I just watched Requiem For A Dream on Hulu.com, after reading Mr Bennett's blog post. Wow.
Requiem For A Dream (2000) stars Jared Leto, Jennifer Connelly, Marlon Wayans, and Ellen Burstyn. To this date, I have never seen a movie that has made me more uncomfortable than this one. I have seen countless gory slasher films and otherwise repulsive movies, but this one takes the cake. There was not a single scene in the movie that didn't make my skin crawl.
That being said, there was a lot of merit to the movie as well. It was skillfully shot, and there were many clever camera angles that Director Darren Aronofsky utilizes to drive his point home. He captures the adverse affects of consistent drug use and addiction over the course of time, even though there is only one scene of someone shooting up in the entire movie. Aronofsky uses a series of cuts that show an eyeball dilating and other clever gimmicks. I have never seen something like this in film, and I found it to be an extremely clever and innovative substitute for constantly showing the act of drug use.
As an audience member, you find yourself completely immersed in the lives of the four characters. The plot is chaotic and hard to follow at times, but I think this plays into the director's vision of the chaos surrounding the lives of this sorry quartet. Requiem For A Dream is a movie that can be analyzed endlessly, because it is so much more than a movie about drugs. It is a meditation on corruption, greed, loneliness, and love. I've seen addiction in my own life in many forms, and I think that this film is fairly accurate it's description. Drug use is analyzed as a method of escapism, because each person driven to drugs has a root problem that they must run from, something I found to be extremely realistic and true to life.
I think that this movie is much more powerful to teenagers rather than adults as Mr. Bennett said, because of the parallels it may possess to the teenage lifestyle. I think we are affected more, because we are most likely around drugs more, and also, because many teenagers are constantly tempted with one of this movie's themes, escapism. Young people are forced to come to terms with a lot of things in their life when they reach a certain age, and the ones that cannot cope or have difficulty seek solace in whatever they can. Video games, movies, drugs, and many other things are mediums of escapism. It may affect us more because these themes often apply to young people. This is of course, is a generalization, I'm not saying escapism applies exclusively to young people, but it could be a reason why this film has a differing impact on different age groups.
This movie is one of the most powerful I have ever seen, and it was incredibly sad. The relationship between Harry and Marion went from perfect to nothing in the span of Summer to Winter. I think the scene where Harry calls up Marion from Florida, who he left back in New York so he could score drugs, is the saddest scene I've ever seen. Marion asks Harry to "come home tonight" as she is getting ready to go to an orgy, forced to degrade herself for her addictions. Harry can only say that he will, but both know that this will never happen.
This movie will have you thinking for a long time after you watch it. It is one of the best movies that I have ever seen, but I think I will not watch it again, at least not anytime soon. I would advise everyone mature enough to go watch it and see for yourself.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
Cohen Brothers
I just saw Fargo earlier today, and I decided to write a more informal review about it to express my disdain for the Cohen brothers and their work. I personally haven't liked any of the Cohen brothers movies that I have seen (No Country For Old Men, The Big Lebowski, Fargo, Burn After Reading) and I'm going to make some statements about the Cohen brothers that I've gathered from the movies I have seen. So, hardcore fans, please don't get all offended and start pulling out obscure Cohen films that don't fit the mold that I'm about to state, because I haven't seen them.
The irony of most Cohen brothers movies is the fact that they are so damn formulaic. This is ironic because they are reputed to be a mish-mash of all these crazy circumstances and uniquely odd/quirky characters. These characters could never be repeated in any other movies, right? Or could they?
All of the Cohen Brothers movies have a static character in their films, someone who is unchanged(in thought or opinion) by the end of the movie, and this character is never fazed by any of the crazy events that are going on around them. An example of this would be jerry Lundegaard in Fargo, who negotiates the terms of his wife's kidnapping as if it were a car sale, not knowing that his wife was in the hands of killers. Or Brad Pitt's idiotic character in Burn After Reading. These characters are focused on a single, ultimately, unimportant thing for the entire movie. This is one part of the formula.
