th Sense 10 minutes into the movie (in other words, they think 'predictable' is a synonym for 'intelligence'). The bad is probably the choppy fight scenes and some rare weak CGI. Combat scenes are shot chaotically; they may be an attempt to simulate 'real' combat, but the fact of the matter is that they simply confuse and disorient the viewer and make it difficult to determine onscreen events. It's kind of hard to determine that Maximus is the ultimate badass when you get only furtive glances of his sword arm. Other than that niggle, good movie. I give it an 8 and 1/2 out of ten. All who disagree shall be destroyed by my psichic Mindfire.
-
I posted something a good while ago on Gladiator's virtues as a film, and watching people continue to discuss has been damned entertaining.
I'll keep my comments brief (brevity as the soul of wit is a lesson that a few folks here could stand to learn), but people ranting about Gladiator being "amoral" and such is ridiculous. The logic behind that has a fatal and complete flaw - you are imposing YOUR moral and value system on everyone else.
While you have every right to find Gladiator distateful, amoral, unholy, etc., you do not have the right to decide what those words mean for anyone else, and to stand in your ivory tower and scream at the top of your lungs about how horrible we all are for enjoying a movie you didn't. The more you act like you have the right to do that, the bigger an ass you make or yourself, and the more entertained I am!
After all, this is almost a gladiatorial arena unto itself, and those who try to decide other people's opinions for them simply continue to fall on their own swords. ;] -
I saw the movie twice. Not because I thought it was an ingenious piece of cinema, but because I love Roman imagery and I was a sucker for every piece of cheap manipulation that Scott put in the movie. Even though I loved the movie, it did have many flaws that frustrated me. First, the technical stuff: Very beginning battle scene, the two armies clash. There was some kind of blurry zoom-in on the two armies colliding, yet in this particular shot, which by some unfathomable mystery or stroke of senility on the part of Scott, it was chosen as the apex of the clash, and we see sloppy extras acting unconvincing. There is one extra just strolling along through the **MIDDLE** of the frikkin' scene, smiling like he was in the midst of some drunken Saxon festival! There are guys in furs with axes and legionaires with shields stepping toe to toe, but in the middle of this "AGE OF EMPIRES ON ICE" fiasco, we see a mid-pubescent version of Opie in costume armor (since the illusion is now shattered), just meandering his way through the chaos, with a big ol' pearly white grin that telegraphs to the audiences of this final cut in theaters around the world, "Dude! Can you believe this?! We're in BRAVEHEART 2!" Scott must be getting old, because it truly is a mystery how such a thing could've been overlooked. Another glaring flaw concerning an extra occured before the final battle. The camera is panning right, above the crowd. A dark-haired guy in the FOREGROUND(!) looks straight at the camera. Amazing.... There's also little continuity errors, like four men getting whacked, then you see two bodies lying on the ground in the zoomed-out shot of the circus floor. Or when Titus falls to the ground and his mask flips up. Then Maximus walks up and opens the mask with his axe. How did these things go unnoticed on a $100,000,000 movie with a director and editor that are SUPPOSED to be professionals, and after countless test screenings? Ok, now the dramatical and creative flaws: Maximus is a great leader, but the character isn't given any scripting to demonstrate his strategic abilities. No military formation commands or anything. And, as we all know, the action scenes weren't cultivated to their fullest potential. I don't know what the cinematographer was thinking, but you do not film actions scenes strictly through tight shots and wide zoom-outs. Through 90% of the duels, you only see the two characters from the waist up. That is NO good and you're cheating the audience with that kind of visual limitation. Many, many of the tight shots WERE VERY EFFECTIVE (to set the record straight), but you're only left with one ingredient for an action movie recipe that could have yielded some of the best fight scenes ever put on film. Some scenes with the tigers were at a good distance, but those were very few. The Titus fight, being the best part of the movie in my opinion, was too short. Heck, all the fight scenes were too short. Then there's the plot integrity... Don't worry, I'll make this short: He rides, wounded, from Germany to Spain. (Oh yeah, how exactly did he wound his executioner in a manner that he quickly acquired his sword?) The roman army arrives just seconds before him because, you know, the Romans were real lazy about the timeliness in which they carried out death sentences. The slave traders just happened to be in his neck of the woods when they find him. He sleeps during the entire **WALK** to Morocco. The gladiators stand in line to get wasted by Maximus, whose leg-work when fighting is a mystery to the viewer. Maximus revealed his identity way too early. It should've been revealed at the end, right when he killed Commodus, when Commodus is granting him his freedom and not dueling with him. If I had written this script, the wooden sword would've smashed Commodus' trachea, and Maximus would remove his helmet as Commodus choked to death. By that point his loyal soldiers would have been in position to counteract any repurcussions of Maximus' actions. Man, I should've gone to film school. Give ME a project like this...
-
I now understand Shade. Thanks for the clear up. It actually makes sense now. I disagree but it makes sense.
-
But not a documentary...not a work of historical fact. However, it was an extremely entertaining, and very engaging MOVIE. The Music was TOP NOTCH, the action was incredible (with the exception of some of the editing during the opening battle, which I still enjoyed emmensely), and the characters were played perfectly. I only wish that the film had been about 20 to 30 minutes longer, so we could have seen more intrigue between the senators... And for whoever it was that so bitterly ranted about the swordplay: Do you actually fence? If so, which style? Nothing in european fencing reflects how one would use a Roman short sword... Foils, Epees and Sabres (weapons from the romantic and modern eras) were not as heavy or as clumsy as this weapon... Only the sabre would be even remotely close (and even so, is far lighter and weighted very differently...oh, and used very differently as well) And do you know how long sabre duels last, on average? Not any more than 5 seconds, usually. How wonderful that would be to see on film... The characters wouldn't be fighting long enough for the audience to be remotely excited or afraid for the hero's safety. The extended and dramatic swordplay is there for dramatic device... This is a movie, afterall, not an SCA match. Anyways, my opinion is that this is a wonderful film that graciously updates and improves upon the Roman Epics of cinematic antiquity. Bravo! I'll be watching it again for the third time this coming weekend... I simply cannot believe that there was ANYONE that hated this film... What a waste.
-
Queer Giraffes. The was just ok. I enjoyed it but it just could have been better. I'm not going into details as others all have their opinions. I'm the type though that laughed my ass off when Maximus's kid got knocked down by the horse. Damn funny seen. Call me sick.
-
GLADIATOR is the worst kind of summer movie. Scott tried too hard make an "intelligent" movie when he should have just accepted that the only reason anyone would come to see it is for the fight scenes. Especially since it was heavily marketed with that aspect in mind. I think the Roman citizens would have agreed with me. The movie fails on many levels: waaaayy too much exposition, too few fight scenes, hokey flashbacks/visions, mumbled dialog, the completely out-of-character kissing scene, and a completely unbelievable plot line just to name a few. By the way, I did not pay for the movie. I had free passes, so the only punishment I had to endure was two and a half hours of trite nonsense. PS: Did anyone else notice that Maximus' dog just vanished from the story completely? What's up with that? Did I miss the shot where they showed him dead or trotting around in the after life with the wife and kid? Why go to all the trouble to shoot scenes of the dog running through the forest and jumping into the fray if we don't get to see Maximus discover that his faithful companion had been killed? Scott missed a prime opportunity to insert a little forshadowing, if you ask me.
-
I enjoyed the movie. Sure they got some things wrong but I felt overall it was a film worth seeing. One thing in paticular they got perfect...in the begining the look on some of the soldiers faces. As a soldier I recognize that look. It's the "I'm cold, I'm wet, and I'm not gonna move unless I have to" look. I have had that look and so have my friends. Soldiers have looked like that for thousands of years and I'm sure will for thousands more. :)
-
If I see "the greatest action scene ever" again on these Talkbacks I am going to break some heads. Everyone knows the greatest action seen ever filmed is in Raider's of the Lost Ark when Indy goes after the truck. Need I remind you forgetful bastards of that?
-
Weekend Box Office for Gladiator.
Win the crowd -
http://www.nypress.com/content.cfm?content_id=1844&now=05/03/2000&content_section=4
-
May 08, 2000 1:19:42 AM CDT
Sodomy Redux...your name is scary to me, but I must agree with y
by dave_f
In fact, I think I posted a similar comment about the "Raiders" chase scene some months back. Lemmee tell ya, when one guy on horseback takes on an ENTIRE CONVOY of vile Nazis, that my friends is some serious action! As previously stated, the action scenes in "Gladiator" did very little for me, but here, to amuse my fellow Talkbackers, is my list of runner-ups for best action sequence after Indy: ***The end chase of "Road Warrior" ***The destruction of the guerilla camp in "Predator" ***Bank shootout in "Heat" ***The final battle at the ruins in "Conan" ***The final battle in "Saving Private Ryan" ***The face-off between the Warriors and the Baseball Furies in "The Warriors" ***Subway shootout in "The Untouchables" **** That's off the top of my head, anyway. Probably missed a few, and I omitted stuff like space battles and large-scale battles as in "Braveheart". Anyway, Indy vs. the Nazis still reigns supreme!
-
Watch the movie again. These snap judgements, especially about a Ridley Scott film, show that people haven't learned there's more to his work than a roller coaster ride. And as for the film not being moral -- what a CROCK! Maximus says he's fighting for the glory of Rome because the rest of the world is cruel, brutal and dark. "Rome is the light." He believes that. He loathes violence for sport. It's merely his only opportunity to avenge the brutal deaths of the Emperor and his family, to honor them and bring justice. Maybe in today's PC babble, barbarians are cool and justice is mean. Boo-hoo. The second time you see this film, you will marvel at the film's structure. People have just been reading way too much about this film and invented their own Gladiator inside their heads before they went to actually see it. Now that you realize it's not the film you imagined or anticipated, watch it again and you'll be amazed. (The wolf-dog at the beginning was awesome cool.)
-
This movie was a good summer to get away from the house. The movie's ending was kind of depressing so that had something to do with my rating for it. I did however, love Russell Crowe in this movie. He had an awesome presence in each scene he was in. The score of the film was not what I expected. The begining was very good, but once the choral music took over towards the end, that was disappointing. I will still recommend this film to others because it's good film to get away from the house and enjoy.
- 3/4 stars -
I still say Ridley Scott needs to learn how to direct an action sequence. PULL THE FUCK BACK. I want to see what's going on, man! This wasn't Saving Private Ryan, it was a gladiator movie. I want to see the action.
I had the same problem with Legend, Blade Runner, aw hell EVERY Ridley Scott film where there's action. Can't tell what's happening because the bastard is zoomed in on the pores of the actor's skin. Hey Ridley, a zoom lens is not a substitute for decent blocking, you stupid hack! -
I understood what ValCache said quite well thank you very much. It's true that alot of people here don't back up their thoughts on a film. However, she said the film was powerful, and I don't think it is. I was not moved at all, except for when (and this might be lame) Commodus was sooking to his father just before he murders him. Nothing else had an impact on me. I don't know why, I just can't explain it. Like I said, maybe I'm just jaded. >>>
To that person who was wondering, yep I sure got that light/dark motif. >>>
As for the person who slammed that kid for saying "They talked too much", WHAT THE F@#K do you expect a KID to say?! People under 15 will be bored in some parts of this film, face it. >>>
A person's opinion of a film is subjective. So, my subjective opinion: 'Gladiator' is good, but no masterpiece, face it. -
BRaveheart will always be one of the greatest films of all time for me. Nothing in my mind will ever beat the miraculuos combination of
Music, characters u absolutley love, story, battles anddirection.....awesome. BRAVEHAERT IS GOD>......gladiator was very good too, but its true that the opening battle is a pathetic blur. and that its wayyy to long. it actually feels 3 hours long, unlike braveheart which is like half an hour long in my opinion. The music SUCKED!@!!!@@@!@!@!@!@! too bad James horner couldnt supply the music, although i really like Zimmer when hes good. Anyways, its a really good film, but NO WHERE NEAR braveheart -
Nice list - you got most of the good ones. I'd like to add a few myself - how about the Marines getting slapped down in the first foray into the atmosphere processor, and the APC rescue by Ripley? And her battle in the powerloader with the Queen (always reminds me of the WWF, this scene . . .I'M GONNA TAKE YOU, ALIEN FREAK, AND I'M GONNA HURL YOU OUTTA THE AIRLOCK . . . THIS SATURDAY NIGHT!!)Or the hospital shoot-out in Hardboiled, with two-gun action supplied by the world's greatest-ever action pairing, John Woo and Chow Yun-fat. That's all I can think of at short notice . . .
-
Great movie, but the ending, all I can say is Hamlet
-
Shade, and anyone of like mind - next time I recommend you address my comments against your moralizing instead of Pee-Wee-Hermaning them away with some empty/pithy comment. ;]
As for that NY Press review, it was far too literary for the medium - being a good reviewer is an exceedingly difficult thing, and the proper frame of mind for reviewing a movie isn't the same one as writing a critique for a SoHo art show. It was certainly intelligent, but misguided.
Braveheart comparisons are also misguided, if more understandable. The key to "getting" a movie is not breaking down its themes into smaller, more easily digested pieces by trying to link it to some other movie that you've already formed an opinion on. That's a cop out. Braveheart was a fine flick, but it was much different in structure than Gladiator, largely because Maximus had little interest in William Wallace-style melodrama. William Wallace was presented as far tougher and far more enlightened than any other character in the whole movie, and the battles he participated in were less specific plot-wise and FAR more romanticized than any of those in Gladiator. Shade, do you hate Braveheart as well? Maximus is much more real a man (history aside) than some speech-spouting savior of a people, and it makes his quest that much more interesting.
Yoshi. -
May 08, 2000 3:39:20 AM CDT
Gladiator is FUN, YOuthful, FRESH! FUNKY and on the Cutting Edge
by geekbasher 3.0
Gladiator is fierce! Gladiator Rules! I was blown to the back of the theatre while getting blown by my date!
-
This is a movie you understand...morality doesn't have to be in the MOVIES...It's VIRTUAL....When real people die it's different....because It's REAL...You must side with those folk that think violent video games cause kids to shoot up schools...wrong...what video game did a young man by the name of hitler play to influence his decisions about mass slaughter? By the way, in the bible revenge was perfectly ok...i.e. eye for an eye...Gladiator is a masterpiece of film that will stand far longer than you or I will. Oh, and by the way, since you didn't pay to get in, you did lose out in another way, you lost 6 hours of your life watching an immoral film twice...lol see ya
-
love to bitch. Why don't YOU get into filmmaking, and show us all how it should be done?
-
Joyce Kulhaywik, Maven of All Things to Pander To, just made me cheer. Sporting a new "You're imagining I'm thinking "Do me" right now," She got right in Roger Ebert's face and sang the praises of Gladiator, called it the best movie of this year so far, one of the best she's ever seen, and made me BELIEVE it. It got to the point where he was telling her to shut up because none of his points sounded as good as his. Now, I'm a big fan of Ebert's, I don't like him or his reviews much and that means he's doing his job well, but he looked like a big moron poo-pooer up there and he knew it.
