See Gladiator, because it RULES!!!

My review, originally posted at <a href=http://pub4.ezboard.com/bnicktheshadow>my board</a>:

PROS

First and foremost, the look of the film. The art design, the sets, the costumes, the photography - all these are done on the grandiose scale that is necessary to make an epic an epic. And in Gladiator, they are wonderful. It is arguably one of the most visually spectacular films of all time. For two and a half hours out of my life, I was in Ancient Rome. From a cinematographic standpoint, this is beyond The Messenger, beyond Three Kings, beyond Braveheart. It's almost on the level of Saving Private Ryan in terms of art design and direction in capturing the essence of the time period, if not its equal.

Secondly, the sound of the film. The sound editing is magnificent. Every arrow that is fired, every clash of swords, every clang of shields has a stunning kind of impact. This is the kind of film that you want to see in a theatre with the best digital sound system around. You want to hear this film in its full stereophonic glory. Adding to that is the musical score, which is easily the best ever to come from Hans Zimmer. The fights are augmented in adrenaline by drum-heavy fanfare, and emotional moments are exemplified through the usage of a lyrical theme that years from now, people can identify and say, "That's the theme from Gladiator."

Then there's the tremendous, towering performance from Russell Crowe as Maximus. Crowe would easily own this movie and overshadow everything if the film in itself was not created in such magnificence and sheer grandeur. He is powerful in this film, and personally, an even more convincing hero of the Roman times than Charleton Heston or Kirk Douglas ever were - and that is saying a lot. Furthermore, he is well balanced by the rest of the cast, which surprisingly does not look inferior in comparison. Joaquin Phoenix is stunningly evil as Commodus, who historically was a figure more despised than Julius Caesar. Richard Harris is great as Marcus Aurelius, though I still hold that his most memorable performance of late was as English Bob in Unforgiven. I could go on and on about the rest of the cast, which was basically without flaw, but my comments would begin to get repetitive.

The screenplay is strong. This is a film which I will have to watch over and over again so I learn the lines flawlessly, so I do not accidentally misquote some of the greatest lines. Also, the story is an exemplary blend of fact and fiction. Here you have a factual setting, with factual characters, but the main character himself and the plot in general are fictitious - and it's blended so well that one does not even need to care about historical accuracy anymore.

The ending, while it certainly doesn't pull a Braveheart, and is likely the most historically inaccurate part of the film (not like I care - see above), moved me. It was a satisfying closure to a truly epic film.

Also, the length and pacing of the film is fitting, I found. Some people are going to complain that this film is too long, but I would have to disagree. When the length is quantified, Gladiator is actually a little short for a film of its scale, sitting at only 150 minutes to Braveheart's 180 and Spartacus' 200; but the pacing is not so fast that it seems short, and by the end of it all it is really the perfect length.

CONS

There are two clichéd moments: a) someone passing by hears the enemy's secret plan and runs off to tell the hero, and b) the hero is pressured by the crowd to make the killing blow to one of his foes, but predictably doesn't do so (no real spoiler there). These two stand out as the two somewhat overdone, but necessary plot elements.

There are also few shots that look a little cheesy, all of which are surrealist, "dream" shots much like what Luc Besson did in The Messenger.

Besides these two concerns, I really don't have any peeves about this film at all.

OVERALL

Gladiator is an example of how films should be made nowadays and aren't. Only once every two or three years do we get a gem like this - aside from this film, the past decade has only seen Braveheart and Saving Private Ryan in terms of truly spectacular period pieces of such immense scale and grandeur. This film is definitely worth a viewing, if not more - I for one know that I will be seeing this film in theatres many, many times.

From a personal standpoint, I can safely say for the time being that this has become one of my favorite films ever, but I'll have to let it settle for a bit before I can make a clear, definite judgment. Also, I will have to see Braveheart yet again to see how these two films match up, because I cannot confidently take a definite stance on that comparison just yet.

"Those two giraffes you sold me, they won't mate. All they do is walk around and eat, but not mate. You sold me queer giraffes."
- Proximo, played by the late Oliver Reed

Thanks. Im seeing that movie later today

That movies was so good. I was about to make a topic about it, but you did it first.

When they first showed Rome from an arial view, I sat right in front of screen, and it was almost real. It made me somewhat dizzy.

I hate it when people or critics say the movie is bad because it is historically inaccurate. It's fiction. What the hell do they expect?

The acting was poor, especially in the beginning when comudus was crying in front of his father.

The parts when they showed Maximus' dreams were corny.

The graphics and sound were really good.

There are some flaws in the movie, but it really shouldn't get in the way because the movie was so good.

The ending annoyed me a bit. I just don't like those kinds of endings when the main character dies, or when the issues aren't completly solved. It kind of makes me feel uncomfortable because so see the main character do so much and ends up dead. It's hard to explain. If anyone feels that way and can better express themselves please do so.

That's kind of a big spoiler you put in your post there... warn the people... there could be people who haven't seen the film reading this thread...

Yeah, a warning maybe a good idea....I am one of those that haven't seen it yet.

whoops. sorry.....

can one of the admins delete the last part of my message?

You can edit your own message you know.

