GLADIATOR: Worst Epic Ever?

The Silent One

unread,

May 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/7/00

to

I'd like to coin the phrase "staggering superficiality" to describe the
movie Gladiator. I saw it last night. It was the first movie I've been
to in
seven years and I walked out about halfway through it. I use "staggering

superficiality" to counterpoint CNN's movie critic's comment. He called
it a
movie of "staggering realism." I have no idea what this fellow is
talking
about, and he has no idea what he's talking about either. Nothing in
this
film works -- nothing. If I were a historian I'd be disgusted with it.
If I
wrote screenplays I'd be disgusted with, so on and so forth.

First question: why was the color so god-awful? This is more than 40
years
after the definitive gladiator movie "Spartacus" a beautifully rendered
movie in every respect yet the first thing that strikes you with
Gladiator
is the drab coloring that permeates every scene. And it gets worst...

Who wrote this mess? I suppose it was one of those Hollywood types too
busy
jabbing on his cellphone and cutting deals to write with real wit and
soul.
God is this movie awful.

Ever watch a movie where the symbols just hang in the air so
disconnected
from the plot they break the flow and beats of the story?

Anyway, I want to make a few other points before closing. First, I'm
really
angry. This film took 107 million dollars to make, that's a lot of
secestes.
First major blunder -- the battle scene against the Germans. How could
they
ruin that? The genius of the Roman legion was its front line tactics.
Roman
soldiers just didn't clash with the enemy in the "Braveheart" type
skirmish
these idiots give us, the Roman in action was a wonder to behold, a unit
so
ingenious it out fight ten of its number. Also, it was the Roman short
sword
not the spear that was used. I didn't see one Roman short sword -- how
is
such a omission possible?

And it gets worst, consider the plot -- a Roman general marked for
execution
by Commodus who in a Hercules type fit of violence slays his five
executioners, jumps on their horses and rides off.

And it gets worst. If you thought it high-unlikely a general (or anyone)

could pull such a feat of daring-do, in the words of Al Jolson "You
ain't
seen nothing yet!" This character is not to be believed. He makes that
television Hercules guy look like Mr. Rogers. Wherever he goes he just
doesn't win battles, takes on entire armies and renders them masses of
dead,
bleeding flesh. Here's a typical fight scene for you: He and 15 members
of
his gladiator team are in the green room waiting for their matches to
begin.
The crowd is roaring. Our hero tells the 15 other gladiators to remain
seated, that he'll go out and take on the whole enemy team...

Guess who wins...?

You folks beginning to see what I'm driving at? Of course our hero wins,

wipes out the entire arena, hardly sustains a scratch, and that's just
for
starters -- the film gets stupider, he becomes even more superhero, kind
of
like a superman, batman, Hercules, Muhammad Ali rolled in one. And this
is
supposed to be a serious movie about ancient Rome!!!

And it gets worst, but I'll stop right here.

Gladiator is a horrible movie, the kids who watch Hercules and Zena even

they would find it a fraudulent piece of crap. Gawd, am I angry at the
idiots behind this mess.

rick...@freewwweb.com

Steve Estvanik

unread,

May 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/9/00

to

..........

Gawd, am I angry at the
idiots behind this mess.

=========
glad you summed it up, otherwise we might not have known if you liked this
film! and i hesitate to think what you might have said if you weren't 'the
silent one'

unread,

Jun 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/8/00

to

In article <3915C0DF...@freewwweb.com>, The Silent One

<rick...@freewwweb.com> wrote:
>
>I'd like to coin the phrase "staggering superficiality" to
describe the

I suppose that the ancient Roman world was just dripping with
color, even more colorful than the modern world -- remember that
they had no chemical dyes or paints in those days, and the
organic products are just not as colorful -- compare
Impressionist painting with what came before. The Impressionists
could do what they did because they were the first to have modern
paints at their disposal. As for Spartacus, yes it was a fun
movie, but -- I really don't think that slaves of the Romans in
the 1st century BC were really worried about the equality of man
or the class struggle. They certainly weren't Marxists like
Howard Fast -- Kubrick's authenticity in this film was in
following Fast's plot, not in following the real history.

