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

[TheoGB]

You see the problem is that I've just been asleep and you guys go and have a discussion without me. :frowning:

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

I can't work out if you think you're making a point or you're just being facetious.
I don't consider the technical oscars as 'counting'. I mean, since Jurassic Park, there have been no films that have impressed me very much in visual effects. Matrix had it's bullet time stuff but I'd already seen it used in that Gap advert about a billion times and also in a BBC TV ad.
I don't think people really note the technical ones - I was talking about the main ones like Best Picture and Best Director, etc. as these are the ones that get people all steamed up, as we see here.
I only have 2 favourite movies. There are tonnes I enjoy but I can't number them. Those two are:
1= The Empire Strikes Back
1= Fight Club

 

[Terrell]

Well Scott, in looking at your reviews of films, I tend to agree with you a lot. So at least our taste in films seem to be the same, at least a lot of the time.

 

[Tom Ryan]

I can't work out if you think you're making a point or you're just being facetious.

I don't consider the technical oscars as 'counting'. I mean, since Jurassic Park, there have been no films that have impressed me very much in visual effects. Matrix had it's bullet time stuff but I'd already seen it used in that Gap advert about a billion times and also in a BBC TV ad.

I don't think people really note the technical ones - I was talking about the main ones like Best Picture and Best Director, etc. as these are the ones that get people all steamed up, as we see here.

While it's true that the technical Oscars don't carry as much weight as the "big ones", when a movie pretty much sweeps them people notice. Especially with the type of movies we're talking about that don't tend to get Best Picture as much (see Star Wars for an example). But to simply wave off The Matrix's accomplishments as merely technicals seems unfair to me. Also, I was correcting the erroneous statement that The Matrix "didn't win Oscars".

-Tom

 

[Matt Stone]

Yah...but films that get nominated for the technicals don't necesarily have to be "good films" ... they just have to have "good special effects". Look at Starship Troopers, while it is a guilty pleasure of mine, it isn't a good film...and it was nominated for at least one technical, if I remember correctly. I definitely think sweeping the techs are a nice honor, but it isn't rating the acting, script, or directing...so it's judging the film on different standards.

 

[Terrell]

Well, I didn't think Matrix should have won those. But I guess you could say sweeping technicals at least means something.

 

[Brian Lawrence]

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.

Now you seem to be making things up. I have not noticed anyone on this forum over the past 4 years gloating over how great the Oscars are when their favorite film of the year won best picture.

 

[TheoGB]

Sorry Tom, I see your point about the non-Oscar win. I should have clarified to the area I was talking about. Matt made the point I would have.

 

[Tom Ryan]

Well, I didn't think Matrix should have won those. But I guess you could say sweeping technicals at least means something.

I'm torn on that. It's obvious that TPM was probably the best user of visual effects that year, but I didn't think they served the film nearly as well as The Matrix. One category I solidly think TPM should've won for was Best Sound. Gary Rydstrom owned that one.

-Tom

 

[Seth Paxton]

By the way, I doubt Roger Ebert reviews Jimmy Neutron or Tomb Raider in the same light as a Gladiator, LOTR, or Citizen Kane. I imagine he rates them based on movies of their type. Three stars for Jimmy Neutron probably doesn't mean he equates the movie with LOTR. He probably means good for movies of that type.

Funny to hear that from someone berating the rest of us for praising the Oscars when they vote for our film and bashing them when they don't (especially without direct examples of people flip-flopping on the Oscars due to their film winning/losing).

So Ebert's Tomb Raider review is questionable when speaking of a poor Gladiator review, but understandable when he gives a lukewarm review to FOTR?

 

[Terrell]

Before you misquote me again, try reading my post better. Here's a quote from my post below. I can only wonder how much of your day you took to go searching for a post you could use against me. I guess I'll have to look for every little contradictory statement you post to use against you. But again, read my quote below, and tell me where I berated anyone in particular. As for trying to get you to like Gladiator as much as I do, not worth it. I love it. If you didn't, that's your loss Seth.:p) Regardless of his Tom Raider review, I thought his review was stupid, espcially from a critic of his stature. As per your argument, his review of LOTR was a positive review. I don't know where you get this lukewarm stuff. Just because he didn't call it the greatest film ever made certainly doesn't make that review lukewarm. Here's the quote.

