Damn Cobalt...if you don't like someone's opinion, do you always have to throw out the profanities and treat 'em like garbage? Come on...have a little respect for yourself... You sound like a potty-mouthed 10yr old... I didn't see the movie, and I didn't care to see the movie btw. It's not the type of movie I enjoy.
Ooooo....sounds like somebody's boyfriend kicked someone to the curb.
Sorry about your loss, but I'm sure you'll find love again. Maybe NAMBLA has a referral service...
I didn't say that Cameron was the G.O.A.T. I said that he was my favorite. (Kinda like the way you like to play "My Little Pony" while I like chicks...) He has been the most consistant filmmaker for the last fifteen years and I enjoy his stuff. "Titanic" was a chick flick with bleeding edge production values and effects. As such, it was OK, but prolly my LEAST favorite Cameron movie.
I appreciate Scorsese's films like "Taxi Driver", "After Hours", "GoodFellas", "Raging Bull" (he was ROBBED of an Oscar for that, "Ordinary People"?!?!? F*CK THAT!), "The King of Comedy" were all cool in their way and I liked parts of "The Last Temptation of Christ", BUT he's been on a decade long blah streak since "GoodFellas". Pointless sleepwalks like "Cape Fear" and "Casino" (was DeNiro even awake in that one?) and disappointing films like "The Age of Innocence" and "Bringing Out The Dead" haven't done much for his rep. (FFMCobalt starts to wonder who he's picked a fight with...}
A lot of the maverick filmmakers like Coppola and Scorsese did their best work in the Seventies and have had a hard time keeping up in changing times. Coppola never really recovered from "Apocalypse Now", did he and that was twenty years ago! How a guy can go from that and The Godfather films to making a "Big" ripoff POS like "Jack" is soul-killing, but life goes on.
Which brings us back to the piece of crap in question: Grabulator. (Hey, look! Scraps is a boy dog!)
Ridley Scott is a visionary visual artist as "Blade Runner", "Legend" and "Alien" proved. His style made pedestrian films like "Someone To Watch Over Me" and "Black Rain" watchable, but couldn't salvage the horrible "1492: Conquest of Paradise". "Thelma and Louise" was good too, but you'll notice that, like Scorsese, the Nineties haven't been that good to him. "1492", "White Squall", "GI Jane" and now "That Roman Movie" aren't much to write home about. (I'm not apprehensive about "Hannibal"...yet.) My problem is that he can't do fast-paced action. That's not a crime, compared to Spielberg, Woo and Cameron, neither can Simon West, Antoine Fuqua or any of these other video directors turned feature directors.
The end of "GI Jane" was a warning of Ridley's inability to handle the Big Action Scene. Argument can be made that the strobing cinematography and impressionistic editing was attempting to recall the opener of "Saving Private Ryan" and the battles of "Braveheart". The problem is, those movies conveyed the chaos of battle in a manner that allowed the audience to follow the action. Gladiator's scenes were nothing but confusion and ineptitude.
As for the story, it blew goats. It was arbitrary and there was nothing to root for. William Wallace died while trying to make Scotland free, Maximus dies because the hero dies in flicks these days. (Same for the post-ironic era "Pitch Black". Would it have killed them to let her live?) There was nothing for the audience to root for and no reward for their investment in the shadows of character that there was.
I've seen "Sparticus" and "Ben Hurr" in the 5,000 seat Fox Theatre and know what an epic sandal-and-sword picture can be. "Gladiator" was so far from those films in scope and quality that it's not fit to sniff their sweaty togas.
So, FFMCobalt, go intercourse yourself and stick your Gladiator DVD up your ass sideways, so you'll be able to savor the goodness to the fullest. Have a nice day, f*ckface.
BlkDragon6: I go to the movies to be entertained. The day I say "Gladiator", Roger "Mmmm...donuts!" Ebert panned the hell out of it. Since I'd seen good write-ups at Aint-It-Cool and various mags, my girlfriend and I thought, "He just doesn't understand popcorn flicks." (Other Ebert howlers were his love for "The Cell" and "Titan A.E." while thumbing down my fave flick of the year, "X-Men". Jerk.)
Anyhoo...we started getting worried real early on and as soon as the credits started to roll, she said "Ebert was right." and I've been on a jihad against this craptacular ever since. When the herds get together to bay at the Gladiator moon, I'm duty-bound to spoil the party because the success of terrible films like this only means that more lousy films like this will be made.
