Poll
Question:
Is Gladiator a good movie?
Option 1: It was great! It deserved that best picture Oscar.
votes: 11
Option 2: It was good, but it wasn't special.
votes: 14
Option 3: It was okay.
votes: 3
Option 4: I've seen worse, but it wasn't good.
votes: 6
Option 5: It was terrible.
votes: 0
The Brain said it wasn't good and I object most heartily!
(https://musicart.xboxlive.com/7/f0951400-0000-0000-0000-000000000002/504/image.jpg?w=1920&h=1080)
Gladiator was a 60s Italian swords and sandals b-movie on a Hollywood blockbuster budget. It's an enjoyable enough movie but it's not exactly Citizen Kane or Battleship Potemkin.
I'll repost what I said in the movie thread:
Quote
Gladiator was okay. An effective Hollywood blockbuster, but nothing more than that. I think people don't realize how much Crowe's larger than life performance elevates the movie. Take him away, and there isn't much to chew on, besides some action scenes.
I liked Kingdom of Heaven more (the extended cut).
I enjoyed it a lot. Great acting by Crowe and very beautiful cinegraphy.
A cartoonishly evil villain is rarely great for a serious movie. And this villain is sexually deviant, so we can tell he's extra evil.
It's good.
Not in best film ever terrritory but certainly in the tier 2 of films everyone should have seen.
It helps a lot that there really aren't that many roman films this past 50-odd years.
Quote from: Zanza on July 23, 2021, 05:33:37 AM
I enjoyed it a lot. Great acting by Crowe and very beautiful cinegraphy.
I enjoyed it immensely. Partly because it was the first big movie set in Rome in decades, in my recollection at least.*
Nowadays big action scenes tend to bore me to tears, not sure if I'd enjoy it now.
And there definitely wasn't much too it story-wise, it all rests on the two lead actors and now-dated CGI.
*edit: there was that weird Titus Andronicus movie with Hopkins, I should watch that again.
Good, but not great. Did wonders for what it was, creating almost single-handedly a revival of sword & sandal films.
Quote from: Maladict on July 23, 2021, 05:43:05 AM
*edit: there was that weird Titus Andronicus movie with Hopkins, I should watch that again.
I loved it, but it's not really set in ancient Rome. It's a super-stilyzed early 20th century setting.
Quote from: celedhring on July 23, 2021, 05:54:51 AM
Quote from: Maladict on July 23, 2021, 05:43:05 AM
*edit: there was that weird Titus Andronicus movie with Hopkins, I should watch that again.
I loved it, but it's not really set in ancient Rome. It's a super-stilyzed early 20th century setting.
Yes - I absolutely loved that film - Julie Taymor I think and very theatrical.
But that was also in a period of lots of modern-ish Shakespeare films (Richard III, Ken Branagh, Romeo + Juliet). Most of them still hold up.
I like Gladiator - I love Joaquin Phoenix's turn and the score is great and it's fun :)
Quote from: celedhring on July 23, 2021, 05:54:51 AM
Quote from: Maladict on July 23, 2021, 05:43:05 AM
*edit: there was that weird Titus Andronicus movie with Hopkins, I should watch that again.
I loved it, but it's not really set in ancient Rome. It's a super-stilyzed early 20th century setting.
There was a Julius Caesar production with an all black African cast which transplanted the piece to an African setting. One of the best versions I've seen.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2021, 05:58:46 AM
Quote from: celedhring on July 23, 2021, 05:54:51 AM
Quote from: Maladict on July 23, 2021, 05:43:05 AM
*edit: there was that weird Titus Andronicus movie with Hopkins, I should watch that again.
I loved it, but it's not really set in ancient Rome. It's a super-stilyzed early 20th century setting.
Yes - I absolutely loved that film - Julie Taymor I think and very theatrical.
But that was also in a period of lots of modern-ish Shakespeare films (Richard III, Ken Branagh, Romeo + Juliet). Most of them still hold up.
I like Gladiator - I love Joaquin Phoenix's turn and the score is great and it's fun :)
I remember loving Brannagh's Hamlet when it came out, but I admit to not having seen it since. Romeo+Juliet is a film I adore and have watched several times. As for Richard III, the whole interwar setting felt a bit too easy, but the cast carried that movie.
I love Much Ado About Nothing, too. Utterly love it. I take some weird regional pride in the fact that none other than Denzel Washington plays the Prince of Aragon.
Much Ado About Nothing is great but very much carried by the chemistry between Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson.
I need to rewatch his Hamlet, I remember thinking it was excellent, and it had an amazing cast all around. And there'sof course Henry IV :wub:
But to get back to the main topic: Gladiator may not be a great movie, but it's a great popcorn movie.
Quote from: celedhring on July 23, 2021, 05:27:06 AM
I'll repost what I said in the movie thread:
Quote
Gladiator was okay. An effective Hollywood blockbuster, but nothing more than that. I think people don't realize how much Crowe's larger than life performance elevates the movie. Take him away, and there isn't much to chew on, besides some action scenes.
I liked Kingdom of Heaven more (the extended cut).
Great acting is an integral part of a movie's quality
Quote from: Syt on July 23, 2021, 06:10:22 AM
Much Ado About Nothing is great but very much carried by the chemistry between Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson.
I need to rewatch his Hamlet, I remember thinking it was excellent, and it had an amazing cast all around. And there'sof course Henry IV :wub:
:lol: Much Ado About Nothing was a standard in English class - a film high school kids could enjoy but educational enough to justify the teacher just putting it on and doing nothing for a couple of lessons.
Semi-relatedly but I recommend the Hollow Crown series the BBC did recently - it's basically all of the big history plays (my favourites :wub:) with a great cast. Ben Whishaw as Richard II and Patrick Stewart as John of Gaunt, then Jeremy Irons as Henry IV with Tom Hiddleston as Hal/Henry V and Simon Russell Beale doing Falstaff and Julie Walters as Mistress Quickly plus John Hurt. Then into Henry VI with Michael Gambon, Hugh Bonneville, Anton Lesser with Benedict Cumberbatch as Richard for Richard III as the final in the serious.
