Gladiator? yea. right.

[stefanb]

Help, I've been robbed and I can't get back 3 hours of my life. This was the most over-hyped, historically inacurate venture since ~The Man In The Iron Mask~ rewrote history before our very eyes not too long ago. To begin with, the character Maximus is completely fictional. that would be easy to deal with if it was the only problem we had to over look. Unfortunatly, It's also known that Marcus Aurelius died of the plague in a military camp. Gee, you mean he wasn't suffocated? No. Commodus' partner was his cousin, not his sister (frankly why would anyone not from Alabama want to nail their own sister? Not as if cousin is better, but it's a step up from sister at least). It's true that Commodus (played by Joaquin Phoenix) did step into the arena to fight gladiators, and he won every battle he ever fought. This wasn't really because of his skill, but simply because the opposing gladiators would submit in exchange for their life being spared (historically Commodus never killed an opponent). Finally, and by far the most glaring error, was that Commodus was strangled to death in his bath by an athlete in a conspiracy arranged by his mistress. He wasn't killed in the gladiators arena by the fictional character, Maximus, or anyone who ever did actually exist for real.

[QUENTIN]

Thank you stefanb for being the first person who agree's with me that this film is not nearly as good as people make it out to be.

[Jaden]

Well ok....and I suppose you liked Titanic with it's Factual portrayal of Rose DeWitt Bukater and Jack Dawson. Come on people, that's why they call it fiction. Why can't someone use characters in a work that share the names and sometimes physical and character attributes of someone who may have existed only to say "what if instead of this happening this happened..."

In this context "Gladiator" sounds like it might be toying with the idea of posing a question surrounding the true reason for the end of Marcus Aurelius. What if he didn't die from a plague, what if he was killed...who would have had the motive? hmmmm. Possibly the successor to the "throne"...

We do know that those kinds of things happen a lot back then.

Besides history has a habit of distorting through time for this exact reason. And the Romans were suckers for entertainment at the theatre.

[stefanb]

Oh that's crap. Titanic was a true event, and the movie was adding fictional people to the real event, and telling their story.

Gladiator, takes REAL people, and tells a fictional story by completely butchering what actually happened. If their goal was to just "tell a story", then don't use real names. Make up a fictional name of a fictional Roman Emporer, and get as stupid as you want to after that.

Fine, let's assume Marcus Aurelius didn't die of the plague, and he was suffocated. What's up with the whole hollywood ending where they have Commodus murdered in the middle of the colliseum (sp?) by a gladiator. COME ON! Now there's 10 milion people running around the streets in the dilusion that they actually know something about Roman history. BAH!

[Jaden]

well think about it.....if you change one event....you change all events after that....so fictionally speaking if it was murder and not illness, why wouldn't it be easy to believe that there "could" have been revenge.

Besides, considering that they all ate off of pewter dinnerware and lead based glazed ceramics...it's a wonder that they didn't live without more forms of derangement and insanity.

Nowhere in any Advertisment or marketing of Gladiator did they EVER say it was a true story or even based off of a true story....So if there are 10 million people out there believing it is true Roman history, well that's a testament to the idiocy and educational lacking of the general public. And when I say that, I am referring to the general public that also believes everything they read. Besides, there are people out there who believe that Spock is a real person too and the Federation of Planets is a real institution.

If history books and programs always portrayed absolute history, then history texts would never be written and re-written and revised, and ammended to. And that is what helps fictional writers be more believable. In fact, there's book out there called "I Killed Hemmingway". It's about a person who claims to have killed Hemmingway as opposed to the commonly held belief that it was suicide. And he is telling his story a biographer who works for a publisher who doesn't care if it really happened or not, just that it sounds real. Because believability makes for good fiction.

I don't take the events in the story of Gladiator as documentary....and neither should anyone else.

I look at the elements, the war strategies and methods, the costume, the hair, the culture, the overall portrayal of the "empire"...the entertainment, the slavery...and blah blah blah......and try to look at how accurate they were with those aspects. Of course Gladiator wasn't true to history when you looked at the specifics, that much is or should be obvious.

So yes, the Titanic was a real event, and the film observed fictional characters in localized fictional events amidst the real event....But how is that different from the Roman Empire, Army and Caesarship being real things, and then fictionalizing characters in a fictional series of events within the real setting?? Sounds the same to me.

