This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
What, you're a fan of Forrest Gump?Sorry, bro. You lose:
I happen to be a fan of Forrest Gump, yes. For one, it created a genre/template, while Gladiator set its own back a generation.
I don't understand either of those statements.
True Blood could have been great had they kept the focus on Vampires, with each new fairy tale creature introduced, my interest wanes.True Blood is awful. Breaking Bad is brilliant. Give up on True Blood and devote yourself to BB
Somehow, I'm used to that (and its not just you). Gump created an "accidental history" template that has been followed several times since, as well as putting on the front porch the concept of using CGI to tell stories of scale.I don't understand either of those statements.
Except that Gladiator wasn't supposed to be an historical epic. And movies like Alexander and Troy set the sword and sandal genre back by orders of magnitude more than Gladiator did.What other movies to you think follow the Gump template?Somehow, I'm used to that (and its not just you). Gump created a "personal history" template that has been followed several times since, as well as putting on the front porch the concept of using CGI to tell stories of scale.I don't understand either of those statements.
Gladiator achieved what most bothers me with pictures. When a grand hero subject such as Spartacus or Alexander gets the Hollywood treatment, the scale of such ventures generally limit the telling to once per generation, meaning that when they get told badly, the case for real heroes, flawed & magnificent, gets set back a gen. Gladiator misrepresented the mood of early-century Rome as badly as if a Civil War story were told without recognition of slavery, and it not only ruined the first chance we had at it since the awful Italian gladiator movies killed the genre but spawned a series of "historical" pictures which had no sense of history.
Big Fish was the only thing that quickly came to my mind. Maybe Benjamin Button. As time passes Gump will probably be remembered as one of the great American Tall Tales just like Pecos Bill and Paul Bunyan.Except that Gladiator wasn't supposed to be an historical epic. And movies like Alexander and Troy set the sword and sandal genre back by orders of magnitude more than Gladiator did.What other movies to you think follow the Gump template?Somehow, I'm used to that (and its not just you). Gump created a "personal history" template that has been followed several times since, as well as putting on the front porch the concept of using CGI to tell stories of scale.I don't understand either of those statements.
Gladiator achieved what most bothers me with pictures. When a grand hero subject such as Spartacus or Alexander gets the Hollywood treatment, the scale of such ventures generally limit the telling to once per generation, meaning that when they get told badly, the case for real heroes, flawed & magnificent, gets set back a gen. Gladiator misrepresented the mood of early-century Rome as badly as if a Civil War story were told without recognition of slavery, and it not only ruined the first chance we had at it since the awful Italian gladiator movies killed the genre but spawned a series of "historical" pictures which had no sense of history.
The Postman oddly follows this model. Side note: the book took just as an absurd left turn for The Postman as it did for Forrest Gump.Big Fish was the only thing that quickly came to my mind. Maybe Benjamin Button. As time passes Gump will probably be remembered as one of the great American Tall Tales just like Pecos Bill and Paul Bunyan.Except that Gladiator wasn't supposed to be an historical epic. And movies like Alexander and Troy set the sword and sandal genre back by orders of magnitude more than Gladiator did.What other movies to you think follow the Gump template?Somehow, I'm used to that (and its not just you). Gump created a "personal history" template that has been followed several times since, as well as putting on the front porch the concept of using CGI to tell stories of scale.I don't understand either of those statements.
Gladiator achieved what most bothers me with pictures. When a grand hero subject such as Spartacus or Alexander gets the Hollywood treatment, the scale of such ventures generally limit the telling to once per generation, meaning that when they get told badly, the case for real heroes, flawed & magnificent, gets set back a gen. Gladiator misrepresented the mood of early-century Rome as badly as if a Civil War story were told without recognition of slavery, and it not only ruined the first chance we had at it since the awful Italian gladiator movies killed the genre but spawned a series of "historical" pictures which had no sense of history.
Oh my.