The next part of the formula has two parts. Part one includes a nice little bit of intense violence. This is to disgust the audience or startle them, and it serves as a contrast to the second part. The second part is a bit of normal, boring, banter. Everyday, inconsequential things just take up screen time, and you wonder, why do I have to watch some hippie walk around in his underwear for twenty minutes? I mean, I can do these things at home, movies cost a lot these days! If there is a reason this mix of violence/mundaneness is in every single movie, then it is lost on me.
The third part of a Cohen Brothers movie is adultery. Throw in some scenes where there is the tempation or actual act of adultery, and there you have it. I don't know why this could contribute to a movie other than in helping tie the bizarre coincidences together at the end, but that's just me.
I'm not saying a formulaic movie can't be a good one, it's just that I find the Cohen Brothers formula to be very unbearable. I challenge and invite you all to comment on this, but please remember that it is my opinion, and each one of us sees something different when we see a film!
So there you have it, another Cohen Brothers masterpiece! Mix it all together and let it sit and you've got some Oscar nominations!!
The irony of most Cohen brothers movies is the fact that they are so damn formulaic. This is ironic because they are reputed to be a mish-mash of all these crazy circumstances and uniquely odd/quirky characters. These characters could never be repeated in any other movies, right? Or could they?
All of the Cohen Brothers movies have a static character in their films, someone who is unchanged(in thought or opinion) by the end of the movie, and this character is never fazed by any of the crazy events that are going on around them. An example of this would be jerry Lundegaard in Fargo, who negotiates the terms of his wife's kidnapping as if it were a car sale, not knowing that his wife was in the hands of killers. Or Brad Pitt's idiotic character in Burn After Reading. These characters are focused on a single, ultimately, unimportant thing for the entire movie. This is one part of the formula.
The next part of the formula has two parts. Part one includes a nice little bit of intense violence. This is to disgust the audience or startle them, and it serves as a contrast to the second part. The second part is a bit of normal, boring, banter. Everyday, inconsequential things just take up screen time, and you wonder, why do I have to watch some hippie walk around in his underwear for twenty minutes? I mean, I can do these things at home, movies cost a lot these days! If there is a reason this mix of violence/mundaneness is in every single movie, then it is lost on me.
The third part of a Cohen Brothers movie is adultery. Throw in some scenes where there is the tempation or actual act of adultery, and there you have it. I don't know why this could contribute to a movie other than in helping tie the bizarre coincidences together at the end, but that's just me.
I'm not saying a formulaic movie can't be a good one, it's just that I find the Cohen Brothers formula to be very unbearable. I challenge and invite you all to comment on this, but please remember that it is my opinion, and each one of us sees something different when we see a film!
So there you have it, another Cohen Brothers masterpiece! Mix it all together and let it sit and you've got some Oscar nominations!!
Monday, March 16, 2009
In Bruges (2008)
In Bruges is a film that will be reverberating within your head long after you finish it. It is the first movie I have seen in a long time that successfully combines a number of different genres into one exceptional work. Centered on the exploits of two hitmen hiding away in Bruges, Belgium, the film slowly builds up an intense story of murder, revenge, and redemption. Ray (Colin Farrell) and Ken (Brendan Gleeson) are the two hitmen, on the lamb from a botched murder attempt in the medieval Bruges. Director Martin McDonagh infuses the beauty of Bruges into every possible scene, which comes to reflect the double-sided beauty of so many things in the film.
One thing that struck me as an important part of the film's message was the beauty and morality of Bruges and it's inhabitants which was often skin-deep. The lovely picturesque Bruges ensares the eye of any visitor, yet is infamous for the child abuse rampant in it's streets. The beautiful young woman who steals and sells drugs to townspeople. The boss of an organized crime operation specializing in murder that refuses to harm women or children. And last but certainly not least, the two hitmen that each possess a hidden morality. Each one of these situations exemplifies the saying "beauty is only skin deep" because even the most beautiful characters in the story (including the city of Bruges itself) are morally corrupt, while every murderer in the story posesses a certain honor and regret for lives lost. A big part of the movie is a discussion between Ray and Ken, who speak about Heaven and Hell, and what happens after death. *SPOILER* The last thing Ray sees before (dying?) is the beautiful tower in Bruges, and he says:
"Because at least in prison and at least in death, you know, I wouldn't be in f***in' Bruges. But then, like a flash, it came to me. And I realized, f*** man, maybe that's what hell is: the entire rest of eternity spent in f***in' Bruges. And I really really hoped I wouldn't die. I really really hoped I wouldn't die."