It's called creative fictional license.
Would you have felt better if the story revolved around the same characters only with different names? Probably not, because then you, being so learned in the Ancient History of Europe at that time, would have complained that there where no such important people in the Empire and how that never could never have happened.

That's what the disclaimer at the end of the film about characters being fictional and any resemblence being coincidnece is for

I guess Gladiator is Damned if it does and Damned if it doesn't.

[This message has been edited by Jaden (edited 06-19-2000).]

[doctor drew]

hey stefanb,
I've read your rant on Gladiator and I can't help myself but ask one question "How do glaring historical alterations make Gladiator a bad movie?" Does the fact that the relationships, deaths or names were changed affect the acting, the directing or cinematography? Just because you're a history buff doesn't make you a film critic, because bad historical information has nothing to do with the film. The film is about the elements of revenge and redemption, not whether he slept with his sister or his cousin. If you base your commments on the background work of the writers, man, I guess acting and emotion and storytelling have nothing to do with the film. In this day and age where plotless blockbusters saturate the silver screens, this film was an excellent surprise. Russel Crowe is a fine actor and I thoroughly enjoyed the film from all aspects, that's why I'm so adamant to defend it.

'drew.

ps: When did historical innacuracies ever drag down a good movie? (for worse alterations, see U-571, where the Brits became Americans, even worse)

[Jaden]

Here! Here! Doctor Drew.....I am glad I am not the only one!!

[QUENTIN]

Gladiator is a plotless blockbuster that has saturated the silver screen drew.

[doctor drew]

for plotless blockbusters, see the following in consecutive order:
1)Godzilla
2)Independence Day
2)Men In Black (god, that was awful)
3)Deep Impact
4)Armageddon

have fun, and try not to throw up. tell me all about the "thought provoking" plotlines.

next to these films, Gladiator deserves an Academy Award for best picture.

'drew

[HomerSimpson]

Doctor Drew, leave Men in Black the fuck alone! It was pretty fucking fun!

[Jaden]

"Men in Black" was stupid. It was no more than someone's pet project to show off their CG aliens and Hype up Will Smith's video. Can you say "copy and paste"?

Don't forget to mention the following plotless wonders Doctor Drew,

Blair Witch (not scary, predictable and boring)
&
Mission to Mars (anti-climactic, and condecending)

[HomerSimpson]

If you only saw CGI aliens in MIB, you missed a lot! You missed a pretty fucking cool and funny movie.

[QUENTIN]

I agree with drew's picks of plotless blockbusters (sorry Homer but I didn't much care for MIB) but one thing Armageddon(horrible movie) is more plotless Deep Impact (bad movie).

[HomerSimpson]

I can agree with Armageddon being much worse than Deep Impact though I thought Deep Impact was a good movie. Morgan Freeman delivered one of his best performances.

[QUENTIN]

Homer go watch The Shawshank Redemption, Glory, Street Smart, Se7en, Kiss The Girls, Driving Miss Daisy, and when Nurse Betty comes to theaters go see it. Those my friend have Morgan Freeman's best performances. As for Deep Impact I guess it's not terrible 6/10.

[HomerSimpson]

I've already seen Se7en and Driving Miss Daisy. I just thought Morgan Freeman made a pretty good movie president.

[QUENTIN]

He did make a good movie president but I thought it certainly wasn't his best performance. He is one of my 5 favorite actors and has had (in my opinion) many a better role than Deep Impact. You said you had seen Se7en and Driving Miss Daisy does that mean you haven't seen The Shawshank Redemption, Glory, and Street Smart?

[HomerSimpson]

Nope, I still haven't seen them. Give me a break, QUENTIN, I've been a movie geek for only half a year now, I have yet to see some great movies.

[QUENTIN]

Sorry Homer I'll give you a break I know it's hard to keep up when your just starting out as a film geek. Although I have to say the next time you go to your video store you should check out Shawshank it's a truly great movie.

[hornytony]

Homer you should take Quentin's advice. The Shawshank Redemptions is such a wonderful movie. Freeman gives a great performance as does Robbins.

[HomerSimpson]

OK, I'll rent it tonight since I always rent movies in Tuesday.

[stefanb]

damn QUENTIN, we could get along just fine trapped in a theatre with nothing to argue about except what movies to play. Aside from agreement that Gladiator was a waste of perfectly good blank film, I think Shawshank is the undisputed best movie ever made. I can't think of anything that was even close to it. My only regret is some dumbass wrecked the ending for me before I saw it the first time.