I'm not saying I support it, but the fact remains. One of the most ridiculous characters ever created is also probably the most well known character from the the entire decade of the 90's.
Benjamin Button is the obvious one (edit: yes, Big Fish, good). Not good at lists, but i recognize a lot of what started with Gump (you may notice i edited my previous post to replace "personal" with "accidental" history) in many pix.Gladiator simply couldnt have happened, any more than the Civil War could have been won by an heroic black General of the Army. The fault in it is just as egregious.Except that Gladiator wasn't supposed to be an historical epic. And movies like Alexander and Troy set the sword and sandal genre back by orders of magnitude more than Gladiator did.What other movies to you think follow the Gump template?Somehow, I'm used to that (and its not just you). Gump created a "personal history" template that has been followed several times since, as well as putting on the front porch the concept of using CGI to tell stories of scale.I don't understand either of those statements.
Gladiator achieved what most bothers me with pictures. When a grand hero subject such as Spartacus or Alexander gets the Hollywood treatment, the scale of such ventures generally limit the telling to once per generation, meaning that when they get told badly, the case for real heroes, flawed & magnificent, gets set back a gen. Gladiator misrepresented the mood of early-century Rome as badly as if a Civil War story were told without recognition of slavery, and it not only ruined the first chance we had at it since the awful Italian gladiator movies killed the genre but spawned a series of "historical" pictures which had no sense of history.
I think the criteria of "could it possibly happen" or "it didn't happen that way" are unfair ones for fictional movies set in an historical context.Is "The Untouchables" no good because it wasn't really Elliot Ness that brought down Capone?The events that "Battleship Potempkin" are based on are significantly different than what is portrayed.
Gump was a lightweight, ephemeral movie. Entertaining, yes. But in no way better than Gladiator.
I think the material was in place for True Blood to be great. But the "humor" isn't very funny, and the acting isn't always strong enough to elevate the material.True Blood could have been great had they kept the focus on Vampires, with each new fairy tale creature introduced, my interest wanes.True Blood is awful. Breaking Bad is brilliant. Give up on True Blood and devote yourself to BB
So you normally refer to movies for history lessons? I haven't seen a survey on this yet, but I'm fairly certain that cinema has long played very loose with the facts when tackling historical material.Somehow, I'm used to that (and its not just you). Gump created an "accidental history" template that has been followed several times since, as well as putting on the front porch the concept of using CGI to tell stories of scale.I don't understand either of those statements.
Gladiator achieved what most bothers me with pictures. When a grand hero subject such as Spartacus or Alexander gets the Hollywood treatment, the scale of such ventures generally limit the telling to once per generation, meaning that when they get told badly, the case for real heroes, flawed & magnificent, gets set back a gen. Gladiator misrepresented the mood of early-century Rome as badly as if a Civil War story were told without recognition of slavery, and it not only ruined the first chance we had at it since the awful Italian gladiator movies killed the genre but spawned a series of "historical" pictures which had no sense of history.
I think the criteria of "could it possibly happen" or "it didn't happen that way" are unfair ones for fictional movies set in an historical context.Is "The Untouchables" no good because it wasn't really Elliot Ness that brought down Capone?The events that "Battleship Potempkin" are based on are significantly different than what is portrayed.
I'm rarely a fan of this kind of criticism. When a movie happens to be historically accurate, I think that's a pleasant byproduct. But to single out any one movie as historically inaccurate neglects to consider that almost all movies based on historical events play loose with the facts.
This all reminds me of when the ur-pokerwriter Mike Caro used five pages of one of the early issues of Card Player Magazine to delineate how the famous hand of 5-card stud in "Cincinnati Kid" between McQueen & Edw G Robinson could not have happened. Ruined one of my favorite movies for me.Believe me, poetic license is something i understand completely. I'm not one of these continuity wonks who cant suspend belief.I think the criteria of "could it possibly happen" or "it didn't happen that way" are unfair ones for fictional movies set in an historical context.Is "The Untouchables" no good because it wasn't really Elliot Ness that brought down Capone?
