review: Gladiator: The Extended Edition

[Entsuropi]

God that movie sucked. Even more so than the presence of so much american flag waving would account for. Films where the director obviously read the us constitution every morning before filming tend to be irritating at the best of times.

[Patrick_Gibbs]

The thing about the redcoats is that their fighting style was inept and stupid - it is really the most idiotic way to fight a war. But while I love "Braveheart," and saw it more times in the theater than i can count (and this was just in the Oscar re-release, because I missed it in it's initial run) I think it probably the silly movie overall, mostly because of the rather contrived romance between Wallace and the Princess. But I love both "Last of the Mohicans" and "Braveheart."

Back to the redcoats, "The Patriot" was by far the weakest film mentioned on this forum, and actually illustrates one of the major reasons why "Gladiator" was great. The villain in "Patriot" was ridiculous, "I love being evil" snivelling monster. I loved the character of Commodus in "Gladiator" so much because he really thought he was the hero of the story.  Nobody really thinks they're the bad guy.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

the emperor was my biggest problem with the film
"I want to sleep with my sister! For absolutely no reason whatsoever other than it will make you hate me more! blah! Aren't I evil?!"

jeez.

[Spriggan]

Why do you separate Mohicans into the fantasy category? It struck me as much more plausible and believable than Braveheart.

Well Braveheart was loosely based on history while Mohicans, unless I'm mistaken, is pure fiction set in a historic time.

I personally like both movies, Braveheart is one of my favorite movies, but never cared for the Patriot probably because I saw the Patriot overly vilifying the Brits to an unbelievable degree.  It felt like it was a movie that was just trying to get people to go by showing the american flag and us kicking butt.  It also didn't help that the villians, as I stated above, were presented in such a way that dosen't reflect how we think of Brits now.

[Patrick_Gibbs]

the emperor was my biggest problem with the film
"I want to sleep with my sister! For absolutely no reason whatsoever other than it will make you hate me more! blah! Aren't I evil?!"

jeez.

Everyone is entilted their opinion, and yours is wrong.
Seriously, I thought the reasoning for Commodus' incestuos feelings for his sister were very believable. This is a guy who lived shut away from everyone most of his life, hads severe emotional problems, and an obsession with getting the love from his family that he never felt he got. In his twisted perspective, this translated into a lust for Lucilla. I'll admit that it was didn't hurt that it made the character more creepy, but it also made him more complex and interesting. There was clearly a reason for it.

[Patrick_Gibbs]

Well Braveheart was loosely based on history while Mohicans, unless I'm mistaken, is pure fiction set in a historic time.

I personally like both movies, Braveheart is one of my favorite movies, but never cared for the Patriot probably because I saw the Patriot overly vilifying the Brits to an unbelievable degree.  It felt like it was a movie that was just trying to get people to go by showing the american flag and us kicking butt.  It also didn't help that the villians, as I stated above, were presented in such a way that dosen't reflect how we think of Brits now.

Well said. "The Patriot" was, in my mind, just a pale imitation of the other two films, and remarkably lame.

[Entsuropi]

The thing about the redcoats is that their fighting style was inept and stupid - it is really the most idiotic way to fight a war.

It was the way the napoleonics were won, nearly 80 years later =P

Commodius was a good villian. Another good one was the main enemy in Rob Roy. The film really made you despise him, then it gave him an unexpected jolt of sympathy right at the end. But you still wanted to cheer when he bought it.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Seriously, I thought the reasoning for Commodus' incestuos feelings for his sister were very believable. This is a guy who lived shut away from everyone most of his life, hads severe emotional problems, and an obsession with getting the love from his family that he never felt he got. In his twisted perspective, this translated into a lust for Lucilla. I'll admit that it was didn't hurt that it made the character more creepy, but it also made him more complex and interesting. There was clearly a reason for it.

It was the gratuitous nature of working that out. Why are we interested, in any way whatsoever, in a villain with absolutely no redeemable values at all? I don't care about the historical reality of incest in Rome. I don't care about the historical reality of his capriciousness and total selfishness. If he can't at least APPEAR to have at least ONE thing about him that is REMOTELY sympathetic, then I can't even think of him as human. Thus stories about him are uninteresting. The incest was just some tacked on crime to make him that much more dispicable. Maybe they made a reason for it, but it was completely uneccessary for the story.