>Who wrote this mess? I suppose it was one of those Hollywood
types too
>busy
>jabbing on his cellphone and cutting deals to write with real
wit and
>soul.
>God is this movie awful.
>
>Ever watch a movie where the symbols just hang in the air so
>disconnected
>from the plot they break the flow and beats of the story?
>
>Anyway, I want to make a few other points before closing. First,
I'm
>really
>angry. This film took 107 million dollars to make, that's a lot
of
>secestes.

[sic][sesterces]

>First major blunder -- the battle scene against the Germans. How
could
>they
>ruin that? The genius of the Roman legion was its front line
tactics.
>Roman
>soldiers just didn't clash with the enemy in the "Braveheart"
type
>skirmish
>these idiots give us, the Roman in action was a wonder to
behold, a unit
>so
>ingenious it out fight ten of its number. Also, it was the Roman
short
>sword
>not the spear that was used. I didn't see one Roman short sword
-- how
>is
>such a omission possible?

I forget the classical author's name (it might have been Arrian),
but in about 130 AD he wrote a piece on military matters, and
yes, in the 2nd century AD, Roman forces often used the spear (or
pike) because they were often facing large cavalry forces of
barbarians. The army of Marcus Aurelius was evolved from the
army of Scipio Africanus, but it would be silly to imagine
there was no change in all that time.

>And it gets worst, consider the plot -- a Roman general marked
for
>execution
>by Commodus who in a Hercules type fit of violence slays his
five
>executioners, jumps on their horses and rides off.

I once read about the execution method evolved by the KGB for
prisoners deemed dangerous. They would tell him he had an
appointment with the dentist, and then shoot him in the back of
the head while walking down the hallway. Executioners do get
slain in "Hercules type fit(s) of violence," though not often.
It must have happened in communist Russia, else they wouldn't
have developed such a method.

>And it gets worst. If you thought it high-unlikely a general (or
anyone)
>
>could pull such a feat of daring-do, in the words of Al Jolson
"You
>ain't
>seen nothing yet!" This character is not to be believed. He
makes that
>television Hercules guy look like Mr. Rogers. Wherever he goes
he just
>doesn't win battles, takes on entire armies and renders them
masses of
>dead,
>bleeding flesh. Here's a typical fight scene for you: He and 15
members
>of
>his gladiator team are in the green room waiting for their
matches to
>begin.
>The crowd is roaring. Our hero tells the 15 other gladiators to
remain
>seated, that he'll go out and take on the whole enemy team...
>
>Guess who wins...?

I'll have to see the flick again, as I don't recall Maximus
taking on that many at a time by himself.

>You folks beginning to see what I'm driving at? Of course our
hero wins,
>
>wipes out the entire arena, hardly sustains a scratch, and
that's just
>for
>starters -- the film gets stupider, he becomes even more
superhero, kind
>of
>like a superman, batman, Hercules, Muhammad Ali rolled in one.
And this
>is
>supposed to be a serious movie about ancient Rome!!!
>
>And it gets worst, but I'll stop right here.
>
>Gladiator is a horrible movie, the kids who watch Hercules and
Zena even

That's Xena -- that show is really cool, even if it is fantasy in
never-never land.

>they would find it a fraudulent piece of crap. Gawd, am I angry

at the
>idiots behind this mess.
>

>rick...@freewwweb.com
>

I myself compared this film with other historical films of years
past, and found it a great improvement on most of what came
before. Compare Gladiator with Fall of the Roman Empire, and
you'll see that Gladiator is the movie that FotRE should have
been -- no idiotic anachronistic preaching about "world peace"
and "the brotherhood of man," no idealized "victimized"
barbarians etc. ad nauseam. I'd say that historical movies have
come a pretty long way since the 1950s and 1960s. I liked one
little detail especially -- people riding horses didn't use
stirrups.
>
>Eyes of Othinn
>

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

huginmunin

unread,

Jun 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/8/00

to

In article
<tP5T4.57182$g4.15...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
"bad_monkey" <tekno...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

But even the
death of
>his son, Commodus is not historically correct.

<snip>

I believe there are different versions of the death of Commodus
-- I like the one about him liking to dress up like Hercules and
having rigged wrassling matches in the arena, and the plotters
then bribing the pro wrassler to break his neck in front of
thousands of screaming fans as the first move in the coup d'etat.
But we really don't know -- you may recall the modern estimate
that we today have only 5 percent of the documents from classical
times. Commodus may or may not have been killed in the arena --
it almost certainly didn't happen the way it did in this movie,
but, hey, it COULD have.

