Comments on: Gladiator (2000) http://lookingcloser.org/2009/08/gladiator-2000/ The official website of Jeffrey Overstreet Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:36:34 +0000 hourly 1 By: Sarah K http://lookingcloser.org/2009/08/gladiator-2000/#comment-221473 Sarah K Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:18:58 +0000 http://lookingcloser.org/?p=74503#comment-221473 Jeffrey, I absolutely agree with you. I was fortunate enough to watch this film years later after it came out, without being influenced by praises of people that watch films for the sake of it. Another reason why I dislike the film is because it is not entirely correct. Battles in the colleseum and jelousy amongst emperors is correct but the only 'Commodus' that was a roman emperor was Marcus Aurelius's son, not caesars'. It is so historically incorect, you'd think it was made by hollywood. Ooh, wait a minute... Jeffrey,
I absolutely agree with you. I was fortunate enough to watch this film years later after it came out, without being influenced by praises of people that watch films for the sake of it. Another reason why I dislike the film is because it is not entirely correct. Battles in the colleseum and jelousy amongst emperors is correct but the only ‘Commodus’ that was a roman emperor was Marcus Aurelius’s son, not caesars’. It is so historically incorect, you’d think it was made by hollywood. Ooh, wait a minute…

]]> By: Neil http://lookingcloser.org/2009/08/gladiator-2000/#comment-219771 Neil Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:33:15 +0000 http://lookingcloser.org/?p=74503#comment-219771 Mr. Overstreet's review is, in my opinion, completely accurate because now that all the hype is gone, Gladiator sucks when given another viewing. If the academy gave Russell Crowe the Oscar for his work in The Insider, I guess that would be forgivable - for one-fourth of the time. The other three-fourths of the time this Oscar is a symbol of The Academy endorsing a movie like Gladiator. Hollywood has all of its priorities mixed up and - I can't believe I'm saying this - I would rather watch a recent(and unbearable) movie from Jean-Luc Godard just to annoy Hollywood. Note: I don't hate the people of Hollywood, just the poisonous idea of it. Mr. Overstreet’s review is, in my opinion, completely accurate because now that all the hype is gone, Gladiator sucks when given another viewing. If the academy gave Russell Crowe the Oscar for his work in The Insider, I guess that would be forgivable – for one-fourth of the time. The other three-fourths of the time this Oscar is a symbol of The Academy endorsing a movie like Gladiator. Hollywood has all of its priorities mixed up and – I can’t believe I’m saying this – I would rather watch a recent(and unbearable) movie from Jean-Luc Godard just to annoy Hollywood.

Note: I don’t hate the people of Hollywood, just the poisonous idea of it.

]]> By: ZacharyP http://lookingcloser.org/2009/08/gladiator-2000/#comment-219509 ZacharyP Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:46:25 +0000 http://lookingcloser.org/?p=74503#comment-219509 There's more to dislike "Gladiator" for doing, or at least, the screenwriter and studios who backed it: the film is an uncredited rip-off of the 1964 film, "Fall of the Roman Empire," starring Christopher Plummer, Alec Guinness, Omar Sharif, and James Mason. Why the Academy overlooked this and nominated it for Best Original Screenplay, I have no idea. ~Z There’s more to dislike “Gladiator” for doing, or at least, the screenwriter and studios who backed it: the film is an uncredited rip-off of the 1964 film, “Fall of the Roman Empire,” starring Christopher Plummer, Alec Guinness, Omar Sharif, and James Mason. Why the Academy overlooked this and nominated it for Best Original Screenplay, I have no idea.

~Z

]]> By: Julio Ibanez http://lookingcloser.org/2009/08/gladiator-2000/#comment-219497 Julio Ibanez Thu, 06 Aug 2009 22:56:35 +0000 http://lookingcloser.org/?p=74503#comment-219497 Brian, The common theory is that his Oscar is actually for his work in the Insider, one year too late. At least I like to think so, because I wholeheartedly agree with the above review. After seeing it, I was completely baffled not so much by how popular it was, but by its CRITICAL success! It really is nothing more than Braveheart in Rome right down to the dying hallucination/vision of the lost loved ones at the end. And that fact is so obvious from the opening scenes, that I KNEW we were going to have yet another heroic death of the protagonist at the end. So needless to say, not a fan. Anyway, good review Jeffrey. Thanks for posting it! Brian,

The common theory is that his Oscar is actually for his work in the Insider, one year too late. At least I like to think so, because I wholeheartedly agree with the above review.

After seeing it, I was completely baffled not so much by how popular it was, but by its CRITICAL success! It really is nothing more than Braveheart in Rome right down to the dying hallucination/vision of the lost loved ones at the end. And that fact is so obvious from the opening scenes, that I KNEW we were going to have yet another heroic death of the protagonist at the end. So needless to say, not a fan.

Anyway, good review Jeffrey. Thanks for posting it!

]]> By: Brian D http://lookingcloser.org/2009/08/gladiator-2000/#comment-219495 Brian D Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:05:12 +0000 http://lookingcloser.org/?p=74503#comment-219495 Jeffrey, I tend to agree with you. One detail that amazed me when I first caught Gladiator on DVD was the fact that Russell Crowe had won best actor for it. Compared to the rest of his rich body of acting work, what was there in this performance of substantial value? As you said in so many words, there wasn't time in the film for much of that. Jeffrey,
I tend to agree with you. One detail that amazed me when I first caught Gladiator on DVD was the fact that Russell Crowe had won best actor for it. Compared to the rest of his rich body of acting work, what was there in this performance of substantial value? As you said in so many words, there wasn’t time in the film for much of that.

]]>