The events that "Battleship Potempkin" are based on are significantly different than what is portrayed.
Maximus grieves for his family and longs to be reunited with them. Those longings seem very personal and universal to me
I'm not trying to convince you not to enjoy it. Just telling you why i dont and the negative impact i see that having on the way pictures of scale are made.Maximus grieves for his family and longs to be reunited with them. Those longings seem very personal and universal to me
You ever see Tiger Woods, Barry Bonds, Kobe Bryant, or Michael Jackson with a black woman
Same here. I'm not a fan of Forrest Gump, but I understand why people like it.On another note, however, I don't know how you could think that The English Patient, Dances With Wolves, Driving Miss Daisy and Rain Man are better movies than Gladiator. Re-watch Dances With Wolves. It's pretty bad.I'm not trying to convince you not to enjoy it. Just telling you why i dont and the negative impact i see that having on the way pictures of scale are made.Maximus grieves for his family and longs to be reunited with them. Those longings seem very personal and universal to me
But Maximus wasn't just any old slave. He was one of the empire's greatest generals.
I wouldnt say Gladiator is that much better than half of these, and the other half of those I have no interest whatsoever in seeing for the most part.
Solid flickBig Fish was the only thing that quickly came to my mind. Maybe Benjamin Button. As time passes Gump will probably be remembered as one of the great American Tall Tales just like Pecos Bill and Paul Bunyan.Except that Gladiator wasn't supposed to be an historical epic. And movies like Alexander and Troy set the sword and sandal genre back by orders of magnitude more than Gladiator did.What other movies to you think follow the Gump template?Somehow, I'm used to that (and its not just you). Gump created a "personal history" template that has been followed several times since, as well as putting on the front porch the concept of using CGI to tell stories of scale.I don't understand either of those statements.
Gladiator achieved what most bothers me with pictures. When a grand hero subject such as Spartacus or Alexander gets the Hollywood treatment, the scale of such ventures generally limit the telling to once per generation, meaning that when they get told badly, the case for real heroes, flawed & magnificent, gets set back a gen. Gladiator misrepresented the mood of early-century Rome as badly as if a Civil War story were told without recognition of slavery, and it not only ruined the first chance we had at it since the awful Italian gladiator movies killed the genre but spawned a series of "historical" pictures which had no sense of history.
DWW was pretty pathetic but, as one whose father has a Census Card, i'm more forgiving of Noble ***** movies than i should be. The 2nd half was almost as unforgivable as Gladiator, but it did not violate the first half quite as much. And i really liked the "lone in wilderness" aspect of the first half. That describes a hell of a lot more about what the settling of the west was like than most other western movies - would be something i'd love to see Mallick undertake.As to the others you list - i found them each charming & effective.Same here. I'm not a fan of Forrest Gump, but I understand why people like it.On another note, however, I don't know how you could think that The English Patient, Dances With Wolves, Driving Miss Daisy and Rain Man are better movies than Gladiator. Re-watch Dances With Wolves. It's pretty bad.I'm not trying to convince you not to enjoy it. Just telling you why i dont and the negative impact i see that having on the way pictures of scale are made.Maximus grieves for his family and longs to be reunited with them. Those longings seem very personal and universal to me
Yeah, movies that deter or disappoint based on historical fact for me are few and far between. After all, theyre movies for a reason.So you normally refer to movies for history lessons? I haven't seen a survey on this yet, but I'm fairly certain that cinema has long played very loose with the facts when tackling historical material.Somehow, I'm used to that (and its not just you). Gump created an "accidental history" template that has been followed several times since, as well as putting on the front porch the concept of using CGI to tell stories of scale.I don't understand either of those statements.