Just thought that'd have to come out of me, it was just so wierd seeing Joyce not only stand up for a movie that brainwash kids into thinking you have to get married to have sex or any of her other Schleisingeresque panderings to conservative moviegoers. (a word about as oxymoronical as compassionate conservative, but I suppose they must exist.) Very creepy, gave me the heeby-jeebies. SHe's not the bee's knees yet with me, but she made a big leap tonight. -
Don't get me wrong...I do appreciate your ability to critique a movie, and insult a good many people at the same time (inculding me). And no, I'm not a member of the SCA, however I know people who are who just happen to be some of the damned finest fencers in the United States... (and kick my ass on a regular basis. I've been fencing sabre, and epee for 4 years) And are good people to boot. Oh well. Next time, I'll know to reply to someone who has something insightful to say, and just skip your posts...
-
and I knew the Naysayers would show up...even flies come to a picnic. Is Gladiator the greatest film ever made? Uh, NO. But it had excellent acting (personal favs are Joaquin Phoenix and Oliver Reed), it had the tremendously godlike Russell Crowe, and the DIALOGUE! Man, I thought it was awesome. Listen to Commodus's "Other Virtues" speech or the "Busy Little Bee" speech...they were jawdroppingly great writing. The dialogue and the acting kicked my ass. I know why people bitch about the battle scenes, but the fact is, battle is chaotic, and even dreamlike in ways. I have minor beefs with that...escpecially the "Are you well entertained?" battle where each attacker respectfully waits for the first one to finish dying before they trudge on in, but these are minor bitches. Gladiator is an excellent film, and worth seeing. The summer has a hell of a lot to live up to.
-
I enjoyed the panoramas of Rome and the costumes and such (I even recognized Commodus's breastplate from a statue of an emporer - a direct copy, I think, of that worn by the Augustus Prima Porta).
However, my faith in the historical accuracy was shook by one thing: the gladiator events were shown being advertised by flyers. Romans had no means of mass-producing written material - not even woodcuts. Also, paper wasn't really available. There was no rag paper - I think your choices were papyrus and parchment or vellum. These aren't easy to produce. In fact, the early Christians wrote a lot of their scripture on used account ledger books that they'd scraped clean and written over.
A major reviewer has already pointed out that the "thumbs up/thumbs down" thing was actually practiced in reverse of what we commonly think of today (Thumbs up really meant "Go ahead and kill him.") but that didn't bother me much because concessions must be made to modern audiences. Still, the error of the printed advertisements undermined my ability to enjoy all the visual recreations - I don't know if they actually employed good historians to advise on the sets. -
Gladiator was pretty good, but not terrific - and I know Terrific. In thinking about this film, I think a lot of the credit has to go to Russell Crowe. Call it acting ability or just charisma, but he was able to hold this movie together despite some very shaky plot points. Some have questioned the opening battle scene - particularly the quick cutting once it gets going. While obviously an homage to Private Ryan, it undercuts the heroism of Maximus by emphasizing the chaos of combat. Also - why would a Roman general actually get involved in the actual fighting. The timeline problems that DogStar talks about are right on. Maximus seemed to be able to ride from Germania (modern Germany?) to Spain in about a day. This is after he overcomes 5 soldiers that are going to execute him (but 20 are sent to kill his defenseless wife and kid?). He then gets taken to Morocco? in about two days, becomes a gladiator in a week and shows up in Rome in a month. You overlook these kinds of things when you're watching but it points out some of the shoddy thinking behind the plots. Some have criticized the plot as too simple. I think it was needlessly complex. The whole relationship with Commodus' sister and her relationship with Maximus was not reslly needed to further the plot. Adding plot lines for additional nuance and depth is one thing, but this really wasn't needed. In fact the whole "give Rome back to the people" plot line was not needed. Simply have Maximus be a great soldier (not a general) that is betrayed by the evil Commodus and seeks revenge for the slaughter of his family. Then the flashbacks on his family and the yearning to return to his life as a simple man becomes the primary (and understandable) motivation. The first gladiator comabt in Morocco? seemed perfunctory - did anyone think for a second Maximus was not going to win. The next gladiator combat agianst the chariots (with women drivers?) was very good. You could see some of the battle strategy being employed. The next one against Titus was very good because of the tigers. It would have been better if the tigers got Titus. Commodus' reluctance to have Maximus killed immediately after revealing his identity in the ring is understandable if you know that the crowd can hear everything being said between them. One shot from the seats hearing them talk would have established this. Then Commodus reluctance to have Maximus killed makes sense because of the bad PR it would generate. The last fight between Commodus and Maximus actually made the most sense at all from psychological and realistic viewpoints. Finally the score was terrible. Yet overall this was pretty good - credit Crowe, Reed, Phoenix, the editor and the set designer (NOT the computer programmers who sucked). If the filmakers (writer and director) had been a little more dedicated to do some research and come up with a realistic plot that furthered a theme they actually cared about this could have been terrific - and I know terrific. In some ways it reminds me of Godzilla - that's not a good thing.
-
Gladiator obviously had a pretty damn good screenplay that was lost in murky scattered direction (Seems to me Ridley Scott is suffering from Michael Bay-itis. He gets so many great, beautiful shots that he JUST HAS to put all of them in the film). Russel Crowe was absolutely brilliant, but that poor, poor Phoenix bastard was WAY out of his element. Ralph Feinnes should have played his part because he came off stupid, lazy, and whiny. SPOILER: When he and Maximus were going in the ring I knew he didn't stand a fucking chace. I also thought the female in it was good awful. There was also too much talking and not enought Gladitor fighting. The movie is called Gladiator, not Maximus' Revenge. Anyhow, I was all fired up to see this film because I trusted Harry and Moriarty's reviews. I was let down by the film itself, although many elements were very interesting. P.S. Postumous (sp) Supporting Actor Oscar for Oliver Reed anyone?
-
Now I have not had the chance, or honestly the time to sit and read through every post, and doubtless, no one will end up reading this. Regardless, I feel I have to put my two cents in here. I loved Gladiator. Not because it was a great social commentary or because it showed how things "really were" back in those Roman Days. I loved Gladiator becuase it was more fun that ten barrels full of monkeys. And because Russel Crowe is a god among men and we are honored to bear witness to his acting genius. His face and eyes are so expressive, the man could have been a silent movie star. Beyond that, the majority of the acting was great: Joaquin was totally despicable, Oliver Reed kicked ass (small moment of silence for him), Richard Harris was just great. The fighting scenes were amazing; I keep hearing how violent it was, but if you watch a movie like Braveheart again, it's a lot more violent than Gladiator. Here the violence is not being shown just so we can see blood. In fact there's not that much spurting blood in this movie. It's all very matter-of-fact and it works. Sure there are things that do not necessarily gel, ie the timeline, but let's remember something here folks: IT'S A MOVIE! Have any of you ever heard of the phrase "suspension of disbelieft"? When we enter a movie theatre we are entering into a contract with the director of the movie-you entertain us, we won't be nit-picky bastards about details that might not work in real life....why? Because it's not real life. No matter how realistic a movie is, it is still a movie and not subject to the same rule as real life. Maybe I am wrong for feeling this way, but I like to enjoy myself when I watch something and sitting down with paper and pen in hand, jotting down every detail we feel to be inaccurate. It's like a friend of mine, I cannot watch anything with him because he sits and waits for screw-ups or inconsistencies so he can jump up and down and point them out. Give it a rest! Yeah, I realize this is a totally incoherent post, but I don't have a/c at home and spent all weekend sweltering in NYC. Bottom line: good flick, Crowe=god. Timmay!
-
I purposely avoided any previews on E! and HBO and didn't watch any trailers. I did, however, read Roger Ebert's review Friday morning. Then I went to see Gladiator Saturday afternoon. Roger is off base on this one. Yes, I see his issues with the film, but I 'm guessing the difference is that this film really got to me. The audience I saw it with appeared to be as moved as I was by the ending. Wow!
As to the fighting; those of you who have read my previous posts know that I do full contact martial arts for "fun". I have fought HUNDREDS of times and watched dozens of tapes and looked at photos taken by friends and spectators. Here's my point; real fighting is very time distorted and bizarre. What you think is happening and what you're going to do and how you will move go out the window in the first 2 seconds. If they don't, you get whacked. Thinking is the LAST thing you do if you want to survive. The sequences in this movie were the closest thing I've seen to a real fight. The Matrix and most "fight" movies haven't a clue. Roger also bemoaned the lack of blue skies in the movie. I saw them. I also saw an excellent print; the film was glorious. Those of you complaining about murky scenes and audio problems need to talk to the theatre manager and have them check their equipment. I saw (and heard) a Dolby Digital presentation that was superb.If you didn't, go bitch. Most of these systems are run by teenage idiots. Demand the best. Lastly, was this film better or worse than Blade Runner or Braveheart or Saving Private Ryan or whatever? I don't compare films, even by the same director, directly. I rate them on what they meant to ME personally. And personally, Gladiator is the one of the best movies I've seen in a long while. Go see it and find your own review. -
If Hollywood wasn't so stupid and youth-obsessed, there be a few more great Oliver Reed performances on film. But the poor guy didn't get a decent role until this film and then the poor son of a bitch died. His speeches reminded me of what happens in a film when the acting is GREAT. What happens is MAGIC.
-
It was 2 hours long with maximum 20 mins of fighting. What a waste of an opportunity!!! Less talk more action!!! And the dialog blew big donkey dick!! This film could have used Jar-Jar to save it. The fights kicked ass though!!
-
The people loved Crowe even more then Phoenix so if he had him killed his people would have hated him. He needed the love of Rome so the only way he could kill him is in battle. Phoenix explains this in the film geeze that's hardly a "flaw"
-
Ebert has a blind spot for any film made in Chicago, even only partially like The Whole Nine Yards. That is why he rated that film so highly. He also gave High Fidelity 4 stars. It was good but only got the extra star because it is Chicago based. So anytime he rates a film with a Chicago connection - beware.
-
All these jack-offs who are complaining about the action scenes or the lack of historical accuracy are the same fucks who bitch and moan if someone says that the X-men costumes look silly and they should have stuck to the original vision. Where's the historical accuracy with that movie. Fuck off! Or are we that pathetic in our movie viewing that we now judge a movie based on the action scenes? Have we all been John Woo-ified? This isn't a video game, its a movie. These will be the same losers who will cry if Bilbo has 134 eyebrow hairs instead 133. Come on, move out of your parents' basements! There's a whole big world out there! And as far as Ebert goes, anybody heard of Beyond the Valley of the Dolls? Nuff said.
-
Forget Cruise, Cage, Willis, etc. There is a new shogun in town and his name is Russell Crowe. If this movie doesnt make him a star then I will torture myself by watching 24 hours of Steven Baldwin movies.
Was Ebert watching the same movie as the rest of us considering he only gave this movie two stars???
-
Ok, that is more than one word, but hey, this movie moved me. The performances by the entire cast was perfect. But Russell Crowe, comming right off the heals of The Insider was brilliant. I believe this will he his "Indy" propelling him into super stardom. The art direction, set design and costumes will surely get a nod or two from the academy. This will likely be the film for which Ridley Scott will be remembered the most. Forget Alien, forget Blade Runner, Gladiator is his finest achievement to date.
-
I haven't read any other talkbacks yet, so before you loosers who didn't like it ruin it for the rest of us, let me say my 2cents.
This movie plain and simple kicked ass!! I was totally drawn into the war and the gladiator fights. I was cheering along with the crowd: MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS! -
Don't get me wrong.
I liked the movie. Just not nearly as much as I'd have hoped....
I attribute a lot of it to the time. I caught the 10:05 Friday night, and we
had been working a golf tournament all day (beers), which meant that at times,
I found myself zoning a bit....
Believe me, I completely agree with the film's choice to beef up the political
and social aspects of the film, and the backstory was compelling,
but I think I was in full-blown Summer Blockbuster mode, and I wanted to see 152 minutes of Russell Crowe
kicking serious ass!
And his acting, while brilliant in times, seemed a bit too morose (is this possible?). Yes, I understand that
he was mourning his family, but show some rage! Show some excitement in the heat of the battle.
He looked as calm and cool post-slaughter as he did swapping spit with Commodus' sis.
I love Russell, but I know he's better than this.
Please feel free to tear me to shreds. I wanted to LOVE this film, but it missed a few marks for me.
It still looked gorgeous, and ancient Rome never looked more glorious. But the battle scenes were too
herky jerky for my tastes, and I'm afraid that was done to avoid us seeing the flaws. In my opinion, if you go
through the trouble to recreate ancient Rome, take the time to let us see it! Long, inviting camera sweeps!
I have to stand my ground....
Good flick. Just not the great flick I wanted it to be.
-
I want to start out by saying that I have been a Russell Crowe fan from way back. When I saw his brutal performance in Romper Stomper, I knew this guy had the talent to be a big star. I sat through mediocre Crowe films in the years to come; the weak Virtuosity, that Salma Heyek relationship film, that Rough Magic/Bridget Fonda flick, knowing that Russell Crowe was one good movie away from becoming a major star. I didn't think that that movie was going to come until LA Confidential. After seeing his performances in that film and The Insider, I was sure that people would stop saying, "Who?", when I mentioned Crowe's name. Gladiator will make Crowe a star, guaranteed. This was one of a handful of films that I was looking forward to seeing this summer and as the lights dimmed in the theatre, I felt chills, hoping that the film would live up to my expectations. And it did, for the most part. The battle sequences in this film were amazing. I've read complaints that the camera work has been done before in films like Braveheart and Saving Private Ryan. Yes, the same techniques were used in those films to depict the hectic perception of reality one has in war. Although, I have never fought British troops from the Highlands or stormed the beaches of France, I have, unfortunately, been in my fair share of bar room brawls and street fights. These moments of slo-mo absolute clarity and high speed utter chaos are accurate and real perceptions that occur when you think your life is on the line. There was a scene where Maximus is knocked off of his horse in the first battle and he spins around to see a flaming barbarian right above him. Crowe's eyes are twice their size and you believe he is fighting for his life. It was moments like these that made my blood rush and the crowd cheer. This was very much Crowe's film. When he says, "Then I will win the crowd.", he does it, not only for the crowds of Rome, but the millions in the movie theaters. Crowe's eyes show anger and tragedy. He is one of those actors that looks as if he could explode at any given moment and he uses that to the max(imus) in this film. There was a moment in the first battle when he bumps into a fellow warrior and almost strikes him. Through the chaos he gives out a smile and goes back to battle. That moment epitomizes Crowe's character and makes it understanable that Crowe returns to battle as a gladiator after the wars have ended. He is a warrior true and true. My only criticism is that I did not believe his performance when he finds his family's bodies. It seemed like he was pushing too much. I know Crowe has the skills to pull off this type of tragic loss in a performance. He gives looks of utter sorrow later on in the film that reflect exactly the type of feeling that I wanted to see in that scene. This being the scene that motivates Crowe throughout the rest of the film, I was a bit let down by the way the scene played out. When Crowe reaches out to the crucified bodies of his family and drools, it screamed overacting to me. Other than that, Maximus' performance was amazing. Phoenix's Commodus was very impressive. If we are defined my our weaknesses then Commodus was a very defined character. As the film progresses and his hold on the empire weakens, so does the thin veil that disguises the weakness in his own personality. Hopefully, this is the role that lets him step out from his brother's shadow. Oliver Reed was amazing and it is a great tragedy that this is his last film. His small but integral part of the film adds heart and meaning to what it takes to become a gladiator. Gladiator will definately be compared to Braveheart, simply because of the brutality of the fighing scenes alone. Braveheart set the new standard for on screen battles. I think Gladiator did a great job of continuing the standard. Did Scott do a good job? Yes. This film makes you forget about some of the less than decent Scott flicks in the last few years. Hopefully he will continue this run with Hannibal. The star of the movie is the battle scenes. The cast is strong, but the battles are so powerful and exciting, that you find your self waiting for the next battle instead of listening to what is going on. It is kind of like the feeling you get when you watch a Jackie Chan or Jet Li movie, but on a much larger scale. The music, while gripping at times, seemed forced on the slower moments in the film, especially the final scene between Commodus and Marcus Aurelius. All in all the film was extremely entertaining and left the crowd cheering at the end. The final scene with the guy from Amistad was un-needed. (I'm assuming everyone has seen the film, if not, why are you reading this talkback?). We knew he survived because he carried Maximus's body off the field. There was no need for his burial of the statues in the sand. We already knew Maximus was resting peacefully with his family. But these are minor criticisms to a very entertaining film. I don't know if it is the best film of this year. But Gladiator lived up to my expectations as a thrilling better than usual Summer popcorn blockbuster. If this is any indication as to what this summer season has to offer, we are in for a good time at the movies this year.