This just shows how the most beautiful place in the world, a "fairytale" city could also be the most hellish place on earth. McDonagh delivered his message beautifully in that there is a world of good and bad in the least likely of places, if one just cared to look beneath the surface.
I strongly urge you all to see this movie if you seek to be entertained, but even more if you wish to have your brain stimulated and your thoughts provoked.
One thing that struck me as an important part of the film's message was the beauty and morality of Bruges and it's inhabitants which was often skin-deep. The lovely picturesque Bruges ensares the eye of any visitor, yet is infamous for the child abuse rampant in it's streets. The beautiful young woman who steals and sells drugs to townspeople. The boss of an organized crime operation specializing in murder that refuses to harm women or children. And last but certainly not least, the two hitmen that each possess a hidden morality. Each one of these situations exemplifies the saying "beauty is only skin deep" because even the most beautiful characters in the story (including the city of Bruges itself) are morally corrupt, while every murderer in the story posesses a certain honor and regret for lives lost. A big part of the movie is a discussion between Ray and Ken, who speak about Heaven and Hell, and what happens after death. *SPOILER* The last thing Ray sees before (dying?) is the beautiful tower in Bruges, and he says:
"Because at least in prison and at least in death, you know, I wouldn't be in f***in' Bruges. But then, like a flash, it came to me. And I realized, f*** man, maybe that's what hell is: the entire rest of eternity spent in f***in' Bruges. And I really really hoped I wouldn't die. I really really hoped I wouldn't die."
This just shows how the most beautiful place in the world, a "fairytale" city could also be the most hellish place on earth. McDonagh delivered his message beautifully in that there is a world of good and bad in the least likely of places, if one just cared to look beneath the surface.
I strongly urge you all to see this movie if you seek to be entertained, but even more if you wish to have your brain stimulated and your thoughts provoked.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Platoon vs. Full Metal Jacket
I saw the movie Platoon the other night, and I thought it was pretty interesting. Throughout the duration of the film I couldn't help but compare it to Full Metal Jacket. Both films are about the Vietnam War, shown from a soldier's perspective. Platoon features a more well-known cast (Willem Dafoe, Charlie Sheen, Forest Whittaker, Johnny Depp and many more) and was made a year before FMJ in 1986. Charlie Sheen in Platoon is a rich young man that decides to volunteer to serve his country. The story flows fairly smoothly, and I enjoyed this particular film over FMJ, and I'll list some of the reasons why.
1. Better cast list. Everyone knows that in war movies, it is extremely difficult to tell the difference between characters in a frantic battle scene. Lots of similar-looking people running around, shouting who know's what. I find this confusion immensely annoying. I thought Platoon was superior to FMJ in this aspect because their cast/supporting cast was much stronger. They skill of the actors in Platoon caused their characters to develop a little better. In FMJ, I didn't even know where Private Joker was half the time, and it was difficult to see what separated him from the rest of the people in his squad.
Also, another reason that Platoon was less confusing, and thus more enjoyable to watch for me was because of a simple, (but unrealistic) tool. Pretty much every single character had hair. They were all sporting movie star-styled full-length hair in the midst of the Vietnamese jungles. I was under the impression that soldiers all had crew cuts, and if not, very very short hair. I mean, the first 3 minutes or so of FMJ is just of a barber shaving hair off of various soldiers. But the fact that each character had hair allowed people to identify them much easier.