In responce going WAY BACK UP the board here...

>> I've read your rant on Gladiator and I
>> can't help myself but ask one question
>> "How do glaring historical alterations
>> make Gladiator a bad movie?"

Typically, they don't. 'The man in the iron mask' was terribly ignorant of french history, but I thought it was an ok story. I love John Malkovich (sp?) flicks, and it made a great "what if" movie even though they used real names and fairy tale events. As for Gladiator, I don't get it. Why have a character who wants to nail his own sister? It wasn't true... Who writes this crap? It's pathetically unrealistic unless you watch too much Jerry Springer. The movie was WAY WAY WAY too long. Gimme the film reel, sissors, scotch tape and a couple hours, and I'll bring you back a good 100-120 min flick that avoids sex within immediate family members, and just tells a story. It had no relevance in the movie. There's a million thing I hated about it. It was an attempt to awe the audience with action, and ignore any chance of a real story-line. Stack it on the pile with Armegeddon, Godzilla, and Independence Day. crap. crap. crap. crap. But I agree with Homer. Leave men in black alone. It was damn funny.

[stefanb]

Oh crap. I forgot to bash 'Airforce 1' in that list. the all-time, number 1, undefeted, unchallenged, piece of shit to ever come down the pipe.

[Jaden]

The relevence was to support her character's participation in the story.....Because she was a woman she could not take the throne even though she was better suited than Commodus...and since Commodus coveted that aspect of her as he did many other things in the story, that was the closest thing to real competance of power he could get, by overpowering her he felt it made him stronger and more powerful. Same reason in the film he wanted to defeat Maximus even though he knew he couldn't...so that he could be better than the gladiator favorite in front of his people.

The sister thing was about his doubt his own power.

[QUENTIN]

Well stef god knows I'd love to be alone with you trapped in a dark theater /ubb/smile.gif I too love The Shawshank Redemption it is in my opinion the greatest prison film ever and one of my 50 favorite films. We certainly agree on films (That shows what great taste you have /ubb/smile.gif)and I would love to see a list of your favorite films, directors, actors some time on the top ten lists forum.

[stefanb]

Well, dispite my better judgement that says keep this converstion about the movies, Jaden, you are on some serious drugs. Perhaps paint, or maybe even glue. Not just regular ol white glue either - no no no - we're talking industrial strength glue.

Why in the f#(<!ng hell would anyone assume that his desire to have his sister bare his child (heir), shows his doubt in his own power. The could have had any woman play that role...

This is petty. I'm finished this stupid topic. Moving on, moving on....

[Jaden]

BECAUSE he knew that his father was going to give the throne to Maximus, and that if he could have....his first choice was going to be Commodus' sister. To Commodus it was bad enough to be third choice, but it was even worse to be third over a woman....and to have his own blood sister take sides with Maximus over him made him want to re-affirm to his delusional self that he was not a weak caesar.

And no, I am not on drugs and I haven't touched a tube of paint in almost a year. My primary mode of work is digital graphic design if you MUST know.

And what makes this discussion petty? you asked, I answered with my thoughts on that. Don't get so tore out. That's what this forum is for!! Geesh!!! Am I right JoBlo?? Is this forum for disussing individual interpretations on films in the theatre or not?

[Tuukka]

I love you Jaden. A really smart answer!

[stefanb]

Well, the paint/glue comment proably should have been left out. Sorry. Anyway, to argure this more then....

For starters, HE DID NOT KNOW Marcus Aurelius was going to give the thrown to Maximus. COME ON! THIS WAS OBVIOUS! The whole carriage ride at the beginning showed he was confident it was about to be handed to him. Even when he was called into the tent where he killed his father, he still thought it was about to be given to him.

My point here is that it didn't add anything to the story. Nothing at all. They could have just went with history and made her character his cousin, then at least there'd be no argument here because hey, it would have really happened that way. This movie could have been made by just pitting him against Maximus and leaving her out completely! I suppose wanting to 'do' your own sister must be a more common practice in your neck of the woods, so it didn't seem nearly as stupid and pointless to the overall story. Furthermore, I just didn't like the over-all movie. I'll grant the fact that Russel Crowe did an absolutly AWESOME job in the role, but Joaquin Phoenix was terrible, and most of the characters had no development at all. Just for kicks, I read the Ebert review of this movie, and he agreed with me on that point.