-
Gladiator is one of the best movies I've ever seen, and certainly one of the best spectacle films in the last 20 years. The story, performances, battle scenes, and look of the film itself are outstanding, and it WILL be up for Best Picture, wait and see. BUT,
don't take my word for it, go and see it for yourself, because that's why the movie was made, for people to see it. Not for some failed and miserable ex-writer who's so bitter he (or she) has to thrash a movie to make himself (or herself) look "intelligent".
Why do we have movie critics anyway? How did they come into being? Did we one day say, "We cannot decide things for ourselves, and the decision on whether or not to like a movie must be decided for us?" I say, fire every movie critic in the world, burn their word processors, and give them the job they should have: writing "This coffee's too hot for you" on the cups at McDonalds. Then and only then will we live in a film utopia in which we are free to make up our own minds. Long live Ridley Scott. -
Gladiator was a fantastic film, but I don't know that it takes the
#2 spot away from "ALIEN". -
Those are Scott's best films. Gladiator is a good film, it's too predictable though... An I never cared for any of the characters. Epic? Maybe. Classic? No. Scott's best? Hardly.
-
I agree - the score made me ill also. The thing I enjoy about John Williams (and the directors he colaberates with) is that he understands the score should be used to heighten drama not action. Notice that in the opening D-Day scene in Private Ryan we hear no music until after the beach head is conquered. Spielberg and Williams also understand the value of silence - there is nothing worse than a constantly droning score. Some examples of great music-less action scenes in great action films.
Saving Private Ryan - D Day Scene
Raiders of the Lost Ark - The shootemup bar scene in Nepal.
Close Encounters of the Third Kind - The Pick-Up Truck Scene.
The Empire Strikes Back - Much of the Darth Vader vs. Luke lightsabre battle.
Ben Hur - the chariot racing scene (once the race starts - (Miklos Rosa is a great composer))
The French Connection - Car chase sequence.
And there are many more... -
I swear, some people will bitch about anything. This movie was meant to do one thing: entertain, and it performed that service to the hilt. It's not supposed to change your life, it's just supposed to be cool and make you smile and cry and wince and so many things...it's supposed to be FUN. I mean, shit, do any of you bitchers actually LIKE movies? If Jesus Christ came back today, you people would bitch about the production values of the Four Horsemen, I bet. And to all the naysayers on the fight scenes? HAVE YOU EVER BEEN IN A FIGHT? By your complaints it is COMPLETELY obvious that you have not, in fact you have probably not left your basement since you were old enough to take a punch. The sensation of everything being sped up, fragmented, blurry, chaotic...that's what a real fight is like people. I felt the fight scenes were INCREDIBLY realistic simply because you COULDN'T tell what was going on, but then again you little bitches like to have everything spelled out for you so you don't have to use your fucking imaginations. I feel sorry for anyone that rags on this movie, and I wonder what the hell they're doing here.
-
I've never included myself in any of the talkbacks, but decided this subject would be the perfect starting point. To start with, no this is not Ridley Scott's best film, I continue to reserve that title for "ALIEN" or his highly underrated "SOMEONE TO WATCH OVER ME". However, is there any other director out there who could have handled the incredible visuals and maintain a semi-historical account of ancient Rome? Probably not, most directors would rather rob Peter to pay Paul. Crowe has been a star ever since "ROMPER STOMPER". Whether the fans or Hollywood declare him that is un-important. He gives a perfect performance in a film dominated by colorful ones. The biggest drawback to the film is probably the fact that some of the scenes near the end (Maximus' escape especially) seem a little contrived and rushed. I attribute this to the fact that there are a good fifteen minutes of this film on someone's cutting room floor (A friend of mine was lucky enough to see through the editing process.) I just hope the rest of the summer movies can stand with "GLADIATOR". (I can dream can't I?)
-
Many people have spoken of the theme of controlling the masses in "Gladiator". Harry's review said "It's about controlling the mob conciousness. Manipulating the masses through popular forms of entertainment. And how entertainment and the distraction it gives the masses is important to the 'powers that be'." Very well, perhaps it is, but to what end? I think that most people would agree manipulating the public with entertainment is non-democratic and can be used by tyrants to impose their cruelty on the populace. Ideally, the 'powers that be' should not control the masses at all, but should win their support through the quality of their ideas. That is how democracy is supposed to work. The moral of "Gladiator," however, is not that Commodus was wrong in trying to control the populace with entertainment, but that he failed and died because he was not good at it; Maximus became a hero because he "won the crowd" and was an exert about controlling the crowd through his entertainment. It is therefore all right to manipulate one's constituents, as long as you do it well. So in addition to being a hack, Ridley Scott is a bit of a facist too.
-
Partially Correct...
( For what it is worth, the movie's depiction of the Commodus is not that far-fetched. And yes, I am refering to Commodus stepping into the ring with Maximus ). This is true, Commodus was a somewhat accomplished Gladiator. What must be remembered is that the Gladiators of ancient rome were a despised social class.. the lowest of the low, below even the plebians. So it was quite a shock to the people to see their Emperor playing as one of them. Animals which he killed in the arena included a tiger, hippopotamus, and I believe an elephant. What conditions these slayings were in is not recorded (ie if they were handicapped, etc.). He did despise the senate, and went so far as to sever the head of an ostrich in the arena, bring it over to the collective senate seats, and hold it up to them (showing what he thought of them).
( According to history, he was strangled in bath by an athlete as part of senatorial plot prior to making his debut in the arena. )
Close. Commodus was a megalomaniac, and on December 31, 193 had planned to name himself a god (his favorite was Hercules, as he had taken to calling himself that, although I believe he was going to make himself Jupiter). He was going to do away with the senate entirely, etc. Fearing for their lives, those close to him concocted a plan. Marcia, his favorite concubine poisoned him. When he went back to the gladiatorial barracks that night, he was violently ill and vomited the poison. In order to finish him off, they sent a "handsome young man", another of his favorites (it is rumoured that he maintained a harem of 300 women and 300 young boys). This boy did strangle him (possibly in his bath). The boy's name..... Narcissus.
Sargatanas (Classics/History major) -
Since I criticized "Gladiator" for the confusion of the fighting sequences, I feel I should answer Vegas' questions of a few posts above. My fighting experience is limited to encounters of a couple of punches when I was in grade school. As a civilized person, I try to settle any disputes I may have without violence. I'm sure that large sword fights involving chariots and tigers are quite chaotic and that it is hard to tell what is going on. But I'm also sure that in order to survive such a contest, a person would have to know what is going on in their part of the arena and they must have a good idea of the situation to be able to defeat their enemy. All that I ask is that we, as the viewer, be given the same ability to see the action clearly, to see how Maximus wins a fight, to see how he exploits a weakness, to see how he scores the killing blow. Rapidly cut images of swords and limbs and impalings mean nothing when they are isolated and not part of a developing sequence, and that is what Scott gave us in all of his fight scenes. It is really sad that this director would resort this MTV-style, after he made a text-book horror film in Alien that included only a handful of clear shots of the monster and those only at the very end. Scott has gone from that masterpiece of patience to the barrage of dozens of second-long images a minute. One more point: Vegas asks us to use our imagination, but that seems a bit silly. I use my imagination to to decide what the characters and places of a book look like. Or a radio program. I use my imagination to fill in the gaps between sequels or imagine off-camera happenings in any movie. But why the hell should I have to use my imagination to fill in the gaps in a scene that I am watching? Why not just show me?
-
I agree with Harry on his ranking. Blade Runner is definately Ridley Scott's best movie followed by Gladiator. Alien is his third best film followed by Thelma and Louise. But I must say I haven't seen Legend (waiting for DVD but my bro's fave), The Duelists (could someone provide info on this) and 1492. I saw the beginning of GI Jane and it did look ok, atleast watchable and better than Navy Seals.
-
Not Fucking Awesome... Just Fricken Awesome!
-
May 08, 2000 11:15:19 AM CDT
The eye candy was a nice dessert but there was no main course!!!
by nixons nighthawk
I have seen the rising tide of bloodshed and the seething torrent of men lapping at the feet of the cruel God Mars. I have seen the true face of war and stared far too long. From a secret place I watched the recreation of the dogs of war slipping their long black chains. Civilians watch the movies to escape we watch to get locked back in to the frothy joy of blood lust. As a soldier and a warrior I can say Ridley Scott had me hard the first scene but like a Viagra trip gone bad I quickly wilted. Mr. Scott suffered from a viscous malady that strikes at the heart of every film maker (more brutal than a case of Diu Tranh crabs caught from a Saigon hooker just before we evaced); he had no story! I know you brave men that march the fields of this proud site day in and day out lust for the magic. The bragging rights to say I saw Gladiator and I creamed my pants. But don't spend yourself prematurely. (E-mail me there are tantric controls available, I learned from Nixon. Why do you think he was the only one who could go to China. The hawk learned from Dick , the Hawk taught Sting.) The story was simply laughable, we all know that Scott can do big budget, mega visual movies, that's a given. But he put the cart before the horse visuals before story. You hook a filthy nag to your wagon and all you will haul is #@**. The hawk lived in Jakarta for three months, the shadow puppets taught the hawk, the shadow puppets had no CGI, but they had a story. Mr. Scott go to Jakarta. Mr. Scott get a viable backdrop for your pageantry. Mel Gibson had one in Brave Heart. Where was yours? Mr. Scott heed the hawks flame it will purify your vision. I'm the hawk. Watch me fiddle while my incites burn down Mr. Scotts flimsy version of Rome and war.
-
May 08, 2000 11:16:39 AM CDT
Ridley Scott has made 2 great films (Blade Runner and The Duelli
by t. mifune
Certainly we can stop cutting this guy some slack eventually. Gladiator was just another Ridley director for hire job and will soon fade from memory. Opening weekend grosses don't mean anything.
-
they were running it 1 hr. late because all day everyone was hanging out in the theater afterwards to gab about it. I dunno what there really was to talk about though. I thought it was good, but not as great as this site's been saying. I personally found a lot of the action to be too frenetic, the editing was a bit fast, and I found it difficult to really follow the fighters. However, the fight with Tigris and the tigers was totally awesome. Joaquin Phoenix was VERY convincing in his role, but I thought it a cop-out to shy from the incestuous relationship. A lot of emperors were sick bastards. But then again, he got his in the end (to which the audience cheered and hooted). I would like to have seen Connie Nielsen get nekkid, though. Not enough character development for Crowe, but enough to endear him to the audience. All in all, it was a wildly entertaining movie, but as I sit, trying to hold my tired eyes open at work, it was not worth missing an hour or two of sleep. But lots of blood and clanking swords always make a man sleep better, no?
-
That was a awsome movie. It had it all. Action, suspense, adventure, romance, love, honor, and come on the fight sceens alone are enough to cover the ticket price. Do I even have to mention how amazing Crow was in this movie? Pheonix was great to, I really hated him in the end. The visuals were amazing I was in total awe of this movie. If your saying it was crap or so so then your just trying to raise a eye brow and be diffrent it was a great movie deal with it.
-
Let me bottom line my thoughts on this movie. Drawbacks : 1) The opening battle sequence was Private Ryan derivative, but much more confusing. Where Private Ryan had shots that you got (the soldier looking for his arm, Tom Hanks talking to a soldier with no face), there were no points to pick out in this one besides the occasional decapitation. 2) Oliver Reed's character's death was too easy. He was a former Gladiator who won his own freedom, yet he just let them stab him in the back. No need for a big fight scene here. Brian Blessed rode into a circle of villians in the crapolicious Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves. We know he died there, but didn't have to see it. Plusses : Just about everything else. 1) Oliver Reed. 2) Russell Crowe 3) The floor opens up and a tiger jumps out. 4) Oliver Reed 5) The final battle. To you naysayers of the final battle I say this. Commodus (I keep wanting to call him Comicus. Darn you Mel Brooks!)felt he needed to defeat Maximus in battle in front of the crowd. He knew to just kill Maximus would make him a martyr at a time when Commodus was losing the crowd. To lose the crowd (mob) would mean losing his power. But, Commodus would never fight Maximus in an even fight. That's why the stabbing (with what was, easy guess, a poisoned blade) while Maximus was chained up. Maximus defeating Commodus, and passing on Aurelius' last wishes before he, Maximus died was very well done. And, a marvelous job by Crowe. 6) Oliver Reed. (I saw this film at the Vista theatre in Hollywood. Large screen, fantastic sound. It's also one of those theatres where the audience still applauds at the end of a good film. The loudest applause at this showing was when Oliver Reed's name was shown during the end credits.) This film lived up to it's hype. The Summer movie season has begun in earnest. This movie was hellagood.
-
May 08, 2000 11:52:46 AM CDT
To the guy who said why didn't Phoenix just kill Crowe . . .
by samthelion
It just reminds me of something John Ford once said when they were shooting Stagecoach. In the great climactic scene, the indian attack, somebody asked him why they didn't just shoot the horses instead of the coach. Ford turned to him and said something like "because then we wouldn't have much of a movie!" Hmm . . .
-
I have to say I will see it again, only because I saw it in a shitty theatre with annoying people around me (like the "snorting" guy, the "loud plot analyst", and the "three fucking kids who wouldn't shut the Hell up!"...I will save all other comments until then -- as I'm sure you're all waiting with baited breath...
-
For all of you half-wits who think that this was the greatest movie ever, you've apparently only been watching re-runs of fucking "Knight Ridder" on TBS. Jesus.
It was fine, not great. The plot barely held together. And what the fuck was with the armored cart in the begining? That was "Wild, Wild,West" kind of bad.
-
Gladiator was too dark and murky,
but Dark City was the best film
of 1998? And there's a perfectly
good reason for not tucking the
thumb into the fist -- this film
was not made for an A.D. 190
audience! It would have been
confusing to anyone who didn't
know that minor bit of trivia
(which is, by the way, still in
dispute among historians). What
a little nitpicker. My suspicion
is that Ebert had it in for this
movie before he even walked into
the theater, and interpreted
everything in the worst possible
light. That said, it wasn't a
perfect movie. But it was
excellent on most levels. -
Movie was 40 min too long.
