Thursday, January 04, 2007

Movie Review: Gladiator - 2002

Tania says:
I remember seeing this movie in the theater when it was released and thinking – “huh, that was pretty cool.” I hadn’t revisited the movie since then and for some reason I was kind of dreading watching it now because I thought I might hate it. I’m not sure why. Either way, I didn’t hate it at all and ended up liking it more then I think I originally did – so bonus!

Russell Crowe is super good as Maximus – he is all subtle and you believe he is a man who would rather just be working his farm but got swept into a world that he can’t get out of. I read that the role was first offered to Mel Gibson and Josh and I agree that he wouldn’t have been able to pull it off because he is all crazy eyed and a little insane. Crowe gets it right.

Joaquin is super creepy which totally fits his part. He does a really great job and I think this is when people started to notice him.

So yeah, it is pretty much a fighting movie but it does try to have a little bit of a deeper plot by throwing in some stuff about revenge, Roman politics and just trying to be an all around good guy. Even with that stuff seeping in it would still just call it a big old fighting movie. The deeper stuff is pretty much on the surface but I don’t think it would have been the big hit it was if it delved much deeper. But even for a fighting movie, the story is interesting enough and the character of Maximus is sympathetic enough that it does set itself apart. I don’t really think it should have won Best Picture (although I look at the nominees and they are slim pickings’ too. I think Traffic was better.) But it is a good movie and worth a watch if by some reason you have never seen it. It’s long but it actually sped by really quickly when we watched. Plus it has a CGIed Oliver Reed in it – that could inspire a fun game of which Oliver Reed is real and which is CGI. (I mean no disrespect to Oliver Reed. RIP.)

Josh Says:
It's said that upon visiting the colloseum, Ridley Scott said that it was too small so they designed an oversized version of it for the film. This pretty much sums up everything about this movie I think. Everything is just done in a big way.

The fight scenes are big, the violence is brutal.

The characters are big. River Pheonix's Commodus is done in so close to an over the top manner yet just grounded enough to work brilliantly. The same is true for Crowe. The way in which he turns Maximus into a gigantic hero of mythic, almost godlike proportions yet simultaneously keep him down to earth is quite impressive and likely couldn't have been done by anyone else.

Which brings us to the solid but sometimes difficult choices that were made regarding the cast in this movie. Of all of these choices (Gibson as Maximus would have been bad, J-Lo would have been bad as Lucilla........thank god for their judgement there) there is but one that I am saddened by..........Sure, it's a small character, but rumors that the great Lou Ferrigno was passed up for the role of Tiger just have me perplexed. With all of the gigantic greatness going on in this film, how is it possible that the most gigantic man ever to have his own TV show could have been overlooked? I would have loved to hear his version of a British accent, not that historically, the British accents made much sense anyway but back to the point.......a green Gladiator? How awesome would that have been?

Other than that, I really can't fault much about this movie. Sure, it's a bit of a popcorn movie, sure, it's a big budget "Action" movie but it's all done so incredibly well in nearly every way such that it's actually one of my favorites. I'm not sure if it's a guilty pleasure type of a film or actually a great film but either way, I love it and it. I'm also a bit of a Russell Crowe fanboy. There I said it. I love you Russell Crowe.

1 comment:

gadietze said...

I still haven't been completely swept into the Jo-a-kwin phoenix camp. He's not horrible in this. And I actually sort of enjoy him. Just waiting to be wowed by him.
The plot is pretty reminiscent of "Braveheart" which I enjoy better. Man's love killed so he goes on revenge taking out the ruler that destroyed his life. He doesn't want to fight, but he's forced to. In the end the ruler is taken care of, but nothing really changes(In Rome and in England). I think Mel Gibson has a better directorial eye than Scott. What if Mel had directed Russel in Braveheart. Now that would have been awe....wait for it....some.
There. Now I think I'm all caught up on your movie reviews. See I don't hate you. :)