WARNING!!! SPOILER!!! DO NOT READ IF YOU DONT WAnT THE ENDING SPOiLE!!!

I thought it was funny how at the end everyone carried maximus's body away, while they left the emperors body just laying there.

Yeah... there's a point to it all, actually - I'm going to dig up my big post on FilmForce about that and repost it here later.

the queer giraffes were funy.

3.2 Strawberries.

For a piece of this scope, it was a glaring open stitch in the plot (to me) that Commodus' sum total evilness was that he 1) killed his father + 2) almost killed his nephew + 3) increased the frequency of the games + 4) tried to hang out with his sister + 5) wounded Maximus before the final duel.

That's not sufficiently evil for me to understand how the audience is supposed to swallow the premise that the entire existence of the Colloseum (!Outside This Movie!) is less evil.

It's like, hey guys! Forget that Rome sacrifices thousands of people in the arena! Just check out this evil guy Commodus and you'll see the entire evilness behind the Colluseum!!

The guy was just not evil enough for his times to merit the special attention he got from Maximus as far as hijacking the audience's concern.

Or wait.. were we just supposed to be watching one man's revenge.. and nothing that dealt with epic good and evil? I'm still not sure, after all the talk of Ideal of Rome, Noble Virtue, The People, The Senate and All That Rot. If you're going to talk about Rome as an ideal, at least speak to why the Colloseum is still there afterwards, if killing Commodus is supposed to be the solution to fixing the Empire. Gag me with a plot point.

On second thought, 3.1 Strawberries.

A momentus movie, but with things taken for granted that the audience wouldn't notice. Can't give the full 3.5 out of 5 Strawberries.

Spoiler alert here... minor, but still there...

Hernalt, I see the film as trying to express that the audience watching the film IS the audience in the Coliseum. For example, after Maximus kills opponent after opponent and turns to the audience and hollers, "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED? ISN'T THIS WHAT YOU CAME TO SEE?" he's indirectly talking to the audience in the theatre. So really, I think the presence of the Coliseum is really there for that effect...

Also, it's just that Commodus is historically regarded as a pretty bad guy of which nothing good can really be said. Maybe it didn't come across for you in the film as strongly as had been intended.

And besides, if you're dealing with the evilness of watching slaves kill each other for fun and sport... I never really felt that this film was about it. Spartacus is the film to watch for that kind of thing. Gladiator IS meant to be about revenge.

The only forgiving formula I can arrive at is that all the good guys kept talking noble this and noble that only to reinforce their subjective excuse for exacting revenge with the distinction of righteous crusade.

Any lesser, mortally mediocre revenge would be too petty to be the focus of so grand a film.

And proviso: Asking the audience to know Commodus' background may be asking a bit much. (Although I'm extremely weak on Roman history.) Asking the audience to understand the significance of the Colloseum, and the Roman Games in general, is not at all too much to ask. The audience should not require instruction (in a movie, no less) to fully grasp the inhumanity of the games.

I saw it tonight. It was good. The music was excellent and fit the theme, but I personally didn't find it too memorable. (Then again, once I get it from Napster and listen to it over and over again that could change )

I don't know why Commodus was so dumb to think that he could beat Maximus in a duel. Didn't he know that in most movies, the villains get killed by the heros? (although in this case both died)

The answer is because of the glory. He wanted to make a name for himself by killing Maximus in front of the people of Rome. He was also overconfident in his little scheme to mortally wound Maximus before the fight and stall him in the arena. "Only a famous death will do," he says.

I saw Gladiator tonight and here´s what I think of it. First comes what I see as positive things. I agree with IP that the music is fantastic. It is well done and enhances the movie experience. I really need to buy the soundtrack . I also think the actors do a great job. The look of the film is another thing that strikes me as overall well done, there are just some backgrounds in Rome that looks unreal.

The not so good part is the length. I find it to be too long so some parts could have been cut down like some of the scenes with the gladiator fighting. Still it is better than Braveheart. Also I did not find Maximus´s quest for revenge as interesting as the intrigue with the senate, the emperor and who should have the power over Rome. Here I like to comment on dmaul97´s points about the ending. That didn´t bother me at all, I thought it was a good way to end it. I mean, Rome ( or more correctly West Rome ) did not fall until aprox 300 years later. Therefore I feel that the end showed some of the complex part of history. There are processes that goes on for longer than a human life and the end captures that feeling.

Overall I find Gladiator to be very entertaining and it´s a movie I´m glad I saw it in the cinema. As the history freak I am I have to say the funniest moment was when Commodus said:

I am not good at history but even I know Carthage is supposed to lose this battle.

I got a few tracks from Napster and I was reminded of one of my thoughts while listening to the "battle music": it sounds pulled almost directly from Holst's Mars piece from "The Planets!" It isn't exactly the same of course but I guess Zimmer was inspired by it.

You know what? That's what I thought the first time around! Track 13 ("Barbarian Horde") opens just like "Mars" from The Planets - but after you get used to either one of them, you begin to see many startling differences and the similarity no longer strikes you.

Hehe, great minds think alike again
Or at least we recognize stuff

I thought of that musical similarity too. It did sound a lot like Holst.