POSSIBLE PLOT SPOILERS*
I just got back from seeing the movie GLADIATOR, directed by Ridley Scott and starring Russell Crowe. Needless to say, GLADIATOR is one of the few movies I have seen in recent memory that has lived up to all my expectations.

The movie begins with Russell Crowe contemplating his battle strategies in the icy hills of Germania, where he's about to fight a large tribe of hungry tribesman who don't want to be conquered by the ridiculously powerful Romans. Crowe's character, Maximus, is the General of the assault on the Germanic tribes.

What follows after a brief, rousing speech by Maximus is one of the most confusing, but most interesting battles I've seen in recent memory. Though the camera work and editing is extremely confusing at times (I would have liked to see what was going on), I often found that it transported me into the action more, and offered a complex and accurate look at early warfare. The sheer number of extras used in that sequence was something to be seen anyways.

Following his return back to the camps, Maximus is met by Caesar, played well by Richard Harris. Caesar explaines to Maximus that he wants him to succeed him, claiming that Maximus wasn't corrupted by power and could return the glory days of Rome. Maximus refuses, however, a mistake that eventually gets him enslaved in the small Roman providence of Zucchabar. Caesars son, Commodus, succeeds his father to the throne, ending all hope of dignity to Rome.

What follows is a lot of exposition, and a lot of good fighting. The choreography during the fights is really breathtaking, though parts of the exposition sometimes meander and become uninteresting. When it finally comes for Maximus to reenter Rome, that is where the real fun begins.

Side note: One of the first sequences of Rome involves Commodus meeting his senators. In one shot, he is far away, the Colloseum far in the background. The senators watch, and we the audience look over their shoulders as Commodus, with aides on either side, rides up to his senate. On either side of him is a mass of people, standing perfectly still. As I sat there, watching, I realized that that shot was exactly like one in the Nazi propaganda film "Triumph of the Will", the most referenced movie ever. That sequence involves Hitler and his Nazi soldiers walking towards his officers, walking in between thousands of his soldiers. Creepy connection…For those who have seen and remember that sequence, check out the picture...

Spooky Coincidence

The shots of Rome are absolutely spectacular, proving that ANYTHING can be done with digital effects. I thought a world composed completely of CGI would look a little bit cartoony (Star Wars: Episode I didn’t help much). However, these special effects are totally believable.

The Gladiator fights are really excellent as well, adding a great deal of action and intensity to an already outstanding story. They are also a little bit clearer than the fights in Germania, though they remain shaky. Acting is good, too. Russell Crowe is excellent as the commanding Maximus, and Joaquin Phoenix is also good as the snivelling, perverted emperor.

The score, composed by Hans Zimmer and Lisa Gerrard, is good during some parts and sometimes hokey and crude during others, though it blended together better than other 2-composer pairings I’ve seen in the past. Overall a good score…

With a good story aiding a wonderfully visual epic not scene since the days of SPARTACUS and movies done by a man named DeMille, GLADIATOR is the first good big movie of the year. I believe it will remain so for a while, because its only competition coming up is BATTLEFIELD: EARTH…I don’t need to say anything…do I?

FAVORITE SCENE: When that annoying little kid from LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL got run over by Roman horses--no, wait...Probably all the awesome shots of Rome.

*****/*****
--Ted

The scenery in Rome is magnificent and really captures the feel of the ancient world. It is in this area that the film truly excels.

Roman religion is handled with piety and respect, and the Roman lust for blood sports has never been portrayed better.

I did have some problems with the battle with the Germans. The Roman army was doing some things that didn't happen until later (Heavy Calvary) and the troops also did not follow standard Roman formations. These are all very technical quibbles I suppose, but everything looks so good that it stood out to my eye.

A matte painting and or/model would have served far, FAR better. But, I fear many filmmakers forget these techniques even exist now. *sigh*

I'm going to get the historical stuff out of the way first. GLADIATOR doesn't even come close to being anywhere in the ballpark. Okay, the little neckercheif thing was accurate, The CUT of the uniforms was accurate, but the colors were all wrong. Battle tactics for Germans were all wrong. Heavy Cavlary was all wrong.

Here's something else, Commodus lived for 12 years and killed his sister. The next Caesar BOUGHT the position for 25,000 sesterces per Praetorian Guard.. There were bad (and some good) Roman Emperors for another 200 years (at least).

So, what is obvious is that this didn't have anything to do with history. Let's not even judge it in that context. Let's judge it on its story line.

