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

[Steve Enemark]

Seth- I agree with you about the great shots from FOTR you mentioned. However, the fight with the cave troll and the fight between Strider and the Ring Wraiths at Weathertop both suffered from the quick-cut, up-close style.
I was disappointed that the sword fights in FOTR were shot this way, I was looking forward to some great sword work, which is all too rare in genre films these days. Thank you George Lucas and Ang Lee, for keeping the hope alive!

 

[Ryan Peter]

I just felt his review of this film was weak.

'"Gladiator" is being hailed by those with short memories as the equal of "Spartacus" and "Ben-Hur." This is more like "Spartacus Lite." Or dark. It's only necessary to think back a few months, to Julie Taymor's "Titus," for a film set in ancient Rome that's immeasurably better to look at. The visual accomplishment of "Titus" shames "Gladiator," and its story is a whole heck of a lot better than the "Gladiator" screenplay, even if Shakespeare didn't make his Titus the only undefeated champion in Roman history.'

 

[Robert Crawford]

Terrell,

For somebody who keeps saying he is going to bow out of this discussion, you still keep coming back. Why? To defend the honor of "Gladiator" which really doesn't need any defense since it won the "Gold" sort to speak, no matter what the HTF film snobs of which I'm one of them, think of this mediocre film that somehow won so many Oscars. We can dissect it and tear it apart as being unworthy of such honors but the one thing we can't do is change history. In time, the most "Gladiator" naysayers can hope for is that over time, it will be considered as among the weakest films ever to be awarded a Best Picture AA similar to what many think of "Rocky" and "Driving Miss Daisy". Both of latter movies were very good films in some aspects but Best Picture material, that's a bit of a stretch.

Crawdaddy

 

[mark_d]

My description to a friend was "Death Wish 150AD"

But I loved it. Found it immensely entertaining. I wasn't a big fan of Traffic and thought CTHD was uneven, though still enjoyable.

I have no problem if the academy give the nod to the film they had the most fun watching.

I see this thread descending into the old debate about how to quantify a movie's greatness. Or maybe it will do what most threads do that I contribute to: die...

Mark

 

[Marc Colella]

. It's made the most sense to me that way.

LOL!
I do a similar thing... when I mention Gladiator I say "Ze Gladiator" with an Arnold Schwarzenegger accent.
My reasoning is I feel that Gladiator is nothing more than a popcorn action flick trying to disguise itself as something more important. The word "cheese" also comes to mind when I think of this movie.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

This post has little to do with Gladiator and more to do with a continuation of what was said earlier...
A few quotes to start us...


Quote:



...a popcorn action flick trying to disguise itself as something more important.





Quote:



...being unworthy of such honors...





Quote:



...not "Oscar caliber" work usually. Fun, yes. Dramatically compelling showcase for intelligent scripting and acting, no.





Quote:



...hardly best-picture worthy.





And finally (Seth again

),

Quote:



It shows that the Academy also recognizes entertainment (which they should). Films are about both entertaining and generating thought. There was a time when they Academy wouldn't give a popcorn film a 2nd thought. Those days are over.





Again, my major problem with the awards is how serious Hollywood (and many film-fans, myself included) takes them. Hollywood is not, has not been, and likely will not be, a significant instrument of change in our society. While I have no doubt some here could cite instances where Hollywood has made some sort of minor difference, it is not nearly the educator and social conscience it makes itself out to be. These are simply movies we watch, be they The English Patient or Spy Kids. Some move us more than others, some are more well-made than others, some are, yes, more intelligent than others...but in the end, they are all movies. It probably makes us feel better when we choose a film with serious undertones to win...like we didn't just pay $8 to be entertained. It's like a shelf full of literary classics...people love to have them in their library provided they don't have to read them.

I don't agree with using words like worthy, deserving, or important when we discuss AA's. Look at who votes...do you want them deciding how you think or what the direction of our society should be? Did you choose them to vote? IT'S A POPULARITY CONTEST IN HOLLYWOOD. Any "importance" is decided upon by the likes of Tom Hanks and Gwyneth Paltrow. I love the films myself, and I enjoy the awards, but I will not wrap them in some false sense of meaning. Even Schindler's List was made TO MAKE MONEY. That it did more is a credit to it's makers. I am not trying to diminish these films or their accomplishments. But they don't belong on a pedestal either. It's sort of sad that their is a "Oscar winner" template. Hardly celebrating diversity. Just remember, National Lampoon's Animal House is probably far more well-loved and respected than most Oscar winners put together. And that's probably deserved. As always, your views will vary.

