marcus silanus Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 I thought that Gladiator was quite good... I agree. If one looks past the historical inaccuracies it is a good adventure yarn set in a period we all like. As for Mel Gibson... He is prepared to bend or alter any historical fact he can in order to thumb his nose either at Jewish or English people. He is indeed an unpleasent character. Gladiator is a great film with or without its inaccuracies, most of which I am well aware of down to the apparent misuse of the subtractive numbering system! Although I have stated elsewhere my distaste for historical inaccuracy in films, especially with respect to Kubrick's Spartacus, I'll excuse those within Gladiator because by and large, they are for dramatic reasons and not part of a political or religious agenda. The same can not be said for Spartacus, Quo Vadis or Ben Hur for example. The only 'political' comment that I detect is the supposed desire of Marcus Aurelius, to pass power to Maximus - never a nomen I know - to return Rome to being a Republic. We know that this didn't happen but perhaps if we bear in mind that the foundations of the United States constitution were so significantly influenced by the Roman Republic and that American principles are based on freedom, independence and free speech, perhaps it was expedient to ascribe this view to the "good emperor" for the sake of the US audience. The "most esteemed source" of ideas during the American revolutionary period was after all, according to Clinton Rossitor, "Cato's Letters", collated by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon. Otherwise, I can watch the opening sequence repeatedly wher the imagery is largely accurate for the period, but whether or not its so gripping! Lastly, in agreement, what is Gibson's problem!? Braveheart is about the worst of the lot!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostOfClayton Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 I really enjoyed Gladiator. Obviously there were glaring inaccuracies, but they wouldn't mean much to most movie-goers. And, admit it, I bet you learned an awful lot just by looking up the inaccuries on Wikipedia. I, for one, learned all about Cincinnatus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylla Posted August 29, 2009 Report Share Posted August 29, 2009 Arguably, most films (and show-business in general) tend to be rather inaccurate far more often than not, presumably from their own entertaining nature; the real life of many historical figures was frequently so boring... All that said, from what I have been able to see posted here in UNRV, timesonline has never been especially fortunate for the selection of their "10 most" lists, and this one seems to be no exception. I'm sure many UNRV members would have done a far better job. Some films, like 10,000 BC and Apocalypto, are not even history, and the latter is criticized not for its accuracy but for hurting some misguided indigenist sensibilities, as if any human group anywhere has ever been incapable of cruel actions. Other films, like Pearl Harbor, are in fact quite accurate, so they are criticized for the literary depiction of their characters! Gladiator has been extensively discussed here and in other threads (and many other websites, of course); a great spectacle with bad history. In fact, the actual gladiator should have been Commodus, not Maximus. This emperor was a fascinating figure that surely deserves a better script. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted September 2, 2009 Report Share Posted September 2, 2009 I loved Gladiator, despite several... well... many... er, a veritable shitload of inaccuracies. Despite finding myself cringing and shaking my head far too often at those issues, I absolutely loved the film. The spectacle was worth it. (I admire another film in the same sort of way... a lesser known classic, "The Fall of the Roman Empire" set in the same time setting and equally fraught with error and spectacle) The Patriot was an absolute sham from beginning to end. It's depiction of just about everything regarding colonial America, the British Empire and the Revolution made me ill. Although, I must admit that I found one scene to be of interest--when Mel went ape-shit and was maniacally butchering redcoats in the forest, it was pretty hard not to be riveted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylla Posted September 2, 2009 Report Share Posted September 2, 2009 (I admire another film in the same sort of way... a lesser known classic, "The Fall of the Roman Empire" set in the same time setting and equally fraught with error and spectacle) The 1964 Bronston's film was indeed an interesting piece of work (and a nice moment for Sophia Loren, BTW).In many ways, it was indeed one of the inspirations behind Gladiator. However, its script was far more interesting, fundamentally because grossly inaccurate as it was, Bronston's film was honestly actually trying to give an historically plausible explanation for the decline of the Roman Empire; the influence of Gibbon was evident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanista Posted September 4, 2009 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 The Patriot was an absolute sham from beginning to end. It's depiction of just about everything regarding colonial America, the British Empire and the Revolution made me ill. Although, I must admit that I found one scene to be of interest--when Mel went ape-shit and was maniacally butchering redcoats in the forest, it was pretty hard not to be riveted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rompe Posted September 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 Spartacus...with Goran Visnjic.... I wish in this movie that they would have at least had some type of mention how the real Spartacus was actually a member of the Legions. It makes such a difference since this is what also helped him a lot on defeating the Romans that were sent after him and his "Slave Army". There is a good documentary called "Spartacus, behind the Myth" that is quite good and, what seems like, accurate... http://www.onlinedocumentaries4u.com/2009/...ehind-myth.html Troy... Achillies got Chryseis (Real name of Astynome) first and her Father was a priest of Apollo and that her Father had a lot to do with her return. He only got Briseis as a replacement to Chryseis. Also in Troy, I love it how they have King Menelaus being killed by Prince Hektor after he fights Prince Paris. Yes, he did fight Prince Paris, but according to myth and legend, "Aphrodite spirits Paris away inside the walls of Troy" before he can be killed. After Prince Paris is killed, Helen marries Deiphobus of Troy. After Troy gets sacked, King Menelaus wants to kill Helen, but can not due to her beauty and he takes her back......so it is intresting how Prince Hektor kills King Menelaus so early in the film and Helen runs off with Prince Paris (who is killed in battle during the war) and I guess live happily ever after! Funny how Helen ends up back in her homeland with King Menelaus, even though their relationship is never the same! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.