Maximus is so pure of heart that the good Caesar wants the general to be the "Protector of Rome," and bring it back to being a Republic. Jealous "prince" murders daddy, orders the execution of Maximus and the killing of the general's family. Maximus escapes, but reaches home too late, where something absolutely horrible has occurred.

This part made me sick. It was totally unnecessary. Let's look at BEN HUR. The hero in this one gets sentenced to the galleys (pretty much a death sentence) and his family imprisoned. This is all that is needed to get the audience riled up. It also provides adequate motivation for the hero to seek vengence.

Why oh why does Ridley Scott feel the need to "burn and crucify alive" the hero's wife and child? This attack on the innocent bothered me alot in BRAVEHEART. This is going too far. I remember getting upset when Hollywood directors started killing off the hero's dog. This really bites. Let's stop murdering innocents.

This really ruined the movie for me. I mean, there was nothing the hero could do to get even. Yeah, he got to look Commodus in the eye while he shoved a dagger into his throat, but that wasn't enough for me. I felt the same way at the end of BRAVEHEART. So what if William Wallace sired the next king. BIG DEAL, the man's one true love was murdered and he was drawn and quartered.

Oh, sorry, I got distracted, we were talking about what this movie is about.

Essentially, it's an allegory of present day USA. Ridley is ragging on the democratic system ("Win the crowd"). And calling up a hero to return us to our "Republican" greatness.

But he was just too messy. I swear, I have a rule that I try NOT to see movies with more than one writer. I might make exceptions for two writers if critics praise a movie. BUT I almost never watch movies that have more than two. This one had five or six. WAY TOO MANY.

This was my first major movie disapointment of the year.

Oh yeah the music was cruddy. Overblown and melodramatic. The two composers didn't mesh well with Zimmer providing the bluster and the other composer provding some weird sitar/Arabic-sounding stuff.

If you haven't seen it yet, I hope I saved you some time and money by providing these little plot spoilers.

Boy I'm glad I got that off my chest.

Marc

For example, in an earlier draft, the script called for Maximus to get his troops and bring them to Rome. However, in the last draft as viewers have seen, this did not happen. Factual innacuracies such as the the way Commodus points his thumb and strategies during the opening battle are trivial at best. People who desire Roman History seek knowledge not in movies, but in history books. People who want good stories go to the movies.

The fact is that GLADIATOR was based on themes such as revenge, corruption of society, and redemption, not battle strategies and garment accuracy. There is only a certain level of detail a crew can attain without destroying itself, both budget-wise and psychologically.

For the majority of movie-goers, myself included, the story is more important than little trivial items in movies. If you pay too close attention to the truth and detail, story is lost. Great historical films have all learned from this.

In BRAVEHEART, the King of England lives almost a year following the execution of William Wallace. However, the writers and director changed that to add a sense of irony to the ending. Was it accurate? No. Was it good for the story? Yes. We feel good because the King is not able to hear the death cries of his opponent (Wallace) after his execution, just like he said he would have.

Was TITANIC completely accurate? No. Many of the characters never existed, nor did many of the real people behaave the way they did in the film. However, the story was good, thus the movie succeeded based on emotional content, not on the factual details (though many were there).

Films are for entertainment, not for history lessons.

PS: Andre, Commodus did fight as a Gladiator in Ancient Rome. I read this from the following reliable sources, in case you're interested.

Microsoft Encarta 98 www.britannica.com

Perhaps it's not the crew who is innacurate about Rome?

Marc wrote the best definition of what this "Gladiator" flick is all about: Essentially, it's an allegory of present day USA. Ridley is ragging on the democratic system ("Win the crowd"). And calling up a hero to return us to our "Republican" greatness.

Hollywood directors should not have carte blanche to change history at their whim, just because it makes a better story.

NO, I was not carping just because the garments and battle tactics were wrong -- that was just an indication to me at the beginning of the movie that this was not going to be history. In fact, if you'll read my comments you will see that I declined to criticise this movie on the basis of history, because it didn't even come close.

Well, you know, it would probably make a better story that the US Air Force beat off the Japanese navy and sank half the fleet following the aborted attack on Pearl Harbor, wouldn't it. Hell, we don't want our kids thinking we got our collective tails kicked, NO let's just re-write history.

Hell, history doesn't matter, does it? It's not math.

It matters to me. I grew up thinking Custer was a hero and sacrificed the whole 7th Cavalry so the Indians wouldn't massacre the poor foot soldiers in General Crook's column.