They never really explain Maximus' complicated history with Commodus' sister.

For all the major battle scenes, they make your head into a ping-pong ball cutting from one shot to the next to the next to the next to the next so fast to try and cover up for their shaddy job on special effects.

I could have probably overlooked the gross historical blunders, the lack of clear battle scenes, and even the absurde brother-sister thing, if only there had been a good story underneath it. I just personally don't think there was very much here except a strong lead actor, and an attempt at fancy battle scenes which were quite frankly put to shame if compared to a movie like Barveheart.

But don't listen to me: http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2000/05/050501.html

[This message has been edited by stefanb (edited 06-22-2000).]

[Tuukka]

An answer to Stefanb:

First of all, it seems quite obvious that the confusing visual style of the battles was an artistic decicion. Scott tried to capture the feeling of how it is to be in a fight. And being in a fight is confusing. I doubt they were trying to hide crappy sfx, because the sfx in battle scenes was quite simple, with the exception of tigers (yes, they looked a bit fake)

Most people seems to think that the fights were very exciting, so I guess Scott made the right decicion.

Do you know what kind of person the real life Commodus was? He was in fact a lot more sick person than the one in movie. He had a harem of hundreds of young boys and girls in his palace. The idea that he was sexually fucked up doesn't seem so far out to me. What's exactly your problem with the brother-sister relation in the movie? Most of the Caecars were a bit loose in the head.

The film was not supposed to be a documentary. Just about EVERY historical film has inaccuracies, some minor, some major.

Stefanb. You defended Titanic because it was a true event and the characters were fictional. Titanic is in many ways telling false history. For example there are only two classes of people in the boat. In reality there were three classes. The middle classes were totally removed from the film to make the difference between the rich and
the poor more obvious. So I quess you hate Titanic as well? (It also has predictable story and one-dimensional characters, althought I thought the film was rather good)

They explain the history of Maximus and the sister of Commodus well enough. There is no need for more. What else did you want to know of them?

I agree that Phoenix is over-acting badly at times and that the story is routine and predictable. That still doesn't make it a bad movie. It has superb direction, cinematography and acting. As for Ebert's review, it has really bad arguments. I already commented his review in the movie questions section.

Could it be that the film is a bit too overhyped? I find hard to believe that some people hate this film so much. I guess they are just annoyed because of all the praising. I thought the film was really good, but it's not a GREAT film.

[Tuukka]

Oh, and a one more thing:

The fact that the girl was his sister didn't necessarily bring anything to the story, but it didn't take anything away either. All movies have subplots, which don't necessarily add anything to the main plot.

The fact that she was his sister made the subplot more interesting in my mind. But that's really a question of opinion.

[hornytony]

I think showing how much he liked his sister actually shows how much he is twisted. Without out that we would not see him as much as an evil person.

[stefanb]

With your last sentence, I TOTALLY agree with you there. Yes, this is infact because it was overhyped. Completely true. If it'd been 'just another movie' coming out, then I may have enjoyed it more. However, this was plugged as a huge summer blockbuster movie extravaganza, and it ended up to be a let down for me. I expect more from the big titles. I won't even start on Armegeddon and how miserable of a let down I found it to be.

In responce to:

"Most people seems to think that the fights were very exciting, so I guess Scott made the right decicion."

Speak for yourself, not "most people". I'm offering ~*!-MY-!*~ opinion of the movie, and you're certainly not the hired representative of the other 300 million people living here. I've found lots of critisism of the fight scenes being choppy and blurry, so I suppose I can start speaking for "Most people" now. I thougt that concept worked well for "Any Given Sunday" and "Saving Private Ryan" in order to give the feeling the audience was right in the action. It didn't work (for me) in this movie. I think it wold have been much better with a panned out (audience perspective) and longer, un-cut shots of the fights.

For my very very very last comment on the brother-sister thing, then argue it all you want and I'm not bothering with this specific incident anymore (not so much as another word on it)... For me, it comes down very plainly and simply to this.

- It's not historically true.

- It didn't add to the overall movie's story line (AKA - the movie would have worked without it, and the audience would have still hated Commodus without it - the real goal there is to make the audience hate him so they root for his death at the end)

- It's just plain sick/stupid. sick and stupid is ok if it is required for the story, OR if it was true. This was neither. Leave it alone.

