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

[Tom Ryan]

I was being slightly tongue-in-cheeck with that movie depth thing but I was thinking in terms of the number of movies made. Of course there are movies with great depth of script and dialogue that make you think (like Fight Club) but I don't think it's worth moaning about a thin script because a script is what you make of it.

Memento has an incredibly thin plot (watch it forwards to be sure) but it's a great movie (IMO) and I bet in the opinions of many of the people here slagging off Gladiator.

Fact is we aren't having this discussion about The Matrix. Why? Probably because (a) it didn't win oscars which is probably partly down to (b) it is Sci-Fi and there for it's assumed that is must be shallow.

Part of the problem is that Hollywood used to love historical epics. Since Gladiator is in the hostorical mould it gets laid into for actually just being good fun. And since it's not Sci-Fi it is allowed to win best picture despite that

Well, personally I think Memento has a great plot.....it's not extremely original (noir, murder mystery, etc.) but it's executed perfectly.

Secondly, The Matrix actually did win Oscars. It won four Oscars (technical categories), second only to American Beauty that year.

As for this thread, I just say......to each his own. If you like the film, buy it, if you don't then don't buy it. The Academy Awards are awarded according to the opinions of the Academy members, and if you disagree it's no big deal.

-Tom

 

[DaveF]

... for me the idea of Unbreakable coming any where near any kind of award would be a sign of the apocalypse. It's crap.

I think your comments about Unbreakable (a good movie, with an interesting, novel plot) answer your first question: one man's good plot is another's dreck.

 

[Michael Caicedo]

I think that what I've learned from this and the other Riddley Scott thread is that Riddley Scott has something to offer nearly everyone. Some like Gladiator, some like Alien, some love Blade Runner and some Thelma & Louise (come on Rain, admit you calling him a 'hack' was over the line ). As far as Gladiator, it is a great popcorn movie - that's all. Someone on this board once said that movies are like beef - some are filet mignon and some are hamburger. Well, Gladiator is great hamburger and I'm in the mood for hamburger.

 

[Steve Clark]

An honest question: does Gladiator have any relevance to your life other than the themes of honor, courage, and other manly-man stuff?

An honest answer: No. Since when is power, politics, honor, courage, betrayal, loyalty, redemption, revenge, love, war, MANLY themes. They seem rather universal themes to me.

Quote]saying that Gladiator was the best film of the year is a strech, a real strech.

No, American Beauty and Shakespeare in Love as Best Pictures, now there is a real stretch!

 

[Brian_J]

Who said the most meaningful movie is to win the Oscar? Save that one for theatre class.

----------------------------------------------------------

I don't understand this mentality: "The best movie of the year should be the one that entertains you the most, not the one which has the most relevance to your life." ???

Its quite simple for me really. A movie has one specific initial requirement and that is to entertain me. "Entertain" can mean a number of different things, not just "fun". To put it another way, a movie must hook me, so that I actually care about what they are about to show me. If you cannot do that then I dont care how educational and meaningful what you have to say/show is because you have already lost your audience.

Brian

 

[RobR]

Yes it does. It means the movie excelled in many, many different areas such as direction, acting, costumes, cinematography, music and technical. And the Best Picture nod and four other Oscar wins only validates this. I am not a big fan of LOTR, but its 13 nominations definitely get my attention. If it wins several awards like Gladiator, it will then garner my respect.

I feel sorry for anyone who bases his or her opinion and respect on how many awards a movie receives. Take a look at AFI Top 100 and you'll see that the list is seriously lacking in Best Picture winners. That Russell Crowe received Best Actor for his role in Gladiator rather than The Insider tells me that the Academy Awards mean nothing.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Brian, you have confused "check your brain" popcorn flicks with "good" popcorn flicks.
Raiders and Gladiator are GOOD popcorn flicks. Tomb Raider is a BAD popcorn flick. This is why so many of us get bent out of shape over the "check your brain at the door" comment to justify a popcorn flick, as if Raiders of the Lost Ark or Star Wars are realistic scripts with no gaps in realistic logic.
No, they are fun films with well-written but fantasy scripts. Mindless fun but thoughtfully written and produced. Gladiator is that too, though I don't put it on their level of popcorn writing.
The problem with Gladiator following the themes from those other films (Roman epics) is that it does LESS with them, nothing new and fresh. LITERALLY the only NEW thing in Gladiator is visual style and FX. If it was filmed in 1960 it would seem very much like a 2nd rate Spartacus.
As I've said before, where Gladiator ENDS it's storyline, those other films are only halfway through. It's not enough for Judah to kill Messalla, it's not even enough to find his mother and sister alive. It's not enough for Spartacus to lead the slave revolt.
That's where Gladiator stopped short.

