more about a movie that doesn't deserve it.
Those one year ago links you've started putting up? I keep saying, "Oh my God, that was a year ago? That wasn't a year ago!"
One year ago: Scott discovers the way to ensure journal immortality. Two years ago: Thematically, my week-old car is rear-ended and Darin and I see Deep Impact. Three years ago: Darin and Diane experience a heat wave.
So, I realize I was a little unclear in my review of Gladiator (since I've been asked just a few times whether I liked it or not), and I realize I should explain how I look at movies. Mind you, I'd make a lousy professional movie critic.
I have several categories of movies:
This movie was good
- All systems were go: good story, good acting, good everything -- go and see this movie.
(Examples: The Shawshank Redemption, Babe, Shakespeare In Love) - Most things were good but there were a few serious problems -- go see it anyhow.
(Examples: LA Confidential, The Insider, Rushmore) - I am going to catch hell for admitting I like this movie, but I don't care -- it's a lot of fun, go see it.
(Examples: The Devil's Advocate) - This movie will disappear soon! Please go see it!
(Examples: The Impostors, Run Lola Run)
This movie was not good
- Technically this movie was good but mentally I was out getting popcorn -- don't bother.
(Examples: The Talented Mr. Ripley, Princess Mononoke) - I hated this movie with an intense passion -- please do not give them your money.
(Examples: Addiction, The General's Daughter) - Why does everyone love this movie so much? Anyone? Anyone?
(Examples: The Matrix, Independence Day) - I wanted to like it...it had moments...but in the end...ennnnh.
(Examples: Bowfinger, The Spanish Prisoner) - I don't hate myself for having seen it, but I could have lived without it -- if you have a reason to go, go, but you could skip it.
(Examples: Blade, Sleepy Hollow)
Depends on the barometric pressure, evidently
- This movie was a loud, expensive, messy pile o' foolishness -- for God's sake, don't go.
(Examples: Armageddon, The Mummy, Deep Blue Sea) - This movie was a loud, expensive, messy pile o' foolishness, but I had a good time anyhow -- you might enjoy it, but don't blame me if you don't, you've been warned.
(Examples: Gladiator, Lethal Weapon Four)
(Boy, I had no idea I had so many categories.)
So you can see where I stand on Gladiator. It's got problems. It's got a lot of problems. Ridley Scott (who is clearly the driver on this production) doesn't know what story he wants to tell: the story of a man's fall from grace? A story of revenge? A story about the inexorable decline of Rome? Of course, part of the problem is, Ridley Scott doesn't know what a story is.
'[Russell Crowe, star of Gladiator] also contributed suggestions for character and story, elements Scott says he has only recently come to appreciate fully. "Over the years, I've learned to pay attention to material to the extent that I now understand that story and characters are the most important thing in any movie," Scott says. "The audience must identify with someone and go on a journey with them."-- Ridley Scott, Los Angeles Times Calendar section, Sunday, April 23, 2000.
Well, congratulations, Ridley -- nothing escapes you. If you ask me, however, he still doesn't know what a story is and characters aren't really that important to him. (That he's had a major Hollywood film career for 23 years and only recently has come to the conclusion that story and characters are important tells me everything I need to know about this business.)
But I don't go to a movie like Gladiator for the storycraft; I go because it's a big movie. I'm not sure why I've put this movie in the "On the whole, I enjoyed it" category, whereas I put Armageddon and Independence Day into "Jesus, why did I waste my time?" I might have been predisposed to like it because I like Russell Crowe, or because I have an affinity for things Roman, or because I know that Ridley Scott knows how to make a shot look interesting, even if it's incomprehensible.
Sarah_Femme complains, justifiably, about the level of violence in Gladiator. I'm not sure I would call it pornographic, but the violence was astounding: I closed my eyes several times.
Crusty Marshmallow has some good ideas on how to rewrite Gladiator to make it a good movie about a man who becomes an animal and manages to remember who he is. Not the story Scott decided to go with, but a good one anyhow. (I couldn't figure out what the whole thing about Maximus refusing to fight in the gladiator school was about either.)
Every criticism of Gladiator you've heard is absolutely true. It's pretty much a crapshoot as to whether you go for the ride or not.
It's unfortunate that Gladiator has probably sewn up the market for Roman epics for the foreseeable future. "Roman movie" just isn't a big niche at the moment. I could be wrong; I sure have been in the past.
Crusty Marshmallow also has some interesting things to say about the fire in Los Alamos. I admit I haven't read enough of the journal to figure out exactly where Crusty is, but the tidbits about what it's like to be there are pretty cool.
The answer to yesterday's question: Heh. Well, if you didn't know, (d). And I've read an analysis of Microsoft's actual proposal that points out all of the loopholes Microsoft put in it that would give them more latitude to act badly. Microsoft really is the Anti-Christ. Honest.
 |
 |
 |
 |
Copyright 2000 Diane Patterson
Send comments and questions to diane@nobody-knows-anything.com