You said:
"They explain the history of Maximus and the sister of Commodus well enough. There is no need for more. What else did you want to know of them?"

I don't think they gave enough history behind them to warrant us believing he's still so pissed at her after 7 years, that he'd refuse her help and not even want to see her.

This isn't about Titanic, but... They never specifically showed second class, but they also never specifically said it didn't exist. In the making of, they commented that Titanic's second class, was the equivilent of most other ship's first class, so they weren't outright hiding the fact it existed, they just ignored it to create a better contrast between the really rich and the really poor. It would have been far stupider to add another story into the movie involing second class passengers... How many people are we supposed to follow in one movie? Frankly, I thought it made a good show. I've seen it once, and I'm not claiming it's awesome. I just didn't hate it, and I thought it earned some of it's hype for being well written.

[This message has been edited by stefanb (edited 06-22-2000).]

[Tuukka]

Here we go again...

First of all: Calm down a bit stefanb, you have made many good arguments, so nothing against you.

I said "most people" referring to blockbuster status it has and the mostly very positive criticism it has had at least here in Europe. And just check the critics at Joblo's. According to reviews at here and elsewhere, people seem to particularly enjoy the action sequences.

My point was how many people claim that Gladiator has bad cinemtography. In fact it has good cinematography. It's really a matter of opinion whether you prefer subjective or objective visual style in action sequences. If you prefer the subjective style, then you have to admit that Gldiator was well made. It wasn't great like in Private Ryan, but it was good.

I have to admit I don't mind if films leave some things unexplained. Maximus and Lucilla were lovers, when they were younger. When you are left by somone you love, it can cause great bitterness. That's enough explanation for me.

Besides I thought Maximus was bitter to life in general and filled with foolish pride. I didn't think he had any real hatred against Lucilla. I might be wrong on this. Have to check it on video.

No need to comment on the sister/brother thing anymore. We have both made our points and everyone can decide on their own what to think about it.

I like Titanic also, but it was similar to Gladiator in the sense that it was overhyped and a so-so script was saved by mostly good cast, superb visuals and good direction. And it also had a bad guy, who overacted pretty badly! Ok. Enough of Titanic.

...I think this is a really good conversation people are having in here. We actually try to give well thought arguments instead of shouting "I THINK GLADIATOR IS GREAT / CRAP AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES IS AN IDIOT".

Does Jaden has any new comments? /ubb/wink.gif

[stefanb]

I agree to that. Short, dumb comments really really suck bad!! Yea! /ubb/smile.gif

(I hope people see the sarcasim in what I just did and aren't dumb enough to accuse me of doing what I just condemned)


Aside from......
A good argument, yes indeed. All in all, I didn't like the movie, but it wasn't ~terrible~. It was just a let down from what I expected, and not as well written as I'd of expected. It had strong acting from all but Phoenix in my opinion. I'll never watch it again, but I do see why others may have liked it. It just wasn't my ball of wax. I think we've beaten this to death now....

[Jaden]

I think, all I have left to contribute to the character perversion aspect of this film and the relevence of it is to ask;

Caligula anyone?

Now there's one of the Roman Empires fucked up Emperors. Sleeps with his sister, kills anyone who questions or upsets him, gives his horse political office, and dies an appropriate death in the end....I am actually surprised no one has made this comparison yet, especially Ancient Roman Guru Stefanb. To me Commodus is a toned down version of Caligula's character.

What do you expect from over extended ego-inflated, lead and pewter poisioned people? Somethin's gotta give.

Oh yeah, gotta add one more comment about the use of names in this movie...Who's to say that the name Commodus wasn't like the names Bob or Mary used today...common. Lord knows Marcus was. Although I want to believe that all the names had some specific translatory meaning relevent to the film's underlying themes too.

And thank you Tuukka, I love you too.

[stefanb]

According to Ebert's review, the name "Commodus" comes from the Latin for "convenient". Just an FYI - I don't see how important it is, but...