[Fellfrosch]

I disagree--nonsympathetic villains can still be very interesting. But I like me some villains, so interpret that how you will.

As for the napoleonic wars, it doesn't count if both sides fight in the same stupid way. Of course that tactic will win if everyone's using it.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

ok, then, THIS villain wasn't interesting. At all.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Last of the Mohicans is also loosely based on actual historical events, namely the massacre at Ft. William Henry which did take place.

I liked elements of Gladiator, the battle at the beginning and such, but most of the movie was completely ignorant of roman history and mindset. I mean gladiators were like the Football stars of their day and rarely if ever were they ever in real danger in the ring. Their opponents were often criminals or slaves with no martial training. More often than not a fight between 2 gladiators (both pro ended with the surrender of one who had been knocked to the ground. The "blood" in these bloodsports came most often during the intermission when criminals fought wild animals, or were killed by pros. A gladiatorial death where a real professional gladiator died was rare and  kind of treated like a NASCAR death (OMG did you just see Kyle Petty slam into the wall and explode!!!... or OMG did you just see Seutonius Griecus get stabbed in the  abdomen by a javelin). Since a real gladiator represented an huge investment no one was all that keen on having him killed.

The special effects actually bothered me less than the revolutionary roman drivel that no self respecting roman would have cared about. But thats lost on most people in the audience because most modern democratic nations have a different view of what a republic is than the romans did. The "spaniards" talk of the people when he refers to the senate is ridiculous because the Roman senate was an oligarchy of powerful families and not an elected body. Furthermore the notion that a dying Emperor would give them power out of the goodness of his heart is well, laughable. Especially that emperor.

[Entsuropi]

Actually, the senators were a hotbed of republican thought for much of Roman history. And the senate was a more democratic body than those in most other nations at the time, which were out and out dictatorships. The Emperor's power could be limited to a degree by the senate, which made rome different at least.

And the motivation given for the emperor giving them power is the same as given to Claudius at the end of I, Claudius. That also took some liberties (Claudius was changed to make him more sympathetic to modern audiences, mainly). It supposed that Claudius gave the emperorship to Nero to force the senate to get rid of him, making a republic once more. Not the strongest plan, but it did fit Claudius's very careful approach as shown in the series.

[Entsuropi]

And... most of the 'gladiators' shown in Gladiator were just common criminals and slaves. It's only after he proves his prowess that the Spaniard becomes a named Gladiator. Before that he was, I guess, just the between big bouts entertainment.

[Skar]

I must comment on the comments on the "inept and stupid fighting style" of the redcoats.

Everyone seems to forget that the British conquered pretty much the entire world with that "inept and stupid fighting style"

While the American habits of shooting from behind trees and from ambush have been romanticized as the reason we beat the british, that perception is dead wrong.  We never won a single significant battle or accomplished any real strategic victories until we were able to field disciplined infantry that beat the british at their own game.  You can't hold ground in the face of a determined infantry advance in the british style by picking them off one-by-one from the trees.  They just keep coming until they hold the ground they want and dig in.  Until you can break their formation and cause them to actually retreat before they get where they want to be you accomplish nothing.  

-break-

One of the reasons I marked Mohicans as one of the more fantastic films is because it totally ignored the realities of warfare and fighting in order to make the hero seem superhuman in his abilities and the british bumbling and largely incompetent.  Another reason was the overblown idealism all the characters displayed.  Of all the films I listed I consider it the least fantastic but it was far more so than those I listed as realistic. (IMO)

-break-

Random comment: I like and own the Patriot.  I am fully aware of the silliness of the villainous villain, he was far too overblown and by extension so were the rest of the british villains.  The reason I like that film and which made me want to own it all by itself is the sequence where the hero and his sons accomplish a totally believable and effective ambush on the british transporting his oldest son.  And the fact that one of the american generals acknowledged the point I made earlier in this post about the need for disciplined infantry.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

To be fair, we only really beat the British significantly once -- but of course that was a pretty astounding vicotry, removing as it did so huge a portion of the British coloonial army. And it wasn't like the British couldn't have kept up the fight. They basically decided it wasn't worth it anymore and didn't send more troops once their army was squished once, and instead withdrew the remainder.