Jinny KIM

unread,

Jun 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/12/00

to

Salve,
The film has fictious information meanwhile it is very interesting movie (at
least to me), isn't it enough???
By the way, I have question about the name of the gladiator, "Maximus
Decius Meridianus(?)" .
I think "Maximus" is given to him as honourable name to celebrate his
victory once by Emperor we can guess from the movie.
Decius is common for Roman men then is Maximus, too??? or Decius Maximus (or
Decius the great something like this) as I believe?

Jinny

huginmunin <hereward...@bresnanlink.net.invalid>이(가) 아래 메시지를
news:0253fb58...@usw-ex0104-032.remarq.com에 게시하였습니다.

L MarcusAurelius

unread,

Jun 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/19/00

to

The movie was excellent and in general the history was in accord with the real
historical themes. Of course Maximus was a fictional character and Commodus
was assinated probably by a wrestler as part of a senatorial plot.

Guruprasad S. Udapi

unread,

Jun 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/20/00

to

yes it was a good movie and i recognize the need for some creative license
in order to make it more entertaining, but i found a few details a little
annoying. was i the only one bothered by the fact that almost none of Rome
seemed to be paved? its nit picking, i know, but you have thought that with
all that money spent of special effects that they could have at least noted
that one of Rome's great achievements was public works(i.e ROADS throughout
the empire, including the city of ROME). also, i wonder how accurate the
battle sequences at the beginning of the movie were. i realize the
logistical problems with extras, but it seemed a little odd that legion only
had one battle line and that the broke formation into a general melee once
they hit the enemy; isn't the discipline of the roman legion legendary, and
essential to their success? were the ballistics technology that advanced?
also, was the character of maximus completely fictional? i seem to recall a
roman general named maximus in a later period, around initial period of
breakdown in the empire(500 ad?), who left Britannia for the European
mainland to make a bid for control of the empire. am i completely off here?

Though much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are ---
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find and not to yield.
.

huginmunin

unread,

Jun 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/20/00

to

"Dorrie Fletcher" <dante...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Impressionist painting with what came before. The
Impressionists
>> could do what they did because they were the first to have
modern
>> paints at their disposal.
>

>Actually, the availibiltiy of paint in tubes affected the
Impressionists by
>allowing them to paint outdoors with spontinaety. Yes, new
pigments were
>also availible, but to say that pre-industrial revolution color
was drab is
>to ignore works like Tres Riche Heurs du Duc de Berry, for
instance. Many
>pigments we still use today were used in ancient times, like
purples made
>from the insides of conc shell, malachite, not to mention lapis
lazuli or
>ochres, all very bright. The fresco murals in Pompeii are
brilliant red.
>Cinematographers often choose color for emotional impact or
symbolic
>strength...
>>
>
>
>
>
Oops! You're right about the best feature of the new paints
being their utility for outdoor, spontaneous painting. But it
does seem to me that the Tyrian purple was reserved for the top
of the ruling class -- given the poverty of ancient society in
comparison with more recent times, wouldn't the really
good-looking stuff have been mostly the property of the wealthy
and the government (which was run by the wealthy)? Public
buildings, such as the arenas, of course would have been fairly
colorful -- perhaps the comparative lack of color in the movie
was just Ridley Scott's preference. He seems to prefer a film
noir look in his movies, such as Bladerunner and Alien.

But what I'd really like to see is a movie set in ancient Rome or
Greece with painted statues, made to look alive as was the
fashion in the classical world -- the paint had all worn off the
statues unearthed in Italy during Renaissance times, and people
like Michelangelo had no idea that they had ever been painted,
hence the modern fashion of naked stone.

Eyes of Othinn

Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com

Romy Schumann

unread,

Jun 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/21/00

to

Magnus Maximus was a 4th-Century Spaniard who commanded the Roman forces in
Britain. He married the daughter of a British chieftain/king and is known in
Welsh mythology as Macsen Wledig. With the support of the army he invaded
the Western Empire (Britain, Gaul and Spain) in 383 and killed the Emperor
Gratian. The Eastern Emperor, Theodosius, recognised him as Western Emperor,
as he was himself occupied elsewhere. Magnus Maximus invaded Italy, taking
Milan and besieging Rome, but was finally defeated by Gratian's younger
brother Valentinian, and he and his son, Flavius Victor, were both killed in
388. Some legends make Magnus Maximus an ancestor of King Arthur.
- ROMY

Guruprasad S. Udapi <Guru....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:VvP35.14948$Xx5.7...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

Mr. Kim Westberg

unread,

Jun 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/24/00

to

You are perfectly right!

