caldrail Posted May 11, 2007 Report Share Posted May 11, 2007 Gladiator is a good film, I do enjoy watching it. Russel Crowe comes across with all the right gravitas. Oliver Reed really ought to be remembered for his role in this, he was perfectly cast as the world weary lanista. Thing is, for a film that set out to depict Rome, it made some suprising assumptions. The bearded fashions of the time are nowhere to be seen, and the gladiator equipment is used in a sort of mix-and-match style which certainly isn't historical. Has anyone noticed that the colosseum is designed to look like the Pollice Verso painting from the Pheonix Art Gallery? Inspiration indeed, but I don't know about those obelisks in the arena. There's no record of any obstructions like those because it would spoil the audiences view. The sequence with tigers isn't so far from reality however. They really did things like that. The story is not quite historical, but the film has such class you just cannot criticise that point. Apart from Maximus's capture and descent into slavery which seems a bit abstract and leaves you thinking - Huh? What? Regarding the wagnerian soundtrack, Hans Zimmerman does admit that when it came down to it there simply wasn't any other way to suggest roman majesty. I think we can forgive him, and some of those tracks really do hit the spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hus Posted March 13, 2011 Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 This used to be my fave film, and it still is great, but there's a few things I keep thinking about whilst viewing it;- The film ought to have ended whilst Maximus was 'drifting' along the Colosseum? There should have been more battling in the Colosseum, more animals, Christians and gladiators etc? More Political intriguing and casual cruelty, to offset the oppulence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SassinidAzatan Posted April 2, 2011 Report Share Posted April 2, 2011 I wont attempt to defend the historical accuracy on this movie, because it was indeed lacking as most are. You have to admit though, Gladiator did us Roman fans a huge favor in putting it in the forefront in everyone's minds. Since then Roman history and knowledge I think has had a boost, and perhaps even the 'Rome' series owes it's life to the great movie which is Gladiator. Long live Ridley Scott! I will be honest Gladiator along with Rome:Total War is what got me interested in Roman civilization particularly the Roman Military.If I were to rewatch the film and/or play Rome:Total War again, I would be criticizing historical inaccuracies but I owe it to Ridley Scott's masterpiece and Rome:Total War for getting me into Roman civilization and the Roman military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parthianbow Posted May 13, 2011 Report Share Posted May 13, 2011 I agree with many of the other posters - it may be flawed, but it's a great film. Gladiator is also what reawakened my love of Rome. I read The Eagle of the Ninth and other Roman books as a boy, but Gladiator is one of the things that made me sit up and think, "I'm going to write a book about Roman soldiers." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hus Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 The film opens in Germania with the two men, Generals Maximus and Quintus, as friends. Fair enough, Maximus has snubbed Commodus and Quintus stays loyal, maybe to survive, but why does he never seem to show any sign of sympathy for the man's wife and son, remorse or regret for turning away from his friend, especially as he knows the truth? Quintus leaves it way too late to help his old friend, when he is dying in the arena? The film just fails to explore this in depth? Plus, the army who love their general doesn't revolt, or merit any mention other than they grow 'bored and fat'?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 (edited) Since we are opening an old thread: I sometimes think that the director missed a cheap but potentially powerful and poignant scene in the movie. Juba was Maximus's Numidian African slave friend. If I remember correctly, Juba shared with Maximus a moment of philosphical discussion. Imagine, if you can, Juba sharing with Maximus his own pantheon of religious fugures. And one of these figures is a statute of the crucified leader of the Jesus movement. Wow. Powerful. Remember, early Christians weren't necessarily orthodox and monotheistic. There is some suggestion,for example,that Severus Alexander included the Christ figure in his personal pantheon of figures to be admired and worshiped. I still think the opening of the movie with the battle scene in Germania one of the most powerful scenes ever. Richard Harris's portrayal of Marcus Aurelius during the battle, though obviously not entirely accurate, is extrememly powerful. Knowing that he was to die only two years after the movie's release, makes his acting all the more touching. Just a clip to evoke those fond memories again: guy also known as gaius Edited June 11, 2011 by guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hus Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 My reply to the 'old thread', prompted by this film being repeated lastnight on UK tv, was preceded by a post only 20-odd days prior!! I still think the original release failed to explain Quintus' character and motivations satisfactorily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armenius Posted September 6, 2014 Report Share Posted September 6, 2014 Hello Everybody, I will revive this old thread for my intial post on this Forum. In real life my name is Peter and I'm from Germany. I saw Gladiator for the first time shortly after it was availble on VHS years ago. I remember watching it with a certain degree of indifference; and afterwards I didn't have fond memories of it. However, heeding my brother's advice I saw it again a few months ago and although I could recall several scenes I felt I had never seen it before and told my brother that I couldn't explain the indifferent attitude I had when I saw it the first time. I have seen it several times since. Anyway, the scene that puzzles me most is after Commodus' final demize in the Arena, the "mob" reaction is surprisingly silent. I would rather think that the People of Rome, watching their emperor being killed by a Gladiator (no matter how much of a super-star he might have been) would rather react in complete outrage! It was Commodus who gave them the spectacle, death and bread ("...and they loved him for it!") so the sheer silence is for me completely out of place, after all they didn't really know that he was the real villian anyway! I won't comment on the costumes (or rather the armour and helmets) as this has been discussed in depth many times now, but nonetheless it is a powerful film. But I'm still left with the feeling of how it might have been if the producers and directors had got it right. A missed opportunity. What a shame! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viggen Posted September 7, 2014 Report Share Posted September 7, 2014 Willkommen Armenius, nice to have you here. Thanks for your comments, as you said an akward moment in the movie indeed, and btw. you might be interested that there is a book on a very similar topic coming out soon... The day Commodus killed a Rhino 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.