Judging from the box office, entertaining the mob with gore still works as well now as then. So well that most folks disregard the ludicrous storyline, lame characterization and historical inaccuracies.
I give this movie a 6 for excellent manipulation of the crowd, exciting (if overdone) fight scenes and for making a tremendous spectacle of itself. And I bet it will win an Oscar because it does so well what Hollywood values most - As a previous reviewer states `you could almost smell the blood.'
-SPOILERS-
LUDICROUS STORYLINE/LAME CHARACTERIZATION: Great Roman General takes a *very* sudden fall, somehow becomes a slave, then a depressed gladiator, then hugely entertains the Roman rabble (and us) with his blatant defiance of the Emperor.
Oh any Emperor would just sit right down for that, especially one psychologically resembling Caligula. This particular Emperor doesn't off this insolent guy supposedly because the mob rules Rome and they like him. Well, the mob is notoriously fickle, as well as easily led. I'm sure any creative Emperor could work something out. (Check out the storyline of this movie if you don't believe me.) Besides, it's the army that rules Rome. As Pompey so succinctly explained, they have swords.
First off, Marcus Aurelius (reputedly a wise and canny philosopher) decides his amoral (read insane) son will just say "Oh, ok dad. Guess I won't be Emperor cause you say so. No problem you like Maximus better." NO one could be that naive, even in the movies.
Then a great Roman general becomes a slave. Here's how: He intentionally ticks off the new Emperor, escapes from the Emperor's minions through his eXcellent fighting, then stumbles around wounded and in a daze for a *really* long time, somehow crossing half a continent without shelter, food, water, sleep or a change of scenery, and eventually reaches home (Spain). Or something. `If you go home wounded you will become a slave?' Guess he didn't have any friends or neighbors in the area.
Then, once Maximus reaches the pinnacle of his gladiator career, some Senators and the army want to support him in a coup. Wouldn't this coup have been a *lot* more realistic back there on the Germanic battlefield, *before* the slavery bit? But Maximus missed his chance. Instead, he childishly gestured defiance to the new de facto, *patricidal* Emperor without even consulting his power brokers, the army, who happened to be on site celebrating a major victory. Could any great Roman general be this politically inept or have such underdeveloped survival instincts? Besides, it would have saved him a long walk and a lot of grief.
We also have the ruthless slave master Proximo (kudos Oliver Reed, RIP) who sells the goose who layed the golden egg because he develops higher ideals. He just suddenly loses interest in profit because he *likes* this guy? I have a sneaking suspicion that people who habitually and mercilessly exploit others do not suddenly become kind hearted, even for someone who reminds them of themself at that age.
Last and best, a sniveling, cowardly Emperor intentionally stages a final public battle in which he takes on the world's greatest, undefeated gladiator single handedly. (Ok, so the gladiator isn't 100 percent here.) Now it is an historical fact that Commodus fought some tough gladiators in the arena. Weird but true. But would *this* character have done so? I just can't believe it, no matter how much of a tantrum he had because everybody liked Maximus best.
HISTORICAL INACCURACIES: It says this is fiction in the credits. Still...
I don't care how decayed the Roman military system was at the end of the Pax Romana, I imagine they could hold a line in battle better than *that*.
As for fighting battles purely for the Glory of Rome,' even King Arthur wasn't so fatuous. How about to protect Rome from the barbarian hordes (clearly a continuing threat) and for *financial gain*?
And various Senators (to say nothing of Marcus Aurelius!) want to reestablish the Republic? They hadn't had any real power since Augustus. It was just a ceremonial post that could bring in some bucks if you played your cards right. And reestablishing the Republic is laughable. They were all a little too busy trying to stay alive to worry about reactionary revolutions. Besides the army would never have cut off their own power base voluntarily. And they had the swords.
Hey, but lots of shots of Russell Crowe sans shirt though!
I give this movie a 6 for excellent manipulation of the crowd, exciting (if overdone) fight scenes and for making a tremendous spectacle of itself. And I bet it will win an Oscar because it does so well what Hollywood values most - As a previous reviewer states `you could almost smell the blood.'
-SPOILERS-
LUDICROUS STORYLINE/LAME CHARACTERIZATION: Great Roman General takes a *very* sudden fall, somehow becomes a slave, then a depressed gladiator, then hugely entertains the Roman rabble (and us) with his blatant defiance of the Emperor.
Oh any Emperor would just sit right down for that, especially one psychologically resembling Caligula. This particular Emperor doesn't off this insolent guy supposedly because the mob rules Rome and they like him. Well, the mob is notoriously fickle, as well as easily led. I'm sure any creative Emperor could work something out. (Check out the storyline of this movie if you don't believe me.) Besides, it's the army that rules Rome. As Pompey so succinctly explained, they have swords.
First off, Marcus Aurelius (reputedly a wise and canny philosopher) decides his amoral (read insane) son will just say "Oh, ok dad. Guess I won't be Emperor cause you say so. No problem you like Maximus better." NO one could be that naive, even in the movies.
Then a great Roman general becomes a slave. Here's how: He intentionally ticks off the new Emperor, escapes from the Emperor's minions through his eXcellent fighting, then stumbles around wounded and in a daze for a *really* long time, somehow crossing half a continent without shelter, food, water, sleep or a change of scenery, and eventually reaches home (Spain). Or something. `If you go home wounded you will become a slave?' Guess he didn't have any friends or neighbors in the area.
Then, once Maximus reaches the pinnacle of his gladiator career, some Senators and the army want to support him in a coup. Wouldn't this coup have been a *lot* more realistic back there on the Germanic battlefield, *before* the slavery bit? But Maximus missed his chance. Instead, he childishly gestured defiance to the new de facto, *patricidal* Emperor without even consulting his power brokers, the army, who happened to be on site celebrating a major victory. Could any great Roman general be this politically inept or have such underdeveloped survival instincts? Besides, it would have saved him a long walk and a lot of grief.
We also have the ruthless slave master Proximo (kudos Oliver Reed, RIP) who sells the goose who layed the golden egg because he develops higher ideals. He just suddenly loses interest in profit because he *likes* this guy? I have a sneaking suspicion that people who habitually and mercilessly exploit others do not suddenly become kind hearted, even for someone who reminds them of themself at that age.
Last and best, a sniveling, cowardly Emperor intentionally stages a final public battle in which he takes on the world's greatest, undefeated gladiator single handedly. (Ok, so the gladiator isn't 100 percent here.) Now it is an historical fact that Commodus fought some tough gladiators in the arena. Weird but true. But would *this* character have done so? I just can't believe it, no matter how much of a tantrum he had because everybody liked Maximus best.
HISTORICAL INACCURACIES: It says this is fiction in the credits. Still...
I don't care how decayed the Roman military system was at the end of the Pax Romana, I imagine they could hold a line in battle better than *that*.
As for fighting battles purely for the Glory of Rome,' even King Arthur wasn't so fatuous. How about to protect Rome from the barbarian hordes (clearly a continuing threat) and for *financial gain*?
And various Senators (to say nothing of Marcus Aurelius!) want to reestablish the Republic? They hadn't had any real power since Augustus. It was just a ceremonial post that could bring in some bucks if you played your cards right. And reestablishing the Republic is laughable. They were all a little too busy trying to stay alive to worry about reactionary revolutions. Besides the army would never have cut off their own power base voluntarily. And they had the swords.
Hey, but lots of shots of Russell Crowe sans shirt though!