I think Scott was wrong to remove almost all of the deleted scenes from the film that we find on the DVD.

I agree. I think he could have run with some other subplot regarding the difficulty of replacing one leader with another, or in what it was he really wanted. In the end here was the moral dilemma Maximus was in.....none.
He only had "must kill Commodus" on his mind, always. We touched on a possible escape, revolt and power transition, but Maximus never had to sort that out because Scott nips it in the bud before it can begin. I mean I didn't even understand what the skullduggery had to do with the film. Without it Maximus is going to simply kill Commodus, with these subplots half-baked he does the exact same thing without having to think about it.
Maximus has no doubts about his actions ever, never has to consider other options. That's a one-dimensionally scripted character that Crowe overcame and brought to life. It's also your standard popcorn protaganist. At best he "won't kill him when the boy is near, I'll wait till when he's safe". Again the flat popcorn protaganist.
Spartacus and Judah had to deal with what it meant to get revenge, to take power, to have the chance to rise in Roman status. Judah suffered more for his one dimensional "revenge" thought pattern and we are shown how this thinking is actually counter-productive to his life. He is FORCED to develop beyond that. Gladiator pulls up well short of that point.
Was Payback an Oscar calliber script? Explain to me how it was any different, literally. I would love to see the contrasts pointed out to me. And, "it wasn't Rome" is not a narrative theme contrast.
BTW, plots can be simple while still having DEEP CHARACTERS. To Kill a Mockingbird has a simple plotline with very deep characters.
Finally, a pro-Glad point. I do think that early on the close-up and slo-mo pause effects that were so obviously "borrowed" from SPR (Scott admits it I realize) had a specific point. Unfortunately I think SPR already covered that point as well. Maximus, while great at battle, is also disturbed by the carnage of war and sick of it. Just like those exact same styled scenes in SPR showed Hanks as being - battle weary despite being a good leader.
To me the fact that it jocked so heavily both in style and USE OF STYLE from the very recent and high-profile SPR took away from it's "freshness". But I did understand why we were tightening up on Maximus later in the opening battle.
I also thought the pre-Rome visuals were outstanding. Only the incredibly fake looking Rome bothered me regarding CGI.
Also, the close-cutting action in the colisium hurt the impact of those action sequences. I still think seeing Judah literally bouncing over his chariot is far more dramatic than 1 second cuts of body parts being chopped off.
Popcorn flicks should be able to win Oscars, but I thought CTHD was the BETTER popcorn flick. I didn't think Gladiator was on the Oscar-calliber popcorn flick level. To me that would be a Raiders or Star Wars calliber film which I do think should have won for Best Pix.

 

[Terrell]

The only problem with that Rob is, people slam the Oscars and whine and moan say the Academy Awards doesn't mean anything when their favorite film doesn't win. But when their favorite film does win and get a lot of nominations, they praise the Oscars and proclaim it the most meaninful thing ever......aka the greatest thing since sliced bread. That's the hypocrisy that I see most where the Oscars are concerned.
Oops! I did it again.

 

[Bill J]

people slam the Oscars and whine and moan say the Academy Awards doesn't mean anything when their favorite film doesn't win. But when their favorite film does win and get a lot of nominations, they praise the Oscars and proclaim it the most meaninful thing ever

Terrell, I definately see your point, especially with all this The Lord of the Rings stuff.

I don't think that any of my favorite films have ever really won a lot of awards. Well, maybe films like The Godfather, Platoon, Schindler's List, Patton, Lawrence of Arabia etc have all won for best picture, but I don't need the Academy to tell me that those are great films, I can figure that out for myself. I still stand by my opinion that of the last 10-12 best picture winners, only Schindler's List deserved to win.

 

[Seth Paxton]

And Terrell, I'm clearly on record as saying the Oscars are good awards, as accurate as any other critical group (including us) and are always in the ballpark.
I've pointed out many times that here at HTF Gladiator was voted the #7 picture of 2000. That told me that while I disagreed with it winning, it was far from a "crime" or travesty.
And to me Gladiator was the biggest "mistake" the Academy has made in years. Heck, most of the time I think they are correct even. Certainly within my first few choices at least. So all-things considered I didn't find the Gladiator win too bad, though a bit boring since we all saw it coming as the most obvious choice. But that happens many years.
I thought Titanic deserved it, but it was still unclimatic to see that actually happen. Kinda like the favorite team winning. No reason they shouldn't, but I think we all find underdog wins more exciting.