2. Storyline. I thought Platoon's storyline was more interesting, and less choppy than FMJ's. FMJ was like two movies, one while they were at training camp, and one during the Tet Offensive. Platoon followed a single plotline, and it was much easier to get immersed in the experience of the soldiers. When you are trudging through a jungle for an entire movie, you can almost feel the fatigue, the hopelessness of the soldiers, just from watching it for so long. You are tired of the jungle, and you are not even there, so I think this makes you feel more for the men. FMJ has many different locations, and there is never really much direct conflict, so it barely feels like a Vietnam movie at all.
3. Better action sequences. There really isn't much to this one, but I thought it was obvious that Platoon's action sequences were more captivating, considering in FMJ there wasn't much of any.
4. Better message. The message I gleaned from FMJ was that soldiers were unemotional machines, and that was the only way they could survive. Private Joker ends the movie much different and colder than he was pre-war. Gone is his joking demeanor, and in its place is a killer of a young woman, begging for mercy. Did he kill her out of mercy? Or was it revenge?
Platoon's message seemed to delve a little deeper than FMJ's. yes, war can dehumanize you so that you become a killing machine to your enemies, but it also has effects that are much more complex. Destroying hundreds of innocents, turning on your friends, these are all things that you become capable of.
After all, if a dead man falls in the jungle, does he make a sound? I think not.
1. Better cast list. Everyone knows that in war movies, it is extremely difficult to tell the difference between characters in a frantic battle scene. Lots of similar-looking people running around, shouting who know's what. I find this confusion immensely annoying. I thought Platoon was superior to FMJ in this aspect because their cast/supporting cast was much stronger. They skill of the actors in Platoon caused their characters to develop a little better. In FMJ, I didn't even know where Private Joker was half the time, and it was difficult to see what separated him from the rest of the people in his squad.
Also, another reason that Platoon was less confusing, and thus more enjoyable to watch for me was because of a simple, (but unrealistic) tool. Pretty much every single character had hair. They were all sporting movie star-styled full-length hair in the midst of the Vietnamese jungles. I was under the impression that soldiers all had crew cuts, and if not, very very short hair. I mean, the first 3 minutes or so of FMJ is just of a barber shaving hair off of various soldiers. But the fact that each character had hair allowed people to identify them much easier.
2. Storyline. I thought Platoon's storyline was more interesting, and less choppy than FMJ's. FMJ was like two movies, one while they were at training camp, and one during the Tet Offensive. Platoon followed a single plotline, and it was much easier to get immersed in the experience of the soldiers. When you are trudging through a jungle for an entire movie, you can almost feel the fatigue, the hopelessness of the soldiers, just from watching it for so long. You are tired of the jungle, and you are not even there, so I think this makes you feel more for the men. FMJ has many different locations, and there is never really much direct conflict, so it barely feels like a Vietnam movie at all.
3. Better action sequences. There really isn't much to this one, but I thought it was obvious that Platoon's action sequences were more captivating, considering in FMJ there wasn't much of any.
4. Better message. The message I gleaned from FMJ was that soldiers were unemotional machines, and that was the only way they could survive. Private Joker ends the movie much different and colder than he was pre-war. Gone is his joking demeanor, and in its place is a killer of a young woman, begging for mercy. Did he kill her out of mercy? Or was it revenge?
Platoon's message seemed to delve a little deeper than FMJ's. yes, war can dehumanize you so that you become a killing machine to your enemies, but it also has effects that are much more complex. Destroying hundreds of innocents, turning on your friends, these are all things that you become capable of.
After all, if a dead man falls in the jungle, does he make a sound? I think not.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Catch Me If You Can (2002)
Have you ever wanted to live someone else's life? Catch Me If You Can is a movie illustrating the life and crimes of a man who did just that. Directed by Steven Spielberg and starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hanks, Catch Me If You Can is an engrossing film. Based on a true story, the movie follows the life of Frank Abignale Jr. (DiCaprio), one of the biggest thieves that 1960's America had ever seen. Through the use of fraudulent checks, fake jobs, and pure charisma, Abignale appropriates over 4 million dollars in stolen money before the age of 19. Never far behind, FBI Agent Carl Hanratty (Hanks) chases Abignale across the world and back again.
