The Movie Thread

renotime

Ostrich
Gold Member
I consider Gladiator to be one of my all-time favorite movies. It has such a timeless story of a noble and just leader of men, who has his life ripped apart by an ultimately weak and hugely insecure excuse for a man. The villain in the end gets what he deserves in a powerful tale of righteous revenge. I have a hard time deciding of the two films, Braveheart and Gladiator, which I prefer most...

"My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions and loyal servant to the TRUE emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next."


In death, he reunites with his slain family...


Iconic quotes from the classic film...


I guess I'm in the minority because I thought Gladiator kind of sucked, especially the cinematography. The whole movie was sepia toned. And ugh that cheesy dialogue. And of course his wife and kind only existed to die. I hear Rob Roy is better.
 

stugatz

Pelican
I guess I'm in the minority because I thought Gladiator kind of sucked, especially the cinematography. The whole movie was sepia toned. And ugh that cheesy dialogue. And of course his wife and kind only existed to die. I hear Rob Roy is better.
There’s apparently an even longer version of Gladiator nobody really asked for (ie Ridley Scott didn’t approve of the release) but it’s available. Too many “director’s cuts” with the advent of DVD and streaming.

I think the movie was pretty good, but Joaquin Phoenix was really the draw for me - he deserved a better movie with that performance.

EDIT: He played a good crazy but toned down Commodus, although they fictionalized him so much, the movie’s not something Roman history buffs would like. Commodus was in real life almost as bad as Caligula.
 

renotime

Ostrich
Gold Member
But what was good about it?

Even the action set pieces were weak. Ridley Scott zoomed in and you couldn't even tell what was going on. The only scene I liked was the opening battle and when they tried to kill Crowe in the beginning. Of course Crowe and Joaquin were solid, but they could only do so much.

Also the CGI was terrible.
 

stugatz

Pelican
I haven't seen it in twenty years, I'd have to rewatch before I responded. I just remember thinking it was good but nothing too special (at like 14) so I was never in a hurry to own it or anything. (Comparatively, I've seen Spartacus about ten times. With the troubled production that one had, it's a wonder it turned out so well.)

I actually forgot that Ridley Scott directed it - I'm now interested in seeing it again.
 

stugatz

Pelican
On the subject of "movies everyone else likes except me", I always hated Dances With Wolves and never understood the critical acclaim.

I usually dislike anything with Kevin Costner as the lead (I think I'm also one of the only people who didn't like The Untouchables). Field of Dreams was good, though. I don't think I'm going to watch Waterworld or The Postman anytime soon - although with this track record so far, I'm almost expecting to end up liking them.
 

Maddox

Robin
I guess I'm in the minority because I thought Gladiator kind of sucked, especially the cinematography. The whole movie was sepia toned. And ugh that cheesy dialogue. And of course his wife and kind only existed to die. I hear Rob Roy is better.
What cheesy dialogue?

IMO, the script is very good with better dialogue than most action movies.
 

DeWoken

Robin
The only 2 movies I'm interested in that have yet to come out are his Passion of the Christ sequel and the Sopranos prequel.
Good to hear he has some exciting projects lined up.

I have to say I have spent more time watching Gladiator than Braveheart and The Patriot combined. I re-watched the Gibson ones in the past few years but I'd have to re-watch again to do an accurate comparison. Having said that, I find Gladiator more focused, purer. Of course we all appreciate how Gibson brings up these important historical times and the side he takes. Somehow the historical inaccuracies - which I am not very good at picking out without wikipedia's help - bother me more in the Gibson movies than they do in Gladiator, maybe because it's 2000+ years in the past instead of only a few hundred. With the terrible shape our education system is in it would be nice if movies were truer to history. But then again an entertaining movie can only try so hard to compete with documentaries and plain-old dead trees and ink.

I guess I'm in the minority because I thought Gladiator kind of sucked, especially the cinematography. The whole movie was sepia toned. And ugh that cheesy dialogue. And of course his wife and kind only existed to die. I hear Rob Roy is better.
I think more of the wife would have been a distraction. I thought there was plenty of injustice and motivation for the hero. Rob Roy... yes, teen memories of watching that one. Always make sure your grip strength is up to snuff, boys ;)

When working on epics, Scott states, "there’s always the danger that the characters can get swamped" on a large canvas, before adding, "My model is David Lean, whose characters never got lost in the proscenium."[137]
As for the style aspects of sepia, shaky camera, and close-cropped shots, etc, they are merely tools to be wielded by the artist, to be used or misused. I thought the dialogue was great. I think there may be a comic book feel to Gladiator that is adept at taking you away from your daily worries: intoxicating. I am uncertain on the effect of the new scenes, though. Not pleased to hear Ridley Scott didn't okay the change. He is 83 now.

My main issue with The Patriot is that the church-burning sequence was pretty shameless manipulative, & seemed to try to be retroactively portraying the Redcoats as some kind of proto-Nazis. (That, and the whole sequence is very similar to a similar atrocity portrayed in the WWII film Come and See.)
This. While watching I definitely called BS on that scene and was vindicated by wikipedia. You know what they say, "show don't tell". "Why have all this dialogue about unfair taxes when we can just make them genocidal maniacs?" ;)

Most of the film's events occur in the Southern theater of the war. It stirred controversy due to its highly fictionalized portrayal of British figures and atrocities, including an ahistorical scene in which a church filled with colonists is locked and burned. In his review of the film, critic Roger Ebert wrote, "None of it has much to do with the historical reality of the Revolutionary War".[3]


I wouldn't expect too much 'based' collaborative work with Hollywoods blacklisted from either country though.

