Gladiator - 2-disc Blu-ray release

Talk about the latest movies and video releases here!
Message
Author
User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7031
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

#16 Post by Paul MacLean »

JSWalsh wrote:That's interesting, I have the exact opposite reaction--I find Braveheart derivative, overblown, repetitive, and campy. Gladiator I find just plain entertaining.
I think the most you could say about Braveheart being derivative is that some elements are reminiscent of Spartacus, whereas Gladiator is very similar to The Fall of the Roman Empire and...well, Braveheart.

But the bottom line is I cared more about what happened in Braveheart. I think Gladiator is a good movie (and brilliantly directed), but I found Braveheart a far more passionate and visceral experience, and simply a much better story.

JSWalsh
Posts: 1607
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:07 am
Location: Boston, MA USA

#17 Post by JSWalsh »

double
Last edited by JSWalsh on Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
John

JSWalsh
Posts: 1607
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:07 am
Location: Boston, MA USA

#18 Post by JSWalsh »

Paul MacLean wrote:
I think the most you could say about Braveheart being derivative is that some elements are reminiscent of Spartacus, whereas Gladiator is very similar to The Fall of the Roman Empire and...well, Braveheart.
That may be the most YOU could say. I don't see anything ripped off from Braveheart in Gladiator--what exactly are you thinking of? And really, is that much of a defense to say Braveheart only ripped off Spartacus, while Gladiator ripped off TWO sources? :P (I think Braveheart was "reminiscent" (you're too kind) of more than just Spartacus.) But since all stories are combinations of elements from previous stories, I guess Braveheart comes up the loser here as being so derivative of one source alone.
Paul MacLean wrote:But the bottom line is I cared more about what happened in Braveheart. I think Gladiator is a good movie (and brilliantly directed), but I found Braveheart a far more passionate and visceral experience, and simply a much better story.
Braveheart was hilariously campy (I'd have shut it off if not for the battle scenes that, while energetic and certainly not bad, kept reminding me of that Monty Python skit about the battle of Pearl Harbor), screwed with history so much as to be a fantasy, was overacted, copied Kubrick and Last of the Mohicans AND the story of Jesus Christ, and was scored with Horner's droning cliches. The endless slo-mo shots, boring characters, and Gibson's overacting were just too much to take seriously (ditto the dialogue). The politics are boiled down to a series of betrayals and black and white stereotypes, and the rah-rah one liners stand out as something you could tell the writer thought would sound cool quoted by high school jocks. It's interesting how so much is made of his nationalism, but the character doesn't do anything until his wife is killed--which makes this the muddiest Death Wish installment ever.

Gibson is SO over the top here, yelling and screaming like his character in Lethal Weapon when he's not pulling us out of the story with that bizarre gay theme or the ridiculous subplot about nailing the princess which felt phony even before I found it was made up (the pure-as-snow love interest might as well have had Revenge Excuse written on her forehead, she's so pure you know she'll HAVE to die or you'll die of boredom if she keeps showing up onscreen). I finally turned it off after what seemed like ten minutes of his torture trip--the guy loves his torture--which was so over the top that I turned it back on to laugh at how far a star would go with this sort of indulgence. Plus the thing seemed endless. It might have benefited from being cut to ninety minutes, though Mel might have missed the endless, repetitive violence --yeah, war is violent, WE GET IT--which seemed to give him such joy.

A very silly movie I wouldn't dream of putting on a second time.

I disagree with much of what this guy has to say, but when talking about the obviousness of the movie, he gets to the core of why I spent so much of this movie laughing, and then groaning:

"These manias manifest themselves in his movies in a stunning literalism; ...(edit)...Watching any given sequence is a little like reading a paragraph where every sentence is declarative and ends in an exclamation point: "The highlands are gorgeous! They stretch far and wide! People live there! They are happy! They are dancing!"


(edit) "If you're starting to feel like I've dwelled at length on Braveheart's and Gibson's shortcomings without giving much sense of the plot, you're right, but you're also asking for what you may not receive, even from the horse's mouth. The freedom-fighting in Braveheart is a little hard to follow, because scripter Randall Wallace scrambles for the illusion of historical detail amidst a random jumble of important-sounding words: freedom, liberation, clan wars, heirs, freedom, taxes, invasions, revenge, FRREEEEEEDOM!, to name some favored examples. Essentially, the Scots want the English to stop raping their women and running their show.

