Gonnosuke

16x9 -

Your logic doesn't make sense. Why even bother bitching about the accent in Braveheart? If you didn't like the movie because Mel Gibson didn't have the correct accent then you must HATE Gladiator because they weren't speaking Latin!

Come on!

-Gonnosuke

[This message has been edited by Gonnosuke (edited December 23, 2000).]

hyness

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jackskeleton:
One was greek battles to the death a man trying to get vengance<HR>

Um, I didn't see any greeks, but I did see a lot of romans. Also, I believe Maximus was spanish, even though he had an english accent.

------------------
Hy(ness)

My DVD collection

jjjameson

** Okay, Spoilers Follow **

The thing that bugs me about "Gladiator" is that it's bad history. The most glaring example is that Commodus didn't die in the Coliseum at the hands of a gladiator. The truth is that his advisors had him strangled by a champion wrestler (no, really, it's true! You can look it up. The wrestler was, like, the Jesse Ventura of his day, it seems.)

Oh well, now that I think about it, maybe Ridley Scott's exercise of poetic license isn't even as bizarre as the real history of Rome at that time. For a truly entertaining movie, maybe someone should film an historically accurate version of that time... Nah!, no one would believe it.

Another aspect of "Gladiator" that disappointed me was the lack of detailed graphic violence. By that I mean that the blood and gore wasn't on the screen long enough for the audience to really revel in it. If we're gonna watch a film about the gladitorial games, let's REALLY watch, okay? Let's do like the Romans did, and cheer that blood!

Ahh, for the glories of Rome! At least "Gladiator" depicted the city in all its magnificent architectural splendor. Where will we find another such Empire? I tear my hair out when I contemplate Rome's magnificence having been erased by the combined action of buffoon barbarians and effete followers of a certain Eastern Mediterranean cult. Oh well.

Merry Christmas, everyone! Or, Merry Mithras-mas, as the case may be. (Do ya think Maximus was a follower of Mithras? Ridley Scott coulda done so much more with this movie!)

Duffman

Movies are very rarely historically accurate. They may have elements of truth in them, but as a whole they often do something more dramatic. Nor do they often come across as trying to be true. Even movies based on true stories are just that. The basic a plot of true story, and they'll likely mention that certain characters have been combined/altered/etc... If you want true history, I suggest a documentary.

Same goes for accurate speech. Almost all (Hollywood) directors will have foriegners speak English so we can understand them. I tend to think that being able to understand the dialogue helps understand the movie. If you want accurate languages and accents, I don't know how to help you. What's important to me are the story, acting, and visuals. That's what makes a movie for me. Not if a charcter named Maximus ever existed.

------------------
Duffman says a lot of things

Sony DVD

Ewok, if you'd seen Gladiator on the big screen, your reaction to the DVD would've changed immensely. You can't really appreciate the breadth and scope of a film like Gladiator on a TV screen, even if it is on DVD.

tag

Gladiator was awesome. I saw it in the theaters and was amazed. The DVD rocks also.

Drew (thinks it is better than Braveheart)

jjjameson

I guess I wouldn't mind the historical inaccuracies if the story line was AT LEAST as bizarre and fascinating as the actual history of the period. Unfortunately, modern sensibilities are too tender, I guess, to allow for an accurate depiction of what transpired in the gladatorial arena. Judging by the contemporary Roman accounts of what went on in the Colloseum, "Gladiator" was a pretty tame representation of a fascinating historical period.

aelord

A poor film, just a series of ever more elaborate settings for staged fights. There are no real characters and the pacing is strangely flat. The CGI is not good either and the crowds in the Colisseum look so wooden and orchestrated the could be on WWF.

After Blade Runner, Alien et al, Ridley did his reputation no favours with this one but is a lot wealthier.

------------------
supratentorial.com

[This message has been edited by aelord (edited January 24, 2001).]

tha_dvd_man

quote:<HR>The thing that bugs me about "Gladiator" is that it's bad history. The most glaring example is that Commodus didn't die in the Coliseum at the hands of a gladiator. The truth is that his advisors had him strangled by a champion wrestler (no, really, it's true! You can look it up. The wrestler was, like, the Jesse Ventura of his day, it seems.)<HR>

Commodus is obviously taken from the real Ceasar Caligula (totally nuts, in love with his sister, frequent headaches), but I don't think it was meant to be historically accurate. Hell, that's why his name isn't Caligula. I'm sure he took some of Caligula's traits just because he was an interesting little fellow, and would make a good antagonist for the story (and he did).

[This message has been edited by tha_dvd_man (edited January 24, 2001).]

Centurion

I enjoyed Gladiator for the action. Nothing more.
Braveheart, on the other hand, had it all. It was an emotional rollercoaster from grief, humor, hatred, suspense, sadness, etc.
The story kept me glued and I did not want the movie to end, as another member here pointed out.

------------------
"You had me at hello.....tear." --Dr. Evil