IS it truly a good movie?
It is exciting of course, but the terrible modern cinematic language, the atrocious ponderous dialogues from shakespearan actors, etc. I just can't like this film.
shareLike "Braveheart" and the Lord of the Rings trilogy, it was absurdly overrated at the time.
shareIt really is a nonsensical movie, like what reason would Maximus have to not be loyal to Commodus?
shareHe would've been, no doubt, since he was a noble man, but Commodus was jealous once he caught wind that his father (Richard Harris) wanted to turn over the empire to Maximus rather than his unworthy flesh & blood (him). As you probably know, in ancient times new Monarchs would often kill their rivals & families, and Commodus understandably considered Maximus a rival.
I like the movie in an underwhelmed way, but never got the ridiculous gushing it receives to this day. I give it a 6/10.
yes I understand but from Maximus' point of view, what reason would he have to offend Commodus right after his father died? But that's typical Ridley Scott, logic and flow do not matter, he just goes ahead with his story.
shareHe wanted to honor the wishes of Marcus Aurelius to return power to the Senate. He also knew that Commodus was unfit to rule.
shareI interpret the few scenes surrounding your question as follows:
- Maximus is asked to take over as emperor, by the emperor himself, until a republic can be established. He is also told in this scene that commodus must not rule.
- A few minutes later, the emperor informs commodus of his decision to pass the duties onto maximus. Now, note that maximus does not witness this.
- Suddenly, the emperor is dead and commodus claims power as emperor.
- Maximus clearly does not believe in the natural causes argument and immediately blames commodus for his father's death. Note that he states "the emperor has been slain!" Before this, in the same scene, he instructs his personal servant to wake senators gaius and falco.
I believe that Maximus figured out exactly who killed the emperor and why (so commodus could take power without anyone else knowing of the emperor's decision). Commodus, not being stupid, is onto Maximus immediately and acts faster than Maximus can as everyone else believes that he is emperor now.
Maximus's "betrayal" of commodus is merely his distain as he has already come to the conclusion that commodus killed his father for the power, a power which he should have (though he doesn't want) and which the emperor specifically instructed him to never let commodus obtain.
"what reason would he have to offend Commodus right after his father died?"
My recollection, to drive the point home of the above post, was that Maximus was fully aware that Commodus had slain his father since Marcus Aurelius had fully divulged to Maximus his intent to pass the Caesarship to him instead of his son because "Commodus is not a moral man".
The death of Aurelius as he met with his son to tell him his decision made it all too clear to Maximus that Commodus had engaged in patricide in order to retain the throne for himself.
It remains a very entertaining movie. It was overrated when it came out, but for some reason, came out a an excellent time when audiences wanted to see such a film, and marvel at the then-cutting edge CGI (still pretty good). I'd say it is definitely fared better than Braveheart.
shareLord of the Rings still holds up very well... except for the end. The others are hard to get through these days.
share"Braveheart" is one of the greatest movies of all time. Go suck a d!ck faggot.
share"Braveheart" is one of the greatest movies of all time. Go suck a d!ck faggot.
It's easy and safe to insult others with crude words on the internet. Of course, the people who do so won't do the same face-to-face unless they're dealing with someone the size of a 12 year-old girl.
As far as "Braveheart" goes, about half the movie makes it worth seeing: It starts weak for the first 25 minutes or so, gets good for the next hour and a half and then inexplicably loses its mojo in the last hour. The problems in the last hour include: the story losing its drive, the eye-rolling betrayal scene; the equally eye-rolling episode where Wallace rides into a noble's bed chamber on a freakin' horse and easily escapes (Why Sure!); and, lastly, the overlong and dull execution sequence wherein the Christ symbolism is laid on too thick.
Another problem is the notorious historical inaccuracies: For instance, kilts did not become a popular form of men's wear in Scotland until almost 400 years later; Scots at the time of Wallace didn't paint their faces for battle, although the Picts did wear blue face paint to scare off the Romans centuries earlier; Princess Isabelle of France (Sophie Marceau) was actually only 3-4 years old during Wallace's military campaigns and, in fact, never met Wallace; Robert the Bruce never betrayed Wallace, although he initially disowned him publicly, he secretly supported his war effort and openly admitted it later; and Phillip was never defenestrated (thrown out a high window), but lived long after Longshanks' death.
There are some good parts, however, that make the movie worth seeing for those who can overlook the problems.
share
I do appreciate the LONG............response.
shareThanks. That's what these boards are for: to dialogue about movies & all things related; to share insights, criticisms, interpretations, recommendations, etc.
I appreciate your edgy humor, especially your first comment -- despite the over-the-top vulgarity -- which made my wife & I bust out laughing.