When I first saw GLADIATOR in the theatre, I was amazed. I hadn't seen anything like it before. When I saw it on video, I began to actually consider the film, as one always does. I found it quite different.
What makes a motion picture good. The acting has to be good, the story original, the directing careful and good, the dialogue realistic, the screenplay well written, the cinematography original AND good, and entertaining.
In Gladiator, the acting is great, fantastic, even. Phoenix is evil as Commodus, Harris on target as Marcus Aurelius, Nielson convincing as Commodus' sister, and seems to care for Maximus and her child. Russell Crowe amazing, being exactly what the writer and director wanted him to be: tough, caring, slightly emotionless, though, and at times funny.
The story is quite original, it mixes true historical events and fictional sequences alike to create something wholly new. The pacing is perfect, and the dialogue and screenplay are good. The sub plots are involving and one comes to care for the charcters.
The cinematography tells a good story. Old fashioned camera angles are used, as well as technically impressive photographing techniques are employed in the film. The action scenes are exactly what Scott wants them to be, confusing, violent, compelling, and showing not only the common horrors of war and violence, but also those invovled's feelings and what it was like to be there in them.
There is no question that Gladiator is not entertaining- it is! Old fashioned Rome stuff and today's violence, as well as involving charcters.
So why not like the film? Okay, there are historical inaccuraces, but Scott doesn't want it to be real. Spartacus had inaccuraces, Ben-Hur did, too, no one is complaining of them.
In addition to the above things, the art direction is beautiful, the score compelling, the costume design good (however inaccurate), and some good old Braveheart style violence.
I keep thinking to myself, this film isn't that great, it doesn't even deserve a nomination, but then I think about what I tell you, and I realize it really is a great film.
I have not seen Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or Chocolat, so I can't say anything about those. However, Erin Brokovich was just awful! But I'm reviewing Gladiator here. Traffic was gret too, but I have only seen it once in the theartre, so I have not really had a chance to truly evaluate it.
In conclusion, Gladiator is an amzing film, not to be missed. I give it eight out of ten, but even now I find that I am giving it a lesser score than I think it should. I don't want to like this film, but I can;t help it!
What makes a motion picture good. The acting has to be good, the story original, the directing careful and good, the dialogue realistic, the screenplay well written, the cinematography original AND good, and entertaining.
In Gladiator, the acting is great, fantastic, even. Phoenix is evil as Commodus, Harris on target as Marcus Aurelius, Nielson convincing as Commodus' sister, and seems to care for Maximus and her child. Russell Crowe amazing, being exactly what the writer and director wanted him to be: tough, caring, slightly emotionless, though, and at times funny.
The story is quite original, it mixes true historical events and fictional sequences alike to create something wholly new. The pacing is perfect, and the dialogue and screenplay are good. The sub plots are involving and one comes to care for the charcters.
The cinematography tells a good story. Old fashioned camera angles are used, as well as technically impressive photographing techniques are employed in the film. The action scenes are exactly what Scott wants them to be, confusing, violent, compelling, and showing not only the common horrors of war and violence, but also those invovled's feelings and what it was like to be there in them.
There is no question that Gladiator is not entertaining- it is! Old fashioned Rome stuff and today's violence, as well as involving charcters.
So why not like the film? Okay, there are historical inaccuraces, but Scott doesn't want it to be real. Spartacus had inaccuraces, Ben-Hur did, too, no one is complaining of them.
In addition to the above things, the art direction is beautiful, the score compelling, the costume design good (however inaccurate), and some good old Braveheart style violence.
I keep thinking to myself, this film isn't that great, it doesn't even deserve a nomination, but then I think about what I tell you, and I realize it really is a great film.
I have not seen Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or Chocolat, so I can't say anything about those. However, Erin Brokovich was just awful! But I'm reviewing Gladiator here. Traffic was gret too, but I have only seen it once in the theartre, so I have not really had a chance to truly evaluate it.
In conclusion, Gladiator is an amzing film, not to be missed. I give it eight out of ten, but even now I find that I am giving it a lesser score than I think it should. I don't want to like this film, but I can;t help it!