Story was cliche.
The action was filmed way too close. This seams to be a trend that was first used by Segal in his later movies. It sucks. You just cannot track with the action. All you see is blurred images swipping through the frames. Very frustrating. These directors need to back up and film the action from a good POV so you can see and feel the impact.
The action and beheadings were much better filmed in Sleepy Hollow.
Did not live up to the hype!
Two out of four beheadings -
Anyone feel this plot was taken right from the WWF wrestling. Commodus Ceasar being Vince McMahon and Maximus being The Rock or Stone Cold Steve Austin in that the crowd hates the owner, or in this case the Emperor of Rome, but loves the champion who plays by his own rules! Anyway, I like it very much. Cool CG's and fights, and I don't think the Photography was blurry or mirky. But, why did it have to be so dramatic and senitmental like Braveheart? All you love Braveheart..Why? It choked me with its sentimental crap. Like Private Ryan and all Spielberg's films.
-
If you see it you will probably have a good time, I did. But will this be one of those movies that will still be talked about 10-20 years from now? (Like Blade Runner or Alien?) Probably not. Three things could have elevated this to "Classic" Status. First, I think we needed to meet his family before he left for war. See him interact with them, show him loving them instead of just assuming that we can see how much he wants to go home by seeing how hard he's fighting. I think the beginning wouldn't have been so slow. I felt it dragged up until the first fight in the colloseum with the chariots. Second, the editor's fired. Ridley used to be a master of action (remember Black Rain? Any chase scene from Thelma and Louise?) But his action scenes have been getting increasingly more incomprehensible. And third - and I know I'm going to sound like a brain dead hollywood producer here - no memorable lines. "Strength and Honor" could have done it if he screamed it when he died like Mel Gibson screaming "Freedom!". Of course there was no motivation for him to scream that, I know. Also from Braveheart "I'll crush you like a wo-rum!" Occaisonally, a line that isn't supposed to be the catchphrase for the movie catches on because the spontaneous energy of it. Some of Russel's conversations with Djimon Honshu were deep and moving, and I remember something about meeting family in the afterlife, "but not yet . . . " Which I believe he repeated at the end making them the final words of the film- These words did catch me up in the moment, but they're not quite indelible like "I'll be back" and "May the Force be with you."
I still loved it. I just don't think anyone will still be talking about it this time next year. -
Gladiator rocked, but it's many chances at true greatness were flawed, as many talkbackers have already stated. I won't go over them again here, but I agree with most of the flaws that the previous talkbackers discuss regarding the film. I like Gladiator a lot, but a Braveheart it ain't and a Rocky IV it certainly ain't.
-
Let me just say that Braveheart is only sligthly better than Gladiator. To Mel's credit, he knows how to set up a scene that will just knock you on your behind. The betrayal scene and "ALL" of the fight scenes. In Gladiator, the aerial shot was a bit too hazy, should have been sharper and darker. I too was dissapointed with the sped up photography. I wanted to see any or more involvement with his family, this would of made their separtation and his death a lot more profound and heart wrenching, even though they are to meet again in the afterlife. I never did identify with Maximmus's gladiator friends as I much as I did with William Wallace's buddies. The lady was forgettable, I've forgotten her already. Joaquin did a fantastic job with Commodus, I wanted to take a bat across that dude's face. Harris' King not as memorable as Longshanks (I'm sure we all agree on this). Ridley's 3 best films so far, in order: Alien, Blade Runner (even though I've seen BR about a Billion times, Gladiator. Braveheart's music is still more powerful than Gladiator's and more memorable too. Ridley needs to do another Sci-fi.
-
May 08, 2000 12:53:19 PM CDT
Has someone confuse this movie with Barney the Dinosaur
by nightfallschild
As far as the blood and guts issue....Hey its called Gladiator. Not Barney and Friends Go Romping Through the Tulips. What do you think the sport(I use the term loosly) was all about? Websters defines the word gladiator as:" A person engaged in a fight to the death for public entertainment in acient Rome." Hmmmmmm fight to the death=blood and guts,sounds about right to me. Ok so they could have been a little more artistically, but maybe the film makers wanted you to see how really sick it was for people to go to these events and cheer for death, no less.
Ok now for the Acting, I loved it some of the scenes made me forget I was staring at a movie screen and for a moment I thought I was at a play(a large part of this was due to the excellent music as well). Just my humble opinion. :oP -
No, Gladiator is not on the level with Scott's best work (Alien and Bladerunner), but it was beautifully put together and very entertaining! I disagree with the earlier comment that the editing was bad for an action scene, simply because I had no problem following the action. I also disagree with Ebert and anyone else who says the cinematography was murky. Maybe all the dissenters saw it in a theatre with a murky projector. It was certainly dark in spots, but it was dark like Bladerunner dark, not Hunt For Red October dark. The costumes, sets and sound were all nearly perfect. The CGI mattes were lacking in spots, but they did in Matrix, too!
I didn't like the script a lot (not enough development) but I did like what the actors did with it. The ending was a little pat and underwhelming, but it at least worked. My main gripe is that the fight scenes are too short. I was surprised the first battle lasted only 10 minutes or so. It was so awsome to look at (almost as cool as the first time I saw the opening shot in Bladerunner)and I wanted it to go on and on. The Saving Pvt Ryan 27mm thing was not only innapropriate but it made it hard to see what was happening. Speilburg also used it for a reason (simulating the look of old war documentaries)that could not apply here. That was a mistake! But I still had a good time, my girlfriend loved it and I'm glad they spent all that money and energy getting the details just right. Now, how about The Patriot?.... -
I was pretty disappointed with this film. It was a depressing movie with no life. I could careless about the characters, the special effects were mediocre, the fight scenes poorly shot...you couldn't make out who was fucking up who. And the plot was a complete rip off from Braveheart. Hello!! plot anyone!!?? I'm getting sick of seeing special effects laden hunks of shit.
-
Once again all the effort was spent on production design, photography and action sequences. It looks great, I'll admit. But the story and characters here are half efforts.
-
that the film was entertaining, but did not achieve the epic status it was going for. And I think we can all agree that there were basically 2 main problems: 1) We were not given ample reason to truly mourn the death of Maximus. Mainly because his we did not know his family. Someone suggested that the movie begin with select scenes with the family, to show the tenderness of a husband and father. Face/Off had a similar setup and it worked very well. In the end, it seemed (to me, at least) that a courageous and valiant soldier of Rome died. It was much like Qui-Gon's death. 2) The action could have been shot and edited very differently. The first battle had a few moments (the long shot of the battle plain streaked with hundreds upon hundreds of flaming arrows), as did the arena sequences (Tigers and Tigris). But all in all they were shot too close, and were extremely difficult to follow. During the first Coliseum fight, it was difficult to tell who was who, where they stood, and how they were killed.
-
Great acting, great sets, great story, unreal action. A winning start to the summer season, and a star-making performance by Crowe. My opinion. 'Nuff said.
-
You could cut the tension with a knife during the seen between brother and sister on the couch..I mean I was squirming in my seat.... the combat was a bit jittery for my tastes but impressive. The crowd cheered when Cos. bit it. Its not taking any spots on my Most fanastic movies of all times list...but I liked it.
-
May 08, 2000 3:09:32 PM CDT
"NOt as good as ALIEN or BLADERUNNER" WHO GIVES A #$%@#! So na
by dark predator
I can't believe some people. "THis was not perfect." Yeah, okay, to YOU! SIDES, name one "perfect" movie and I'll tear it appart. (Citizen Kane-acting overdone, people in shadows, WAY too dark (Mr. Ebert that's to you), bad props, etc.) Were you entertained? Did the movie move you? When you compare movies all you do is compare your tastes, not the actual movies.
-
Herbert Muschamp was absolutely right in his comparison of Gladiator and The Matrix in last Sunday's New York Times. While Gladiator was indeed beautiful, The Matrix was sublime; that is to say it had a message that was not just beautifully told, but had a substantial moral leg to stand on too.
Gladiator, although unquestionably beautiful, was morally void. Are we really expected to take sides with the cowboys once again? If Rome represents the civilized world, then I guess the people of Germania deserve to be crushed because they are "savages," right?
How long will the United States allow its morals to be dictated by Hollywood? Where is the outrage? Why do we hold up Bill Gates as a God when people all over the world are starving? Is it because we think we have no choice? The Matrix points out that we do have a choice -- we can battle against real horrors, or we can go back to sleep and plug into the easy normalcy of suburban Gladiators. -
I just wanted to congratulate you on your analysis of this film. I was not impressed by Gladiator for some reason, and now I know why. You hit it right on the head! This film is full of mixed moral messages and glorifies a mindless killer through an awful plot slant. Everyone who has liked the film when I talked to them liked it because it had "such cool killings." None of them came away with anything else from the film, which I thought was supposed to convey feelings of compassion and nobility. Too bad that wasnt present at all. Just Russell Crowe whipping out some cool one-liners while he wastes people. NOT to say that I don't enjoy that! I LOVED the Matrix. But it was NOT the aim of this film, I believe, and hence Gladiator crashes to the ground in a mixed up, meaningless pile of wasted celluloid.
-
May 08, 2000 3:24:36 PM CDT
THE REASON YOU ALL HATED THIS MOVIE WAS BECAUSE IT MADE YOU FEEL
by dark predator
I saw some people bitchin about how Maximus didn't do the lady (I don't remember her name.) and the movie was saying that you couldn't have sex outside of marriage. Well that's because Maximus was married and loved his family dearly. He's not like you male sluts that stick your teeny-weenie up any hole you come across! Maximus had the Roman Virtues of wisdom, justice, courage, and TEMPERANCE. I'm sure none of you twits know what any of those mean. Some of you said this movie was not moral? WTF? This has got to be the most moral film I have seen since...I don't know, JESUS OF NAZARETH? Maximus didn't have your so-called do-what-feels-good-then-cry-when-your-peepee-falls-off-from-VD's morality. No Character you say? COMEAWHAT? Maximus loved his family above everything, that is why Cicero gave him the little statues in prison b/c he knew that was most important to him. He didn't give in to the queen's temptations and he tried to follow Marcus Aurelius' wish for Rome.
-
What the hell is so great about Blade runner? it's an average film with impressive visuals but the rest of the film is just, well ok. Just like the Matrix, just like Phantom Menace. Sometimes when people see great f/x they think they are seeing a great film. i'm glad someone mentioned "Someone To WAtch Over Me", it's very underrated. Gladiator was a great film, it seems from some of the talkbacks that people expected this to be an all out action film. so of course you will be dissapointed.
-
>> Ebert is a fat load. He likes everything that sucks and hates everything that's good. Anyone who takes ANYTHING that buttmunch says seriously is so stupid their opinion is irrelevant. <<
Not exactly. I can't stand Ebert either, but if he was wrong 100% of the time he'd actually be useful (if you think about it).
You can only believe critics to the extent that they're like you or you aspire to be like them. And assuming that you're not already a wussy, lard-assed, pompous, megalomaniacal, coattail-riding, card-carrying liberal man-child who's determined to decree that the movies YOU grew up on are the greatest of ALL time, forever and EVER ... why would anybody in their right mind ever aspire to be ANYthing like Roger "I'm Better Than You Are" Ebert?!
In my book, he goes down as the creator of the single most spineless and idiotic film rating system of all time, his "intentions of the filmmakers star-rating system," which permits DIE HARD, A FEW GOOD MEN, FULL METAL JACKET, FIGHT CLUB, and now GLADIATOR to be failures and films like SPEED 2, HOME FRIES, FREE WILLY 3, HAPPY TEXAS and BELOVED to be superior fare.
The TRUTH is that ALL commercial critics have to find a way to react favorably to more than 50% of the fare they review, or they simply get banned from press screenings as being too sparing with praise. Ebert's "intentions" grade-curving system is simply HIS way of making quota ... but he'll never admit it!
To hell with ALL commercial critics ... I want someone who'll hold hard and fast to a discernable STANDARD.
-
May 08, 2000 3:54:29 PM CDT
THAT DOES SOUND COMPLICATED. I MEANT COMMODUS REMINDED YOU OF YO
by dark predator
Good vs. Evil. GOOD RULES!!!!!
-
I personally found 'Gladiator' very satisfying, and even when the ending became apparent, I pretty much accepted it. Hey, It's practically a *happy* ending! It's also important to remember that most of Scott's movies have been met with mixed receptions, but still survive the test of time. On another note, I've only counted two 'Airplane!' references in this whole talkback, and have to say I really admire everyone's self-control. Oh, and by the way, I would say the reason for Ebert's dissing of this movie is quite simple: He's getting in touch with his feminine side lately. What else would explain his giving movies like 'Return To Me', 'Love and Basketball' and 'Where the Heart Is' higher scores? Sure I liked 'Frequency, but does it really deserve 1 1/2 stars more?
-
People are never satisfied. The complaints about this film are too much: the score, the CGI, the plot, et. al.
Most posters went ga-ga over The Phantom Menance. That was the worst movie of the year with its fart jokes, bantu crap, Jar Jar Binks and a 10-year old punk save the world. Yeah right.
We have a movie without a 'happy' ending and everyone wants to change it. Complaints about the score, "Egyptian music should not be heard in Rome." Didn't Rome conquer Egypt? Therefore, it would not be unusual to hear Egyptian music. I bought the soundtrack IMMEDIATELY after the film. I was deeply moved at the film's conclusion.
It's not perfect as the story borrows from Ben Hur, Fall of the Roman Empire, Spartacus and Braveheart but it stands on its own. Refreshing to see Carthagians depicted as black people. Commeadous (sp?) should have been fleshed out. Richard Harris and Oliver Reed were excellent in their respective roles.
Historical 'liberties' and continuation errors aside, this is one movie that lived up to its billing. Besides, there won't be any action figures, lunch boxes, clothing or SEQUALS! -
May 08, 2000 4:48:37 PM CDT
Someone asked MY opinion of good fight scenes. Here they are...
by the_pissboy1
Gladiator, while a nice film really let me down in one key area: the action. As I have stated before the action was stagnant, blah and uninspired. Moving the camera does not create a sense of any action, it merely shows me the actors are not very light of foot. Want proof? Check out the scene with Crowe running toward his house. The man MOVES LIKE A HOUSE. He's about as agile as a rock glued to asphalt.**************************
Now for GOOD action with hand-to-hand in movies (though not necessarily good movies s experience and ability to learn showed in his wonderful stagings of battles. You knew who was fighting who and you cringed and twisted and grinned with every swipe of the blade. What a blast those scenes are to watch. I could go on but I think you all get my point. I like to SEE the action...not see body parts and weapons. -
May 08, 2000 4:55:26 PM CDT
I may not be as objective to movie making as some of you losers,
by bseriousg
I may not be as objective as some as you losers, but i know one thing this movie kicked some serious ass!
-
Step printing and long lenses have never mixed, let alone on super 35. If you check out who John Mathieson is, its no wonder the visuals are so annoying.