Gladiator achieved what most bothers me with pictures. When a grand hero subject such as Spartacus or Alexander gets the Hollywood treatment, the scale of such ventures generally limit the telling to once per generation, meaning that when they get told badly, the case for real heroes, flawed & magnificent, gets set back a gen. Gladiator misrepresented the mood of early-century Rome as badly as if a Civil War story were told without recognition of slavery, and it not only ruined the first chance we had at it since the awful Italian gladiator movies killed the genre but spawned a series of "historical" pictures which had no sense of history.
You don't need to tell me that, one of my favorite flicks as a kid.Swayze as Pecos Bill is almost unrecognizable under the hat the mustache. We had a lot more dislocated joints as kids once we realized the importance of a "trigger finger".Solid flickBig Fish was the only thing that quickly came to my mind. Maybe Benjamin Button. As time passes Gump will probably be remembered as one of the great American Tall Tales just like Pecos Bill and Paul Bunyan.Except that Gladiator wasn't supposed to be an historical epic. And movies like Alexander and Troy set the sword and sandal genre back by orders of magnitude more than Gladiator did.What other movies to you think follow the Gump template?Somehow, I'm used to that (and its not just you). Gump created a "personal history" template that has been followed several times since, as well as putting on the front porch the concept of using CGI to tell stories of scale.I don't understand either of those statements.
Gladiator achieved what most bothers me with pictures. When a grand hero subject such as Spartacus or Alexander gets the Hollywood treatment, the scale of such ventures generally limit the telling to once per generation, meaning that when they get told badly, the case for real heroes, flawed & magnificent, gets set back a gen. Gladiator misrepresented the mood of early-century Rome as badly as if a Civil War story were told without recognition of slavery, and it not only ruined the first chance we had at it since the awful Italian gladiator movies killed the genre but spawned a series of "historical" pictures which had no sense of history.
Yes.Yeah, movies that deter or disappoint based on historical fact for me are few and far between. After all, theyre movies for a reason.So you normally refer to movies for history lessons? I haven't seen a survey on this yet, but I'm fairly certain that cinema has long played very loose with the facts when tackling historical material.Somehow, I'm used to that (and its not just you). Gump created an "accidental history" template that has been followed several times since, as well as putting on the front porch the concept of using CGI to tell stories of scale.I don't understand either of those statements.
Gladiator achieved what most bothers me with pictures. When a grand hero subject such as Spartacus or Alexander gets the Hollywood treatment, the scale of such ventures generally limit the telling to once per generation, meaning that when they get told badly, the case for real heroes, flawed & magnificent, gets set back a gen. Gladiator misrepresented the mood of early-century Rome as badly as if a Civil War story were told without recognition of slavery, and it not only ruined the first chance we had at it since the awful Italian gladiator movies killed the genre but spawned a series of "historical" pictures which had no sense of history.
If you watch The Last of The Mohicans and Dances With Wolves as a double feature, you'll see that Mohicans holds up pretty well. I really enjoyed DWW when it was released. But re-watching it recently, it's terribly hoary.You didn't single out Crash. Here's a movie with no subtlety or nuance. Crash was a juvenile, cliche mess. I'd argue that both Crash and Gladiator had very basic plots that rely on some fairly obvious emotions. But with Gladiator, I didn't feel like I was being scolded.DWW was pretty pathetic but, as one whose father has a Census Card, i'm more forgiving of Noble ***** movies than i should be. The 2nd half was almost as unforgivable as Gladiator, but it did not violate the first half quite as much. And i really liked the "lone in wilderness" aspect of the first half. That describes a hell of a lot more about what the settling of the west was like than most other western movies - would be something i'd love to see Mallick undertake.As to the others you list - i found them each charming & effective.Same here. I'm not a fan of Forrest Gump, but I understand why people like it.On another note, however, I don't know how you could think that The English Patient, Dances With Wolves, Driving Miss Daisy and Rain Man are better movies than Gladiator. Re-watch Dances With Wolves. It's pretty bad.I'm not trying to convince you not to enjoy it. Just telling you why i dont and the negative impact i see that having on the way pictures of scale are made.Maximus grieves for his family and longs to be reunited with them. Those longings seem very personal and universal to me
dont matter - he took a tack that would have gotten him summarily executed without a 2nd thought. believe me, i enjoyed the theme & setup soooo much that i was rooting for such clever filmmakers to deliver on its promise and follow the premise they set everything upon. then the Crowe came calling....the court jester can change the world by subtle revelation of the emperor's lack of clothes, even by setting a ego trap for the King to fall into at a point where it would be too late for him to have interest in anything but saving himself but, if he does a limpwristed impression of his swordfighting technique or calls the Queen a slut...vroooomp....you cant tell jokes when your head's on a pike.