"William Wallace, his face streaked in blue war-paint, is the rabble-rousing axe-swinger of the nascent revolutionary movement, but the movie ensures that it's extremely hard at all times to gauge precisely how effective or important Wallace's skirmishes actually are. ... (edit)... Meanwhile, though the battles are bloody and gritty, they are almost wholly abstracted from any context or specific stakes. Is Wallace, among other things, a sensational diversion, an emblem of nationalist ambitions that are actually being pressed in more private, rarefied realms?

(edit)

"In Braveheart's epilogue, after it's finished with the real agenda of canonizing St. William Wallace, we discover that Robert the Bruce is in fact the disembodied narrator whose intonation commenced the picture but whom we haven't heard from in about two and a half hours. And we see him riding into battle against an English general, delivering a brief version of one of the film's many Agincourt speeches. Forget that, if he, the future King of Scotland, is telling us that history is only reported by those who hang heroes, then he must be...never mind. Soon enough, as the Scots and Brits clash one final time, the dead William Wallace himself suddenly takes over as narrator (though without a blue filter over the image—maybe he's not really dead!) and he assures us that "in the year of our lord 1314, patriots of Scotland, strong and outnumbered...fought like Scotsmen, and won their freedom." Braveheart is forced to tell, rather than show, this happy, happy outcome, because nothing in Wallace's life or approach, even the hagiographic versions thereof which Braveheart doles out to us, can remotely account for the eventual "liberation" of the Scots (if liberation, indeed, is the word we're ultimately looking for). With its disjunctive narrative, its dim and disingenuous sense of the real workings of power, its silly costumes and atrocious editing—never has stuntwork been less concealed—Braveheart doesn't for a moment suggest that it's really got its finger on the truth of the matters at hand, nor that Gibson has really figured out how to mount a seamless entertainment (again, if entertainment is the word we're ultimately looking for)."


(He elaborates on this aspect--and brings in some things I don't agree with, too, here:)

http://www.nicksflickpicks.com/brvheart.html

Gladiator is also guilty of some slo-mo, but it is shot and framed and lit so beautifully without seeming too pretty, and starts with a script with far better dialogue and a more interesting storyline. Following someone who was in a position of wealth and power who makes a choice for honor and then is punished for it and must start the climb to power and revenge far below his previous station--that's far more interesting to me than someone just growing resentful and going to war against an obvious enemy. Sure, a similar plot device is in FALL OF ROMAN EMPIRE--ok, and a downtrodden poor sod who just wants to live a peaceful life but rises up to fight the power when his cutie is killed ISN'T a familiar plot device? Is THAT what Gladiator supposedly took from Braveheart? It sure isn't a storyline original with Braveheart,

There are more interesting supporting characters in Gladiator, and a villain who isn't the cliche'd macho man but a little worm who is a lot closer to what the REAL villains of such real life scenarios were probably like. (And he doesn't overact ala McGoohan does, and I don't even LIKE Phoenix as an actor, but he did well here.) The visuals are energetic and interesting, and Crowe gives a terrific performance in such a limited part. It's also got one of the few really enjoyable Zimmer scores in the last 10 years. Its transcending ending was really interesting and even moving, with a beautiful evocation of the afterlife.

But Braveheart had a lot more torture and male butts, I'll give ya that!
John

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34186
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

#19 Post by AndyDursin »

Braveheart was hilariously campy
Not for me. Not for a lot of people. In fact, I would disagree with your entire analysis of those two movies, lol.

But that's what makes the world go round... ;)

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7031
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

#20 Post by Paul MacLean »

JSWalsh wrote:
Paul MacLean wrote: I think the most you could say about Braveheart being derivative is that some elements are reminiscent of Spartacus, whereas Gladiator is very similar to The Fall of the Roman Empire and...well, Braveheart.
That may be the most YOU could say. I don't see anything ripped off from Braveheart in Gladiator--what exactly are you thinking of?
A masculine warrior who loses his family, and longs to be reunited with that family, and has a vision of that reunion as he lays dying, executed at the hands of a despot. Both films also feature an effete prince who hated his father -- a father who considered him a weak and unworthy successor.