For $7.50, I am certainly NOT looking to complain. I just want some decent films. Hell, I used to look forward to the brain-challenged summer flick season with glee because the motto was "Blow sh*t up!". But, the last few years have really started to annoy me. So many flicks like "Armageddon" and "Twister" are nothing but "FX porn" that gives home theatre owners source material to show off their rigs with. No characters, no plot, no heart, no soul have started to bum me out. "The Perfect Storm" had some rooting interest, but will only live on as a way to annoy the neighbors with your 5.1 sound system. What happened to good summer popcorn burners like "Predator" and "Aliens" and "T2"?
The timid, major studio, bottom-line-driven, dumbest-common-denominator movie has sucked the joy out of the movies and I go to the movies a LOT. (Went to the show 3 out of the last 4 days to "X-Men", "Space Cowboys" and "Nurse Betty" and the night before watched "The Spanish Prisoner". Watched "Magnolia" ((Crap!)) a few days before that.) Is it too much to get something other than half-written, half-witted garbage?
I really liked "Scary Movie" and really hated "Me, Myself and Irene", loved "X-Men" and was pretty bored by "MI:2". (Oddly, I didn't mind the unneeded "Gone In 60 Seconds" I like ALL KINDS of movies and judge them against their intentions. I'm not a cinema snob who looks down on popular fare. I...like...movies. Good. Movies. Period.
Which is why I hated "Gladiator". It was not a good movie and all praise lavished on it is misplaced.
Sorry about your loss, but I'm sure you'll find love again. Maybe NAMBLA has a referral service...I didn't say that Cameron was the G.O.A.T. I said that he was my favorite. (Kinda like the way you like to play "My Little Pony" while I like chicks...) He has been the most consistant filmmaker for the last fifteen years and I enjoy his stuff. "Titanic" was a chick flick with bleeding edge production values and effects. As such, it was OK, but prolly my LEAST favorite Cameron movie.
I appreciate Scorsese's films like "Taxi Driver", "After Hours", "GoodFellas", "Raging Bull" (he was ROBBED of an Oscar for that, "Ordinary People"?!?!? F*CK THAT!), "The King of Comedy" were all cool in their way and I liked parts of "The Last Temptation of Christ", BUT he's been on a decade long blah streak since "GoodFellas". Pointless sleepwalks like "Cape Fear" and "Casino" (was DeNiro even awake in that one?) and disappointing films like "The Age of Innocence" and "Bringing Out The Dead" haven't done much for his rep. (FFMCobalt starts to wonder who he's picked a fight with...}
A lot of the maverick filmmakers like Coppola and Scorsese did their best work in the Seventies and have had a hard time keeping up in changing times. Coppola never really recovered from "Apocalypse Now", did he and that was twenty years ago! How a guy can go from that and The Godfather films to making a "Big" ripoff POS like "Jack" is soul-killing, but life goes on.
Which brings us back to the piece of crap in question: Grabulator. (Hey, look! Scraps is a boy dog!)
Ridley Scott is a visionary visual artist as "Blade Runner", "Legend" and "Alien" proved. His style made pedestrian films like "Someone To Watch Over Me" and "Black Rain" watchable, but couldn't salvage the horrible "1492: Conquest of Paradise". "Thelma and Louise" was good too, but you'll notice that, like Scorsese, the Nineties haven't been that good to him. "1492", "White Squall", "GI Jane" and now "That Roman Movie" aren't much to write home about. (I'm not apprehensive about "Hannibal"...yet.) My problem is that he can't do fast-paced action. That's not a crime, compared to Spielberg, Woo and Cameron, neither can Simon West, Antoine Fuqua or any of these other video directors turned feature directors.
The end of "GI Jane" was a warning of Ridley's inability to handle the Big Action Scene. Argument can be made that the strobing cinematography and impressionistic editing was attempting to recall the opener of "Saving Private Ryan" and the battles of "Braveheart". The problem is, those movies conveyed the chaos of battle in a manner that allowed the audience to follow the action. Gladiator's scenes were nothing but confusion and ineptitude.
As for the story, it blew goats. It was arbitrary and there was nothing to root for. William Wallace died while trying to make Scotland free, Maximus dies because the hero dies in flicks these days. (Same for the post-ironic era "Pitch Black". Would it have killed them to let her live?) There was nothing for the audience to root for and no reward for their investment in the shadows of character that there was.
I've seen "Sparticus" and "Ben Hurr" in the 5,000 seat Fox Theatre and know what an epic sandal-and-sword picture can be. "Gladiator" was so far from those films in scope and quality that it's not fit to sniff their sweaty togas.
So, FFMCobalt, go intercourse yourself and stick your Gladiator DVD up your ass sideways, so you'll be able to savor the goodness to the fullest. Have a nice day, f*ckface.