It愀 now a well known fact that the statues has been painted. However I
believe that it wouldn愒 do at the screen. If anyone of you has been to
Sweden and seen the wooden statues on the Wasaship you know what I mean. The
Wasa sunk some 350 years ago but was found almost intact in the sixties. But
all color was worn off by the sea and therefore swedish scientist analysed
the figures and carvings to find the composition of the residues left on
them. Then the made live-size copies of the figures and painted them and put
them on exhibition.

They are not especially aesthetic with the paint and in many ways the
extreme way of coloring were also used in the time of roman statues. They
looked like puppets and maybe that would take some of the elegance away from
the movie Gladiator. But we must remember to separate fiction from fact. A
movie is a work of art by many coworking artists. In the movie Gladiator the
artist of hostory did a fine job to lift the artwork.

http://www.vasamuseet.se/skeppet/skulpturer/sculptures.html

//
Ph.S. Kim Westberg
Stockholm, Sweden

huginmunin skrev i meddelandet
<0524d124...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com>...

Michael

unread,

Jun 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/24/00

to

I am by no means a Roman Military Historian by any stretch of the
imagination.
I was just wondering. Is it not true that the Roman Legions fighting in the
German forests were readily defeated because land conditions took away the
advantage of Roman military organization? I'd be interested in a comment on
that assumption. Success in Gaul was possible because it was home to an
advance society that had cleared huge swaths of land for agriculture, Spain
had great plains, as did North Africa. Military precision would be vital in
those environments.

In the Middle East the Romans came across Armenians & Parthians with highly
effective militaries of their own, anchored by impressive cavalry. The
Armenians fought bitterly for a time while the Parthians could not be
surpressed. Is that accurate?

I think the movie did it job of portary the brutality of the times while
weaving an interesting story. It was fun to see this type story on the
screen once again.

rgds,
Mike

Edward John Schoenfeld

unread,

Jul 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/5/00

to

"Michael" <mwr...@localnet.com> wrote:

>I am by no means a Roman Military Historian by any stretch of the
>imagination.
>I was just wondering. Is it not true that the Roman Legions fighting in the
>German forests were readily defeated because land conditions took away the
>advantage of Roman military organization? I'd be interested in a comment on
>that assumption.

The Roman legions won more battles in the "German forests" than they lost.
Not all commanders were a foolish as Varus is described as being. Drusus,
Tiberius, and Germanicus did quite well campaigning in Germania Magna.

>Success in Gaul was possible because it was home to an
>advance society that had cleared huge swaths of land for agriculture,

Germans were no less agricultural than the Gauls. Archaeology has shown
intensive and continuous practice of agriculture, land clearing, etc in
Germany back to 3000 BC -- check out a newer book by Peter Wells on this.
The idea that the Germans were somehow more 'primitive' than their Gaulish
neighbors or were 'nomads' or 'hunter-gatherers' is the result of
misinterpreting Tacitus' Germania, which concentrated only on the smaller
warrior class and deliberately did not describe any of the laboring class
(slaves) that worked to support said warriors, except to mention they
existed.

>Spain
>had great plains, as did North Africa. Military precision would be vital in
>those environments.

Just as vital as it is in forests.

>
>In the Middle East the Romans came across Armenians & Parthians with highly
>effective militaries of their own, anchored by impressive cavalry. The
>Armenians fought bitterly for a time while the Parthians could not be
>surpressed. Is that accurate?

Parthia was a powerful empire, successor to the Achaemenid Empire in Persia,
and had the population and resources needed to match Rome. Most of the
people the Romans conquered did not.

>I think the movie did it job of portary the brutality of the times while
>weaving an interesting story. It was fun to see this type story on the
>screen once again.
>

I can agree with you on this.

Ed

Michael

unread,

Jul 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/6/00

to

Edward John Schoenfeld <ejscho...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8k00n7$pgq$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...