It's very good - a period rather than a modern adaptation but a very good cast all the way through.
Edit: Plus it's great to kind of see them put together as a sequence with a pretty coherent approach. I've only ever seen that before with Henry IV Part 1 through to Henry V.
Going back to Gladiator, I wonder how much can the relative revival of historical epics of the early 00s is due to it. Right after Gladiator came Troy, 300, the Alexander the Great biopic, the Clash of the Titans remakes, two Hercules movies...
Gladiator was fun for a first viewing, but I had no interest in seeing it again. The plot was painfully dumb and the actors seemed to have some difficulty taking the dialogue seriously. Some nice bits of acting and scenery, though. Everyone should see it once and no one should see it twice.
Quote from: celedhring on July 23, 2021, 05:54:51 AM
Quote from: Maladict on July 23, 2021, 05:43:05 AM
*edit: there was that weird Titus Andronicus movie with Hopkins, I should watch that again.
I loved it, but it's not really set in ancient Rome. It's a super-stilyzed early 20th century setting.
Yes, new Rome superimposed on ancient Rome, and very cleverly done. IIrc they used both ancient monuments and the Fascist reimagining of them, like the EUR 'square colosseum'.
And I remember they used the colours of AS Roma and Lazio for the opposing political parties. I'm going to watch it again now.
Quote from: The Larch on July 23, 2021, 07:02:33 AM
Going back to Gladiator, I wonder how much can the relative revival of historical epics of the early 00s is due to it. Right after Gladiator came Troy, 300, the Alexander the Great biopic, the Clash of the Titans remakes, two Hercules movies...
It's huge - I think it kickstarted that whole move.
More generally I feel like the 80s and 90s had loads of contemporary action/thrillers, then Gladiator ushered in a decade of historical/period action films before we reached today's all comic book universes all the time.
And, despite some of the comments here, I think Gladiator in comparison with what followed shows how difficult it is to get a big popcorn blockbuster right. It may not be a great film in its own right - but it is a lot better than any of the other films you mentioned.
300 is a lot better than Gladiator.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2021, 07:22:43 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 23, 2021, 07:02:33 AM
Going back to Gladiator, I wonder how much can the relative revival of historical epics of the early 00s is due to it. Right after Gladiator came Troy, 300, the Alexander the Great biopic, the Clash of the Titans remakes, two Hercules movies...
It's huge - I think it kickstarted that whole move.
More generally I feel like the 80s and 90s had loads of contemporary action/thrillers, then Gladiator ushered in a decade of historical/period action films before we reached today's all comic book universes all the time.
And, despite some of the comments here, I think Gladiator in comparison with what followed shows how difficult it is to get a big popcorn blockbuster right. It may not be a great film in its own right - but it is a lot better than any of the other films you mentioned.
I wonder what influence the success of Gladiator might have had in LOTR getting done, in case it can be considered that it paved the way for it or not. From LOTR you can trace a perfect line to GoT and the mega cinematic universes that are everywhere nowadays.
Quote from: The Larch on July 23, 2021, 07:26:01 AM
I wonder what influence the success of Gladiator might have had in LOTR getting done, in case it can be considered that it paved the way for it or not. From LOTR you can trace a perfect line to GoT and the mega cinematic universes that are everywhere nowadays.
Interesting - it might well be. I suppose the other big historical film at that time was Braveheart - but it and Gladiator seemed to be more tapping into the 50s/60s style historical action epic style whereas I feel like the other big historical films at that time were far more in the Gone with the Wind/historical epic romantic drama style (Titanic, Dances with Wolves, Last of the Mohicans etc).
I realise there are love stories in Braveheart and Gladiator but no-one is watching them for that. Same with Aragorn and Arwen :lol:
Edit: And as you say from 50s/60s style historical epic is a hop skip and a jump to Jason and the Argonauts style fantasy world.
Quote from: The Larch on July 23, 2021, 07:26:01 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2021, 07:22:43 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 23, 2021, 07:02:33 AM
Going back to Gladiator, I wonder how much can the relative revival of historical epics of the early 00s is due to it. Right after Gladiator came Troy, 300, the Alexander the Great biopic, the Clash of the Titans remakes, two Hercules movies...
It's huge - I think it kickstarted that whole move.
More generally I feel like the 80s and 90s had loads of contemporary action/thrillers, then Gladiator ushered in a decade of historical/period action films before we reached today's all comic book universes all the time.
And, despite some of the comments here, I think Gladiator in comparison with what followed shows how difficult it is to get a big popcorn blockbuster right. It may not be a great film in its own right - but it is a lot better than any of the other films you mentioned.
I wonder what influence the success of Gladiator might have had in LOTR getting done, in case it can be considered that it paved the way for it or not. From LOTR you can trace a perfect line to GoT and the mega cinematic universes that are everywhere nowadays.
LOTR was already in production when Gladiator came out.
Quote from: Syt on July 23, 2021, 07:32:42 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 23, 2021, 07:24:59 AM
300 is a lot better than Gladiator.
Eh.
Yeah I don't agree - but I don't think I've liked any Zack Snyder film so that might just be me.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2021, 07:31:48 AMEdit: And as you say from 50s/60s style historical epic is a hop skip and a jump to Jason and the Argonauts style fantasy world.
Yup, it doesn't take much to go from classic sword and sandals fare to mythological adventures. Yet we still don't have a proper film about the Trojan War with gods and fantastic elements. The fact that Troy removed all that to remain somehow grounded in the real world was a bold choice.
Quote from: The Larch on July 23, 2021, 07:40:55 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2021, 07:31:48 AMEdit: And as you say from 50s/60s style historical epic is a hop skip and a jump to Jason and the Argonauts style fantasy world.
Yup, it doesn't take much to go from classic sword and sandals fare to mythological adventures. Yet we still don't have a proper film about the Trojan War with gods and fantastic elements. The fact that Troy removed all that to remain somehow grounded in the real world was a bold choice.