At first glance you wouldn't think an audience could empathize with a criminal on the run, but Spielberg infuses such a like-ability in Abignale that you cannot help but root for his escape. Although he was one of the biggest thieves of his time period, Abignale didn't steal anything in hopes of personal gain or advancement. He just wants to restore the old life he lost due to the shortcomings of his down-and-out father and his adulteress of a mother. On a quest to make something of himself so he can restore his family's relationship, Abignale finds himself pretending to be an airline co-pilot, a doctor, lawyer, and a teacher, just to name some of his jobs. He uses these occupations to pretend to be something he isn't, because he cannot bear to think that his life has become so lonely and different than it was in his childhood. By living a life that is not his, he is able to avoid his own problems. In a series of letter narrations(over the course of time) to his father, Abignale tells of the many new fantastic jobs he has, and always ends his note with a promise to get the family together for a Sunday dinner, which becomes clear that it will never happen. This makes the audience empathize with Abignale, because he is after all, just a kid trying to make things right as best he can.
One reason I think this movie is an amazing one is because of the parallels that are displayed between the two main characters. Each character in a way, is extremely lonely and isolated from their respective families. Even though they are on opposite sides of the law, Abignale calls Hanratty on Christmas every year, because he has nobody else to call. Hanratty is the same way, and that leads to their great friendship after the capture of Abignale. These characters are alike in so many ways, so much so that they can't help but become the best of friends by the film's end. Loneliness is such a huge theme in this film, but Spielberg shows that it only takes one friend to drive you out of a withdrawal, even if they aren't on your side.
This film has phenomenal lead characters, and they help make Catch Me If You Can the great movie that it is. There is never a moment of boredom through the duration of the film, and the twists and turns will keep you guessing, even as they take you all over the world. I strongly recommend anyone to go see this film because it is, in my opinion, flawless piece of film-making. Even when you can escape the life you live to lead a different one, you always have to come back to reality, no matter how bleak it may seem. We all are meant for certain things, and if we pretend to be someone else we are just fooling ourselves. Catch Me If You Can is a must see.
At first glance you wouldn't think an audience could empathize with a criminal on the run, but Spielberg infuses such a like-ability in Abignale that you cannot help but root for his escape. Although he was one of the biggest thieves of his time period, Abignale didn't steal anything in hopes of personal gain or advancement. He just wants to restore the old life he lost due to the shortcomings of his down-and-out father and his adulteress of a mother. On a quest to make something of himself so he can restore his family's relationship, Abignale finds himself pretending to be an airline co-pilot, a doctor, lawyer, and a teacher, just to name some of his jobs. He uses these occupations to pretend to be something he isn't, because he cannot bear to think that his life has become so lonely and different than it was in his childhood. By living a life that is not his, he is able to avoid his own problems. In a series of letter narrations(over the course of time) to his father, Abignale tells of the many new fantastic jobs he has, and always ends his note with a promise to get the family together for a Sunday dinner, which becomes clear that it will never happen. This makes the audience empathize with Abignale, because he is after all, just a kid trying to make things right as best he can.
One reason I think this movie is an amazing one is because of the parallels that are displayed between the two main characters. Each character in a way, is extremely lonely and isolated from their respective families. Even though they are on opposite sides of the law, Abignale calls Hanratty on Christmas every year, because he has nobody else to call. Hanratty is the same way, and that leads to their great friendship after the capture of Abignale. These characters are alike in so many ways, so much so that they can't help but become the best of friends by the film's end. Loneliness is such a huge theme in this film, but Spielberg shows that it only takes one friend to drive you out of a withdrawal, even if they aren't on your side.