-
Ebert on Gladiator "It's basically a gladiator movie!!" NO FUCKING DUH!!! Ok Dark Predator, you said name a perfect movie, I'll name you 4. Now these movies are perfect to ME, and you don't have to agree with me. 4) Blade Runner - The best cyberpunk/sci-fi to date, BAR NONE (SW - NO WAY!!) 3)Fight Club - I am not going to even discuss this 2)Trainspotting - I have no idea why I LOVE this movie, I usually see it once a week, thank god for DVD 1)of course, Braveheart - Much better than Gladiator (while G is the best movie of the year so far and probably be on my top ten), Braveheart had a better story, better battle scenes, didn't drag at all, and the only movie which makes me cry (sorry to admit it), not once but twice - when Murron dies and then when William dies at the end, FREEDOM!!!!!
-
Maybe I've just been spoiled by the excellent action camerawork in so many HK movies, but I thought that the direction in GLADIATOR was CRUMMY because you couldn't tell what was going on half the time.. The writing was not very good, either..all that talk about little bees and shit. Not enough fights with wild animals. It does not compare with BRAVEHEART. Still, Russell Crowe and CGI Rome are pretty neat. I don't expect many people to read this. ^_^
-
May 08, 2000 6:09:55 PM CDT
Aside From a Few Minor Problems, THIS FILMS KICKS TOTAL ASS!
by flaparoo
I really, really enjoyed this movie. It didn't seem to drag too much and the gladiator action scenes are awesome. My only complaints are these: 1)The direction in the opening battle scene was too fast and i couldn't see all the people getting decapitated and it was hard to follow. 2)Those strage trippy dream sequences 3)And my biggest disappointment, the tigers never ate or even killed anybody, they should of had them kill the guys who were holding them back
-
What so many people are forgetting here is that this was a GLADIATOR film, it was a Roman Epic like all the stuff they used to do with the cast of thousands and all that shit. I saw this friday night and I have just been able to start talking about it, it was beautiful, it was fun, there was blood, guts, gore, heroism, cool pyrotechnics, yada yada yada. I was lucky enough to see it at the Cinerama in Seattle, and boy did it rock. I waited in line before the movie almost as long as I waited for Star Wars Episode I, and the line was just as long, and like TPM I was here to lose myself and I did. There was splendour and grandeur to spare and in the end it was FUN!! Better than Blade Runner maybe, better than Alien, yeah definitely, but who cares, Gladiator was awesome and as long as Ridley Scott keeps this up, that's all I need.
-
I also agree that while I was mucho impressed with the actual story in an action movie, the action actually made me nauseated! WAY too many close ups during the battle scenes! It made it difficult to see what's going on...the guys in the CGI stands had a better view than those of us "on the field." Even some medium shots would have kept the nausea quotient down. I was especially impressed with Joquin Phoenix's role...what a baddy, but with a reason to be bad. Also,enjoyed Lucilla, Marcus Aurelius, and of course Proximus. It was one of those movies where the main character was good,but the supporting cast was spectacular!
Baby Doc -
Very rarely does a movie come that has so many stories all blend into one motion picture. I saw a love story last night. I saw a medieval epic last night. I saw a war movie last night. I saw an historic saga last night. I saw a suspense thriller last night. I saw an action movie last night. I saw a touching drama last night. I just saw GLADIATOR last night.
There were so many things that the scriptwriter had going for us in the film. Now I am a scriptwriter myself, so I can connect with the writer of Gladiator. He wanted people to see all these things I mentioned above.
I don -
I had great expectations for this one, and you know what the damn thing exceeded everyone of them!! First of all the battle scenes are probably the bestand the most exciting ever to be put on film! The action is enough to get off your ass and go to, but it also offers alot more. The story is great as well as fine acting by everyone. You could feel the excitement of the theatre as the cool as shit Maximus stepped into the arena. Many believe that this movie is Ridley Scott's best yet and also have to agree. If this dosnt win some awards I will kick someones ass. I also agree that this movie will put Russell Crowe up to the status as such actors as Mel Gibson (can't wait to see the Patriot). Overall this movie truly is GREAT!
Jaydawg OUT
-
Must recommend that you sit at the back of the theater. Action shots were framed way too tight for my taste. Yeah, I know it's supposed to be poetic and crap, but I think when I do go back I'll keep my distance. Crowe is awesome. His mere presence was enough --- didn't have to say a word in the whole damn movie. Sound was a bit much! Those flying burning rocks sounded like WWII artillery fire and the crashing chariots sounded way too heavy. The "homage" to Leni Reifenstal (or however you say it) was also hackneyed. The effects, though cool, were at times hilarious. I could only think of the Goodyear blimp during the flyovers of the Colisseum. *** (three stars folks, no Blade Runner here)
-
Are you not entertained? ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??? Isn't that what you are here for? (throws down sword) PUHTWOOOEEEEEE!!! ON YOU! -
I would like to toss two more cents in and point out that the people who are making moral criticisms of this movie are not just taking petty potshots at an innocent bit of entertainment. I think it's clear that we are meant to take Maximus seriously as a moral hero and that the various lines about the nature of the "mob" are intended to make ironic reference to the present day. Also, the tub-thumping publicity surrounding this movie presents it not only as rousing steak-and-potatoes entertainment, but an "epic" with pretensions to seriousness and historical relevance. When a movie presents itself this way, we're entitled to ask questions. I also found Maximus' character contrived and morally dubious, slaughtering and maiming and laying waste, but gosh-he-only-wants-to-be-at-home-with-the-wife-and-kid-really. Doubtful.
-
the problem is, the dialogue is hokey, so dramatic.
the music, so profound. sure, the fight scenes are amazing, so is russell crowe. but overall, not good enoough,
no spartacus.
-
Sometimes i sit here wondering why it seems a majority of the bad reviews aren't well thought out, a good example is the first talk back in this section, i know revies on imdb aren't usually that great, but come on, that guy doesn't even explain any reasons why the movie was so bad.
The other thing, "shoddy cg work"? yeeeeeeah... i really hate it when shit is seamless, that's horrible when people do a good job... The cg work was amazing in this movie, you wanna talk about shoddy cg you go watch titanic, there's shoddy cg for you.
My friends and i were discussing this movie the other day and one of my friends said the biggest bother was when maximus came back and found his family crucified, he grabs his wife's feet and as he's crying he gets mucus on them, he was talking about how unnecessary it was, it's kind of odd with all the violence and blood-letting in the film that the only thing that bothered him was mucus... I felt it was realistic, i felt that i would probably react the same, i would grab on to them and cry... it was sad and touching because of how real it seemed, even without establishing a real connection between the people, without even having them on screen sharing husband/wife dad/son moments you knew that he loved them... Another thing that my other friend complained about was the odd shots of the sky and weather, i mean.. i see why he would complain about it kind of, but it doesn't make sense, i understood why the weather shots were there, to show the calm of the skies while inside the colliseum the gladiators were killing each other. And then there were the other people who had decided that maximus taking on 4 people one at a time and winning was completely ridiculous and would never happen... only it has happened countless times in the past, there are documented cases of it happening back in colliseums and in warriors tournaments and such.
I felt that the movie was represented in the best way of most any gladiator movie i've ever seen, it had the grand scope and scale it needed, the cg work was far from shoddy and looked amazing... the battles, yes yes we did see the camera shots in SPR but we didn't see them like this, i always thought that SPR's battle looked good, but it was like you didn't really see the violence as much as you see it in this movie.. i mean everywhere you're looking people are getting hacked up and killed and set on fire in this, but in SPR it all seemed too well planned.
But to sum it up, i think all the people who gave it bad reviews need to watch it again, and the people who say the acting was bad... i must say, "huh?" Russell Crowe - oscar worthy... Joaquin Phoenix - deserves something for his role as commodus, he was so good at making me hate him... and everyone else, even the kid who played lucius did a great job... When maximus takes off his helmet and turns to commodus and makes his speech about revenge.. chills man, chills, i wouldn't have ever gotten in his way, that kind of shit just makes me happy movies are made especially when lines like that are delivered with such power.
I dunno, that's just my take, i thought it was damn near perfect...
Thanks for reading,
The Schnoo -
I could say something intelligent about Gladiator (I liked it, with a few reservations), but I'm too busy drooling over rrrrrrrrRussell Crowe. Finally, the manly man the cinema needs! Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna move to Australia right now.
-
One thing quickly: Shade and others who resort to flames, this discussion isn't about you or me or any other individual poster, so silly little personal snipes only serve to show us how someone can actually place the pleasing of their ego above the discussion of the movie at hand. ;]
*SPOILERS*
Moving on, William Wallace and Braveheart glorified violence *much* more than Gladiator, as the latter is done not for noble ideals so much as personal redemption, and yes, that redemption comes from the killing of another man. That epic quest, whether moral or not, inspires those around Maximus to pursue their own personal quests - Lucilla's breaking free of Commodus, Proximo's return to Rome, and Juba's hope for returning to his family. Juba is incredibly important to the film, and overlooked here.
As far as the the board being littered with sniping at the movie - this is mainly because it takes far less energy and far less intelligence to attack than it does to defend (easier to detsroy than to build). So people who were pleased with Gladiator, the overwhleming majority of those who have reviewed or seen it (just check Rotten Tomatoes if you aren't sure), don't really care if some self-important message board troll stands on his soapbox and declares himself qualified to change everything about the movie and substitute his tastes for absolute fact. Honestly, I don't expect to/care if I impact anyone I disagree with here: the idea is a discussion from opposing viewpoints, not wise-ass remarks as to why my viewpoint is obviously more worthy of existing than yours. =]
Lastly, Commodus wasn't motivated by desire for revenge, but desire for love. He didn't kill Maximus at any earlier time because he ultimately wanted his respect and love as a brother more than his death. Commodus was disowned by his father, looked down upon by his sister, disrepected by his "brother," (before the killings), and quickly turned on by the Romans whose love he wanted most of all. This was all the final straw to an already fragile psyche. View his character in that context and you'll see that the final battle was perfectly executed.
Yoshi. -
Okay, geeks, fan boys, whiners, complainers; what's with all the bad mouthing of this movie? "The movie was too long, there shoulda been more fighting, the battles could have been shot better, the CGI stunk" Personally, when I watched the movie, I experienced what was very similar to the feeling one gets when riding a well-constructed roller coaster. The plot was a bit simple, but served beyod the call of duty. We truly grow to hate the new ruler of Rome, and his weak, pathetic, incest-ridden attitude. Do we want him dead? Yes. Does he die? *spoiler* Yes. We grow to love and cheer for Maximus (Mr. RC). He is a soft, emotional man that can really slash the flesh and decapitate the heads. Does he get his revenge? Yes. Does he meet his family in the afterlife? Yes. The Battles were all great, gut-wrenching gore, great weapons, costumes, sets, what more do you need? The movie was epic. Now, if you dont like long movies, sorry, it had to be long, that is, if you like plot AND action. Whatever, i can't believe some of the complaints I've been hearing, I thought the movie was great, and should really hold its ground, especially when you got other "great" films coming out (X-Men, Road trip) Gimme a break folks! Why dont all you little complainers go check out that lump of crap Nicky Cage is in... whats the title, something about being gone from the theaters in 60 secs? Hail Ridley Scott!
-
I saw the Gladiator this weekend with a big group of freinds, and I can honestly say that I liked the movie, but it isn't something I'd go see it again. I really like Russel Crowe, and I love Derek Jacobi, but there
-
This movie was a retread of "Braveheart" and not done half as well. I respect Ridley Scott immensely but he did not direct the action well in this movie. Like many others, I thought the fight scenes, except for the opening battle, were blurs of mindless action. I, for one, want to see the strategy behind the victory. I also think the final battle between the Emperor and Maximus was totally out of character for the Emperor, at least the way he was portrayed up to that point. Remember "Rob Roy"? That's where this climax worked because Eric Roth was totally evil and probably a better swordsman than the hero. In "Gladiator", I really felt like Maximus could kill this guy with one hand behind his back.
The acting, especially the great work by Russell Crowe, is the main saving grace of this movie. -
I saw the Gladiator this weekend with a big group of freinds, and I can honestly say that I liked the movie, but it isn't something I'd go see it again. I really like Russel Crowe, and I love Derek Jacobi. It was also nice to see that Rolf Muller (I don't think I spelled his name right) is getting some more work. I think my problem was that all though it was better than I expected, I'm not big on those types of films. I expected this film to be a lot of fighting, a lot of Stallone type slow motion roars, and no plot, but this movie turned out to be much more than that. There was a very well thought out and detailed script. I liked the surprise. I just am simply not interested in seeing again. I can't explain it. It's nothing bad about the film. I'm just quirky like that. I did like the direction, especially during Maximus's day dreams of the after life. Very unique. I can't say that this was a bad film, it was actually really good. Just not my cup of tea. However, I can honestly say I've never made a better film (to say the least), so Kudos to Ridley Scott. PS. I loved the film score by Hans Zimmer. I think I will go out and by the soundtrack.
-
When was the last time you watch "Ben-Hur" or "Spartacus"? The dailogue was nothing special in either, and "Ben-Hur" was mind-numbing besides the chariot scene.
-
May 08, 2000 11:14:13 PM CDT
I know this is of the subject, but does anyone know if Matrix2 w
by mr logic
And what about Star Wars2 will that start filming soon?
-
Maximus's household gods aren't "Lares"; they're "effigies."
-
May 09, 2000 12:16:11 AM CDT
It's always something, huh, some of you people must lead miserab
by shadione
Ok, Gladiator is 'not' Ben-hur. It's 'not' Braveheart. Neither is Army of Darkness, but it still kicks ass. If you count yourself a person who loves films and you didn't have a balls out time at Gladiator than you need to get a clue and get over yourself. These nit-picky reasons to dismiss this and other films just show that you must almost 'never' enjoy 'any' film! The movies you are comparing Gladiator to are solid 4 star films, and Gladiator is a solid 3 star film. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING DAMN GOOD, BUT NOT GREAT! I wish Hollywood would step up to the plate and make more 'just good' films. Wouldn't you rather see Gladiator than another vapid, dumb-ass, empty summer blockbuster. I imagine a world where we're lucky to get films as good as Gladiator, with the occasional gem that is even better. But let's face it, if you compare Gladiator to 'most' films that get released, instead of just comparing it to the 'best' films ever released, than Gladiator comes out as a near masterpiece. So my personal review? Good film. Great acting, great battles, better emotional drama than you normally get, great hero, very original and interesting villain, it's a little long, some moments of the fight scenes felt a little choppy. I give it 3 out of 4 stars. I'll be surprised if any film released this summer surpasses 3 stars for me, but I'll be happy if they can match it.
-
I used to think that there were just a lot of people out there who loved to dwell on the minor faults of great things. I guess it makes them feel like they're smart if they can show you how cynical and disecting they are. I now realize that a lot of them have been BLINDLY doing this, perhaps simply to crash a party. I'm ususally very open to listening to peoples' "well thought out" gripes, but not this time. Having seen the film I can't see any motivation for any of the complaints other than that the people feel like the need to tear it apart to look smart. I am the most picky film snob I know and this movie was a damn near perfect work of art. From now on whenever someone on this board gives Gladiator a bad review please provide a list of a few movies you think are great ones so that I can have some frame of reference. And to the guy that said the score was horrible, did you see the same movie I did? I'm even more snoby about the scores in movies i watch than the movies themselves and i think this is one of the best scores i've ever heard as far as how well it goes with the visual intensity on the screen. Sure, it wasn't as varied as some films' scores but it worked absolutely perfectly with everything. One of the most important things about a film to me is how well the music goes with what's happening on the screen and Gladiator gets an A++ for this. I'll bet anyone 1000 bucks it's gets nominated for best picture. It'll probably even win unless something truly spectacular comes out. I know a lot of you think i'm crazy for saying that but did you predict that that Titanic would win or even be nominated? Hype blinds people from seeing greatness. Give Gladiator time. Once the hype settles and it's in it's FIFTH month of theater running, this film will be given a lot more respect.