 

[Terrell]

I wasn't talking about LOTR specifically Bill. I was only talking about how people criticize them for films they didn't want to win, and praise them and build their favorite films up with the Academy awards them. Either you don't think the Oscars means much, or you do and just don't want to admit it when films that you didn't want to win end up doing so.
Not talking about anyone in particular, just people in general. I think the Academy Award at least has a bit of significance. But sometimes while watching them, I catch myself saying "this is BS" when my favorite film doesn't win. Then I have to correct myself.
All I can say is I love Gladiator, and I thought it was the best picture last year. Only Traffic came close to me. I wouldn't have been terribly disappointed with a Traffic win. CTHD wasn't bad, but nowhere near my Top 5.
And Bill, most of my favorite films haven't won either. The original Star Wars films are my favorites. All 3 are in a tie for my #1. All 3 Indiana Jones films and Gladiator are tied for #2. Oh hell, I know it's silly. But I can't choose between the original 3 Star Wars film, and can't choose between Gladiator and Indiana Jones Trilogy. I really can't choose period. However, only Gladiator has won. And that doesn't bother me if none of my other favorites ever win. They're still my favorites.

 

[Bill J]

So you got 7 films as your top 2? I find that very interesting. I have similar problems like when I make a top ten list or something similar. It's easy for me to list 10, 20, 50, 100 or whatever great films, but it's VERY difficult to rank them. I think I got my top five down, but it gets hard for anything beyond that.

 

[MatthewVielkind]

Gladiator is a terrible movie simply because it's nearly an exact clone of movies like Ben-Hur and Sparticus. The special effects draw people away from following the plot and people don't relize that the plot is very shallow. That's what I think about Gladiator.

 

[Bill J]

Gladiator is a terrible movie simply because it's nearly an exact clone of movies like Ben-Hur and Sparticus. The special effects draw people away from following the plot and people don't relize that the plot is very shallow. That's what I think about Gladiator.

That's a good way to sum it up. I agree with you 100%.

 

[Terrell]

I can't pick Bill. It's just too damn hard. If I was pressed to choose my favorite Star Wars film, it would be as follows.
1. The Empire Strikes Back
2. Star Wars
3. Return of the Jedi
But all 3 are so good that I can't pick. The same with Indiana Jones and Gladiator.
Matthew, I completely disagree with everything you said. But to each his own. Sorry, I just can't seem to stay away Robert. I know, I'm a liar.

 

[Bill J]

I guess Gladiator is one of the those films you think is either horrible or tied for second on your top ten list.

 

[Terrell]

Tied with all three Indiana Jones films no less. Let me rephrase. I could pick my favorite 10 or 20 films if I had to do. But I don't do it because I don't like doing it. It's pointless to me because I love so many films and I don't want to have to choose between them. But if I had to pick, here you go.
1. Empire Strikes Back
2. Star Wars
3. Return of the Jedi
4. Raiders of the Lost Ark
5. Gladiator
Okay, I can't go any further. That was hard enough as is.

 

[Tom Ryan]

Tied with all three Indiana Jones films no less. Let me rephrase. I could pick my favorite 10 or 20 films if I had to do. But I don't do it because I don't like doing it. It's pointless to me because I love so many films and I don't want to have to choose between them. But if I had to pick, here you go.

1. Empire Strikes Back

2. Star Wars

3. Return of the Jedi

4. Raiders of the Lost Ark

5. Gladiator

Well at least you don't put TPM above any of the original trilogy! I know a guy who liked TPM better than ANH, which to me (ANH is my #1 favorite film), is blasphemous.

I kind of have a top 5 going..........it's becoming more solid as I go, but I don't include more than one film from a given series (I'd have a hard time fitting ESB into its proper place in the mix):

1. Star Wars (1977)

2. Fight Club (1999)

3. The Godfather (1972)

4. The Matrix (1999)

5. Raiders Of The Lost Ark (1981)

#5 is really hard for me, because I love SO many Spielberg films so much........should I pick Jaws, or CE3K, or Raiders, or Schindler's List, or Saving Private Ryan......but right now I'm defaulting to Raiders even though I've seen Jaws more.

-Tom

 

[Terrell]

Hmm, I loved TPM, despite the flaws. But it's not as good as the originals. You're right, that's blasphemous. Hmm, Raiders could be interchanged with Return of the Jedi on my list, possibly.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Well, for once I'm siding with Terrell. I loved Gladiator when I first saw it and I still do. I just re-read my old review and though I do go a bit overboard with my praise (I was a young critic back then), I'd still call Gladiator a 4.5 star movie.
Go on. Berate me!