Why do so many people dislike Gladiator? (1 Viewer)

[Anthony_D]

Just curious...I thought it was a great film in the tradition of the old hollywood epics like Spartacus, Ben-Hur, El Cid and Fall of the Roman Empire.

I saw it for the first time just a few weeks ago and since that time, I've been watching it again and again...I see in some of the other threads that people rip it as an unworthy oscar winner, but it was very deserving IMHO. Great action and acting and directing...and great FX.

So what gives?? Why is it suddenly unpopular??

 

[Matthew Chmiel]

I enjoyed it as what it was... a large 150 minute popcorn movie. Nothing more, nothing less.
Did it deserve the best picture win? No, as there were more films out there that deserved it more like Almost Famous, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Requiem for a Dream, Unbreakable, or You Can Count On Me (just to name a few).

 

[RobertR]

Here's a very well written critique of the film that eloquently expresses why some people (including me) didn't think that highly of it:
http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s119gladiateher.html

 

[Chuck Frady]

Matthew,

Unbreakable as an Oscar worthy movie?

You've got to be kidding right?

Also, what's with Kate Hudson getting Oscar consideration, when Patrick Fugit was the true star of this movie. I don't understand why a pretty face is all you need to get a golden globe and Oscar mention. Noone can convince me that William Miller was not the main character and carried this movie.

Gladiator was very entertaining. Isn't that enough to win Best Picture?

 

[Greg_Y]

Gladiator was very entertaining. Isn't that enough to win Best Picture?

Yes, it was enough to win Best Picture. Does that make it a great movie? Not in my book. My cats are entertaining too. I wouldn't expect someone to present them with an award.

 

[Anthony_D]

Well, its all in what you consider to be great...great is subjective just like MVP in baseball is very subjective...its damn near impossible to set standards on sujects such as these.

I suppose we will just have wait and see how Gladiator stands the test of time

 

[Matthew Chmiel]

Quote:

In a few years it'll be forgotten just like most big blockbuster popcorn movies (like ID4).

 

[Guy_K]

Personally, I thought Patrick Fugit was pretty horrid in Almost Famous.

As for Gladiator, I agree, it was a good popcorn film, but not deserving of the more important films that year (of the nominated films CTHD or Traffic would have been better winners).

I thought it would have been interesting if Amores Perros took best foreign film that year, and Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon took best picture.

 

[Dan Brecher]

I found Gladiator to be an entertaining enough romp but I was let down by what I felt to be the placing of style before content, something I've honestly felt with most of Ridley Scott's films.
I've always felt on a technical level the man is a genius, but when it comes to my want for more three dimensional characters and perfomances from his casts I am often let down, and indded Gladiator was no exception.
My friend, who loved the movie, nevertheless shared my surprise when Crowe got best actor for the Maximus role ("he basically grunted his way though the movie" my friend said, which makes me chuckle to this day). Indeed, good enough as the performance is, given the rather shallow screenplay, it is Crowe's worst role. He is an absolutely excellent actor and the Academy had two great chances to give him a golden statue prior to last year.
I lost slight admiration for Scott in his visual approach to Gladiator. For me, the mass of (at times, questionable) CGI and digital matte paintings along with various aspects of the editing threw me out of the movie now and again. Hans Zimmer's overly synthesized score didn't help matters.
I've no idea if seeing Spartacus in 70mm when I was nine years old had anything to do with my feelings toward how I ultimately took to Gladiator. A lot of people claim the latter as epic, well, fair enough, but in my mind it remains spectacle and little more. Gladiator had exceptional talent behind it in many areas, had the script been stronger, more original and emotional such talent could have been put to greater use.
I do enjoy the movie, it's good entertainment and a mighty fine DVD.
Dan (UK)

 

[Greg_Y]

Edited by author.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Ouch! Dan, you've been hanging around too many old geezers such as myself.
Greg, let's not take this thread off topic discussing Scott's other films.
Crawdaddy

 

[Greg_Y]

Robert, point taken. Post edited.

 

[Dan Brecher]

Dan, you've been hanging around too many old geezers such as myself.

Damn straight! Old geezers and old movies, sir.
Dan

 

[Bill J]

Unbreakable as an Oscar worthy movie?

Unbreakable was pure shit. It was one of the only films worse than Gladiator that year.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I was happy to see it get the Oscar. Not because I thought it was the best film of the year (whether I did or not is irrelevant, but because it wasn't their "style." With all this talk on this forum of "deserving" Oscars, this movie did more in 2000 to entertain me than most. No movie deserves an award...it just gets it. Gladiator was fine by me. As for Russell, while I have preferred him in other roles, his turn here was absolutely tremendous, and this movie can thank HIM for it's BP win. With a lesser actor, this would have been complete trash (even with Ridley). Which is how some feel anyway
Take care,
Chuck
And P.S. - I loved Unbreakable. It was subtle and quiet, unlike most of Hollywood's big films. Count me on agreeing with Matt here.

 

[Dalton]

No movie deserves an award...it just gets it

I agree completely Chuck.

 

[Brian Lawrence]

For me Gladiator was a failure because I was not compelled by a single character in the whole movie. I did not feel anything for Maximus at any point in the film nor did I feel any remorse for him when his family was killed, as his wife and kid in the film where nothing more than a plot point. Gladiator is a film that wants to be an epic yet does not want to spend the necessary time to develope it's characters beyond what the paper thin threadbare storyline requires to get from point A to point B.
Gladiator is a car that has a sleek and glossy body but no engine to give it life. A film so devoid of personallity and emotion that it makes that other revenge bent sword and sandal tale Conan the Barbarion feel like 'Wuthering Heights'.
In short, A dull, empty, and souless movie that lacks any pulse. Not the worst film ever made, Not by a longshot, But still a pretty poor movie in my opinion.

 

[Bill J]

I agree completely, Brian.

 

[Terrell]

No film deserves and award. It just gets it.

Well said. Oh well, I realize I'm in the extreme minority here, so I'll just stop while I'm ahead. I thought it was tremendous, and so did a lot of other people.

 

[Alex Prosak]

I think that visually, Gladiator was a good movie and the actions scenes were excellent. Too bad there was so little action. I didn't find any of the characters to be mildly interesting. To be honest, I almost fell asleep in the theater.

Russel Crowe is a great actor and was certainly deserving of on Oscar the year before for his role in The Insider. Which, unfortunately, he didn't receive. His acting in Gladiator was so so, I guess there's only so much he could do with the script. Joaquin Phoenix's acting belongs in the Commodus, I mean commode. Seriously, I've seen better acting in stag films than in Gladiator.

I was stunned and highly disappointed that 'the Academy' couldn't see through the hype and marketing of this film. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Traffic were so much better and deserving of the Best Picture award than Gladiator.