That view makes the film subject to an old critical standard.
Joker Send a noteboard - 29/09/2009 03:09:36 AM
Or at least mostly disagree. The very end with them carrying Maximus off was pretty ridiculous.
These two statements I do disagree with. This is what he should have done, yes. But that argument ignores the fact that Commodus clearly has 'Daddy issues'- specifically a craving for approval. His father chose Maximus over him, his sister chose Maximus, and the people have chosen Maximus. He desire(s)d approval from all three. Killing his father fixed part of the issue he had with him, he has leverage over his sister so that's under control- but for the approval of the people he can't just toss Maximus out. He has to prove he's better than him (consequently proving to his father and sister that they chose wrong) and to do that he has to beat him in the venue that has brought Maximus to prominence. Thus single combat in front of the people of Rome.
Now having said that- the entire movie itself doesn't really stand up to subsequent viewings. For me however it's more the storyline of overthrowing Caesar in order to return power to the Senate.
He wasn't insane in that he could not think or strategize coherently. He thought differently than most people (to phrase it lightly), but that doesn't excuse his idiocy. As a Caesar, he had a whole lot of power. In real life Maximus would have been butchered and had his body dumped in a ditch, and Commodus would have reported him as having died on an imaginary front line or something.
Oh, and in response to the above comment saying "he had to fight Maximus in the arena because Maximus was loved by the people, etc.", that's utter ridiculousness and typical SF-F mentality. It's like saying "Lan just HAS to fight Galad before the end, man, he just HAS to! Think about it!!1!" Commodus didn't HAVE to do anything except protect himself, and going against a man like Maximus--even a stabbed Maximus--is so overwhelmingly stupid that it sucks the credibility out of the movie. And that's not even mentioning that CAESAR was just killed, and everyone there carries MAXIMUS out of the arena! FUCKING RETARDED! No way, no chance, no how.
These two statements I do disagree with. This is what he should have done, yes. But that argument ignores the fact that Commodus clearly has 'Daddy issues'- specifically a craving for approval. His father chose Maximus over him, his sister chose Maximus, and the people have chosen Maximus. He desire(s)d approval from all three. Killing his father fixed part of the issue he had with him, he has leverage over his sister so that's under control- but for the approval of the people he can't just toss Maximus out. He has to prove he's better than him (consequently proving to his father and sister that they chose wrong) and to do that he has to beat him in the venue that has brought Maximus to prominence. Thus single combat in front of the people of Rome.
Now having said that- the entire movie itself doesn't really stand up to subsequent viewings. For me however it's more the storyline of overthrowing Caesar in order to return power to the Senate.
Namely, that every situation Maximus encounters is perfectly tailored to his unique strengths. If you take the view that Commodus had "daddy issues" (lol excellent way of putting it!), it allows you to use that as the perfect excuse for every wrong step Commodus makes. It's not as if this kind of pre-determined ideal-character-meets-tailored-struggle can't work, but it seems to only work when the hero has the specific flaws that will lead to his downfall when he's faced with this situation: think King Lear. When the hero is flawed in the most unfortunate way possible for the situation he is about to face, it's tragic. When the villain is flawed in the most unfortunate way, it's a cheap gimmick that allows the hero to win and the audience to cheer. It's the equivalent of MacGuyver always having the right stuff at hand to save the day.
Gladiator
- 26/09/2009 07:33:33 PM
799 Views
While it was a good movie...perhaps great
- 26/09/2009 07:40:34 PM
669 Views
Apparently I didn't like this as much as everyone else in the world.
- 26/09/2009 07:50:00 PM
478 Views
Hmm...
- 26/09/2009 08:04:50 PM
434 Views
Movies that I can watch more than once.
- 27/09/2009 06:45:33 AM
570 Views
*NM*
I own it....
- 26/09/2009 09:10:46 PM
493 Views
It's pretty wek in retrospect.
- 26/09/2009 07:58:14 PM
592 Views
I didn't think the romance was that big a part
- 26/09/2009 08:06:49 PM
431 Views
Re: I didn't think the romance was that big a part
- 26/09/2009 08:27:05 PM
432 Views
Good point
- 27/09/2009 10:12:04 PM
435 Views
Commodus, Commodus, Commodus...
- 28/09/2009 12:02:23 AM
396 Views
Depends how you define insane.
- 28/09/2009 01:10:34 AM
487 Views
I disagree.
- 29/09/2009 01:14:57 AM
434 Views
That view makes the film subject to an old critical standard.
- 29/09/2009 03:09:36 AM
698 Views
I want those two hours of my life back 
*NM*
- 26/09/2009 09:04:49 PM
259 Views
*NM*
- 26/09/2009 09:04:49 PM
259 Views
!
- 26/09/2009 10:34:59 PM
421 Views
Well.
- 27/09/2009 12:49:08 PM
592 Views
And the fighting rules!
- 27/09/2009 05:04:12 PM
462 Views
If the fighting was all there is to the movie
- 27/09/2009 08:12:29 PM
485 Views
What a load of bull
- 27/09/2009 08:44:05 PM
584 Views
*NM*
I thought Kingdom of Heaven was better. Perhaps if Russel Crowe was the lead instead of Bloom ... *NM*
- 27/09/2009 02:49:25 AM
278 Views
I've never seen Kingdom of Heaven
- 27/09/2009 04:01:38 AM
447 Views
You should. The supporting characters really save the film, esp Norton as the Leper King.
- 27/09/2009 07:05:37 AM
442 Views
I did it!
- 27/09/2009 05:06:24 PM
439 Views