This film has phenomenal lead characters, and they help make Catch Me If You Can the great movie that it is. There is never a moment of boredom through the duration of the film, and the twists and turns will keep you guessing, even as they take you all over the world. I strongly recommend anyone to go see this film because it is, in my opinion, flawless piece of film-making. Even when you can escape the life you live to lead a different one, you always have to come back to reality, no matter how bleak it may seem. We all are meant for certain things, and if we pretend to be someone else we are just fooling ourselves. Catch Me If You Can is a must see.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
American Psycho (2000)
American Psycho was an interesting movie to say the least. Directed by Mary Harron, American Psycho is a perverse thriller about a rich, young, Manhattan investment banker named Patrick Bateman. Bateman seems like the average 1980's rich guy, he goes to clubs with his friends, talks down to his coworkers, that sort of thing. He uses ten different kinds of moisturizers in the shower and does 1000 crunches every morning. He blends into society perfectly, so much that no one suspects anything beneath his act.
A major theme in this movie is Bateman's desire to maintain a facade of normality. He has a snobby wife to go with his snobby friends, and he possesses no real feelings for any of them. In fact, he often mocks (in his narrations) the kind of lifestyle that his friends and wife live. But beneath this facade of a harmless businessman lies a sadistic murderer. Bateman often vents his frustration by committing heinous acts of physical and sexual violence, often done on complete whim, with no thought to any consequence. He decides he dislikes a rival banker, he hacks his face off with an ax. There is a lot of drug use in the film, and since it is narrated in the first person by Bateman, you aren't sure what is real and what actually happened. Nick pointed out that the story could've been just a big coke trip that Bateman imagined, which I thought was a good point.
I thought that Bateman could've been imagining the murders because they become more sadistic and elaborate as the movie progresses, to the point that it would be EXTREMELY infeasible to not get caught. There is one scene that is a salient feature of the film, where Bateman, covered in blood and wielding a chainsaw, chases a hooker through his apartment building. (They're both completely naked) She bangs on doors, screaming and yelling, and then runs down a circular staircase. We see her nearing the bottom, with Bateman at the top, with his chainsaw poised to fall. And he drops it right through her back. I mean come on.
American Psycho was an interesting movie, but it was a bit too perverse and "out there" for my tastes. It is a movie full of metaphorical messages and subtle undertones about people's social behavior, and it is all very dark and twisted. I would not reccommend it for a family viewing, but still, you could learn a few things about society from watching it.
A major theme in this movie is Bateman's desire to maintain a facade of normality. He has a snobby wife to go with his snobby friends, and he possesses no real feelings for any of them. In fact, he often mocks (in his narrations) the kind of lifestyle that his friends and wife live. But beneath this facade of a harmless businessman lies a sadistic murderer. Bateman often vents his frustration by committing heinous acts of physical and sexual violence, often done on complete whim, with no thought to any consequence. He decides he dislikes a rival banker, he hacks his face off with an ax. There is a lot of drug use in the film, and since it is narrated in the first person by Bateman, you aren't sure what is real and what actually happened. Nick pointed out that the story could've been just a big coke trip that Bateman imagined, which I thought was a good point.
I thought that Bateman could've been imagining the murders because they become more sadistic and elaborate as the movie progresses, to the point that it would be EXTREMELY infeasible to not get caught. There is one scene that is a salient feature of the film, where Bateman, covered in blood and wielding a chainsaw, chases a hooker through his apartment building. (They're both completely naked) She bangs on doors, screaming and yelling, and then runs down a circular staircase. We see her nearing the bottom, with Bateman at the top, with his chainsaw poised to fall. And he drops it right through her back. I mean come on.
American Psycho was an interesting movie, but it was a bit too perverse and "out there" for my tastes. It is a movie full of metaphorical messages and subtle undertones about people's social behavior, and it is all very dark and twisted. I would not reccommend it for a family viewing, but still, you could learn a few things about society from watching it.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Gladiator (2000)
I ordered Gladiator online the other day and through the wonders of Amazon I was able to get a new copy for 5 bucks. So today I was out from school so I figured I'd sit down and watch it.
Russell Crowe is one of my favorite actors, despite his propensity for being a hot head. I mean who wouldn't bash a hotel clerk with a telephone if he was taking his sweet time with less important things? When you're Russell Crowe you don't have to wait. Crowe has starred in such previous films as American Gangster and Cinderella Man, both great movies in my opinion. I think Russell Crowe is an amazing dramatic actor.