The interface of their movie industries with the outside world is controlled by the Cohens.

Just as China's rise has been stage managed by the Chosenites who have controlled their interface with the outside world since the 70s and before and just as Putins Russian administration has to play along with the Cohens to even survive.

They're not going to upset their masters/enablers/partners too much any time soon.

Interesting ...would like to know more.
 

renotime

Ostrich
Gold Member
What cheesy dialogue?

IMO, the script is very good with better dialogue than most action movies.

"On my signal, unleash hell."

"What we do in life echoes an eternity."

"Are you not entertained?"

It's pure melodrama. The script is very good compared to what, Lethal Weapon 3?

Go watch a movie like Point Break, Speed, or hell even Con Air. There's at least an air of silliness and humor to those. Gladiator is morose and dull.
 
"On my signal, unleash hell."

"What we do in life echoes an eternity."

"Are you not entertained?"

It's pure melodrama. The script is very good compared to what, Lethal Weapon 3?

Go watch a movie like Point Break, Speed, or hell even Con Air. There's at least an air of silliness and humor to those. Gladiator is morose and dull.

It's melodrama which works, due to the quality of the actors, the plot and the direction. Years later, Gladiator has a huge and loyal fanbase, due to such classic lines of dialogue, spoken by Russell Crowe, who was born to play that role. A historical epic is not going to have the tone of films like Point Break, Speed or Con Air. I think of Gladiator as a modern update of the classic sword & sandals film of the fifties and sixties.
 

renotime

Ostrich
Gold Member
Why would a period piece need a modern update?

Plot is always secondary to story and character, which Gladiator is severely lacking in both. And tone transcends all genres and subject matter. Films like Point Break have personality, whereas Gladiator is devoid of it.

Go back and watch it and tell me the action scenes are any good. Instead of using wide and medium shots, Scott zooms in and you can't even tell what's going on.

I have yet to see Spartacus, but I'm sure it's a million times better.
 

stugatz

Pelican
I have yet to see Spartacus, but I'm sure it's a million times better.
Eh, it's not fair to compare the two movies, but I can't easily think of a second "gladiator film".

Spartacus ended up (as far as I know) being de facto directed by Kirk Douglas when Kubrick started phoning it in while filming it. He wasn't the first director hired, and the project was something that he wasn't really in charge of compared to his other movies. There were some major disputes with the screenwriter during filming.

Overall, it's a wonder that it's still excellent. It doesn't feel like other Kubrick films and is a little jumbled. I was just relieved that it didn't end up feeling like a clone of Ben-Hur, which was a problem with historical epics in the early 1960s.
 

Max Roscoe

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
Rob Roy was a really good movie about Scottish fighting back against oppression. I found it very similar to the American view in something like The Patriot. Plus its the original Liam Neeson Tracks Down Kidnappers film.

There are very few modern films I enjoy.
Born a Champion was a good, heartwarming story with a Christian theme about a jiu jitsu champion. If you find the first 15 minutes, particularly the airplane scene, cheesy, just keep watching.

 

renotime

Ostrich
Gold Member
I watched Rob Roy last night and it was pretty dang entertaining.

Great cinematography, they gave it time to develop, solid characters, (Tim Roth plays a scumbag so well) and the sword fight at the end was great. Unlike Gladiator you could actually tell what was going on. They went with wide shots without cutting it to death. I also liked that everyone was trying to outwit each other instead of go toe to toe. It reminded me of early Game of Thrones episodes before it got all libtarded.

Solid movie all around.
 
The Guardian (2006) is a must watch if you haven’t already. An incredible story of bravery with Kevin Costner and Ashton Kutcher about the coast guard. Shows what it means to be a man, a human... to be ALIVE. Was also hated by the critics but shows the beauty of the simple things in life like courage, family etc.
 

stugatz

Pelican

Watching Frank Zappa's film 200 Motels. As a lifelong fan of his music, I'd been told to lower my expectations with this, as it didn't have much of a story, and it's aged very poorly. (I've also seen his concert film Baby Snakes, and that one was excruciating to get through the first time I watched it. It's 165 minutes!! What was he thinking with a concert film being as long as The Godfather? That one was saved by enough incredible footage with many musicians I love, but it needed to be at least an hour shorter.)

I've heard the soundtrack album associated with this film, and it took me ages to get through it - it's not only long, but the music has a far different tone than most of FZ's output, and it's got a lot of tedious orchestral filler that just kind of lies there. There's also this tendency to be pointlessly vulgar there that just made me roll my eyes - was this edgy even in 1971?

So far, I can't really make heads or tails of what I'm watching. The movie's this weird combo of REALLY stupid skits, good but uninspired concert footage, animated sequences, and general strangeness. Lots of dated effects like rotoscoping that are used way too often to really be effective. At the end, though, it's still a genuinely compelling watch that's hard to look away from. For some reason, Ringo Starr is the narrator, and he seems to be having a really good time, smiling throughout.
 

tothepoint

Woodpecker
Mad Max Fury Road was playing on TV tonight and it just reminded me how hooked I was when I watched in the cinema. Was expecting some chases, some stunts, a lone warrior taking on a bunch of savages like the old Mel Gibson movies. It has all that times 10. The action is relentless, the practical effects are 100 times crazier, everything is over the top, even the music. It's a shame Mel Gibson did not make a cameo appearance at least, although there is some speculation that the "new" Mad Max is actually one of the kids from the previous movies. I even like Charlize Theron's character, she puts in the work to look tough with a physically demanding performance.
It's a rare gem for action junkies.
 
Last edited:
Top