YES! God I hate Troy and want a proper Greek version.
It's only redeeming moment is when Orlando Bloom gives his sword to Aeneas at the end :lol:
And thinking about it could probably look at a big chunk of this type of film just through Bloom's back catalogue - LOTR, Troy, Pirates of the Caribbean, Kingdom of Heaven etc.
Cinema went over the top into CGI with the gods angle. Clash of the titans still sends a shudder up my spine.
Whats wrong with seemingly down to earth adventures with supernatural elements.
There was this pub in NYC when I lived there, that used to show Troy (among other movies) on their flat screens. It makes for an hilarious drunk-watch.
Quote from: The Brain on July 23, 2021, 07:24:59 AM
300 is a lot better more funny than Gladiator.
FTFY. 300 was a brilliant spoof of itself.
Quote from: Tyr on July 23, 2021, 07:45:16 AM
Cinema went over the top into CGI with the gods angle. Clash of the titans still sends a shudder up my spine.
Whats wrong with seemingly down to earth adventures with supernatural elements.
Yes. I think films are a little better now at mixing effects and CGI but in the 2000s especially went a little too big on the CGI - surprisingly I think LOTR has actually aged quite well on this.
Never saw Clash of the Titans but I managed about ten minutes of Gods of Egypt when it was on TV recently before turning it off because it was clearly going to be shit :ph34r:
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2021, 07:34:11 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 23, 2021, 07:32:42 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 23, 2021, 07:24:59 AM
300 is a lot better than Gladiator.
Eh.
Yeah I don't agree - but I don't think I've liked any Zack Snyder film so that might just be me.
It's a fairly faithful rendition of the comic with little original thought brought to it. It's a bit of a visual spectacle but mostly a meme in movie format. 300 Spartans from the 60s in is a better movie.
For weird, trippy ancients watch Immortals with Henry Cavill as Theseus, directed by Tarsem Singh. :D
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2021, 07:44:40 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 23, 2021, 07:40:55 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2021, 07:31:48 AMEdit: And as you say from 50s/60s style historical epic is a hop skip and a jump to Jason and the Argonauts style fantasy world.
Yup, it doesn't take much to go from classic sword and sandals fare to mythological adventures. Yet we still don't have a proper film about the Trojan War with gods and fantastic elements. The fact that Troy removed all that to remain somehow grounded in the real world was a bold choice.
YES! God I hate Troy and want a proper Greek version.
It's only redeeming moment is when Orlando Bloom gives his sword to Aeneas at the end :lol:
And thinking about it could probably look at a big chunk of this type of film just through Bloom's back catalogue - LOTR, Troy, Pirates of the Caribbean, Kingdom of Heaven etc.
Despite all its shortcomings (and there are many!), I have a soft spot for Troy. Visually it's excellent, Eric Bana's Hector is almost flawless, and most of the key beats of the story play out as they should.
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2021, 07:48:42 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 23, 2021, 07:24:59 AM
300 is a lot better more funny than Gladiator.
FTFY. 300 was a brilliant spoof of itself.
I remember being really suprised when I realized that we were supposed to be taking this shit seriously, and actually be rooting for a bunch of homicidal maniacs.
It is kind of like when my wife made me watch the first Twilight movie, and it was terrible, but the male lead actually did a pretty damn good job. Later on I read an interview where the actor said something like "I just assumed everyone was supposed to think my character was a whiny little bitch and played him like that...." (I am summarizing). I laughed at that, and thought "Yep, he gets it!" but of course all the actual fans were *supposed* to find him so endearingly moody and lovable...
Saw it in the theater with friends. I got bored halfway through.
Before I answer I need to know. What do you all think of Traffic?
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 23, 2021, 08:30:00 AM
Before I answer I need to know. What do you all think of Traffic?
Saw that one at the theater as well. Unfortunately the sound went out part way through. So I have no idea if it is good or not.
Gladiator is a great popcorn flick and worth a watch if you're bored and flipping through channels looking for something decent. Crowe and Phoenix make it work.
Crowe's best performance will always be Master and Commander though.
Quote from: FunkMonk on July 23, 2021, 08:43:38 AM
Crowe's best performance will always be Master and Commander though.
Now there's a great period piece. I wish they had made the planned sequels.
Yeah, Master & Commander tops my "the world is a worse place without sequels to this movie" list.
Quote from: celedhring on July 23, 2021, 08:56:31 AM
Yeah, Master & Commander tops my "the world is a worse place without sequels to this movie" list.
It's right up there with seeing 70 million people vote for Trump as evidence that maybe the Chinese have the right idea on how to run the world.
Quote from: Maladict on July 23, 2021, 08:47:05 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on July 23, 2021, 08:43:38 AM
Crowe's best performance will always be Master and Commander though.
Now there's a great period piece. I wish they had made the planned sequels.
Let me say up front I adore Master and Commander, both the movie and the Patrick O'Brian novels.
But a sequel would have been tough I think. It's a 20 book series, but they mostly took the plot from book #10, but then also stole lines and plot points from a half dozen other movies. Where exactly would they go for a second movie?
There is still talk about making a prequel, or rebooting it, or whatever. Supposedly such a prequel is in active development, whatever that means.
I was once listening to the "Emperors of Rome" podcast; where one of the speakers, a lecturer of classical studies at La Trobe University, mentioned that she watched Gladiator with her students. The interviewer asked if her students could connect to it, as it was released when they would have been very young. She replied, "Yes, but most students of classical studies are usually interested in old things."
;)
Gladiator is a fun big popcorn movie. I don't think it's a Hollywood Classic the way that, say, Spartacus is (and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (Watcha!) obviously deserved the Oscar that year), but it's still a good movie.
Quote from: Savonarola on July 23, 2021, 10:28:02 AM
I was once listening to the "Emperors of Rome" podcast; where one of the speakers, a lecturer of classical studies at La Trobe University, mentioned that she watched Gladiator with her students. The interviewer asked if her students could connect to it, as it was released when they would have been very young. She replied, "Yes, but most students of classical studies are usually interested in old things."
Don't do this to us :weep:
Unrelated but Gladiator is also linked to one of my favourite sports anecdotes from Gael Givet:
"In 2010 with Blackburn, we were going to play Man Utd. During the talk, Sam Allardyce showed us images from the films Gladiator and 300 to motivate us and to make us warriors on the pitch. After 30 minutes, we were down 3-0. In the end, we lost 7-1."
As to Gladiator - the question is "Is Gladiator a good movie".
The answer is absolutely. Great enjoyable action movie.
Thinking back I can't believe it won Best Picture, but if my wife said "Hey do you want to watch Gladiator tonight" I'd surely say yes.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2021, 08:20:47 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2021, 07:48:42 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 23, 2021, 07:24:59 AM
300 is a lot better more funny than Gladiator.
FTFY. 300 was a brilliant spoof of itself.
I remember being really suprised when I realized that we were supposed to be taking this shit seriously, and actually be rooting for a bunch of homicidal maniacs.
It is kind of like when my wife made me watch the first Twilight movie, and it was terrible, but the male lead actually did a pretty damn good job. Later on I read an interview where the actor said something like "I just assumed everyone was supposed to think my character was a whiny little bitch and played him like that...." (I am summarizing). I laughed at that, and thought "Yep, he gets it!" but of course all the actual fans were *supposed* to find him so endearingly moody and lovable...
300 was based on a graphic novel/comic and it was true to that source material. I am not sure what you mean by taking that shit seriously. If you went in not knowing you were going to watch a screen adaptation of an action comic book there would definitely have been a disconnect. Kind of like watching a movie based on comic book Thor when you expected to see real Norse mythology.
Frank Miller was quite serious about his political messaging, though (the noble Spartan ideal defending effete Greeks from subhuman Easterners).
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2021, 07:44:40 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 23, 2021, 07:40:55 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2021, 07:31:48 AMEdit: And as you say from 50s/60s style historical epic is a hop skip and a jump to Jason and the Argonauts style fantasy world.
Yup, it doesn't take much to go from classic sword and sandals fare to mythological adventures. Yet we still don't have a proper film about the Trojan War with gods and fantastic elements. The fact that Troy removed all that to remain somehow grounded in the real world was a bold choice.
YES! God I hate Troy and want a proper Greek version.
It's only redeeming moment is when Orlando Bloom gives his sword to Aeneas at the end :lol:
And thinking about it could probably look at a big chunk of this type of film just through Bloom's back catalogue - LOTR, Troy, Pirates of the Caribbean, Kingdom of Heaven etc.
What did you think of the Netflix adaptation of the Trojan story?
Quote from: Barrister on July 23, 2021, 10:35:51 AM
As to Gladiator - the question is "Is Gladiator a good movie".
The answer is absolutely. Great enjoyable action movie.
Thinking back I can't believe it won Best Picture, but if my wife said "Hey do you want to watch Gladiator tonight" I'd surely say yes.
I agree. It is a great movie to watch every now and then. Sometimes I just watch the opening battle scene - well up until the part where for some reason the Romans break into a mob and fight individually. But the opening sequence is stunning even after watching it many times.
Quote from: Syt on July 23, 2021, 10:50:19 AM
Frank Miller was quite serious about his political messaging, though (the noble Spartan ideal defending effete Greeks from subhuman Easterners).
Yes, and that comes across clearly in the screen adaptation of his work. It was by no means a parody of his work.
I think Gladiator is good Hollywood fun. So yeah, sure, it's a good film. If I'm looking for things to complain about, I can find a reasonable amount I think, but if I'm not I'll enjoy watching it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2021, 10:31:28 AM
Unrelated but Gladiator is also linked to one of my favourite sports anecdotes from Gael Givet:
"In 2010 with Blackburn, we were going to play Man Utd. During the talk, Sam Allardyce showed us images from the films Gladiator and 300 to motivate us and to make us warriors on the pitch. After 30 minutes, we were down 3-0. In the end, we lost 7-1."
C'mon Big Sam :lol:
Null vote - I've never watched it, not even a 30 second clip.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2021, 11:04:02 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 23, 2021, 10:50:19 AM
Frank Miller was quite serious about his political messaging, though (the noble Spartan ideal defending effete Greeks from subhuman Easterners).
Yes, and that comes across clearly in the screen adaptation of his work. It was by no means a parody of his work.
Which is surprising as it is a very good parody.
Yes, it's a good movie. My main complaints are related to historical accuracy, and primarily around Commodus: the real-life Commodus's personality/behavior was more like that of a modern WWE wrestler and it would have been hilarious to see that recreated faithfully in the movie, so I am not sure why they cast Joaquin Phoenix in the role. That said, the Commodus he played in the movie was still interesting in its own right and his performance was fantastic. I don't like it when Hollywood screenwriters dealing with historical topics change history for no logical reason that I can think of, especially when the real story is interesting like it is here.
Quote from: Tyr on July 23, 2021, 11:29:09 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2021, 11:04:02 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 23, 2021, 10:50:19 AM
Frank Miller was quite serious about his political messaging, though (the noble Spartan ideal defending effete Greeks from subhuman Easterners).
Yes, and that comes across clearly in the screen adaptation of his work. It was by no means a parody of his work.
Which is surprising as it is a very good parody.
Perhaps the meaning of parody is being lost here. The source material was not for comic effect - but as Syt pointed out Miler had a particular political message he wished to convey.
Quote from: Tyr on July 23, 2021, 11:29:09 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2021, 11:04:02 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 23, 2021, 10:50:19 AM
Frank Miller was quite serious about his political messaging, though (the noble Spartan ideal defending effete Greeks from subhuman Easterners).
Yes, and that comes across clearly in the screen adaptation of his work. It was by no means a parody of his work.
Which is surprising as it is a very good parody.
It is very good parody. Anyone who went to see it thinking that it was a movie about the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae walked away disappointed, but those who recognized that it was sending up Miller and his whole worldview about real men fighting monsters while almost naked could be entertained. I know that there are people who don't recognize the movie
300 as parody, any more than they recognize the movie
Starship Troopers as parody, but that's their loss.
If David Lynch's version of
Dune hadn't been intended for us to take seriously, it would be up there, too.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2021, 10:51:31 AM
What did you think of the Netflix adaptation of the Trojan story?
Haven't heard of that? :hmm:
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2021, 11:55:59 AM
It is very good parody. Anyone who went to see it thinking that it was a movie about the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae walked away disappointed, but those who recognized that it was sending up Miller and his whole worldview about real men fighting monsters while almost naked could be entertained. I know that there are people who don't recognize the movie 300 as parody, any more than they recognize the movie Starship Troopers as parody, but that's their loss.
If David Lynch's version of Dune hadn't been intended for us to take seriously, it would be up there, too.
Starship Troopers was clearly intended as a parody, at least to my eyes. My impression of
300 was that it was not intended as a parody... though as you say, it is laughable when taken at face value. I think that was the weakness of that film.
Well if parody means a faithful reproduction then yes, 300 was a parody of Miller's work.
Yeah as I understand it, the film was a fairly faithful adaptation of the comic book - and the comic book was unironically quasi-fascist.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2021, 12:07:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2021, 10:51:31 AM
What did you think of the Netflix adaptation of the Trojan story?
Haven't heard of that? :hmm:
It might be what you are looking for
https://www.netflix.com/ca/title/80175352
Quote from: Jacob on July 23, 2021, 12:28:46 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2021, 11:55:59 AM
It is very good parody. Anyone who went to see it thinking that it was a movie about the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae walked away disappointed, but those who recognized that it was sending up Miller and his whole worldview about real men fighting monsters while almost naked could be entertained. I know that there are people who don't recognize the movie 300 as parody, any more than they recognize the movie Starship Troopers as parody, but that's their loss.
If David Lynch's version of Dune hadn't been intended for us to take seriously, it would be up there, too.
Starship Troopers was clearly intended as a parody, at least to my eyes. My impression of 300 was that it was not intended as a parody... though as you say, it is laughable when taken at face value. I think that was the weakness of that film.
Starship Troopers was clearly intended as parody, but that intent I think went over some people's heads.
300 was not intended as a parody, but some have found enjoyment in the movie viewing it as parody.
Quote from: Jacob on July 23, 2021, 12:35:14 PM
Yeah as I understand it, the film was a fairly faithful adaptation of the comic book - and the comic book was unironically quasi-fascist.
Yep. Although I am not sure about the quasi bit.
It is good. Almost the archetypal summer blockbuster.
Kind of a weird moment in time, when a film like this could win Best Picture and a film like this that is not a comic book adaptation or a sequel to something.
Quote from: Jacob on July 23, 2021, 12:28:46 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2021, 11:55:59 AM
It is very good parody. Anyone who went to see it thinking that it was a movie about the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae walked away disappointed, but those who recognized that it was sending up Miller and his whole worldview about real men fighting monsters while almost naked could be entertained. I know that there are people who don't recognize the movie 300 as parody, any more than they recognize the movie Starship Troopers as parody, but that's their loss.
If David Lynch's version of Dune hadn't been intended for us to take seriously, it would be up there, too.
Starship Troopers was clearly intended as a parody, at least to my eyes. My impression of 300 was that it was not intended as a parody... though as you say, it is laughable when taken at face value. I think that was the weakness of that film.
Like
Starship Troopers,
300 took the original zany work and then turned the volume to 11, turning it from a serious work into a cartoon. I guess its possible that that was accidental (this is a Zach Snyder movie, after all), but it looked too pervasive to me for an accident.
The movie kinda skipped the part in the book where the Spartans all take off their diapers to sleep, for some reason, though...
Quote from: Barrister on July 23, 2021, 12:36:16 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 23, 2021, 12:28:46 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2021, 11:55:59 AM
It is very good parody. Anyone who went to see it thinking that it was a movie about the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae walked away disappointed, but those who recognized that it was sending up Miller and his whole worldview about real men fighting monsters while almost naked could be entertained. I know that there are people who don't recognize the movie 300 as parody, any more than they recognize the movie Starship Troopers as parody, but that's their loss.
If David Lynch's version of Dune hadn't been intended for us to take seriously, it would be up there, too.
Starship Troopers was clearly intended as a parody, at least to my eyes. My impression of 300 was that it was not intended as a parody... though as you say, it is laughable when taken at face value. I think that was the weakness of that film.
Starship Troopers was clearly intended as parody, but that intent I think went over some people's heads.
300 was not intended as a parody, but some have found enjoyment in the movie viewing it as parody.
My point was simply that it was funny to realize that the movie actually took itself seriously. It really was trying to present this maniacs as the good guys, the people we should be rooting for - and yet....they did so in a way that you would have to be about 13 and maybe just thinking about puberty to actually think "Damn, those guys are so cool and badass!"
Now, perhaps that same level of emotional intelligence is what the comic's author was aiming for as well - I don't know since I did not read the comic, but I guess if so I would have found that amusing as well.
300 overall was a pretty fun movie to watch. Kind of like the way
Porky's was a fun movie to watch. But the idea that the guys who made that movie would actually think that is an awesome way to treat women and something that we should all strive for would be....disturbing.
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2021, 01:36:40 PMLike Starship Troopers, 300 took the original zany work and then turned the volume to 11, turning it from a serious work into a cartoon. I guess its possible that that was accidental (this is a Zach Snyder movie, after all), but it looked too pervasive to me for an accident.
Frank Miller was executive producer on 300, so I'm not sold on it being an intentional parody of the comic.
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2021, 01:21:55 PM
It is good. Almost the archetypal summer blockbuster.
Kind of a weird moment in time, when a film like this could win Best Picture and a film like this that is not a comic book adaptation or a sequel to something.
The plot was too silly to make for a Best Picture, imo, but you are correct that this was a good summer blockbuster kind of movie. In those movies, you don't want to have to think about what's on the screen, you just want to absorb it.