Not talking about anyone in particular, just people in general.

Brian, I've seen it. People going bonkers and talking favorably about the Oscars when LOTR gets 13 nominations. I distinctly remembering people hammering the Oscars when Gladiator won. If you haven't seen it, there's nothing I can do about that. But I most certainly didn't make it up. I've also seen it a lot on other forums as well. Haven't seen a lot of that here on this message board, but I most definitely have seen it.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Didn't have to go looking, I came across it reading the FOTR discussion thread looking at what people had said early on versus now, including myself. I wouldn't have noticed if you hadn't just dismissed Ebert's Gladiator review in this thread.

I didn't think I took it out of context.

I still don't understand why his Gladiator review is a "bad" review. You may disagree with his opinions, but it seems to be very direct and detailed about what he didn't like about Gladiator and they seem to be as valid reasons as any. I don't think Scott would disagree if I said that Ebert's review was at least as well written as his, just of differing opinion.

Wouldn't a bad review be more like Roepers? Or someone saying "That movie sucked, it was just stupid."

Anyway, I'll let it go. You love Gladiator, I have said countless times that the Oscars still have merit in giving Gladiator the Best Pix because many people felt that way. I found it fun but not life changing so I was surprised that it became an Oscar runner. But I have no arguement that it was a big, popular film that was popular for being a good popcorn film, something lacking in modern cinema usually.

Maybe you can find it within yourself to say the same about FOTR if it wins, many people love it so if it wins it won't be some crazy result either. There are reasons it is in the running as well.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Were these last two posts necessary?
Crawdaddy

 

[Seth Paxton]

I felt I owed an explanation.

 

[Terrell]

 

[Matt Stone]

It's about our collected hatred towards Gladiator...duh
Seriously though, while I was pissed last year when Gladiator won, I got over it quickly and decided that a lot of people liked it...so it was as worthy of a candidate as any other film people enjoyed. But, regardless...just because the academy likes it doesn't mean I have to.

 

[Terrell]

Like someone earlier said, I don't think any film deserves anything, especially an award. It just receives it. To me, the best film to me is the one that entertains me the most. Now, take a film like Titanic, which I did not like at all. But even though I didn't like it, I realized it was a well made, well directed film.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Do "well made" and "well directed" necessarily mean the same thing?

 

[Terrell]

Probably!

 

[Dome Vongvises]