BlkDragon6: I go to the movies to be entertained. The day I say "Gladiator", Roger "Mmmm...donuts!" Ebert panned the hell out of it. Since I'd seen good write-ups at Aint-It-Cool and various mags, my girlfriend and I thought, "He just doesn't understand popcorn flicks." (Other Ebert howlers were his love for "The Cell" and "Titan A.E." while thumbing down my fave flick of the year, "X-Men". Jerk.)
Anyhoo...we started getting worried real early on and as soon as the credits started to roll, she said "Ebert was right." and I've been on a jihad against this craptacular ever since. When the herds get together to bay at the Gladiator moon, I'm duty-bound to spoil the party because the success of terrible films like this only means that more lousy films like this will be made.
For $7.50, I am certainly NOT looking to complain. I just want some decent films. Hell, I used to look forward to the brain-challenged summer flick season with glee because the motto was "Blow sh*t up!". But, the last few years have really started to annoy me. So many flicks like "Armageddon" and "Twister" are nothing but "FX porn" that gives home theatre owners source material to show off their rigs with. No characters, no plot, no heart, no soul have started to bum me out. "The Perfect Storm" had some rooting interest, but will only live on as a way to annoy the neighbors with your 5.1 sound system. What happened to good summer popcorn burners like "Predator" and "Aliens" and "T2"?
The timid, major studio, bottom-line-driven, dumbest-common-denominator movie has sucked the joy out of the movies and I go to the movies a LOT. (Went to the show 3 out of the last 4 days to "X-Men", "Space Cowboys" and "Nurse Betty" and the night before watched "The Spanish Prisoner". Watched "Magnolia" ((Crap!)) a few days before that.) Is it too much to get something other than half-written, half-witted garbage?
I really liked "Scary Movie" and really hated "Me, Myself and Irene", loved "X-Men" and was pretty bored by "MI:2". (Oddly, I didn't mind the unneeded "Gone In 60 Seconds"
I like ALL KINDS of movies and judge them against their intentions. I'm not a cinema snob who looks down on popular fare. I...like...movies. Good. Movies. Period.Which is why I hated "Gladiator". It was not a good movie and all praise lavished on it is misplaced.
DirkBelig,
<< I've seen "Sparticus" and "Ben Hurr" in the 5,000 seat Fox Theatre and know what an epic sandal-and-sword picture can be. "Gladiator" was so far from those films in scope and quality that it's not fit to sniff their sweaty togas. >>
I agree with you, but the industry is driven by money/audience. So it is unfair to stack today movies against the masterpieces that you mentioned or Lawrence of Arabia, or the King and I. Because the movies industry is out to make fast $$$, and the audience is not patience enough to sit through 3 hours of epic. Therefore they don?t have time to make great movies like the past.
PS. I would love to see a remake of Ben Hurr or Lawrence of Arabia in an Omnimax or Imax format
<< I've seen "Sparticus" and "Ben Hurr" in the 5,000 seat Fox Theatre and know what an epic sandal-and-sword picture can be. "Gladiator" was so far from those films in scope and quality that it's not fit to sniff their sweaty togas. >>
I agree with you, but the industry is driven by money/audience. So it is unfair to stack today movies against the masterpieces that you mentioned or Lawrence of Arabia, or the King and I. Because the movies industry is out to make fast $$$, and the audience is not patience enough to sit through 3 hours of epic. Therefore they don?t have time to make great movies like the past.
PS. I would love to see a remake of Ben Hurr or Lawrence of Arabia in an Omnimax or Imax format
Ben Hurr was like in Cinerama already. The Fox had a screen that was at least as wide as IMAX. Also saw "Lawrence of Arabia" there.
It was good, better than the Patriot in my opinion which was totally predictable. Dang, DirkBelig, what's the problem? Big deal if 90% of the people posting on this thread disagree with your omnificent view on the movie industry and films. Lighten up, it's a movie made for entertainment, not something made for you to live your life through vicariously...
Gladiator didn't have as many intricate scenes off fighting is because it's mainly one-on-one, unlike the full-fledged war in Braveheart. So the directing and cinematic effects was what stood out.
What was the worst movie of the summer was The Patriot. But I liked the surreal effects of Gladiator and also the hardcore smashing brain into mush Braveheart scenes. Ridley Scott's great, and so is the movie Reservoir Dogs.
What was the worst movie of the summer was The Patriot. But I liked the surreal effects of Gladiator and also the hardcore smashing brain into mush Braveheart scenes. Ridley Scott's great, and so is the movie Reservoir Dogs.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter