Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Gladiator (2000)

I DON'T GET IT. This is just one of those movies where I don't get the appeal at all. Maximus is an incredibly dull character who is portrayed as oh so noble but we don't see why and we certainly don't see him actually BEING noble. We get no real sense of his character, even though in 2 1/2 hours they had PLENTY of time to show it. Because of that, I couldn't care less about his dilemma or his situation. It's a violent action flick trying to be a bigger, more important story, but doesn't ever really *humanize* its protagonist. 2 stars.

Best Part: Joaquin Phoenix was 10 times more interesting as the evil emperor than any other character. I was fascinated by him every time he was on screen.
Worst Part: I was amazed by just how little I cared whether Maximus lived or died.
Flickchart: #1094, below Hulk and above Avatar.

1 comment:

Unknown said...

I saw this when it opened in theaters, and I left pretty underwhelmed, too. When it began getting talk of Best Picture, I thought it couldn't possibly be legit.

I'll tell you my biggest problem with it (mind you, I haven't seen it since that first night, 12 years ago). It feels artificial.

When I left the theater, I chatted with my friend about how Gladiator cemented Braveheart as the last true epic film. The reliance on CGI and in-studio gimmickry on display in Gladiator dominates the film and it detracts from its potential value. It doesn't feel right, not at all like watching, say, Ben-Hur or Lawrence of Arabia.

The emphasis was clearly so much on the style of the film that there wasn't much in the way of thought about substance. It's a rather generic movie, really, and without the awe factor to suck me in, I was much more sensitive to its shortcomings.

In short: I don't get it, either.