While I'm typing this, my grade in virology class is slowly slipping away.
Skip to the end of this to get the "nutshell" assessment.
- For a superficial assessment of Gladiator
The initial battle sequence of the film was pretty cool, although hectic and lacked focus. I guess that would be the sense any soldier (modern or not) would get during battle. The gladiator fight sequences were awesome and well-done. Heads getting chopped, blood flying everywhere, swords clashing; what's not to like?
And of course, there's the hero; a man who was a glorious general who becomes a fugitive who becomes a slave who becomes a gladiator bigger than the Emperor himself. Using Russel Crowe was a no-brainer, and he is the consummate badass. After sharing in the tragedy that is the death of his wife and child, the audience is thus sympathetic, if not totally supportive, of his desire for revenge.
And there's the bad guy: an incestuous man who is just oozing evil out of every pore in his body. He doesn't care about the common man, runs gladiator games, kills his own father, and manipulates his sister (in more ways than one, shudder).
Set the good guy and the bad guy against one another, throw in some drama, and you've got a good flick going.
- The deeper assessment and critical analysis of Gladiator
Now this is where I think is the area in which people dislike Gladiator. Besides the action sequences and small dramatic elements, there's really not much more to Gladiator.
Besides the cinematography and little touches like Maximus reaching for the soil before each battle, there's nothing extremely outstanding about Gladiator.
Personally, I liked the CGI for Gladiator, but I'm not above dismissing some of the badly done sequences. It's painfully obvious that Oliver Reed's face is digitized. Granted that the science of necromancy is still in its infancy, but that's no excuse for not making more of a concerted effort in masking this obvious glare. The overhead and other subsequent shots of Rome I thought were extraordinarily beautiful, but they still looked artificial. For me, that's not necessarily bad (unlike in the Oliver Reed example) but for others that might irk the hell out of them.
One of the accusations levied against Gladiator is its derivative nature. It seems to be, at worst terms, a rip-off of older films such as Spartacus and The Fall of the Roman Empire. Granted, I haven't seen TFOTRE, but I have seen Sparacus, and I can understand some of the comparisons.
Let's take a look at suspense for an example of a comparison, and how direction in each scene was handled. The scenes in question regard the decisions of gladiators on whether or not to kill those they've conquered. For example in Spartacus, the black dude (forgive me for not remembering the name) has the advantage over Spartacus and possesses the decision to kill him. But alas, he doesn't and throws the spear at his spectators. In Gladiator, Maximus possesses the decision (not really) to kill Tigris. Again, in this case, he chooses not to. The differences lie in direction. In Spartacus, the scene is minimalized between the black dude and Spartacus. You can note the tension and anxiety in their eyes as they await for the moment of truth. In Gladiator, quick edits are made between the duo fighting, and Commudus and his thumb. In Gladiator, you never really get any sense of suspense since the audience isn't given much time to dwell on the tension between Tigris and Maximus. Personally for me, I only notice these subtle differences and not raise the spectacle of one fight above the other, but others might.
Besides that example I listed above, there are other elements of comparison made between Gladiator and older films. Take the cumulative effect of this, and you'll get a sense that Gladiator is nothing more than an assemblage of older parts.
Going back to talking about Gladiator and the film itself while not making comparisons, there's the acting in the the film. Russel Crowe pretty much carried the film on his back. He was able to show moments of vuneralbility (when he cries snot all over the feet of his wife and son) moments of not-caring (when he initially refuses to fight back against the bad guy), and moments of cold, unemotional rage (when he kills his Roman captors before his execution). Connie Nielsen was a "Meh", and Joaquin Phoenix and Oliver Reed really didn't need to work hard for one-dimensional characters. Of course, this was no fault of theirs, considering the restraints put on them by the script.
Speaking of script, I don't have the lines memorized, but I remembered that the dialogue needed work.
I'm no history buff, but apparently from the commentary and various History Channel shows, and IMDB, a lot of gross inaccuracies AND artstic license were taken. But since I can't substantiate the internet findings and have already forgotten most of my findings on the History Channel, I'll abstain and let somebody else handle this department.
As an aside concerning the commentary, I lost a lot of respect for Ridley Scott for snobbishly declaring that his version of Roman history is just as good as any historians. He was being totally dismissive of historians (where Ridley Scott just completely ignores the fact that these same historians dedicate their lives to studying Roman history) and their criticisms of Gladiator, saying simply that those historians simply weren't alive back then, and that Ripley's version of what happens is just as valid.
One more point to bring up is that many people felt that Gladiator shouldn't have deserved/received the Best Picture Oscar. These same people wanted something else to win (eg. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon). Because of this, most people usually, although not always, ended up hating Gladiator.
Well, in a "nutshell", most people dislike Gladiator because either they simply believed it wasn't a good film at all (various reasons include acting, script, its derivative nature, etc.) or that they didn't feel that Gladiator should have deserved/received the Best Picture Oscar.
Personally for me, I loved Gladiator and count it as one of my favorite DVDs and one of the best films I saw the summer of 2000. I disagree with the film winning Best Picture, but I'm not going to hate the film just because it won over something else I wanted to win. I thought Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon should've won (just for superficial value alone and not talking about cinematic merits, Zhang Ziyi is hotter than Connie Nielsen and martial arts sword fighting is way better than gladiator duels, although Gladiator has the advantage as far as bloodiness was concerned).
As an unusual sidenote, although I don't find fault with Gladiator being so similar to older films or works of the past, I find it odd that I simply didn't like Midnight Cowboy. I didn't like it simply because A. It was boring and B. It seemed like a big ripoff of John Steinback's novel Of Mice and Men.
Edit: Spellings and additions.

 

[Terrell]

Egads Dome! You're making me have think. I don't like doing that too much.