Take care,
Chuck

P.S. If I used your quote, please take no offense. If I misconstrued your words, it was not intended. Except for Seth...you get what you deserve

P.P.S. I'll post in this in the Oscar thread as well...if only to draw more fire.

 

[DaveF]

I've only seen Gladiator once, in the theater, so I'm running from (distant) memory.
I enjoyed it. I'd give it 4/5. And I wasn't surprised it won Best Pic: It was "Best" in that it was a crowd-pleaser; it was big, flashy, exciting, violent, and appealed to our most base desires.
Here then are some thoughts on what people dislike about it (including myself):
- There were "better" movies. Gladiator was not subtle; it made no attempt to examine the nuances of human behavior. The story was simple. It was a pop-ficton novel beating out a timeless classic for "Best Novel".
- It came very close to becoming what it despised -- preaching against senseless violence for mass entertainment, but using needless violence to amuse the masses.
- It was a revenge flick presented as a story of noble intents (the same thing bothers me about The Patriot).
Having said that, I don't understand the negative remarks about its visual effects. Granted, I've only seen it the once, but I was dazzled and impressed by the creation of ancient Rome. To my (unsophisticated?) eye, the effects were nearly flawless and completely effective.
I also particularly enjoyed the opening battle (Romans against Germanic hordes). The presentation of the Roman army as the high-tech, military super-power of its time was intriguing, compelling, and in some ways, educational.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Personal opinions of Gladiator aside, is there a rule that says that all the great movies, or those that win Academy Awards, have to be artsy or "deep" or subtle? This is Hollywood we're talking about here. Spectacle and epic is part of the tradition of Tinsel Town.

Perhaps a better qualification of ranking movies is "does the movie succeed in what it was trying to do?" If so, then I would say Gladiator passes. It was a big fancy-schmancy Roman gladiator flick, and it did that well.

If the big criticism is "it didn't deserve the Academy Award, therefore it sucks," then that's just a little sad. Why place so much emphasis on that stupid statue? Who cares what awards it wins? Overrated by the Acadamy doesn't mean it was Overrated, just overrated by that small group of people. If anything is overrated, it's the Academy Awards.

It's stuff like this that convinces me that the Oscars do more harm than good.

 

[Terrell]

Ryan, I don't know what you consider it, but those comments are in my opinion very weak critiques on those are very weak.

'The story line is "Rocky" on downers....'

I mean really, is that the best one of the world's foremost film critics had to say about the story? His major criticisms were about the color palette, the mood, and the overcast days. All I can do is roll my eyes at that.
Robert, I don't understand the intent of your post. Is it to tell me I'm wrong, or is it to tell me to stop posting? And yes, I said I'd bow out, but I didn't. Not the first time I've said that. Okay, since few seem to like this film as much as I, and I'm getting hammered from every direction with arguments, I'll bow out for good.

 

[Holadem]

I am no fan of Gladiator (Brian summed up my feelings exactly) but I believe the Joaquin Phoenix's performance made the movie worth it. I have never seen anyone express themselves negative feelings with such silent intensity, save perhaps Ralph Fiennes. The expression on his face as the crowd was yelling "Live! Live!..." on the first meeting in the arena is unparalleled. He is IMO one the coolest bad guys in history and the only thing really that I like about this "epic".

--

Holadem

 

[RobR]

Even Schindler's List was made TO MAKE MONEY. That it did more is a credit to it's makers.

There are a number of movies that Spielberg could've made instead of Schindler's List that would have made MORE money. Not all directors make movies just to make money. Moreover, Spielberg's salary for directing Schindler's List didn't go into his own pocket.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

RobR, I was showcasing a point with the Schindler's List comment. I admit to illustrating it better in the Oscars discussion thread. In short, I was discussing Universal, not Spielberg. It was to make a point, not discuss Schindler's List. Just to clarify
Take care,
Chuck

 

[Brian_J]

I am no fan of Gladiator (Brian summed up my feelings exactly) but I believe the Joaquin Phoenix's performance made the movie worth it. I have never seen anyone express themselves negative feelings with such silent intensity, save perhaps Ralph Fiennes. The expression on his face as the crowd was yelling "Live! Live!..." on the first meeting in the arena is unparalleled. He is IMO one the coolest bad guys in history and the only thing really that I like about this "epic".

