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

[Terrell]

Too bad there was so little action.

Okay, before I duck out, are you serious Alex? You can feel how you want, but I certainly don't see how anyone could complain about a lack of action. This movie had tons of action.

 

[Alex Prosak]

Well, I may have been a bit harsh with the lack of action comment. It's just that the acting inbetween the action scenes was so bad and boring that they seemed to last forever...

 

[Steve_Ch]

I thought it should be "Why do so many people LIKE Gladiator?".

 

[Dan Brecher]

Joaquin Phoenix's acting belongs in the Commodus, I mean commode. Seriously, I've seen better acting in stag films than in Gladiator.

The Commodus character was a painfully generic two dimensional spoilt rich kid role, it's not so much Joaquin's fault. Like I said the shallow plot really lets an extremely talented cast and crew down. Phoenix got nominated for this instead of his fine performance that same year in Quills which was a great shame.

Dan

 

[Terrell]

I thought it should be "Why do so many people LIKE Gladiator?".

Well, I guess it's correct to say that the overwhelming majority liked it. So I guess you're right. But maybe he knew this was hometheaterforum.com and not the general public.

 

[Bill J]

Terrell, have you seen The Fall of the Roman Empire?

 

[Terrell]

Most of it, but not the entire film. Yes, very similar stories, but not all that similar in style, at least to me. Also co-starred Obi-Wan. I do remember this film lying about it's intent, where at the end it said this was the beginning of the fall of the Roman Empire. Well duh, but I thought I was going to see the fall of the Empire. But I was referring to Spartacus and Ben-Hur, which neither of the two are similar except for a few elements. Whatever the case, Gladiator is not a completely unoriginal film, and as I said before, if you're going to criticize it for being unoriginal, you might as well criticize 90% of the stuff Hollywood puts out.
I'm not going to argue this point too much, because my feelings on Gladiator are far different than most here, and I'll get hammered left and right. All I will say is that the acting in this film was top notch. The cinematography was excellent. The battle scenes were incredible. I also thought the story was moving. So be it. I thought it was better than the other films that were going against it, which in my opinion were far less original. Oh well!

 

[Seth Paxton]

Phoenix DESTROYED his Gladiator effort with his role in Quills. I found it laughable (actually sad) that his Glad work got nominated over his Quills work.
In Glad. his character is made of cartoonish cliched behavior and gimmicks versus the much more subtle but thorough effort required by his Quills role. That character had many issues to deal with rather than just being "evil".
I thought Crowe was very solid, though better in The Insider. Still Crowe put the film and script on his back and carried it.
I was most dissappointed by Scott's effort. Unlike Dan I rather like Scott's style (including GI Jane) but the annoyingly poor CGI work detracted from the film. CGI for a Roman era epic is far more distracting than for something like sci-fi for example.
The whole non-technical aspect of the era is defeated by the artificial and technical look of CGI, especially the duplication processes. Better to have spent some money on models and extras, and then to try and go for less of that grandeur that simply won't look right on screen. A good matte painting and other in-camera effects can go a long way and often have a more earthy look (look at Ben-Hur, great mattes make the arena seem HUGE).
It also helps if you can keep the tigers AWAKE after they come out of the cages. Seriously, there is no argument that in every longer shot in the arena you could see tigers laying around or sleeping. "Roar, we want to eat you...no, nap time, sorry."
It was cool to use them but considering how the action was closely edited to the point of hiding some of the action, why not cut the tiger segments so that the audience doesn't see that the tiger threat ain't all it was cracked up to be.
The script was my biggest problem and what really hurt Phoenix I think and kept the film firmly planted in the popcorn region.
What is the theme of the film? Evil will be punished. Go for revenge? These are popcorn themes. Establish protagonist, give him a struggle, have him overcome it. Basic popcorn forumula.
And hey, that's fine. I own the DVD because it's fun like ID4.
But as I've compared it to Ben-Hur before here is what keeps it from going to that next level - in Hur, Judah seeks revenge too, and gets it. At that point Gladiator is over. The same as if Hur ended with the chariot race and Judah's mom and sister were really dead.
But Hur goes on. Revenge is not enough, that doesn't make him happy. Here Judah has a true MORAL DILEMMA. A real issue is being shared with the audience, thoughts are provoked.
I'm not saying that Gladiator has to have that. But if it wants to go beyond popcorn status (and I don't mean check your brain - Glad is a popcorn film that you DON'T check your brain which is how they should be), then it needs to find more to explore with the script.
Otherwise the story is just Commando or something. Evil gets punished, the end.
In some ways I agree that it was sort of interesting that the Academy chose it because it's NOT a typical Oscar film and is more of a popcorn film. 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.

 

[Terrell]

Seth, that was the point of the film. It was a revenge film. Maximus achieves this in the end. And Commodus was supposed to be an immature, and whiny person. Ah phooey, why am I continuing to argue this. I'm not gonna change anyone's mind.

 

[Steve Enemark]

I find the modern style of action movie editing, which Gladiator had in spades, to be repugnant, ugly, disorientating, and otherwise an atrocity in every conceivable and inconceivable way.
This style (also polluting Armageddon, Any Given Sunday and The Fellowship of the Ring to name a few) is to set the camera too close to the action, quick-cutting to the point of total incomprehensibility and a generally confusing feel, possibly due to over-use of CGI and dropped frames.
I suspect this modern style to be a way of compensating for a lack of competent fight choreography or maybe the old "MTV-style" gone completely berserk. Either way, I hope it dies soon and I can start enjoying action movies again.

 

[Bill J]

Terrell, just because a Roman epic film hasn't been made for 40 years, that doesn't make Gladiator orignal. There hasn't been too many Roman epic films, but Gladiator combines plot details and themes of three of them. There are many events that took place during the time of the Roman empire that would make great films.

if you're going to criticize it for being unoriginal, you might as well criticize 90% of the stuff Hollywood puts out.

I could go either way on that, but in general most films I think that are good are A LOT more original than Gladiator.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Steve I agree 100% on the close-up view, quick cutting to be detractive from expressing the action, rather than enhancing.

However, with regards to FOTR I can think of some moments that counter that mode (though you might find others that fit it in the film as well).

The camera track across the bridge and then turning back to the Balrog. Shows in one continuous shot exactly what the action layout is.

Later the popular wire tracking shot from above starting at the top of the hill and following the Urak-Hai down to Boromir's position.

I hailed those both simply for their sad uniqueness among modern action pieces because they actually show you what is going on, who is where, etc.

Woo has a real problem with this at times, especially the US stuff. His biggest offender is the shoot-out in Face/Off midway through the film when you literally have no idea who is shooting where. I think it hurts the tension of an action scene badly.

Scott did this in Gladiator as well, which makes it's action suffer in comparison to the rich fullness that is shown in Hur or Spartacus. This is why people SWEAR that a stuntman was killed in Ben-Hur but would never think anyone was near danger in Gladiator. The action seems intentionally disguised. It felt out of place for Scott to tell you the truth as I had always found him to be above that sort of style.

I thought the opening sequence was the best at setting the stage though he ended up getting right in everyone's face toward the end of the scene.

Then I see Brotherhood of the Wolf and it feels 100% opposite. Despite having hyper-action and slow-mo pauses, etc. it managed to cut to emphasize just what action was going on rather than try to fake it with clever cuts. It actually pulled back when it needed to to say to the audience "look at what these guys are REALLY doing here". I get more caught up with that style because seeing people really doing things makes the action feel more real.

 

[Gavin K]

How is this film unoriginal Bill?

A man seeks revenge after his family/wife is murdered. The Outlaw Josey Wales, Out For Justice, Braveheart, etc., etc.

Gladiator has an entirely unoriginal plot filled with two dimensional characters. And it takes FOREVER for the plot to get rolling. It was like, what, an hour, before Richard Harris finally died. After that it became a pointless, albeit bloody fun, revenge flick.

As long as I start with Crowe waking up as a slave, it's a pretty enjoyable flick, but hardly best-picture worthy.

 

[Seth Paxton]

And at least Josey Wales has Indian rights issues among other subplots that are being explored. It's not just "I kill everyone who hurt me".

I mean Out for Justice is a great comparison. Story-wise the exact same themes are explored and nothing more. Nobody was hoisting Justice up for best script.

And Terrell, last year we already went through the very similar plot lines to Ben-Hur. Add to that the Fall of the Roman Empire script basis and the rebellious slave Spartacus plot line/character types and it hurts the originality of the film.

It's not wise to step in someone else's shoes and then fall short of pursuing the story as deeply.

But then I agree and said so in my earlier post which you responded to. Gladiator is a popcorn film based on the standard crowd-pleaser formula of revenge flick. I KNOW IT TRIED TO BE THIS. Heck, who's arguing that. That's the whole point. It didn't try to be more, and a formula revenge flick with a 2 dimensional cartoonish antagonist is not "Oscar calliber" work usually.

Fun, yes. Dramatically compelling showcase for intelligent scripting and acting, no.

 

[Terrell]

Fun, yes. Dramatically compelling showcase for intelligent scripting and acting, no.

Many have said the same thing about numerous Oscar films. I guess that'll be your opinion. It's not mine. I consider it excellent in all respects, except for one cgi shot. Certainly oscar worthy, if there is such a thing.

 

[John Spencer]

When talking about this movie to my friends, I always refer to it as Lone Wolf McQuade Goes To Rome. It's made the most sense to me that way.

 

[Brian Lawrence]

You mean like FOTR! Oops, sorry, couldn't resist.

Are you confusing me with someone who liked 'Fellowship of the Ring' ?? Because I have not even seen the film and thus have no opinion on it.

 

[Terrell]

Nope, just making a little joke, hence the big smiley face. Although it was in reply to your statement, it was meant as a joke because that's the criticisms I had of FOTR, the same as the statement you made about Gladiator. But it wasn't directed specifically to you. Although I do disagree with that statement.

 

[Mitty]

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.

That immediately reminded me of Ebert's review of the film, where he summarizes,
"Gladiator" is being hailed by those with short memories as the equal of "Spartacus" and "Ben-Hur." This is more like "Spartacus Lite."

 

[Terrell]

I like Ebert okay, but I thought his review of this film was one of his weakest ever. He didn't bother to critique the story, said very little about the acting, made no mention that I remember of the screenplay or the cinematography. His main criticisms were the color palette used, and the overcast days. 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.

I just felt his review of this film was weak. I've seen him give far better reviews than his review of this film. Then he turns around and gives Tomb Raider a good review.

Jonathan Foreman of The New York Post, Richard Corliss of Time, and James Berardinelli sum up my feelings about this film.