-
Jigglypuff, I can't tell if you're serious or not, hehe. But I'm thinking you've got to be kidding. = )
-
The sole purpose of cinema is not to be a great work of art. That's just one possible aspect. Movies can be anything, from fun action flicks to dumb comedies. Gladiator falls into the category of being a great action movie, but with something more. Unlike many other action movies, this one has a soul. It has a soul that created believable characters, chilling battles, and vistas of unbelievable beauty and age. I remember thinking,"WOW! If this is what Rome actually looked like, then I'm damn impressed with the Romans. And if it didn't look like this, then why the hell not!" Every great movie has its flaws, some movies more than others(Star Wars), but they still manage to persist through the decades, drawing new generations in. I'll never forget the intense, immediate change of feelings i experienced at the very end of the film. I could sense the movie drawing towards Maximus' death and I hoped to high heaven that they wouldn't kill this ancient hero of the new millenium. But a few seconds later, it hit me that death was the only escape for this man, and for once, I was content with a hero dying. If Maximus had managed to escape and bring his army to Rome and live a full life, would I still be thinking about this movie and planning when to go shell out another 9 bucks? Definitely not.
-
Saying that Russel Crowe isn't a great actor is just sheer film stupidity on your part..I think everyone here would at the very least agree he's one damn fine method actor...who's you favorite actor, hmm? Some hack from Baywatch? How many actors do you know that can do multiple accents, that have the balls to gain and lose 45 pounds between roles just to get a look of authenticity to his role? Leo wouldn't I'd guarandamntee you that much...So go pop in your copy of faceoff you've been jacking off to for two years and good day to you sir...
-
May 09, 2000 2:29:25 AM CDT
To the folks who think criticizing a film means you never enjoy
by dave_f
You're wrong. You're flat out wrong. You're getting all worked up because you can't accept that someone didn't like the exact movie you did. Well, relax a bit yourselves. It's possible for two decent, rational people to disagree 100% over a movie and STILL be two decent, rational people. There are always a few asshole posts (both praise and criticism), but really, it seems to me that the majority of the posts that have been critical of "Gladiator" are actually fairly polite and well-thought. Agree or disagree with their opinions, but don't make idiotic presumptions about their character. "He's a frustrated writer!" "You need to get out more!" "You must hate movies to nitpick so much!" All bullshit guesswork. Like I said in a previous post (rant coming here), believe it or not, some folks like movies AND like talking about them. Sometimes, they even talk about them IN DEPTH! THAT'S OKAY! EVEN WHEN IT'S A CRITICAL OPINION, IT'S OKAY! ACCEPT THAT NOT EVERYONE LIKES THE SAME THING AND TAKE THE CRITICISMS WITH THE PRAISE! IF YOU'D QUIT WITH THE EASY NAME-CALLING AND RESPOND INTELLIGENTLY TO THE CRITICISMS, THERE COULD ACTUALLY BE WORTHWHILE DEBATE! There, end rant. ******** Caxus, you wanted people who gave "Gladiator" a bad review to list some of their favorite movies to give you a frame of reference? Well I wrote a bad review, so...off the top of my head, here's a varied list of movies I think are great for one reason or another: "Conan", "The African Queen", "Watership Down", "Deliverance", "Midnight Run", "The Third Man", "Excalibur", "Predator", "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly", "Thelma &
Louise", "Flash Gordon", "The Insider", "Casablanca", "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", "The Professional", "Day of the Jackal", and yes, that controversial favorite..."The Matrix." Not all masterpieces, but all very enjoyable to me for one reason or another. Now tell me...do I hate movies? Am I a film snob? Hmmm... -
I love Gladiator, as much as
Braveheart, and I think it's
just about time to see a successor to the greatest movie
ever. But with all the comparisons between Russel Crowe and Mel Gibson, just a reminder, one thing most certainly gives Gibson an edge... that he's directed Braveheart as well. It's like both Crowe and Ridley Scott in one act. I like Crowe too and I think there'll come a time when he'll get to prove his artistic talents further soon in filmmaking by directing.
-
GLADIATOR has gotten some bad reviews and I have to laugh at the reason why... every bad review I've read so far says the BATTLE scenes are confusing, chaotic and disorganized with no visual ballet like that provided by the saber battle scenes of THE PHANTOM MENACE - HA! HA! HA! What an idiotic statement!!! What comparison would there be between Jedi Knights who have a mystical intuitive power and are trained in the "elegant art" of prescient saber dueling and just plain, terrified men, most not even trained soldiers who are dumped into an unknown arena and forced to defend their lives against anything thrown their way?
Gladiatorial combat WAS confusing, chaotic, and disorganized! Man! It was hack and slash your way to victory... frankly, if I'd have seen the Gladiator's doing backflips and whipping their swords around their bodies and doing highly coreographed BALLET moves I'd have sadly shaken my head and walked out of the the theater.
Indeed, highly choreographed scenes such as those in THE PHANTOM MENACE are a joy to watch when they make sense within the film. But the chaotic battle scenes in Gladiator captured the fog of hand to hand Roman combat perfectly in my opinion - complete with the intense focus and narrowing of perception so perfectly effected by the high speed shutter/strobing effect used both in Saving Private Ryan AND Gladiator.
-
I don't think even the "Gladiator" critics like myself would argue that real battles aren't chaotic. BUT...I would argue that films can show the realistic chaos of battle AND still give the viewer a clear idea what's going on. The oft-mentioned "Braveheart" did it, as did "Saving Private Ryan". "Gladiator", in my opinion didn't. Your suggestion that those of us who criticized the battles all wanted the slick choreography of "Phantom Menace" is too much of a generalization, I think. I can't bear to read through this long-ass Talkback again, but did *that* many people specifically mention "Phantom Menace" as having the ideal battle style "Gladiator" should've aspired to? Doesn't ring a bell to me. To give "Gladiator" some credit, it's not as though the battle scenes were inept - they just didn't create much excitement for me. Too much "who's that?" and "something happened to that guy but I couldn't tell what" and "now what made that chariot flip over?".
-
I felt that these were whole characters -- real people. Especially Maximus and Commodus. Commodus was a wretch, but by his own father's admission, it was from his lack of love -- Commodus was corrupted by his need for someone, anyone to love him. He had learned by watching the Senate that through manipulation you could make Rome itself love you. That is one tragic villain for you. And his sister was awesome! The first half of the film, you don't know if she really cares for Maximus, or if she's just serving her own ends. Russell Crowe is an amazing actor, capable of instilling such raw energy into every performance that he burns onscreen! I'm in LOVE, dammit!! The things that really stuck with me were 1) the absolutely FANTASTIC use of character actors, 2)the beautifully tragic ending. I was fearful for a moment that the heroine was going to get down on her knees and beg Maximus to stay by her side and rule Rome -- but instead, she tells him to go home. Then she rises and her father's words echoed in my mind, "You would have been a great Caesar." Screw the Senate, I want to see a sequel with her as Emperor! and 3) the battle vs the Barbarians at the beginning was worth the price of admission alone.
-
Commodus sits there talking about how he's not afraid of Marcus, and then stabs him with a knife, ensuring that he has the advantage in battle -- what a freakin' coward! If you think that's implausible, you missed the point. Commodus HAD to face Marcus in combat, or else become a laughingstock and lose power to the Senate. If he had marytered Marcus, the Senate would've propped him up as a figurehead and still overthrown Commodus through the support of the Roman "mob". The only way in his eyes to win Rome's "love" was to vanquish Marcus in combat, which is what he had been trying to do all along. It showed from the beginning that Commodus was great at swordplay after the barbarian battle. And I loved the kinetic battle scenes -- I imagine that's what it would feel like to be at the heart of something like that. What COULD possibly make sense among a chaos of hacked limbs and fountains of blood? How could you stay sane? That's what I saw on the screen -- Ridley Scott's version of TEMPORARY INSANITY -- when man becomes an animal to survive. It was beautiful and horrific all at the same time.
-
Scott was showing Marcus's ROME. He'd never been to Rome, so what in the hell do you think he was fighting for? He was fighting for that vision that replayed in his head every time he went into battle -- the wife and child that were his world, and that on any given day he may never see again. Don't you guys remember that conversation that he had with Caesar? Once Commodus had taken his Rome from him, his life became only about living long enough to see Commodus die, and the good man was temporarily buried beneath the savage. But Commodus' sister reawakened the good man within -- the hero that could lead legions -- and made him fight one last time for what he had once believed in.
-
But see, the problem that we have with most of these 'reviews' posted is that they AREN'T well
thought out, critical, or even intelligent... "crapfest" is hardly a term used by those who are truly analyzing a film. I think that most of the people that didn't like gladiator went to the film, uncosciously, wanting to hate it. Oh well. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. I, myself, saw a film with a lot of heart, soul, drama, and excitement. To me, it was damn near perfect... more enjoyable than Sparticus, even. (I went and watched Sparticus again for comparison purposes...and I must say that despite my expecatations, it did inspire me as much as Gladiator did). However, that's just me. And as for the CGI work: When I saw scenes that I presumed were matted with CGI work, I was struck more by the beauty of it than the fact that it didn't look "real", so to speak... I.E. The scenes looked like living paintings rather than photographs, which actually appealed to me more... I would rather see more CGI scenes like those in Gladiator than many of those I saw in Star Wars Ep1 (which did have some breathtaking scenery, despite the low quality of the movie overall). -
My point with the "perfect movie" thing was that all these #$@$% are doing are arguing about what they like, not what is an objectively "perfect" movie. What I am saying is that the "perfect movie" doesn't really exist. If a movie was truly perfect than there wouldn't be a need for these damn arguments. What is perfect to you, is not perfect to me because we have totally different tastes. I am not going to waste any of my time tearing those 4 movies apart because more than likely you would have some smart comeback, but then I would have an even smarter comeback, and so on...
-
...has a similar character (Tom Hanks's) -- an effective and honourable warrior who just wants to go home. I loved Maximus. He is the kind of hero whose qualities always rise -- like cream -- to the top. We can all take something from that. The film isn't flawless, but I enjoyed it and won't soon forget it.
-
Why must people question the character and credentials of people who disagree with them? I know some people and critics that I respect who gave this film high marks, I happened to hate it. To answer a few common charges. I did not hate it because I don't love film or, specifically, entertaining films. I won't go to the trouble of making a long list like the talk backer earlier, but I am a big fan of most of the films they mentioned. I love "Army of Darkness." The reason I didn't like "Gladiator" is because it didn't entertain me; not the action, not the characters. Second, I didn't hate it because I'm comparing to better films ("Braveheart," "Spartacus," a billion others). Like I said, the film didn't work for me, even if I'd never seen another. I, and others, compare it to these better films to illustrate what went wrong with "Gladiator" and how it was done better elsewhere. Finally, I didn't hate because I subconsciously wanted to (quite a conclusion to reach about people you don't know). Like I said, I love entertainments as much as the next guy. My third parent was George Lucas, I'll be ready to die when I see Episode III. I'm not a "film snob" who only likes arthouse fare; hell, I go to school in Knoxville, I don't see enough indies or foreign pictures to be a snob. The bottom line is that I didn't like "Gladiator" for specific reasons, which I and many others have laid out in dozens of posts, just like those liked it. If you want to debate the merits of this film, why not stick to the specific criticisms made and try to refute them, rather than resorting to ad hominim attacks and pop psychology? Btw, I can't wait to "savage" Battlefield Earth. Words do no justice to my hatred of L. Ron Hubbard.
-
I think the breakdown on the talk backs for Gladiator can be: sucked - 10%, all time great - 40%, good with reservations - 50%. As one of the nitpickers in the last group, we aren't simply looking for things to criticize. We are trying to rationalize why we liked this movie but didn't love it. The things that held back Gladiator of many of us were: 1) confusing action sequences - they may be realistic in their depiction of the actual chaos of combat but they distanced us somewhat from identifying with Maximus because we couldn't see what was actually happening half the time; 2) plot holes - we may be focusing on minor points in the story but they point out an overall sloppiness with the storyline that translates into a further distancing from the movie; 3) weak cg in places; 4) terrible scoring. Given all that we in the good not great group still recognize that we liked (not loved) this movie because of the acting (Crowe, Phoenix, Reed in articular) the sweep of the movie and the prodcution design overall. I myself am frustrated in that as good as Gladiator is, it seems obvious that there were several simple ways it could have been better.
-
who thought this movie was a brutal thrashing of modern America? To me it seemed blatantly obvious. Commodus is representative of Bill CLinton and his entire generation- the dialogue between Commodus and his father right before he strangles him was a dead tip-off. This movie took BALLS to make.
-
I didn't know we were still having forums on SW EP1. I think some of you have never truly enjoyed a movie. What a bunch of idiots. Gladiator Rocks!!!
-
Sorry man but I don't think Commodus ever wanted respect from his "brother." If you look at the start of the movie, Commodus actually frowns at the sight of Maximus with the Emperor. Later on he cant kill him cause he wants the respect of the people. As others have said, Commodus was smart and didn't want a coup on his hands. He was already busy with the dissolution of the senate. However Commodus did love his father dearly. I think it was because of envy and rage that he killed his father not really because of the loss of the crown. When he found that the Emperor preferred Maximus to him, Commodus couldn't take it anymore so in rage he killed him. If you look at it in this way, maybe he had an ulterior motive to kill Maximus. Maybe he really did blame Maximus for his father's death and wanted to exact revenge on Maximus. In this context, Commodus actually succeeds. Kinda complicated but its good that supposedly simple popcorn movies gets this many people excited. Now if only someone could write a thesis on Ep. 1...
-
It's a funny thing, the only way for me to find anyone who did not absolutely love Gladiator is to come to AICN. You see, while everyone else in the U.S. loves this movie all three dozen of the people that hated it are regulars to AICN. ( P.S. They hate every movie actually and believe that they are superior critics )
-
I asked this question about a mile up the page, but does anyone see the similarities between Maximus and Johnathan E. from the Sci-Fi 70's classic "RollerBall"
The exact plot and script may differ, but the I see many similar traits in the characters and social messages.
Even more petty, but cool is: how the crowd both cheers their name...
"MAXIMUS!" "JOHNATHAN!"
"MAXIMUS!" "JOHNATHAN!"
"MAXIMUS!" "JOHNATHAN!"
P.S. Ebert is a more concerned about his appearance than judging a film for it's true merits...