Braveheart was hilariously campy (I'd have shut it off if not for the battle scenes that, while energetic and certainly not bad, kept reminding me of that Monty Python skit about the battle of Pearl Harbor), screwed with history so much as to be a fantasy, was overacted, copied Kubrick and Last of the Mohicans AND the story of Jesus Christ, and was scored with Horner's droning cliches.
Gosh, where do I begin...

James Horner's score does not for the most part consist of drones (unless you are referring to the multiple tubes found on Uillean pipes, which are called drones). Honer's score contains several, well-devoped and highly melodic themes. Gladiator is the score which contains more minimalist drones.

Braveheart's battle scenes are among the best ever put on screen. They unflinchingly depict the carnal savagery of that kind of warfare, in which men were literally hacked to pieces. I find the battle scenes quite horrific and effective. I don't see how anyone cannot.

Other than Wallace being good-looking and having long hair, where are the similarities to Last of the Mohicans?

I don't see where Braveheart borrows from off the Christ story. True, Wallace is a martyr for his cause, but so are many historic figures. In the film Wallace is not crucified like Christ, he is drawn and quartered (which is in fact what happened to real Wallace).

And of course Gladiator doesn't screw with history at all. :roll: A number of years ago I made a documentary about a group of Roman reenactors/historians in England, and they mentioned to me they they were offered the chance to appear in Gladiator -- but turned it down. When I asked them what the they thought of the finished film, they pilloried it as "rubbish". (And these men are as close to the final word on the Roman legions as you can get in modern times.)

Of course Braveheart takes considerable liberties with history, but there is a true story at its core. William Wallace was nevertheless a real man who defeated the English at Stirling, and fought to bring freedom to his people. I've been to Stirling and there is a huge statue of William Wallace there. There is no statue of Maximus in Rome, because Maximus never existed. Which film trifles more with history?

It's interesting how so much is made of his nationalism, but the character doesn't do anything until his wife is killed--which makes this the muddiest Death Wish installment ever.
Well most revolutionaries ARE inspired to take up arms after those kind of experiences.

It might have benefited from being cut to ninety minutes, though Mel might have missed the endless, repetitive violence --yeah, war is violent, WE GET IT--which seemed to give him such joy.
If you are going to level this criticism at Gibson's film, then you have to admit Gladiator is also a long movie -- and every bit as violent. Why is Gibson always singled out for a "love of violence" when his films are no more bloody than those of Ridley Scott or Martin Scorsese (and nowhere near as gory as Tarantino's).


http://www.nicksflickpicks.com/brvheart.html

Do you really consider the opinion of an assistant professor of gender studies to be credible? Especially when discussing a film which glorifies masculinity, bravery and heroism?

There are more interesting supporting characters in Gladiator, and a villain who isn't the cliche'd macho man but a little worm who is a lot closer to what the REAL villains of such real life scenarios were probably like.
I agree that Comodus is a "little worm" -- just like the English prince in Braveheart. As for the "cliched macho man" villain, Edward the Longshanks WAS, historically, a cruel conqueror. Historians don't call him the "Hammer of the Scots" for nothing. The ring of castles he built to subjugate Wales are massive, and remain to this day (I been in them).

In Braveheart we see why Longshanks is a tyrant. We're shown how the Scots are persecuted. In Gladiator we never see why Comedus is "evil". Sure, he murders his dad, enjoys power and bumps off his opponents, but how is his ascension to the throne bad for the average Roman?

It's also got one of the few really enjoyable Zimmer scores in the last 10 years. Its transcending ending was really interesting and even moving, with a beautiful evocation of the afterlife.
Zimmer's score has its moments, but it is little trite and shallow, and too synthesized. Bravheart again has the superior score, rife with memorable themes, skillfull orchestrations (by Horner himself).

But ultimately, Braveheart is a more stirring film because it is about a man who faught for a cause, against tyranny, whereas Gladiator is more of a straightforward action movie. Maximus is a terrific character, but his plight simply isn't as moving as Wallace's.

JSWalsh
Posts: 1607
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:07 am
Location: Boston, MA USA

#21 Post by JSWalsh »

Paul MacLean wrote: A masculine warrior who loses his family, and longs to be reunited with that family, and has a vision of that reunion as he lays dying, executed at the hands of a despot. Both films also feature an effete prince who hated his father -- a father who considered him a weak and unworthy successor.
Are you seriously arguing that that plot is original to Braveheart?