> The Roman legions won more battles in the "German forests" than they lost.
> Not all commanders were a foolish as Varus is described as being. Drusus,
> Tiberius, and Germanicus did quite well campaigning in Germania Magna.
>
>
> >Success in Gaul was possible because it was home to an
> >advance society that had cleared huge swaths of land for agriculture,
>
>
> Germans were no less agricultural than the Gauls. Archaeology has shown
> intensive and continuous practice of agriculture, land clearing, etc in
> Germany back to 3000 BC -- check out a newer book by Peter Wells on this.
> The idea that the Germans were somehow more 'primitive' than their Gaulish
> neighbors or were 'nomads' or 'hunter-gatherers' is the result of
> misinterpreting Tacitus' Germania, which concentrated only on the smaller
> warrior class and deliberately did not describe any of the laboring class
> (slaves) that worked to support said warriors, except to mention they
> existed.

Ed:

I'm interested in pursuing the line of thought on Gaul and Germania. It's
my understanding that that the Celts of Gaul were responsible for developing
a highly successful agricultural and technical society in what is now modern
France. It's agricultural base is what made it attractive to Rome for it's
wheat and grapes (wine). Whereas the Germans cattle folk utilizing the
forests.

In Germania other than in the northern plains east of the Rhine the country
was heavily forested and undulating. As a result, the expense in gold,
manpower and equipment required to conquer the area prohibited the Romans
expanding beyond Cologne and the Rhine.

I know it's documented that great numbers of German slaves were brought to
Rome indicate battlefield success to some extent. What do you see as having
stopped Rome at the Rhine?

Mike

Alexander Hock

unread,

Jul 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/8/00

to

> I know it's documented that great numbers of German slaves were brought to
> Rome indicate battlefield success to some extent. What do you see as
having
> stopped Rome at the Rhine?
>
> Mike

Hallo Mike,
sorry for my english, but i am one of these barbarish germans.
A lot of things stopped them after the defeating of Varus. There had been
some roman expedition to the elb river under Drusus, Tiberius and
Germanicus. But at the end all failed. Augustus concentrated around twenty!
legions to capture germania but the so called pannonian revolt devoured
them. After that revolt Augustus lost his interest on Germania. After he was
an old man. Tiberius who fought during Augustus in Germania had no interesst
on military expansion. His successors Caligula, Claudius and Nero were more
or less degenerated idiots with more interest on orgies and such stuff.
Trajan was more concentrated on Dacia and Parthia than Germania. With Marcus
Aurelius Rome was in defense and never got the possibility again to capture
Germania. I think without the pannonian revolt it could have been that rome
got the elb border, but so we never got the attainment of the roman culture
and have to stay barbarians for ever. (-;
Hope i could give you some interesting hints about that stuff.

Salve
Alexus Maximus

Neville Lindsay

unread,

Jul 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/9/00

to

"Michael" <mwr...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:am195.5697$N7.2...@news-east.usenetserver.com...

>
>
> I know it's documented that great numbers of German slaves were brought to
> Rome indicate battlefield success to some extent. What do you see as
having
> stopped Rome at the Rhine?
>
> Mike
>

Like all empires, they had their limitations and realities:
1. The need or lack thereof to acquire additional territory for economic
reasons.
2. The availability of resources to acquire and hold that territory.
3. The search for a defensible frontier - physically and ethnically.
4. Realisation of the costs of holding territory versus benefits gained
rather than simply grabbing for more or holding unnecessary territory.
5. The ongoing influence of nationalistic, economic and population
influences in the imperial power, the occupied peoples and external powers
and peoples.

Augustus realised these, and directed that the frontiers be stabilised and
generally used diplomacy; Tiberius followed this. Gaius and Claudius tried
expansion as did later Princeps - into Dacia etc. Expeditions did go as far
as the Elbe, and in the east into Mesopotamia, but reality kept pushing for
defensible borders, so frontier shortenings occured in south-west Germany
and along the Danube, in Britain and Syria. Glorious conquests were OK once
in each Princeps reign, but the long term sums always came back to cutting
the cloth according to resources.
See also the British empire in the 19th C and US empire in the 19th-20th C
for the same factors and results.

NL

vtel57

unread,

Jul 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/12/00

to

FYI...according to Gibbon in his "The Decline and Fall of the
Roman Empire" Commodus was poisoned by a domestic and then, when
the poison did not act quickly enough, was strangled by
a "robust youth".

***Tempus Fugits***
V.T. Eric Layton
E-Mail: vte...@my-deja.com
Pager: wwp.icq.com/81379665

-----------------------------------------------------------