-
Sydney has gone ape-shit over this movie, though the most common objection amongst the kids 'Down Under' is GRG's Aussie accent. He's done much better, in that department in his previous flics, with no attempt to sound Spanish here. Phoenix, on the other hand has put together a beautiful mid'lantic accent for his turn. Second, we can't understand how Gladiator managed an R rating in America, when it didn't even merit an MA (under 15's must be accompanied) here. The M rating allows anyone to go in Australia (OK so there's a caution - so what) and at the session I saw on opening day last Thursday, the audience was full of kids from 10 thru 17 - they loved it. Had the film been produced in Australia, there would have been huge public protests about an R rating, 'cause movie goers here, demand to see what they want, without government interferrence. Witness the censor's recent backdown, when they tried to ban Romance. They lost and the film was R rated, whereas in the USA, it couldn't even get an NC-17. Bottom line, the powers that be in your country, by stupidly restricting Gladiator, have inadvertently lifted it to cult status, never mind screwing the potentially larger box office. Thirdly, have all you talk-backers missed the following...from today's Sydney Morning Herald "Two Sydney readers have reported that after his second big fight GRG (aka Maximus) is surrounded by fans and in the background, some of the Roman fans are holding up signs, a la footy and cricket fans now. Both swear one of the signs says "Go Maximus Go". Is Ridley Scott in on the joke? Did someone slip it in during post-production? And whose head will he rip off when he finds out?" By the way, GRG will be in Austin, cutting a record with his band in August. He'll also be doing some public gigs there, prior to starting Flora Plumb, with Jodie Foster, in September. GRG will be back in 'cool' Sydney after opening Proof of Life on Dec 14, and thereafter on his northern NSW farm, for Christmas. Trail-bike riders, beware.
-
I'll admit it's not Sparticus, it's just on a different level. In my opinion, the best movie in a long time. At least, until....LORD OF THE RINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That will be the movie to end all movies.hahahaha. "I am a servant of the Secret Fire, Wielder of the Flame of Anor, You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, Flame of Udun. Go Back to the Shadow! You cannot pass."-Gandalf, 'The Return of the King'
-
Gladiator is so epic of a movie, I'm blown away. The scenery is amazing, the acting is superb. Both Joquain (sp?) Phoenix, and Russel Crowe are the best. How could you NOT LIKE it? I just got done seeing it, and cannot say enough good things about it. GO SEE THE MOVIE!
-
Hi, Don't do this sort of stuff often, but just wanted to know somethings.
1)I saw Maximus as being driven by revenge, not by "love of rome" or "love for marcus aurelius", but later on he changed his goals to suit that need, But Not what drove him. The reason I was left shellshocked by the movie (yes, I'm amongst the 40% greatest of all time here), was because Crowe so brilliantly brought that out. He didn't have to say, he just had to look it. The part of tired man, who had purpose to go on, revenge, which is where the hurt and the sorrow fit it. That's also the reason why I can overlook the fact that there were no detailed sub-plots (as most great epics have), there was little character development (I loved the flick, but Scott didn't develop the charachters in the normal way), and at times the lines were a little cliched. BUT...that's just it, because it's about revenge, because it's so personal, because it is about MAXIMUS ALONE, all that does not matter (atleast to me). Russel Crowe and Ridley Scott did what they had to, which was show what made the man, and they didn't do it by words and plot twists, they did by little actions (like the rubbing off of the Roman mark from his shoulder, the way he always smelled the earth he was going to fight on, his undying love for his family, and most importantly, the way he expressed everything by saying nothing, and just standing there, like the rock of gibraltar, but his eyes, and his face showing at times determination, sorrow, horror, hurt...etc.). They're all cliched, but they all, for some reason worked, as if the cliche started because of this! It is personal. And they showed that. And that's why I loved it!
But, as the way many of those here have stated, that the movie wasn't as much about revenge, rather more about Rome's saviour, then, if that's true, I'd have to side with those more on the great, but flawed movie side. So someone gimme some feedback on this please.
2) Secondly, only for those, like me, who were left in a daze after the first time they watched it, did it hold up as well on a second viewing. It didn't really for me, save for some scenes, which had me as mesmerised as before (and for which I will go watch atleast 1 more time in the next week).
And finally I can understand why some people didn't like it, or thought it flawed. Yeah, the CG at times was sketchy, it was cliched, and it wasn't noble like Braveheart or Spartacus. But, for me, after that scene with Proximus (where it is implied that Maximus doesn't give a damn about freedom, only killing Commoddus), that didn't matter. Cause Crowe rocked (you can't take that away), and the ending was as good as can be. I just hope to god it makes a hell of a lot of money, cause it's the first film this year that really deserves to!!!!
-
Did anyone else see this???
the scene in which the wagons are wheeled into the coliseum and food is thrown to the crowds... look for the cardboard cutout mother and child.
If I remember correctly they are located near the bottom right of the screen in one of the medium closeup of the crowds...
WEAK.. why would they do this? It was DEAD obviuos to me. Just pay close attention to the crowd.. and not to the wagons and the people throwing the food. It's on the screen for a good 2-3 seconds.
ALSO... I'm sure someone else has already said this BUT...
Look at the upper deck of the coliseum... when the gladiators first come out into the arena and are looking around (360 degreen pan around the gladiators so we can see the entire coliseum). Look for the crowd that just doesn't follow the path of the camera near the end of the 360... the crowd noticably SHIFTS at one point.. WOW... I can't believe this wasn't fixed.
Anyhow... I originaly gave the film a 9/10.. but, upon my second viewing, I drop it to a 7/10.
DreamWeb -
Quote:
It's not a terrible movie, but it's certainly not great as the majority of the moviegoers seem to believe.
End quote.
What determines greatness...the majority, or yourself and a select few others? Trust me, it's not you. It's not four high and mighty critics who decide a movie is substandard.
Sorry, but evidently you missed a key point in the movie. Mob rules. The majority decides what is and isn't great. Unfortunate, in many cases, but true nonetheless.
Star Wars was shit upon by many critics as well. Whether you like it or not, it is great. It has had a greater effect on our culture than any other movie in history. Who gives a rat's ass if it was artsy enough?
By the way, I saw the movie tonight. It was great. Why? Because I enjoyed it, and Russel Crowe's performance and presence were enough to make it so.
So, you think it wasn't great? Wonderful, your opinion is noted. I'll remember that for myself and all the rest of the low-brow, pitiful majority, bottom feeders.
Perspective. Relativity.
Couple of words. Look them up. I'm sure you scholarly types have a dictionary handy. -
It was an excellent action movie that took itself seriously and had a nice level of drama amidst the carnage. But its an action movie at heart, and thankfully not a popcorn action movie, free of horrid one-liners and all that shit. But the storyline was your basic revenge premise. A very gripping revenge story. I was excited for this movie, but didn't buy into the hype. I've been dissapointed by that type of thinking too many times now and didn't let it happen with this. I watched it, and I enjoyed it. My girlfriend liked it as well, a mess of tears by the end. For those of you wandering where the comment on the blood thirsty audience was, I'm surprised no one mentioned Commodus reciting the trailer title cards nearly word for word (general who became a slave who became a gladiator etc.) and then asked how it was going to end. That seemed directed right at us. The way he works the crowd. *spoilers* When he slays the five or so gladiators in short time brutal fashion, I was left wanting more. Then you have Proximo telling him to work the crowd, draw things out, and he does and the fights become more interesting. I enjoyed the directing as well. I must admit the dialogue was tough to make out at times, but the camera speeds and those types of things I thought worked well. It was bloody violent, and I thought the ending worked fine. There were a lot of good scenes, good action, intense. I think the Patriot will actually be a better movie, just based on some of the spoilers I read. But that's all speculation. I liked and was drawn in by Gladiator, the action and emotional cues hit well and didn't feel forced, even if they were. I don't know, but I don't really see the Braveheart comparison. I'm sure if you sat down and thought about it you could draw out some parrallels, but I just didn't get the same feeling watching Gladiator, it didn't recall Braveheart upon viewing. And I'm sure people will be saying the same thing about the Patriot when it comes out. But really, how many different ways can you tell a revenge story? They're all going to have parrallels. And the CGI bashing seems a little misplaced, especially when compared to the Phantom Menace. For one, Gladiator, for me, wasn't expected to be an effects fest. And watching TPM again on video was just painful. Some of those effects are really cartoony. But that's a movie that special effects are going to be looked at. Whereas, with Gladiator, I thought they served their purpose well, and I'm really not quite sure exactly what everyone else was expecting. They showed the Colliseum shot in the trailer, and no one complained then. I don't know, of the movie's detractors, I'd say that aside from those who flat out didn't like it, most of them probably fell prey to the over-hyping, which is really easy to succumb to. Luckily, I avoided it. And Gladiator didn't live up to the hype, it wasn't the best movie I've seen in years, but I thought it was pretty fucking good. Russell Crowe did a great job, as did the rest of the cast. There were only a couple lines that struck me as oddly terrible, whereas compared to say Face/Off (which I liked a lot), which has more horrid lines than you can count. I just think of it as an epic action film and a damn good one.
-
May 09, 2000 11:21:46 PM CDT
I can't believe the idiots on this board. . .Gladiator rocks!
by sithlordmichael
First of all, yes some of CG parts were obivous, but what do you expect? Do you think they are actually going to build an entire collesium? Like people said above, it was visually a living painting. Very grand and breathtaking. And what about the tigers? Tigers kicked my ass! And the "boring, slow scenes?" Do you people what a rich, indepth character drive story line or not!
The "slower scenes" are a great contrast to the outstanding action of the fights. It gives meaning to the characters. If all they do is fight? How do you know what the hell the story's about? The fights were spectacular people! YOU try to choreograph such realistic and bloody battles. The first collesium fight with the chariots is incredible. The movie is Ridley's best work ever. Thank him! -
May 09, 2000 11:27:42 PM CDT
EMPIRICAL, IRREVOCABLE EVIDENCE THAT GLADIATOR WAS POOR (but Rus
by jrcash
There is ONE movie Gladiator rips off more than any, and it isn't even a gladiator movie. It is ROB ROY, which starred Liam Neeson, Jessica Lange, and Tim Roth.
The premise of the film is identical to Gladiator, only WAY better. The opening scene of Rob chasing clan of Tinkers(my namesakes) off of the land, to the initial introduction of the villain, to the sort-of gay overtones in the villain's character, to what they do to the land and relatives of the hero (although, they don't die in RR, it is as bad.) to the busting of Rob to a prisoner, to the final fight scene, which is INFINITELY more plausible and amazing in RR. although the performances are great, and the film looked great, Rob Roy, apologies to Mr. Bond, does it better.
-
...what I want to know is, since when did BRAVEHEART become the standard by which epic films are judged? I mean, it's competently made and the battle scenes are very good but it's manipulative and phony as hell. I very much doubt that Mel's last word would have been "FREEEEDOM!". More likely, it would have been something like " ARRRRGH!" or "gurgle". The above criticisms also apply (with slight variations) to GLADIATOR. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed both movies. It's just that I'm not kidding myself that they're masterpieces. As far as I'm concerned, the greatest epic film yet made is LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. Am I right? Am I?
-
May 10, 2000 2:50:59 AM CDT
The Movie was very good, not a masterpiece, but a great way to s
by dands
This goes for geeks like Father Death and MadHatter. Quit boring us with your supposed film knowledge. We don't care. "Its not as great as they think it is"? More like you're not as great as you think you are. Go get laid and spare us your drivel.
-
Does anyone know a good site to find out what future movies are on the slate for specific actors? Coming Attractions doesn't allow you to search by actor, and I haven't been able to find anything else. I was just curious to see what other projects Crowe is working on; I haven't been able to find anything other than some obscure Flora Plum movie directed by Jodie Foster.
-
Hi all. I have not seen the movie yet but I read on an american newspaper a few critics to the accuracy regarding the first battle scene.
1. the paper said roman soldiers used their swords only to stab not to slash. That is not true as it has been proven with written stuff and monuments showing battle scenes they used the swords both to cut and stab. (although the instructors tried to indoctrinate the men to go for the stabbing which is deadliey)
2. the paper said the Roman army did not use artilhery on field battles, only on sieges. Not true. In some cases they did.
3. the paper said the roman army could not engage in a cavalry charge because of the lack of stirrups at the time. Yes, stirrups only appeared in Europe at around 700 ad. So what? It has been proven that the lack of stirrups did not prevent horsemen to engage in a charge. Romans, Sarmatians, Armenians and the late Parthians and Persians used fully armoured horsemen armed with long lances that resambled in looks and tactics the later crusaders. Horsemen in the movie probably wear stirrups cause horsemen of our time would have a hard time without them. The specially built roman saddle also helped maintain stability. -
I read several of the comments about Comodus getting in the ring with Maximus and I was surprised. If you had payed attention to the movie you would have seen Comodus practicing his sword skills against 6 or 7 people at one time. He was good at sword fighting. Its near the beginning after he arrives at the camp. He could not let Maximus live but he couldnt just kill him either, it would have turned the people against him..the only thing he could do was beat Maximus in the arena and because he knew that as good as he was he wasn't as good as Maximus, he cheated. Maybe not the best ending of all time but it worked.
-
Gladiator wasn't meant to be a high-brow, epic spectacle to appease armchair, second-guessing, drama critics. It was meant to be ass-kicking, slam-bam, Thank You Van Damme, No Holds Barred Slaughter Fest - a guy movie for guys.
As for the CGI, Roger Ebert and you other hard-to-please pansies need to lighten up. So what if it looks "muddy?" That's the look they were going for. In "art", if what you're going for is "muddy" then so be it. To hell with character development, transition devices, and that sort of shit. This is a Summer Action Movie, not frickin' Francois Cinema Verite Bull Shit.
The only thing that MIGHT have truly put this movie over the top in terms of Can-Opening, Ass-Whooping (excuse the cliches), is if Maximus had been allowed to escape and re-assemble his army in the third act. That would have been something to see: Maximus leading a CGI army of 5,000 dispossessed Legionnaires marching back into a pristine-looking CGI Rome and raising a general hell with fake, computer-generated fire popping up over the city. They could shown had a huge-ass CGI Tactical Siege Warfare and soldiers on both sides battling out in various points of the city. And then show the final fight between Maximus and Commoditus like in Excalibur when Arthur led his Knights one last time to take on that bastard Mordred and his Rogues. Only with a much cooler fight between Maximus and Commodus than Arthur and Mordred. That fight sucked. Rome should have been burning up while Nero fiddled away. Civilians running and panicking, short swords bashing. Catapults launching boulders of fire. They should have gone all out in a blaze of glory. If Lucas could do it in Phantom Menace, then what the hell. Ridley might as well have created a totally-rendered CGI battle of Rome with a final duel between Maximus and Comicus.
But even though this never materialized, the movie still rocked. And that's what it was suppose to do. The Tigers and the African Nubian Arrow-Firing Charioteer Amazonians were awesome. Russell Crowe brought the house down for the masses (in the movie and for us in the theater). So did Hwa-Quim Phoenix. I thought he played an effective jealous, incest-minded son of Roman Ruler. And Connie Nielson was cold, icy and beautiful, distant yet attractive. Oh well. That's my two cents. Can't wait for Gladiator II. -
Warchild, I know the scene you mention with Commodus sword-fighting early on, but that scene didn't really convince me he was a great fighter. As I recall, you see him run slowly through a *staged* defense against the soldiers several times before doing it once at normal speed. I interpreted it as a memorized set, a show, nothing more. If Ridley Scott meant for it to showcase Commodus' skill with the sword, he picked an awkward way of doing it. As for stepping into the ring at the end...I understand the supposed reasoning, but it still rings false given that Commodus was shown to be an utter coward again and again and again. He didn't want to martyr Maximus by just having him slaughtered, fine, but why not just set a more devious trap for him in the ring? Okay, the tiger thing didn't work, so try something else. Given Commodus' obvious cowardice, that'd make a lot more sense to me than him stepping in to fight Maximus who, injured or not, is clearly about the best fighter in all of Rome. It's not that I refute the notion of an Emperor fighting in the arena (historically, I know it happened in cases), but the spineless Commodus portrayed in "Gladiator" didn't seem like the kind of guy who'd risk it.