You've combined the storyline description (a hero fights etc.) with character details (effete prince), which one could do to no end if one is trying hard to force a thesis. Like this:

A masculine warrior (what other kinds are there in action movies?) who longs for freedom for himself and his people leads a rebellion against those in power. As this rebellion grows, it is suppressed until the finale, in which the masculine hero is executed at the hands of a despot. The film features sexually-ambiguous figures only on the villains' side, schematically-designed battle scenes, and much talk about freedom.


I've just described the plot of Spartacus. Sound familiar?


Paul MacLean wrote:Gosh, where do I begin...

James Horner's score does not for the most part consist of drones (unless you are referring to the multiple tubes found on Uillean pipes, which are called drones). Honer's score contains several, well-devoped and highly melodic themes. Gladiator is the score which contains more minimalist drones.
I guess we're hearing two different scores. The battle scenes in Gladiator, the climactic cue leading up to the final battle, the ethnic music in the slave scenes, the Wagnerian Roman music.

Braveheart's battle scenes sure sound droney to me, as does his minimalist love theme.[/quote]
Paul MacLean wrote:Braveheart's battle scenes are among the best ever put on screen. They unflinchingly depict the carnal savagery of that kind of warfare, in which men were literally hacked to pieces. I find the battle scenes quite horrific and effective. I don't see how anyone cannot.

That's a perfectly acceptable emotional reaction. So was mine, whether you can see it or not. I laughed at how Hollywood these scenes are, which simply cannot compare to similar scenes in Seven Samurai, Mohicans, Private Ryan (a movie I didn't care for), Paths of Glory.
Paul MacLean wrote:Other than Wallace being good-looking and having long hair, where are the similarities to Last of the Mohicans?
I wasn't thinking about cute actors but a slo-mo scene in the woods that, again, had me laughing out loud at its direct steal from Last of the Mohicans.
Paul MacLean wrote:I don't see where Braveheart borrows from off the Christ story.
Gibson was portraying an ultra-idealized saint figure, which is in the cartoony tradition of Hollywood portrayals, but when he was going through the quasi-scourging at the climax, it's blatantly obvious what he's thinking. I mean, come on--a few years later he extended this climax into a whole movie.

You don't have to agree with the comparison, but you can't see how someone else could see it in the extended torture scene? Really?

Paul MacLean wrote:True, Wallace is a martyr for his cause, but so are many historic figures. In the film Wallace is not crucified like Christ, he is drawn and quartered (which is in fact what happened to real Wallace).

One doesn't have to literally follow another story point by point to be referencing it, so saying he wasn't tortured slowly to painful death (by a despot) by being drawn and quartered doesn't mean the connection isn't there. By the above logic, you've dismissed every one of your claims that Gladiator was copying Braveheart--the Crowe character had a wife and child, not a new bride; the son of the king wasn't homosexual; Gibson's character imagined his wife in the crowd watching him, while Crowe had a vision of wife and son in the afterlife, etc.

Paul MacLean wrote:And of course Gladiator doesn't screw with history at all. :roll:

Except Gladiator was a FICTIONAL story, while Braveheart's makers claimed ad nauseum that this was the "true" story of Wallace. :roll:

Paul MacLean wrote:A number of years ago I made a documentary about a group of Roman reenactors/historians in England, and they mentioned to me they they were offered the chance to appear in Gladiator -- but turned it down. When I asked them what the they thought of the finished film, they pilloried it as "rubbish". (And these men are as close to the final word on the Roman legions as you can get in modern times.)

LOL The opinion of people who dress up to play soldier on weekend really doesn't matter a hill of beans to me, sorry.

Did you direct this documentary, btw? Is it available for viewing?


Paul MacLean wrote:Of course Braveheart takes considerable liberties with history, but there is a true story at its core. William Wallace was nevertheless a real man who defeated the English at Stirling, and fought to bring freedom to his people. I've been to Stirling and there is a huge statue of William Wallace there. There is no statue of Maximus in Rome, because Maximus never existed. Which film trifles more with history?
The one claiming to be the story of a real character which manufactures large parts of the "truth", not the FICTIONAL one.

This is like comparing Apollo 13 with Star Wars and bragging that Apollo 13 doesn't trifle as much with history.



Paul MacLean wrote:Well most revolutionaries ARE inspired to take up arms after those kind of experiences.
I'd love to see your evidence that most revolutionaries only take up arms after their wives are killed by teeth-gnashing brutes.