Gladiator is set in the times of the Roman Empire, with the current Emperor Marcus Aurelius(Richard Harris) is on his deathbed. Aurelius feels as if his life has been wasted and wants Crowe's character General Maximus Decimus Meridius to restore Rome to a Republic after his death. Doing so would slight Aurelius' son Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix), a cunning, merciless young man eager to be the next emperor. Commodus bears an intense hatred of Maximus since his father favors the General. In a sudden turn of events, Commodus becomes the next emperor of Rome, and Maximus' family is murdered and he is reduced to a slave, forced to fight for his freedom in a series of gladatorial battles.
This movie flows at an epic 2 hours and 30 minutes, but I feel like there wasn't a lot of development to the characters in the film. The character I felt like I knew the most was Phoenix's Commodus, who in several scenes speaks (screams rather) his mind to his sister. The main character Maximus' only distinct qualities are his heroism, and his love for his family. He is such a pure character that it is a bit of a stretch to believe. I realize that this is an epic, but I would like to feel the fear that Maximus should be experiencing before a gladiator battle, and the rush of emotions afterward. Maximus steps into the blood-filled ring by himself at one point into the deadly embrace of 7 or 8 adversaries. Boom, boom a minute later they are all dead and Maximus hasn't even broken a sweat. He is supposed to be an immensely respected veteran general of Rome, but he is human isn't he?
Other than the unwavering pureness and heroism of the main character, I had no issues with this film. The battle scenes were fantastic, and the coordination of the sword fighting is superb. I personally enjoy many other movies that are in the same vein as this one, and I would definitely recommend this film to any movie-goer that enjoys a good sword fighting epic. The ending is ultimately satisfying, and although it takes a long time to get there, you will end your movie experience with a pleasant feeling.
Russell Crowe is one of my favorite actors, despite his propensity for being a hot head. I mean who wouldn't bash a hotel clerk with a telephone if he was taking his sweet time with less important things? When you're Russell Crowe you don't have to wait. Crowe has starred in such previous films as American Gangster and Cinderella Man, both great movies in my opinion. I think Russell Crowe is an amazing dramatic actor.
Gladiator is set in the times of the Roman Empire, with the current Emperor Marcus Aurelius(Richard Harris) is on his deathbed. Aurelius feels as if his life has been wasted and wants Crowe's character General Maximus Decimus Meridius to restore Rome to a Republic after his death. Doing so would slight Aurelius' son Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix), a cunning, merciless young man eager to be the next emperor. Commodus bears an intense hatred of Maximus since his father favors the General. In a sudden turn of events, Commodus becomes the next emperor of Rome, and Maximus' family is murdered and he is reduced to a slave, forced to fight for his freedom in a series of gladatorial battles.
This movie flows at an epic 2 hours and 30 minutes, but I feel like there wasn't a lot of development to the characters in the film. The character I felt like I knew the most was Phoenix's Commodus, who in several scenes speaks (screams rather) his mind to his sister. The main character Maximus' only distinct qualities are his heroism, and his love for his family. He is such a pure character that it is a bit of a stretch to believe. I realize that this is an epic, but I would like to feel the fear that Maximus should be experiencing before a gladiator battle, and the rush of emotions afterward. Maximus steps into the blood-filled ring by himself at one point into the deadly embrace of 7 or 8 adversaries. Boom, boom a minute later they are all dead and Maximus hasn't even broken a sweat. He is supposed to be an immensely respected veteran general of Rome, but he is human isn't he?
Other than the unwavering pureness and heroism of the main character, I had no issues with this film. The battle scenes were fantastic, and the coordination of the sword fighting is superb. I personally enjoy many other movies that are in the same vein as this one, and I would definitely recommend this film to any movie-goer that enjoys a good sword fighting epic. The ending is ultimately satisfying, and although it takes a long time to get there, you will end your movie experience with a pleasant feeling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