-
This movie was da' bomb. But there was one part i did'nt understand it was when Maximas was fighting the Tiger. Was the tigers a part of his act? Some one just tell me.
-
Yes, Commodus is an inferior fighter, and he has no chance whatsoever of defeating Maximus on equal footing- but he goes into the fight REGARDLESS of that, because of who his is. His primary motivation is his desperate, insane need to possess what Maximus has- the love of Lucilla, and the love of the people. In his mind, the only way to do that is to beat Maximus. Just to be safe, mind you, he stabs Maximus in the back beforehand. He still loses, and he's pathetic, and that's the whole point.
-
Shaft- my friend and I were discussing how similar commodus is to bill clinton. funny......
Anyway, all i have to say is that since so many of you are so intent on saying breavheart was sooooooo good and the standard of epic films, lets bash it a bit. First, Gibson had a wonderful performance but he almost seemed to act as though wallace knew he would be a martyr and be immortalized. Second, the king was no where near as 3-dimensional as phoenix in gladiator. Third, wallace and company didnt were kilts. problems can be found in every film ever made. those who bash this movie will probably be the ones praising battlefield earth. -
Shaft- my friend and I were discussing how similar commodus is to bill clinton. funny......
Anyway, all i have to say is that since so many of you are so intent on saying breavheart was sooooooo good and the standard of epic films, lets bash it a bit. First, Gibson had a wonderful performance but he almost seemed to act as though wallace knew he would be a martyr and be immortalized. Second, the king was no where near as 3-dimensional as phoenix in gladiator. Third, wallace and company didnt were kilts. problems can be found in every film ever made. those who bash this movie will probably be the ones praising battlefield earth. -
I also saw the comparison between clinton and commudus. great minds think alike.
Anyways, I have seen many nit pickers saying just how much better braveheart is than gladiator. I think i shall nit pick about that film just to show you dumb fucks could do it to any film. First, Gibson has a fine performance but makes wallace out to be a man that some how knows he will someday be immortalized and a martyr. The evil king lacks the depth phoenix has in gladiator. wallace and the gang never wore kilts. the list goes on and on. point is braveheart and gladiator are both exellent films. -
Sorry about singling you out specifically, as you are not the only one who has expressed the opinion that the point of Gladiator was primarily action-packed entertainment. Not all of my post will be in a reply to your post, directly.
However, your remark that it is a "guy movie for guys" has prompted me to respond.
Now, as you can see by my handle, I am a girl. I went to see Gladiator ASAP because I was very excited about some action-packed entertainment. Many women like action movies. Hell, I rented Rambo, First Blood II just last week. The only difference between us may be that we can also watch movies starring women doing genteel things in tame settings without going through a major gender-crisis freak-out.
So, with that out of the way, I want to respond to the idea (expressed by several posters) that to complain about the plot, characters, music, or historical accuracy of this movie is silly because the movie is supposed to be pure mindless action. I disagree. If that were the case, they could have just made another pyrotechnic-laden cop movie. Although I found the constant refrain of "What does Rome mean?" tiresome (probably because they never came up with a very compelling answer), there was a point to that question. Rome means something to us still. Europe (and now the US/entire Western Hemisphere) has been trying to regain the Pax Romana for 2000 years.
If I want to suspend my disbelief and watch really cool stuff happen really fast, then I'd prefer to see it in a sci-fi flick. That's the point of sci-fi, I think, to remove narrative from the context of place and history so that you can explore certain issues or just have fun in ways you can't in right here in River City.
However, I went to see action-packed entertainment set in ancient ROME. I studied art history, I've been to Rome, I wanna see the colosium recreated and populated with Romans. Although I had a problem with one historical inaccuracy (the mass-produced flyers advertising the gladiators) I was generally satisfied. Rome looked awesome, the Romans looked awesome, the barbarians looked awesome, Russel Crowe looked awesome...(sorry - got carried away there!)I do not care about the narrative inaccuracies - what Commodus really did, for example, because a fictional story is fine by me. But I do know that Scott wanted to recreate Rome in his medium just as the French painters in the 19th century did in theirs. (I know this because he said he was inspired by just such a painting.) I wish a little more care had been taken in some instances, is all.
I do not want to suspend my disbelief and go on auto-pilot. I want to be there, fully engaged in the story before me. As someone else pointed out in an above post, those of us who merely liked the movie rather than loved it were disappointed because there were some very basic things about the movie that could have been better.
Enjoying films and thinking critically about them does not make one a snob. It may well mean that one will not enjoy movies as much as they might - I know that I am so frequently disappointed by Hollywood blockbusters that I wish I could take a stupid pill upon handing my ticket to the usher.
But I do love movies, and I think everyone who comes to this site loves movies.
-
I've seen the movie twice and enjoyed it just as much the second time. Its the most entertaining film I've seen in a long time, probably around the quality of the Matrix. Having said that, I think it could have been better. While I accept that such decisions were solely Ridley's prerogative, I feel: a) the first battle against the German's could have been made more of. This was a great opportunity to make a scene with enormous potential truely spectacular. The build-up was great, with some great elements such as the wolf/dog, the leader of the Germans, the Roman military machine pumping up the tension. The plot was lost around hte time Maximus fell from his horse - from then on I was very frustrated man. The in-your-face, amongst the hordes action of Braveheart was better. b) The scene when Max found his family was too drawn out. I wanted to cry but couldn't, and so found myself bored and thinking Crowe isn't pulling this off very well. Typical American schmaltz - how cliche'd was the raised hand gesture? c) After the climactic final fight, was got a whole lot more schmaltz and I still couldn't cry. The movie should have cut out all that crap after Max dies - the epitaph by Lucia, the "who will help me bear him?" (I cringed) and the set-piece departure from the set. That shit might work on stage but its way too much for a cynical bastard like me. The acting was terrific all round, the action was great overall, and the storyline was compelling. Comparing it to the best epics of all time, Dances with Wolves and Braveheart, I was less moved by Gladiator. I don't feel I've really been suckered into a movie of this type unless I cry, and so as I didn't, I wasn't.
-
May 12, 2000 3:55:22 AM CDT
Say...people are still posting here even though it's off the mai
by dave_f
Oh well, since I've been kinda vocal in this Talkback, let me cut in with one or two last comments regarding the last several posters. First, Shaft9876, you make a pretty decent case for the end duel. Basically, what you're saying is that Commodus desire to throw off the shackles of his inferiority complex overrode his cowardice. I can buy that - it was always clear that Commodus wasn't playing with a full deck of cards - I just wish there'd been a scene or two to foreshadow him doing something *so* outrageous. Anyway, good points. ********* Katybird, your favorable comments are well-spoken too. Why do all the even-handed posts come at the end of Talkbacks after the louts have had their say? *sigh* Yeah, the historicity of the movie wasn't a problem for me at all, I just found the film as a whole to be a jumbled action/drama combo with too many plot holes and a muddled central vision. But as for my biggest complaint... ********* Starscream, you voiced the same criticism - the characters just weren't moving enough. Obviously this is very subjective, but for me it's the make-or-break element that allows me to forgive even the biggest plot holes at times. I wanted to turn on the waterworks when Crowe dies too, but it just wasn't happening. I just...didn't care that much. It's not that I have a problem with films being emotional manipulative, but I have to really care about the characters for the manipulation to take hold. Here's a counterexample (with possible *SPOILERS* if you've never read or seen "Watership Down"): Whether it's the book or the movie, Hazel's death at the end always tears me up. Such a beautiful scene. 'Course, "Watership Down" was perfect in almost every way prior to that scene too...
-
Ben Hur,Braveheart,Sparticus
What the fuck does it matter???
Here we are presented with a quality piece of entertainment
from one of the all time masters
of film.
Let`s not forget Legend which in my opinion was heavily under rated!!!!!!!
And all you sorry asses can do is gripe and pick fault,but you`ll still all be suckered in by flicks such as blair witch
Scream,Ghost Dog,Galaxy quest
the list is endless!!!!!!!
But when a REAL film,a filmlovers dream graces the big screen
everybody dons their stetsons and sits astride their high horses,,puffing and blowing about
historical accuracy or what the thumbs up/down sematic was about!
Really!!!! you should all be made to go and stand in the corner till lunch time,swapping stetsons for Dunce`s hats!!!!!!!!!
That`s why it`s left up to Harry to review stuff!!!!!!!!!!
Because after all u need a person who knows films to pass judgment!!
NO COWBOYS ALLOWED!!!!!!!! -
Saw it tonight. Very cool movie. I've always loved Roman history. I've seen Ben Hur and Sparticus countless times (on TV and video) and I remember years ago playing the game Centurion with much glee (nothing like killing barbarians and conquering the world). It was nice to FINALLY see a Roman epic on the BIG screen. I think Roger Ebert is using dope or something. He even dissed the special effects and I thought the effects for Rome and the Coliseum where totally realistic. I thought the shots of Rome and the coliseum looked as real as Coruscant did in TPM and Ebert praised the effects for that (as he should). I was very glad to see the film had a strong story (honor and revenge are always perfect themes for a kick ass movie) and vivid charcters to go along with all the kick-ass sword play. I also was really impressed with Russell Crowe. He makes a GREAT hero and I hope this really boost's his career. With Harrison Ford going all loopy in his old age we need more film hero-types. It's also nice to see Ridley Scott making good flicks again. Definitely the best film of the year thus far. Oh and it's Scott's second best in my book. However I consider Alien to be his best film NOT Blade Runner. That film is very cool but hardly as deep as most fanboys like to pretend (oh it's based on a book so it must be intelligent!). So anyway if you want to see a really good flick with a good story and a lot of bloodshed check it out! Oh and back to Roger Ebert it's odd where he crapped to Scorses about who cares about details (something about New York not looking like New York in a film) and yet he complained about the thumb thing in this film. I mean thumb up or thumb in the palm who the hell cares? I mean I noticed that they had the roman guards in black when they should be in red but it's a movie. Basically a fantasy set in a historical backdrop. Plus mistakes are made in films all the time. To me it seemed he wanted to hate the film before he even saw it. Like I said already he was even dumping on the FX saying they looked fake and that's BS. I think he's loosing it...
-
Gladiator is a great film , it is easy to see that there is a good director at the helm . That first battle scene is astonishing , and Rome is awesome . Performances are excellent , especially Russell Crowe and Oliver Reed . The script ranges from being alright to good , the action sequences are some of the best I have seen . Ridley Scott , welcome back to the art of great film making .
-
Ok, ok so the plot has more holes than a Spanish mantilla (ie why was the nephew stupid enough to call Maximus the "Savior of Rome" in front of his uncle? Didn't he grasp that the two didn't like each other?) but it was worth the price of admission just to see darling RC as Maximus in that yummy Roman gear. And JP's latest character adds another classic to the "villians who desperately need to get barBEqued" file.
-
HAIL GLADIATOR!
Up yours you anal retentive history buffs. Bite me all those who find fault with plot, CGI, and motivation. We all know where you can tuck YOUR thumbs! Tuck it in deep, whether you wish death or life. Whoo-hooo. Gladiator Rocks. Gladitor Rules. Hail Gladiator! Friends, Romans, Countrymen and Countrygirls, go see Gladiator! But don't go see it so you can snub your noses like you're at a shit-smelling contest. Be entertained by it. Love it. Adore it. Love it the way Commodus wanted to be loved. Hail Gladiator. Hail Gladiator. Hail Gladiator. Hail Gladiator. Hail Gladiator. Hail Gladiator. Hail Gladiator. Hail Gladiator. -
HAIL GLADIATOR!
Up yours you anal retentive history buffs. Bite me all those who find fault with plot, CGI, and motivation. We all know where you can tuck YOUR thumbs! Tuck it in deep, whether you wish death or life. Whoo-hooo. Gladiator Rocks. Gladitor Rules. Hail Gladiator! Friends, Romans, Countrymen and Countrygirls, go see Gladiator! But don't go see it so you can snub your noses like you're at a shit-smelling contest. Be entertained by it. Love it. Adore it. Love it the way Commodus wanted to be loved. Hail Gladiator. Hail Gladiator. Hail Gladiator. Hail Gladiator. Hail Gladiator. Hail Gladiator. Hail Gladiator. Hail Gladiator. -
I went to see this film last night and I thought it was truly excellent I really enjoyed it. Then I came home and went to see what people thought about it on the IMDB - and guess what - it gets completely picked apart by these totally disturbingly over analytical film geeks. Same on here too - it really makes me mad. Why do you go to the cinema? Why do part with your
-
Good movie, good story, good filming.
There is a lot of symbolism, and some scenes might look boring and used over and over, but looking at these scenes in the context, they show the emotions of Maximus (the hand that caresses the grain = his desire to go home, idilliac at first - in normal colours, shattered later - in dark colours; the vision of the mausoleum = his desire to die and join his family).
The only time when I was really reminded that this is a movie, is when Maximus makes it from Germany to southern Spain in a couple of days at the most. *sigh* Poetic license, I guess.
Things that would have made the movie better, IMO:
- Stretching the time between the rise of Commodus and the capture of Maximus by the slavers. Commodus should have killed Marcus Aurelius in Rome, with Maximus on his way to home, then send notice to the soldiers with Maximus to capture him and kill him. Maximus excapes death and chases the executioners but arrives too late at his farm. After burying his loved ones he travels to the coast where he buys passage on a boat to Rome. While enroute he is captured by berbers.
- There should have been one additional fight in the small arena, otherwise we are left imagining what kind of performance Maximus did in order to win the crowd and the respect of his fellow gladiators.
- There should have been more time given to the two gladiators that Maximus befriends (the big guy and the black hunter) and how they interact with him.
- There should have been an additional gladiator's fight in the Coliseum, and it should have been BEFORE the fight when Maximus reveals himself.
- Commodus should have killed Maximus, with treachery, but then either the pretorianii should have killed Commodus, or the veterans of Maximus should have stormed the Coliseum and kill pretorianii and Commodus.
- There should have been no mention of the desire of Marcus Aurelius to restore the Senate's power.
Too bad these changes would have ment another good hour or more added to the movie, and that would have made it too long for some folks with short attention span and too expensive (remember, short movies can be played more often in theatres!).
Just my unhumble opionion. -
Here's a messageboard I made for the fans of Gladiator...
http://pub14.ezboard.com/bgladiator91519 -
How can you not be in this TB?
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 419 total posts 209 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 131 total posts 129 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 123 total posts 122 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 124 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 191 total posts 47 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 43 total posts 43 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 42 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 27 total posts 27 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 506 total posts 26 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 77 total posts 24 posts