Gladiator

Some SPOILERS, methinks ...

Sorry, Steve, I've seen GLADIATOR four times already, and so far, no sunburst of UNSPEAKABLY Bad Production Values has burst upon these eyeballs. GLADIATOR is simply not as bad as you say. Yes, there was some silliness (like the army tents looking as if they have been decorated by the Curtain King) -- Yes, there were some glaring historical inaccuracies (the improbable finale, Commodus' singlehood, Marcus Aurelius' "murder," those stunning charioteer babes -- Yes, the plot is older than the Roman Empire ... but you know what? I was ENTERTAINED. (And I won't change my naive little mind any time soon.)

Sincerely,
Antoninus, Singer of Songs. I also juggle a little.

__________________
Pigsnie, Vicar of Fries!

Well I have been watching ya'll banter back and forth for awhile and I thought I would add my two cents.

I certainly thought that Gladiator was excellent movie, but definately not a cinematic masterpiece along the lines of 2001. I was entertained for 2 and a half hours and the replay value is high. I have watched it a number of times and have not gotten tired of watching it. I don't, however, feel it's worthy of best picture, or even a nomination. Wonder Boys, Crouching Tiger, Almost Famous, and a number of other movies were much better than Gladiator can ever hope to be.

SPOILER NOTICE (I don't even know if it needs it but just because):

Steve I never called the movie a masterpiece. The movie is pretty great though. I can only see one flaw in the entire movie and that is when Maximus is just picked up out of nowhere to go to Proximus's school of gladiators. Other than that I find the movie to be an extremely worthy movie for best picture. I love this movie so much because it uses color and lighting (i know you hate it) to get across feelings and tone, much like the trench and chatuau(thats some bad spelling) were used in Paths of Glory to show character. I think you might be the one who has mistaken this movie.

If I remember correctly, he was picked because he had a marking on him which indiciated that he was a military man of some sort. Seems reasonable enough to me. He also looks to be in good shape as well, of course.

You can't draw parallels between Gladiator and Paths of Glory, because while photography is essential to EVERY film, the trench and chateau are used (besides the obvious need for them) in Paths of Glory specifically for those reasons. The photography in Gladiator shows moods and feelings, but don't all films of substance do that? Whether the film is ugly or not, that's a matter of opinion, but the script is terrible, and the directing ain't so hot either. This can't be argued with a straight face, I'm sorry. There is a good movie hiding inside Gladiator somewhere, and this makes it all the more depressing that the film is being seen as great. People can be entertained with it all they want, but please don't call it a great film. It's not.

__________________
**** the Lakers!

Why, Steve? Go into specifics. Spare nothing. I hear you telling us it's bad, but I want to know why. If the actingi s horrible, list a few scenes that you found it particularly unbearable, and why. If the screenplay is poor, do the same.

Actually TWT, I think steve has already written a lot about why he hated glad. go back to the first pages and youll see.

__________________
God save Freddie Mercury!

The Paths of Glory thing was just due to the fact that I needed to relate it to a Kubrick movie, you know because Kubrick is the best. Anyways I think that this post has gone on to its fullest since all of our arguements have been posted already. Unless you guys want me to finish my analysis.

Yeah lets see the rest of your analysis and watch SteveN go all hysterical again, hahaha!!!!!! Boy he hates this movie more than I hate brocoli.

Gladiator is THE WORST movie of 2000. It passes horrible movies like Vertical Limit. I hate Gladiator!

__________________
You don't have to be sober to weigh spinach.

C'mon man, this goes in the Movie Reviews forum, which already has a thread on Gladiator (http://www.movieforums.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=613). On a side note, you and Steve will probably get along pretty well.

LOL

You a$$hole learn some freakin culture and taste!

Steve has told me to retract my earliear statement (in a way). So I would like to say that by useing the above stated terms I meant no ill will towards anyone. It was just used to express my idea that Fart has no idea what he is talking about, and that he should read the other forum. Thank you

Zwee, you make me laugh! Sincerly, PLite.

I watched Gladiator aired on TV and I found it quite interesting. I like Images inserted like skies, rocks and so on.

Actually it was first time for me to watch it and after it finished I've got many questions. I missed a lot maybe. Now, I have to go to a video rental shop and watch it again...maybe ...more.

Any scenes that I should watch carefully??

LOL.

LOL...Steve N.,what? Jeez...if I were maplet,I would be so confused.

If you remember the other Gladiator thread...

I'm not making fun of you Maplet, I'm just remembering our other thread that TWT will probably link you to sooner or later. It was a debate and a half. I won.

Won? If by won, you mean "continued to disagree," then yeah, you won. You said the dialogue, plot, and cinematogrophy was bad...we said it was good. Oh yeah, you kicked our butts. Anyway, criticize the acting if you want, but I don't know how you can criticize the cinematogrophy, the effects, or anything like that. It's a very professionally produced movie.