Just for the record, I'm not a Roman history (or any history) buff. However, when checking out flicks based on historical events, I like to look up all the background info on the real people, and do a bunch of reading and so on before going. A lot of times it really takes away any confusion that might exist from going in uneducated. I know I said I'd drop the sister topic completely, but let's just say for the moment it was completely true. Then, when the friends I went with started mumbling about how stupid and disgusting it was, I could have leaned over and defended the poor script writer by saying it actually did happen that way. Unfortunately, with this one I should'a just waltzed right in and grabbed a chair. /ubb/smile.gif

[Jaden]

Oh and by the way, if you choose to see Caligula...make sure you get the full 160 minute version...not the one that has been edited to 90 minutes. the 160 minute version will be hard to track down, but it'll be worth it. I personally don't know how they can edit an hour and ten minutes from a film and still retain some form of coherency to the original film. To me it would be a whole other movie.

[Jaden]

Don't feel bad Stefanb. /ubb/smile.gif I can totally understand your feelings for the contemporary audience taking film fiction as fact.

In Art College I took a bunch of classes on Ancient Mediterranean Culture....mostly for the Art History, but they threw in a lot of relevant cultural history too. My personal favorites were the Minoans /ubb/wink.gif...but I have volumes on Romans (Etruscan Pre-Roman Empire), Egypt, Greece, and parts of Babylonian and Mesopotamian cultures since they all traded with each other.

But I have given up on these people who believe everything they see on the screen is 100% accurate. It's their own fault for not pursuing the history further than the film. But I didn't think anything was too out of line. Never look at the characters or story as fact..most likely it is not...but look at everything else...the setting, the cinematography..most likely it is based off of a lot of correct info.

Something about this post really reminds me of the Blair Witch Project movie. /ubb/rolleyes.gif A lot of people automatically took to it like it was fact too. Even with Forrest Gump people were falling for the believability of the characters. My sister worked at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa and couldn't believe the number of calls requesting his Enrollment Records. /ubb/rolleyes.gif It just goes to show that a lot of people are gullible...

But I think the believability of characters in movies like these is what makes them so successful. It shows that the people involved with casting, acting, and developing characters are doing a really fantastic job. /ubb/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Jaden (edited 06-22-2000).]

[Jaden]

"According to Ebert's review, the name "Commodus" comes from the Latin for "convenient". Just an FYI - I don't see how important it is, but..."
- Stefanb

OMG, I just thought about it a little bit...It can be significant in a few ways, here's a couple of my thoughts on this.

1. Commodus = Convenient
Everything about his Character comes about from convenience. /ubb/smile.gif

2. Commodus = Convenient
Everything his Character does is because it is convenient to do so. /ubb/smile.gif

3. Commodus = Convenient
The writers chose this name because it was convenient. /ubb/biggrin.gif ROFLMAO

What a funny little joke that is.

Heh Heh, I love it when things like that happen.

[dysdaemonist]

Jaden, the writers did not name Commodos Commodos because it was convenient, they named him Commodos because that actually was Marcus Aurelius' son. Though I must say, Caligula was surprisingly good (funny, entertaining, violent, sexy) for being made by penthouse of all people. It was historically accurate (well for the most part) and Malcolm McDowell, my god, what a great Caligula! For another good one see I, Claudius. Back to the subject though...Gladiator was, and is, an overrated movie! I liked the movie, I did. High points include the battle sequences (except for the beginning one, the same reason I hated saving private ryan [yeah yeah, I'll definitely take hate for hating ryan]). All of the gladiator battle were superb, despite the fact that when Titus fell down his visor flew up, but then Maximus walked up and lifted the visor with his axe (it was clearly a spring-action visor and probably wouldn't have fell down). Low points include the poor cinematography, the far too many emotional scenes, the far too many prayer scenes, the portrayal of Marcus Aurelius as a true "hero" considering he was one of the most noted conquerors in history, the score (what happened to zimmer's better scores??), the cgi, the sword catching on fire when it was stuck in the tree at the beginning, the scenes of elysium, the huge snot rocket Russell Crowe blew on his dead wife's foot, and the fact that scenes drag on, man! Some things are commonly criticized that I don't agree with, however. Namely Joaquin Phoenix's performance. I thought he played Commodos well considering the movie distorted the history of Commodos beyond belief (Commodos ruled for a decent length of time after his father's death! He depleted most of the wealth in Rome on foolish things and -especially- the games, his favourite. Very Much like Caligula and the bad emperors). Also, see his performance in 8mm which is definitely not overacted (though 8mm was a crappy movie). In fact, the best part of the movie was the reading about Claudius and the "busy, busy, bees." General sloppiness in the movie however prevents it from being an "epic." For one, it does not stir up emotions at all. I really didn't care about Maximus and in fact I thought it was funny when the cavalry whacked his little boy with the sword (he was running to it, thinking they were friendly, laugh). A couple of times I hoped Commodos would kill him, I mean come on, nobody disrespects the emperor! I wholly doubt that less than 100 days into his rule the crowd would care about some beaten down general who betrayed Rome by negating Commodos his military assitance!!! When Commodos first came in to power, people liked it because they liked the games! Now granted, a few years in, when Commodos serious molested the economy, people hated him. But this was just too much to swallow, especially his highly premature death. Why is Gladiator able to be hated for its historical innaccuracies while other movies with minor innaccuracies are not? I'll tell you why: Gladiator FELT like it was modern! Why do films like Braveheart, and 1492: COP (another Ridley film) succeed? Because even though they are historically inaccurate, they capture the true mood of the era!! And they do not draw facts so out of line that it can no longer be called historical fiction but blatant hatred for history. Namely there were no glaring anachronisms in those movies. In gladiator, we see stirrups and FLYERS printed out on laser printers!!!!!!!! Historically any such flyer (gladiatorus violentae) would've been hand painted but there were loads of copies that looked like they clearly were produced from printing methods not around at the time. Flyers were not that common! Of course this is nitpicking from someone who awaits a film about Rome to be filmed in the latin language and subtitled in English (that would be the ultimate cool). I'm not bashing gladiator, it's just overrated!! It's not an epic!! It's fun to watch for the gladiator battles..It's just I'm tired of "gladiator was the best movie I've ever seen dawg!"