And as for Master and Commander, it's doubly ironic that the reason no sequels were made was because the money types thought it couldn't compete with the
Pirates of the Caribbean series in the "nautical movie" slot. I don't think that the franchises competed for the same audience at all.
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2021, 01:50:04 PM
And as for Master and Commander, it's doubly ironic that the reason no sequels were made was because the money types thought it couldn't compete with the Pirates of the Caribbean series in the "nautical movie" slot. I don't think that the franchises competed for the same audience at all.
Pirates of the Caribbean was based on a themepark ride. Master and Commander was based on a 20 novel series with impeccable historical accuracy. Nope, not the same audiences at all.
But that probably limited the ticketsales of any future Master and Commander movies. The beancounters at the movie studio probably had some idea what they were doing in not greenlighting a sequel.
While I think we are in a golden era of niche content in many ways, it seems like studios will not even consider anything even slightly adjacent to mainstream stuff now.
So we would probably need one of those streaming services to make a series if we want a decent budget for something like Master and Commander.
Gladiator was really well cast. Russell Crowe has great presence when he commits to a role and Joaquin Phoenix is always fun to watch. Then there's gallery of talented retreads - Richard Harris playing Roman King Arthur, Derek Jacobi playing Claudius with better elocution, Oliver Reed playing Roman Oliver Reed, and even former pretty boy David Hemmings showing up older and bloated but wigged and rouged up. The story is pulped up nonsense and the history is about as good as Gibsonesque Men in Kilts but its fun and well paced.
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2021, 11:55:59 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 23, 2021, 11:29:09 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2021, 11:04:02 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 23, 2021, 10:50:19 AM
Frank Miller was quite serious about his political messaging, though (the noble Spartan ideal defending effete Greeks from subhuman Easterners).
Yes, and that comes across clearly in the screen adaptation of his work. It was by no means a parody of his work.
Which is surprising as it is a very good parody.
It is very good parody. Anyone who went to see it thinking that it was a movie about the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae walked away disappointed, but those who recognized that it was sending up Miller and his whole worldview about real men fighting monsters while almost naked could be entertained. I know that there are people who don't recognize the movie 300 as parody, any more than they recognize the movie Starship Troopers as parody, but that's their loss.
If David Lynch's version of Dune hadn't been intended for us to take seriously, it would be up there, too.
I always want to take up for "300" when people laugh at the historical accuracy of the spartans fighting monsters. The story is being told by that one dude that survived before the battle of marathon to fire up his homies. If he told the story with a regard to actual historical events the way a 21st century historian would, that would arguably be less accurate. The Iliad has lots of supernatural stuff too, but that is the way the greeks told and remembered the story of the trojan war.
The problem with that defense is that there is clearly a lot of stuff that the spartans wouldn't have had in the story.
I don't know if the people who made 300 intended to make a good movie or not.
Did Leonidas speak with a Scottish accent in Teh Graphic Novel?
That was speech? :unsure:
When I saw 300 in the theater I genuinely thought it was a comedic parody. I laughed quite a bit. I might have annoyed some of the people in the theater :lol:
Haven't seen it since and I don't really remember it other than through its constant use in internet memes.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2021, 10:48:34 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2021, 08:20:47 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2021, 07:48:42 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 23, 2021, 07:24:59 AM
300 is a lot better more funny than Gladiator.
FTFY. 300 was a brilliant spoof of itself.
I remember being really suprised when I realized that we were supposed to be taking this shit seriously, and actually be rooting for a bunch of homicidal maniacs.
It is kind of like when my wife made me watch the first Twilight movie, and it was terrible, but the male lead actually did a pretty damn good job. Later on I read an interview where the actor said something like "I just assumed everyone was supposed to think my character was a whiny little bitch and played him like that...." (I am summarizing). I laughed at that, and thought "Yep, he gets it!" but of course all the actual fans were *supposed* to find him so endearingly moody and lovable...
300 was based on a graphic novel/comic and it was true to that source material. I am not sure what you mean by taking that shit seriously. If you went in not knowing you were going to watch a screen adaptation of an action comic book there would definitely have been a disconnect. Kind of like watching a movie based on comic book Thor when you expected to see real Norse mythology.
One of my history professors wrote an long article for a newspaper decrying all the things wrong with 300 and how the actual historical event would have looked very different. It was very embarrassing.
Quote from: Maladict on July 23, 2021, 04:43:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2021, 10:48:34 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2021, 08:20:47 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2021, 07:48:42 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 23, 2021, 07:24:59 AM
300 is a lot better more funny than Gladiator.
FTFY. 300 was a brilliant spoof of itself.
I remember being really suprised when I realized that we were supposed to be taking this shit seriously, and actually be rooting for a bunch of homicidal maniacs.
It is kind of like when my wife made me watch the first Twilight movie, and it was terrible, but the male lead actually did a pretty damn good job. Later on I read an interview where the actor said something like "I just assumed everyone was supposed to think my character was a whiny little bitch and played him like that...." (I am summarizing). I laughed at that, and thought "Yep, he gets it!" but of course all the actual fans were *supposed* to find him so endearingly moody and lovable...
300 was based on a graphic novel/comic and it was true to that source material. I am not sure what you mean by taking that shit seriously. If you went in not knowing you were going to watch a screen adaptation of an action comic book there would definitely have been a disconnect. Kind of like watching a movie based on comic book Thor when you expected to see real Norse mythology.
One of my history professors wrote an long article for a newspaper decrying all the things wrong with 300 and how the actual historical event would have looked very different. It was very embarrassing.
Invite to Languish?
Quote from: alfred russel on July 23, 2021, 02:42:59 PM
I always want to take up for "300" when people laugh at the historical accuracy of the spartans fighting monsters. The story is being told by that one dude that survived before the battle of marathon to fire up his homies. If he told the story with a regard to actual historical events the way a 21st century historian would, that would arguably be less accurate. The Iliad has lots of supernatural stuff too, but that is the way the greeks told and remembered the story of the trojan war.
The problem with that defense is that there is clearly a lot of stuff that the spartans wouldn't have had in the story.
Marathon happens a decade before Thermopylae. I looked it up, the story is told on the eve of Plataea, which is one year after Thermopylae. I don't think those soldiers needed a history lesson.
Quote from: Maladict on July 23, 2021, 04:46:37 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 23, 2021, 02:42:59 PM
I always want to take up for "300" when people laugh at the historical accuracy of the spartans fighting monsters. The story is being told by that one dude that survived before the battle of marathon to fire up his homies. If he told the story with a regard to actual historical events the way a 21st century historian would, that would arguably be less accurate. The Iliad has lots of supernatural stuff too, but that is the way the greeks told and remembered the story of the trojan war.
The problem with that defense is that there is clearly a lot of stuff that the spartans wouldn't have had in the story.
Marathon happens a decade before Thermopylae. I looked it up, the story is told on the eve of Plataea, which is one year after Thermopylae. I don't think those soldiers needed a history lesson.
No one in history who deserted and then the rest of his buddies were killed felt a need to improve on the facts. Did you ever watch The Usual Suspects btw?
Quote from: Maladict on July 23, 2021, 04:43:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2021, 10:48:34 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2021, 08:20:47 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2021, 07:48:42 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 23, 2021, 07:24:59 AM
300 is a lot better more funny than Gladiator.
FTFY. 300 was a brilliant spoof of itself.
I remember being really suprised when I realized that we were supposed to be taking this shit seriously, and actually be rooting for a bunch of homicidal maniacs.
It is kind of like when my wife made me watch the first Twilight movie, and it was terrible, but the male lead actually did a pretty damn good job. Later on I read an interview where the actor said something like "I just assumed everyone was supposed to think my character was a whiny little bitch and played him like that...." (I am summarizing). I laughed at that, and thought "Yep, he gets it!" but of course all the actual fans were *supposed* to find him so endearingly moody and lovable...
300 was based on a graphic novel/comic and it was true to that source material. I am not sure what you mean by taking that shit seriously. If you went in not knowing you were going to watch a screen adaptation of an action comic book there would definitely have been a disconnect. Kind of like watching a movie based on comic book Thor when you expected to see real Norse mythology.
One of my history professors wrote an long article for a newspaper decrying all the things wrong with 300 and how the actual historical event would have looked very different. It was very embarrassing.
:lol:
Yeah, yet another one who missed it was based on a comic.
Quote from: Maladict on July 23, 2021, 04:46:37 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 23, 2021, 02:42:59 PM
I always want to take up for "300" when people laugh at the historical accuracy of the spartans fighting monsters. The story is being told by that one dude that survived before the battle of marathon to fire up his homies. If he told the story with a regard to actual historical events the way a 21st century historian would, that would arguably be less accurate. The Iliad has lots of supernatural stuff too, but that is the way the greeks told and remembered the story of the trojan war.
The problem with that defense is that there is clearly a lot of stuff that the spartans wouldn't have had in the story.
Marathon happens a decade before Thermopylae. I looked it up, the story is told on the eve of Plataea, which is one year after Thermopylae. I don't think those soldiers needed a history lesson.
And the other problem with trying to give an historical justification, is that the one Spartan who did come back was despised, not cheered.
"no man would give him a light for his fire or speak to him; he was called Aristodemus the Coward."
Quote from: alfred russel on July 23, 2021, 02:42:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2021, 11:55:59 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 23, 2021, 11:29:09 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2021, 11:04:02 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 23, 2021, 10:50:19 AM
Frank Miller was quite serious about his political messaging, though (the noble Spartan ideal defending effete Greeks from subhuman Easterners).
Yes, and that comes across clearly in the screen adaptation of his work. It was by no means a parody of his work.
Which is surprising as it is a very good parody.
It is very good parody. Anyone who went to see it thinking that it was a movie about the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae walked away disappointed, but those who recognized that it was sending up Miller and his whole worldview about real men fighting monsters while almost naked could be entertained. I know that there are people who don't recognize the movie 300 as parody, any more than they recognize the movie Starship Troopers as parody, but that's their loss.
If David Lynch's version of Dune hadn't been intended for us to take seriously, it would be up there, too.
I always want to take up for "300" when people laugh at the historical accuracy of the spartans fighting monsters. The story is being told by that one dude that survived before the battle of marathon to fire up his homies. If he told the story with a regard to actual historical events the way a 21st century historian would, that would arguably be less accurate. The Iliad has lots of supernatural stuff too, but that is the way the greeks told and remembered the story of the trojan war.
The problem with that defense is that there is clearly a lot of stuff that the spartans wouldn't have had in the story.
Yes. I always liked this interpretation of it. It's like a film from a wacky alternate history where Sparta is making movies.
Or hell. It's like the sort of thing the nazis would have made. Just need to take on a bit more Jewishness on the Persians.
Not a good film for impressionable teenagers. But for anyone capable of thinking for themselves there are a lot of layers to think about.
It's commendable because it's such a bizzare one off in telling the story the way those involved would have.
That the people behind it were really earnest about the whole thing is worrying and funny at the same time. Though I really expect beyond miller at least some prominent people in the crew were in on the joke and knew not to take It at face value
Quote from: Maladict on July 23, 2021, 04:43:45 PM
One of my history professors wrote an long article for a newspaper decrying all the things wrong with 300 and how the actual historical event would have looked very different. It was very embarrassing.
:lol: I had a history teacher at school who would put on Elizabeth for end of term classes, which she loved - normally followed by a lesson where she just went through all the mistakes.
I don't think I was ever in a class with her that was actually about the Tudors.
Quote from: Barrister on July 23, 2021, 10:35:51 AM
As to Gladiator - the question is "Is Gladiator a good movie".
The answer is absolutely. Great enjoyable action movie.
Thinking back I can't believe it won Best Picture, but if my wife said "Hey do you want to watch Gladiator tonight" I'd surely say yes.
What movie from 2000 should have won then?
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2021, 01:21:55 PM
It is good. Almost the archetypal summer blockbuster.
Kind of a weird moment in time, when a film like this could win Best Picture and a film like this that is not a comic book adaptation or a sequel to something.
For the whole 20th century movies like that could win. The population as a whole would respect the Oscars a lot more if that was still true.
There should be a minimum number of tickets sold for a movie to qualify for the Oscars. At least a million, maybe two. No art house flicks that only fifty thousand people have seen.
Timmy would have voted for all the Transformer movies. :D
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 23, 2021, 07:43:26 PMFor the whole 20th century movies like that could win. The population as a whole would respect the Oscars a lot more if that was still true.
There should be a minimum number of tickets sold for a movie to qualify for the Oscars. At least a million, maybe two. No art house flicks that only fifty thousand people have seen.
When has a film like that ever won Best Picture :lol:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 23, 2021, 07:40:08 PM
What movie from 2000 should have won then?
QuoteGladiator – Douglas Wick, David Franzoni, and Branko Lustig, producersdouble-dagger
Chocolat – David Brown, Kit Golden, and Leslie Holleran, producers
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon – Bill Kong, Hsu Li-kong, and Ang Lee, producers
Erin Brockovich – Danny DeVito, Michael Shamberg, and Stacey Sher, producers
Traffic – Marshall Herskovitz, Edward Zwick, and Laura Bickford, producers
Off that list I'd put Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Traffic higher.
But looking at the nominees in other categories I'd robably go for O Brother, Where Art Thou? or Requiem for a Dream (which had a huge impact on me as a teenager :lol:). I'd also throw in Amores Perros, Shadow of the Vampire and Wonder Boys as very good films in that year :)
I'd be happy to watch more or less any of them if they were on TV - same for Gladiator.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 23, 2021, 07:40:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 23, 2021, 10:35:51 AM
As to Gladiator - the question is "Is Gladiator a good movie".
The answer is absolutely. Great enjoyable action movie.
Thinking back I can't believe it won Best Picture, but if my wife said "Hey do you want to watch Gladiator tonight" I'd surely say yes.
What movie from 2000 should have won then?
Easy. Oh Brother, Where Art Though?
Though of the nominated movies probably Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (though I haven't seen that in nearly 20 years).
Edit: dammit! Ninja'd by Sheilbh. I needed to google to make sure they were out in the same year. :mad:
I am glad you guys are developing rose tinted glasses, thinking the Oscars were like Cannes except not liking breasts. But no. Gladiator was an excellent Hollywood movie even if a laughable story and historicity and it was right to win the Oscar that year for that very reason.
Quote from: Syt on July 23, 2021, 05:25:40 AM
Gladiator was a 60s Italian swords and sandals b-movie on a Hollywood blockbuster budget. It's an enjoyable enough movie but it's not exactly Citizen Kane or Battleship Potemkin.
Not really, Hollywood also had sword and sandals before on a blockbuster budget:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire_(film) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire_(film))
Same period, starting with Marcomanni wars and Commodus reign.
Gladiator is pretty good, as far as blockbusters go, take or leave a few anachronisms. :P
Quote from: The Brain on July 23, 2021, 07:24:59 AM
300 is a lot better than Gladiator.
For both unintended and intended homoeroticism, that's for sure.
Quote from: Tyr on July 23, 2021, 07:45:16 AM
Cinema went over the top into CGI with the gods angle. Clash of the titans still sends a shudder up my spine.
Whats wrong with seemingly down to earth adventures with supernatural elements.
Are you talking about the Harryhausen FX film? If not, you should. The CGI remake is awful.
Quote from: mongers on July 23, 2021, 11:27:38 AM
Null vote - I've never watched it, not even a 30 second clip.
Watch it for [spoiler]stirrups[/spoiler] and [spoiler]some alternative theory about the foundation of Rome, namely its régime.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Caliga on July 23, 2021, 11:35:24 AM
Yes, it's a good movie. My main complaints are related to historical accuracy, and primarily around Commodus: the real-life Commodus's personality/behavior was more like that of a modern WWE wrestler and it would have been hilarious to see that recreated faithfully in the movie, so I am not sure why they cast Joaquin Phoenix in the role. That said, the Commodus he played in the movie was still interesting in its own right and his performance was fantastic. I don't like it when Hollywood screenwriters dealing with historical topics change history for no logical reason that I can think of, especially when the real story is interesting like it is here.
Right on, the historically recorded death of Commodus was way crazier than the one shown in the film.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on July 24, 2021, 07:51:48 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 23, 2021, 05:25:40 AM
Gladiator was a 60s Italian swords and sandals b-movie on a Hollywood blockbuster budget. It's an enjoyable enough movie but it's not exactly Citizen Kane or Battleship Potemkin.
Not really, Hollywood also had sword and sandals before on a blockbuster budget:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire_(film) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire_(film))
I don't recall making the argument that this was the first time Hollywood did that.
Quote from: Syt on July 24, 2021, 08:38:22 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on July 24, 2021, 07:51:48 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 23, 2021, 05:25:40 AM
Gladiator was a 60s Italian swords and sandals b-movie on a Hollywood blockbuster budget. It's an enjoyable enough movie but it's not exactly Citizen Kane or Battleship Potemkin.
Not really, Hollywood also had sword and sandals before on a blockbuster budget:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire_(film) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire_(film))
I don't recall making the argument that this was the first time Hollywood did that.
The 1964 film wasn't a sword-n-sandals film at all. Just look at the cast. Technically, Gladiator isn't Sword-n-sandals, either, since it was a blockbuster, not an imitation of a blockbuster. But, with its much less star-dominated cast, it's much more so than was
The Fall...
Quote from: The Brain on July 23, 2021, 05:34:34 AM
A cartoonishly evil villain is rarely great for a serious movie. And this villain is sexually deviant, so we can tell he's extra evil.
That's about 1/2 of the Roman Emperors, I guess. :P
The poll is stupid