 |
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by molly bloom
As a poor successor to 'Spartacus' and the superior 'Fall of the Roman Empire'. Alec Guinness is a much better Marcus Aurelius than Richard Harris, and the mustering of Rome's allies and forces at the beginning displays a keen eye for spectacle.
What irks most about 'Gladiator' for me is the entirely unnecessary schlock Hollywood ending. Utterly irritating, and weaker by far than either the ending of 'Spartacus' (which I still find convincing and moving) or the cynicism of the end of 'The Fall of the Roman Empire' where the position of Emperor is up for grabs to the highest bidder.
I did like the arena scenes, and I did like the dream sequences/prophetic visions in 'Gladiator' but the cityscpae of Rome just liked like some multi-storey grey 20th Century brutalist landscape. The Romans knew how to dye and colour concrete, fer crissakes, and painted and gilded statuary. They didn't live in some bleak cheap Mies van der Rohe knock-off.... |
Perhaps the vision of ancient Rome was wrong, but it was extremely impressive regardless. The recreation of the Colliseum was impressive. Also the scene where Commodus rides his chariot past the assembled cohorts to the steps of his palace was very impressive. (I did a rough count of the number of troops shown in the scene. I figured it to be 30,000.) When I saw it, I had flashes of the Nazi assembly at Nuremberg where Hitler marches down between the assembled German Army. Either the movie was inspired by Nuremberg or Hitler (Speer) was inspired by Rome. Regardless, such displays of military might are very effective.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27. Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|