I believed the Light Brigade charged into the Valley of Death to avenge the slaughter of women and children on the India/Afganistan border.

I was mislead. And directors are continuing to mislead. There was a time when historical accuracy meant something. I read that Scott even hired a scholar to make sure his movie would be accurate, but he disregarded everything she wrote.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS THE MOST GLARING HISTORICAL ERROR? It's not the garments, it's not the tactics, it's the implication that Rome went back to being a Republic.

That is my major historical gripe -- not the garments and battle tactics.

Movies are not history. As much as they may try, directors can not get all of history correct. GLADIATOR might not even come close in the ending of the film, I will admit, but I didn't watch the movie to learn about Rome.

You watch movies for entertainment, not for education. Especially not from historical epics. I'll say this again: if you want to learn about Rome, pick up a book and read about it. I did, which is why I knew that the ending of GLADIATOR was bull. However, that wasn't why I came to see the movie in the first place. I came to the theater expecting to see a story rooted in revenge and battle, and I was not dissapointed.

THE ALAMO is one of my all time favorites and it has some glaring historical errors. But the Texans didn't win in the end.

300 SPARTANS is another favorite. Again, not compeltely accurate, but the Persians didn't lose the battle.

History is not just a bunch of dry facts that belong in dusty old books. History is made up of real stories that tell us someting about ourselves. When we mess-up history, we potentially mess-up our future.

We have to know where we've been to know where we are going.

Now, I'm going to make this clear for a THIRD TIME. I am not ranting about this movie's lack of history.

My original rant was the sensless slaughter of the innocents. And I bemoaned the heavy-handed and dishonest allegory on modern USA.

Why dishonest? Because Scott went with the "Win the crowd" philosophy. The very philosophy he was trying to discredit.

I agree with your points on the importance of History. I think people have a distaste for the subject because it is mostly taught in high school by teachers who are merely filling in and forget the STORY in History. They forget to convey that History is happening right now. We are living in somebody else’s History. If what we do has importance tehn what they did has importance as well.

I agree with the idea that a historically based film should strive for accuracy for one good reason. Not to teach us history, but to help suspend our disbelief. (History is best learned from well written researched books and by examining source materials where available. Also having a good teacher doesn’t hurt) The more internally consistent a film is, the easier it is for us to accept what we see. I think it would have been better if Gladiator had followed history more closely. I can’t dispute your historical points as they bothered me as well.

Having said that, I still liked the film despite its inaccuracies. I thought it did a marvelous job of portraying the right feel for the ancient world. The Roman faith was well displayed and the Roman bloodlust was well captured.

I also realize that your main complaint is:

My original rant was the sensless slaughter of the innocents. And I bemoaned the heavy-handed and dishonest allegory on modern USA.

I agree that a Roman emperor of Commodus time would probably just confiscate the “traitorous” General’s estate and sell the land and slaves to raise money. But It is certainly not outside the realm of possibility that he would have had the family slain.

My main problem with this scene was that I don’t know how anybody beat him to the estate. He took a direct land route and a message to kill them couldn’t have gotten there faster. Consider that the murder of the emperor was probably not planned ahead of time so he couldn’t have troops waiting for orders to scorch the earth.

As for the heavy handed and dishonest allegory, I don’t see that. Our system of government is so different from Roman Imperial law that if Ridley Scott is making that allegory he doesn’t understand Roman or American history.

I will offer one example. Does anyone really think if we had Roman style rule that the senate could force Nixon from office?

In the end, Gladiator does the one thing that I require from a movie. It entertained me.

Which is precisely why he failed.

In the end, Gladiator did not entertain me.

You know, with the proliferation of "Alternate History" novels out there, why couldn't Scott have gone tht route?

"Instead of going meekly to his death like his historical counterpart, General Maximus turned on his executioners and changed history . . ."

Now that I could have accepted. I still could have done without the brutalization of the mother and child -- not necessary. In fact, had I been the writer, I would have allowed Maxiumus to save them, then go into slavery to protect them.

Of course, then I would have preferred that the General would eventually get his army back and then kick some Praetorian butt.

For Example:

Extreme:
Fatherland-Nazis win WWII and Joe Kennedy is president. Most people know the Nazis lost thanks to Indiana Jones.

If Ridley Scott is trying to condemn Roman bloodlust (as well as the present day 'bloodlust' of the average movie watcher), isn't he betraying his message by catering to the very behavior he is criticizing?

Just like "G.I. Jane".