Colorful waste of time with excellent headless breasts. I think we've unmasked something about ol wikkid here - if youre going to disappoint him in the end, raise not his hopes at all. That could well be the ultimate fault of Gladiator
I need to remember this. I used to have a theory that a trailer revealed everything about a movie. Like, if the trailer is bad then the movie will be bad. But as I've tried to collect evidence to support this, I've been failing. One example is Tangled. I haven't seen it yet, but the trailer looks awful. But people that saw the movie thought it was really fun, and that the trailer misrepresented the movie.
I don't believe you. Because the character of Commodus in the movie Gladiator was motivated much more by wanting to be loved (by his subjects as a surrogate for his father) than he was by being feared. And since he's a fictional character set in an historical context, the movie is free to play with his reactions as it will. The Roman Emperors did a lot of bat #### crazy things. Allowing a disobedient slave to show him up with a plan to discredit him later would be one of the tamer ideas in comparison.
Right. But within the framework of this movie, the emperor did not suffer Maximus' defiance in silence. He immediately fixed a stadium battle that should have killed Maximus. And to chop off Maximus' head in jail would go against the emperor's own wishes. The emperor's goal was to give the people games to distract them from their own misery.
Yes. And furthermore, this emperor is a weak, neurotic coward. Given his personality in the film, he'd be more likely to agonize over this decision than to just execute Maximus on the spot. This emperor is filled with self-loathing and impotence.
I dont disagree, but youre also comparing a movie directed by Michael Mann starring DDL and Wes Studi to a movie directed by Kevin Costner starring Kevin Costner and Graham Greene...Almost apples and oranges.
Except for the Cheadle story line, I enjoyed Crash when i saw it. Wasnt disappointed when it won an Oscar because it was carrying on the work established by one of my favorite movies of the last gen, Grand Canyon, and Munich disappointed me & Brokeback literally sucked. Havent had a chance to revisit it - will let u know if i do.If you watch The Last of The Mohicans and Dances With Wolves as a double feature, you'll see that Mohicans holds up pretty well. I really enjoyed DWW when it was released. But re-watching it recently, it's terribly hoary.You didn't single out Crash. Here's a movie with no subtlety or nuance. Crash was a juvenile, cliche mess. I'd argue that both Crash and Gladiator had very basic plots that rely on some fairly obvious emotions. But with Gladiator, I didn't feel like I was being scolded.DWW was pretty pathetic but, as one whose father has a Census Card, i'm more forgiving of Noble ***** movies than i should be. The 2nd half was almost as unforgivable as Gladiator, but it did not violate the first half quite as much. And i really liked the "lone in wilderness" aspect of the first half. That describes a hell of a lot more about what the settling of the west was like than most other western movies - would be something i'd love to see Mallick undertake.As to the others you list - i found them each charming & effective.Same here. I'm not a fan of Forrest Gump, but I understand why people like it.On another note, however, I don't know how you could think that The English Patient, Dances With Wolves, Driving Miss Daisy and Rain Man are better movies than Gladiator. Re-watch Dances With Wolves. It's pretty bad.I'm not trying to convince you not to enjoy it. Just telling you why i dont and the negative impact i see that having on the way pictures of scale are made.Maximus grieves for his family and longs to be reunited with them. Those longings seem very personal and universal to me
Yes. Yes I am
You both win. Great flick.