Paul MacLean wrote:If you are going to level this criticism at Gibson's film, then you have to admit Gladiator is also a long movie -- and every bit as violent.

I certainly do not have to admit any such thing, because it's not true. Gladiator wasn't nearly as violent.
Paul MacLean wrote:Why is Gibson always singled out for a "love of violence" when his films are no more bloody than those of Ridley Scott or Martin Scorsese (and nowhere near as gory as Tarantino's).
Because I don't agree with your subjective opinion. Just look at his movies--they revel in brutality, whereas Scott's movies depict brutality but don't show the sadistic pleasure Gibson so obviously (to me) gets--I mean, please show me where in Scott's films there is the equivalent of The Passion's two hours of torture?

Scorsese has never made a movie as bloody as Braveheart, and the violence in his movies doesn't have that childish fascination with the violent act itself--his movies show violence being brutal, sudden, painful and disturbing, and then we're out. We don't see the cosmetic-commercial cool lighting of the Lethal Weapon bare-chested electrocution scene, the HOURS of blood running in The Passion. And why bring Scorsese and Tarantino (whose work I don't even like) into a discussion of Gladiator and Braveheart?



Paul MacLean wrote:Do you really consider the opinion of an assistant professor of gender studies to be credible? Especially when discussing a film which glorifies masculinity, bravery and heroism?
You conveniently ignored that I said I didn't agree with all his points, then bring up that he's a gender studies professor after quoting a bunch of people who play dress-up as your outside witnesses?

Sorry to see you went right for the personal attack on the guy, and didn't discuss his points.


Paul MacLean wrote:I agree that Comodus is a "little worm" -- just like the English prince in Braveheart.
And countless villains in countless films. The two characters are nothing alike.

Paul MacLean wrote:As for the "cliched macho man" villain, Edward the Longshanks WAS, historically, a cruel conqueror. Historians don't call him the "Hammer of the Scots" for nothing. The ring of castles he built to subjugate Wales are massive, and remain to this day (I been in them).

You keep bringing in historical evidence when it's convenient, and casually dismiss the need for accuracy when it's also convenient, but more to the point--this is a film portrayal. The exact same actions taken by the real life character could be couched in countless performance styles. The filmmakers here chose a cliched villain. That's a filmmaking decision, and has nothing to do with history, because we have no record that can tell us the nuances that go into a performance of such a character. THAT is where one can have free reign in a historical film, because even the most "accurate" account of a person of whom we have, say, photos and films, is nowhere near the actual person. So the choices made in portraying this person are what's at issue.

Paul MacLean wrote:In Braveheart we see why Longshanks is a tyrant. We're shown how the Scots are persecuted. In Gladiator we never see why Comedus is "evil". Sure, he murders his dad, enjoys power and bumps off his opponents, but how is his ascension to the throne bad for the average Roman?
So you're now damning Gladiator for NOT being like Braveheart?

The reason Gladiator's screenplay is so much better is because it tells the audience what it needs to know more economically--we see the guy kill his father, ruthlessly kill his enemy's family, and show the senate he will roll right over them. Why do we need cliched scenes of villages on fire and women running with babes wrapped in swaddling, or whatever, when the whole point of the movie is that this is the START of something which Crowe's character wants to snuff out?

In my book, seeing a guy do what this guy does--killing his father, his enemies' family, and taking control from the people--is plenty to tell me he's going to be trouble. Why clog it up with the cliches of Braveheart?


Paul MacLean wrote:Zimmer's score has its moments, but it is little trite and shallow, and too synthesized. Bravheart again has the superior score, rife with memorable themes, skillfull orchestrations (by Horner himself).
"Trite and shallow" is a good description of Horner's love theme and the repetitive filler in between the already dated battle music.
Paul MacLean wrote:But ultimately, Braveheart is a more stirring film because it is about a man who faught for a cause, against tyranny, whereas Gladiator is more of a straightforward action movie. Maximus is a terrific character, but his plight simply isn't as moving as Wallace's.
:roll: :roll: [/quote]

Crowe's character is fighting against a tyrant before he can do to the people what he did to Crowe's family. Crowe's character had no idea of what was to come, and he is brought down as low as a man can be. He decides to toss his life away in meaningless violence, until he sees a way to gain revenge, while at the same time living up to those values which he'd lived his whole professional life.

