-

Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Why do so many people dislike Gladiator?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
219 replies to this topic

#1 of 220 Anthony_D

Anthony_D

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 163 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 13 2000

Posted February 17 2002 - 09:18 AM

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??
He's dead now. He was a thief...and a terrorist. But on the other hand, he had a tremendous singing voice.

#2 of 220 Matthew Chmiel

Matthew Chmiel

    Screenwriter

  • 2,284 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 26 2000

Posted February 17 2002 - 09:23 AM

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).


#3 of 220 RobertR

RobertR

    Lead Actor

  • 9,456 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 19 1998

Posted February 17 2002 - 09:26 AM

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.c...ladiateher.html

#4 of 220 Chuck Frady

Chuck Frady

    Second Unit

  • 257 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 14 1998

Posted February 17 2002 - 09:42 AM

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?

#5 of 220 Greg_Y

Greg_Y

    Screenwriter

  • 1,479 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 07 1999

Posted February 17 2002 - 09:49 AM

Quote:
Noone can convince me that William Miller was not the main character and carried this movie.

I don't believe that has anything to do with the requirements for an Academy Award.

Quote:
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.

#6 of 220 Anthony_D

Anthony_D

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 163 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 13 2000

Posted February 17 2002 - 09:56 AM

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
He's dead now. He was a thief...and a terrorist. But on the other hand, he had a tremendous singing voice.

#7 of 220 Matthew Chmiel

Matthew Chmiel

    Screenwriter

  • 2,284 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 26 2000

Posted February 17 2002 - 10:00 AM

Quote:
Unbreakable as an Oscar worthy movie?
You've got to be kidding right?

Yes and just for the reason it was light years better than Gladiator.

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


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


#8 of 220 Guy_K

Guy_K

    Second Unit

  • 471 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 14 2001

Posted February 17 2002 - 10:03 AM

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.

#9 of 220 Dan Brecher

Dan Brecher

    Producer

  • 3,452 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 08 1999

Posted February 17 2002 - 10:44 AM

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. Posted Image

Dan (UK)

#10 of 220 Greg_Y

Greg_Y

    Screenwriter

  • 1,479 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 07 1999

Posted February 17 2002 - 10:46 AM

Edited by author.

#11 of 220 Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Studio Mogul

  • 24,361 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted February 17 2002 - 10:48 AM

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

Greg, let's not take this thread off topic discussing Scott's other films.


Crawdaddy

Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 


#12 of 220 Greg_Y

Greg_Y

    Screenwriter

  • 1,479 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 07 1999

Posted February 17 2002 - 10:52 AM

Robert, point taken. Post edited.

#13 of 220 Dan Brecher

Dan Brecher

    Producer

  • 3,452 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 08 1999

Posted February 17 2002 - 11:00 AM

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

Damn straight! Old geezers and old movies, sir. Posted Image

Dan

#14 of 220 Bill J

Bill J

    Producer

  • 3,970 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 27 2001

Posted February 17 2002 - 11:07 AM

Quote:
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.


Anthony, the problem is that it's a little too much like those films. My biggest problem with Gladiator is that it's very unoriginal.

Quote:
...and great FX


You are joking right? The crowd looked like a video game. That's how bad the visual effects were in Gladiator. How did Gladiator beat The Perfect Storm in the visual effects category?

Also, I would like to mention that I did not find Gladiator to be entertaining at all. I almost fell asleep during it. What is more boring than a unoriginal film?

Quote:
Unbreakable as an Oscar worthy movie?


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

#15 of 220 Chuck Mayer

Chuck Mayer

    Lead Actor

  • 7,976 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 06 2001
  • Real Name:Chuck Mayer
  • LocationNorthern Virginia

Posted February 17 2002 - 11:11 AM

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 anywayPosted Image

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.
Hey buddy...did you just see a real bright light?

#16 of 220 Dalton

Dalton

    Screenwriter

  • 1,199 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 19 2001

Posted February 17 2002 - 11:41 AM

Quote:
No movie deserves an award...it just gets it
I agree completely Chuck.

#17 of 220 Brian Lawrence

Brian Lawrence

    Producer

  • 3,634 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 28 1998
  • Real Name:Brian

Posted February 17 2002 - 11:49 AM

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.

#18 of 220 Bill J

Bill J

    Producer

  • 3,970 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 27 2001

Posted February 17 2002 - 12:06 PM

I agree completely, Brian.

#19 of 220 Terrell

Terrell

    Producer

  • 3,217 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001

Posted February 17 2002 - 12:16 PM

Quote:
Yes and just for the reason it was light years better than Gladiator

Posted Image Thanks for making my day Matthew.

Gladiator is an incredible film with not a weak performance from any cast member. Compelling story with great character development. Best film of that year in my opinion.

Quote:
Anthony, the problem is that it's a little too much like those films. My biggest problem with Gladiator is that it's very unoriginal.


How is this film unoriginal Bill? A Roman epic hadn't been made in 40 years. I'd call it very original. Compared to 90% of the stuff released by Hollywood, it's one of the most original films you can get. As for it being like Spartacus and Ben-Hur, I didn't find any resemblence between them at all other than they're Roman epics.

Quote:
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.


You mean like FOTR! Oops, sorry, couldn't resist. Posted Image Gladiator did a great job in my opinion at developing characters. Oh well, I guess one sees what one wants to see.

Quote:
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.

#20 of 220 Alex Prosak

Alex Prosak

    Supporting Actor

  • 765 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 2001

Posted February 17 2002 - 12:23 PM

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.



Back to Movies (Theatrical)



Forum Nav Content I Follow