[Jaden]

Yeah I thought I had made it clear I was just being silly and joking around with the name thing...I was only kidding and trying to maintain a lightened mood....heh heh. Sorry about that.

Anyway, my husband and I were just saying the other day that most of the people who are complaining about Gladiator not being as histroically acurate as can be often neglect the fact that if it was historically acurate as can be they would have been reading subtitles the whole time. But instead of enjoying it most would probably complain about the subtitles.

Oh well, I guess Gladiator is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. But I for one enjoyed it for what it was....which was a movie. A visual work of fiction.

[stefanb]

Actually, I'd love the subtitles. I watched "Life is Beautiful", and had the option of selecting the english-dubbed version, but I left it in Itallian. That was Itallian, right? It's been quite a while now since I watched it... Don't shoot me if I'm mistaken please. Anyway, subtitles don't bother me. Acting is so much more then what they say. It's HOW they say it, and these pathetically dubbed movies always sound cheesy. After 10 minutes of reading subtitles, you really almost forget you're doing it. It's as if you actually understand what they're saying (unless you still read at a grade 3 level). Frankly, the idea of a latin script movie doesn't appeal to me. Yes, it would be great, but how many people know latin? Not too many. So, on that logic, how many decent actors know latin. Probably none. You end up trading good actors for proper dialog. It's a bad exchange. However, dubbing to English is far more terrible.

My all time favorite funny moment in a theatre was watching Les Miserables (sp?). This is of course set in France, but everyone speaks crystal-clear English. In the one scene, the girl is about to run-away and leave for England and asks the guy she's with to come with her. The guy says "I can't go to England". She asks "Why not?" Right then I leaned over to the friend I was watching it with and said "well duh - It's because he doesn't know how to speak English". It probably seems dumb for you to read it now, but it was funny as hell when we were there and we managed to piss off everyone surrounding us cause we couldn't stop laughing.

Back to the point... I like the fact the films are done in English. I think they should be in whatever language suits the actors. That doesn't mean I want them to film 'Lethal Weapon 5' in Spanish just because they fing some good Spanish actors, but for a movie like this, do you actually want to see a bunch of pathetic latin students stumbling through a movie like Gladiator by over-acting everything. Hell no, to me, the only thing this movie had going for it was an awesome lead acting role. And quite frankly I'm impressed by how much weight the guy managed to drop in such a short time between filming "The Insider" and filming "Gladiator". But that's a whole new topic.

[dysdaemonist]

well, good actors don't have to know latin..they could memorize latin lines with the help of someone who knows how to pronounce the words-it could be made up since latin sounds cool
not that i'm saying i'd actually like to see a movie made in latin, but that would be a sort of novelty

[Jessica3000]

I agree with doctor drew with what he said about the plotless blockbusters except for MIB. I liked that movie.