Gibson's is quite satisfied to live under tyranny..."but now, it's PERSONAL!" and he goes right through the motions of ten million previous heroes who've "fought tyranny."

In one sense Braveheart reminds me of the james Bonds, which are all about showing action and shooting and sex, but say 'Oh, and he's fighting to stop a nuke!" Braveheart is no more about "tyranny" than Gladiator is, but Gladiator doesn't drone on and on about its pretentions. It is the far more honest film than Braveheart, which I would bet money no one every begins praising by saying 'I loved it because it's about fighting tyranny' but I WOULD bet almost everyone begins with "The battle scenes were AWESOME!"
Last edited by JSWalsh on Sat Jun 27, 2009 1:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
John

JSWalsh
Posts: 1607
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:07 am
Location: Boston, MA USA

#22 Post by JSWalsh »

double
John

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7031
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

#23 Post by Paul MacLean »

JSWalsh wrote:Braveheart's battle scenes sure sound droney to me, as does his minimalist love theme.
Droning is when you have minimal chords which are sustained for a lengthy period of time, which hardly change at all, and little or no melody to speak of. I concede that Horner's battle cue contains drones, but chord changes, modulations and melody are more typical of the score overall. (And references to drones are not out of place in a scene depicting a gathering of Scottish clans, as highland pipes calls often consisted of drones.)

From the outset, Gladiator's score contains passages that drone. The main title, with its sustained chord, would be considered a drone. Not all of the score consists of droning, but there is more of it in Zimmer's score than Horner's

Minimalism is typified by repetition, simple melody, little development and little or no dynamics. If one scrutinizes the Braveheart love theme, one will find it is the antithesis of this. The love theme consists of frequent chord changes, dynamics and a lengthy melody with much alteration. That does not make it "good", but it is anything but minimalist or droning.

LOL The opinion of people who dress up to play soldier on weekend really doesn't matter a hill of beans to me, sorry.
The group in question, The Ermine Street Guard do not "play soldier". They are actually historians who put on demonstrations at historic sites throughout Britain and Europe (I caught up with them at the Roman fort at Corbridge). They have extensively studied excavated Roman military weapons, armor, artillery, etc., fashioned working reconstructions and gained an understanding of how they worked, through using them as the legionnaires did. Such is the extent and reliability of their research that Universities regularly consult their expertise. They have also appeared on The History Channel.

Did you direct this documentary, btw? Is it available for viewing?
Yes. I put it on youtube. I'm not completely happy with how it came out (and the Youtube compression looks awful) but the Guard liked it.



Gladiator wasn't nearly as violent.
Huh? Gladiator is chock-full of maimings, eviscerations, decapitations, etc. It even shows a woman being cut in half (even Braveheart doesn't show that).

For the record I don't think Scott revels in violence either. They both merely show it like it is. In fact they're both very similar directors. They both have arresting visual styles, appear to gravitate toward similar subjects, such as action and history. They have also both been very influential. Every epic battle scene in this decade has been influenced those in Braveheart and Gladiator.

If asked to make a choice I'd say Scott is the superior director. But in the case of Braveheart and Gladiator I think Braveheart is the better film.

And why bring Scorsese and Tarantino (whose work I don't even like) into a discussion of Gladiator and Braveheart?
Well, why did you bring The Passion into discussion of Gladiator and Braveheart? I mentioned Scorsese and Tarantino because you seem to single out Gibson as a lover of violence, when other directors' films actually exhibit more violence.

The reason Gladiator's screenplay is so much better is because it tells the audience what it needs to know more economically--we see the guy kill his father, ruthlessly kill his enemy's family, and show the senate he will roll right over them.
Again, I like Gladiator but the script is actually its biggest problem (it was bound to be, seeing as it was being written while they were shooting). Comodus' character in particular was never sufficiently developed. It was the brilliance of Ridley Scott's direction that helped helped prop up a sometimes wanting script.

azahid
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:46 am

#24 Post by azahid »

It seems that all the extras on the theatrical and the Directors Cut are here. So it appears there is nothing new on this GLADIATOR release except that its now on Blu Ray, just scratching on the triple dip here ;)

Amer

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34186
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

#25 Post by AndyDursin »

My main hesitation with the BRAVEHEART and GLADIATOR discs is the price. A $40 MSRP means these will be $27 or thereabouts at most venues. Too high for a catalog title, even for these films.

Post Reply