I also agree that Phoenix's performance was excellent. Interesting, since in putting down Scott's directing in another thread Rain indicated that his performance was "laughable."

And by the way, I actually think Ryan made Terrell's points for him with those Ebert quotes.

Brian

 

[Matt Stone]

Oscar worthy...not Oscar worthy...I can't believe this discussion is still going on, hehe. Personally I loved the film the first time I saw it at the theater...went back again with friends and didn't like it nearly as much. Since whether it was Oscar-worthy or not is such a split issue, I think it pops up "on the bubble" so to speak...and I can deal with the fact that it's nominated.
As for Terrell's comments on the color pallete issues...

Well, the color palette used was perfect. What did he expect, an explosion of bright color? This is Rome and gladiators. The color palette fit perfectly. And he said the film had no joy. Hello, a lot of great films have no joy.

Specifically..."This is Rome and gladiators." I don't know about you Terrell, but I'm not 100% sure what "Rome and Gladiators" looked like 2000+ years ago. I can't comment on if the color pallete "fit perfectly" because I've never been to Pe-Birth-of-Christ Rome.

 

[Marc Colella]

There are a number of movies that Spielberg could've made instead of Schindler's List that would have made MORE money.

The fact that Schindler's List was an English speaking movie proves that Spielberg still had a genuine concern for his boxoffice draw. A foriegn language film would have brought in a much smaller audience.

 

[Tom Ryan]

The fact that Schindler's List was an English speaking movie proves that Spielberg still had a genuine concern for his boxoffice draw. A foriegn language film would have brought in a much smaller audience.

That doesn't make sense at all. Making a film with foreign characters speaking English is a long-used practice that is more effective for telling a story to an English-speaking audience. And no, that doesn't have anything to do with box office. Spielberg is an English-speaking American and he made the film to have its greatest impact on the same demographic.

-Tom

 

[Mike Broadman]

Pe-Birth-of-Christ Rome

Just to nitpick a little, I believe Marcus Aurelius was emperor after Christ was born, but before Christianity became the Empire's state religion. By my estimation, the film takes place 100-150 AD.

 

[Marc Colella]

And no, that doesn't have anything to do with box office...

Ya, sure.

And his recent casting decisions had nothing to do with boxoffice draw either.

 

[Tom-G]

The biggest problem I have with Gladiator is that is basically a retelling of Fall of the Roman Empire with the herky-jerky camera movements that Steven Spielberg used so effectively in the beginning of Saving Private Ryan. That camera work was effective for the latter, but not for the former.

Ridley Scott has an eye for visuals in all of his films, but he doesn't flesh out the characters of his movies as much as I would like him to. The last great film that he did (prior to Black Hawk Down) was Blade Runner. That's a pretty lengthy slump.

Another thing that bothered me about Gladiator was the sub-par special effects. For the most part I'm not very critical when it comes to special effects. If the story is a good one, I can be forgiving of poor FX. In Gladiator, the director who has such a good eye for visuals let some terrible computer generated effects make its way into the movie. How did this happen? Most of the shots of the crowd in the Colosseum were noticeably bad. The fly over shot of the Colosseum was absolutely wretched. I'm still in disbelief that this film won an award for special effects. What makes it worse is that just two years earlier we were treated to ground-breaking effects in The Matrix and The Phantom Menace yet Gladiator wasn't even on par with those two films in the FX category.

I enjoyed all of the actors performances. Russell Crowe is a tremendous. Joaquin Phoenix gave Commodus a dark and twisted edge even if his "spoiled rich kid" character was cliched. Richard Harris is an accomplished actor and did great as always. Acting isn't the weak point of this movie. The weaknesses are in the script and production.

Gladiator is hardly a terrible film, but nor is the caliber of some of the other best picture films in Oscar history. I would have rather seen Traffic or Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon win BP but I'm not bitter that Gladiator was bestowed such an honor.

 

[Steeve Bergeron]

You guys are crazy! Gladiator is a great film!