Really? Munich? Munich is 10 times better than Crash. Crash was two hours that screamed, "Racism is bad! Really, really bad!!!"Brokeback was not a good movie. I really liked Ledger a lot. But Gyllenhaal? That fake mustache was ridiculous. And I didn't believe these guys were a couple. For a movie that gets a gay couple right, see Colin Firth in A Single Man.Except for the Cheadle story line, I enjoyed Crash when i saw it. Wasnt disappointed when it won an Oscar because it was carrying on the work established by one of my favorite movies of the last gen, Grand Canyon, and Munich disappointed me & Brokeback literally sucked. Havent had a chance to revisit it - will let u know if i do.If you watch The Last of The Mohicans and Dances With Wolves as a double feature, you'll see that Mohicans holds up pretty well. I really enjoyed DWW when it was released. But re-watching it recently, it's terribly hoary.You didn't single out Crash. Here's a movie with no subtlety or nuance. Crash was a juvenile, cliche mess. I'd argue that both Crash and Gladiator had very basic plots that rely on some fairly obvious emotions. But with Gladiator, I didn't feel like I was being scolded.DWW was pretty pathetic but, as one whose father has a Census Card, i'm more forgiving of Noble ***** movies than i should be. The 2nd half was almost as unforgivable as Gladiator, but it did not violate the first half quite as much. And i really liked the "lone in wilderness" aspect of the first half. That describes a hell of a lot more about what the settling of the west was like than most other western movies - would be something i'd love to see Mallick undertake.As to the others you list - i found them each charming & effective.Same here. I'm not a fan of Forrest Gump, but I understand why people like it.On another note, however, I don't know how you could think that The English Patient, Dances With Wolves, Driving Miss Daisy and Rain Man are better movies than Gladiator. Re-watch Dances With Wolves. It's pretty bad.I'm not trying to convince you not to enjoy it. Just telling you why i dont and the negative impact i see that having on the way pictures of scale are made.Maximus grieves for his family and longs to be reunited with them. Those longings seem very personal and universal to me
Then it's settled
Indeed. Now there are two things ive learned from the FFA - a great love for Gladiator and Rush.Then it's settled
...and multi-page conversations about poop.Indeed. Now there are two things ive learned from the FFA - a great love for Gladiator and Rush.Then it's settled
If by 'almost apples and oranges' you mean apples and that fake plastic fruit that people use for decor, then I agree.Then again, Last of the Mohicans is the best and most perfect movie I've ever seen, so only an elite few movies are going to be comparable to it.
Dont know if Id go that far, but its way up there for me. Easily best Native American-centric movie ever and I cant see anything topping it.
Oof. Noted. I guess I will keep juggling between Breaking Bad and Mad Men. Thought True Blood would be up my alley, but didn't seem to stick with me. Also, looking at Anna Paquin was like a bad Seinfeld episode or something. Sometimes she would look really hot, and then the next scene she would look too much like her.
Ah, do they start throwing werewolves, zombies, witches and #### in there? Basically and adult 'Buffy' that's not nearly as cool or witty?True Blood could have been great had they kept the focus on Vampires, with each new fairy tale creature introduced, my interest wanes.True Blood is awful. Breaking Bad is brilliant. Give up on True Blood and devote yourself to BB
Nail. On the head.ETA: They do substitute boobs and homosexuality, but yeah, I'd take cool and witty any day.Ah, do they start throwing werewolves, zombies, witches and #### in there? Basically and adult 'Buffy' that's not nearly as cool or witty?True Blood could have been great had they kept the focus on Vampires, with each new fairy tale creature introduced, my interest wanes.True Blood is awful. Breaking Bad is brilliant. Give up on True Blood and devote yourself to BB
