SECurtisTX Reviews

Gladiator (2000)

A Movie for the Toilet Bowl

[1/10 · 30 March 2004]

This movie is the very epitome of what I hate about movies. The Hollywood-ization/bastardization of what could have been a great movie. The FX and action were great, the characterization was adequate, the plot was dumb, and the ending was abysmal. Why doesn't anyone in Hollywood have the courage to take a movie where it ought to go instead of where the test audiences say it should go?

This is a gladiator movie. You know what that means? It was set during the Roman Empire. During the reigns of Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus. It was NOT a fantasy. When you set a movie during a historical time frame, there are certain rules you have to abide by. One of those is, you do not rewrite history on a grand scale. The main reason to set a movie within a historical context is to give it plausibility. You do not then crap on that plausibility by having the characters do things that would have caused all of history to lumber down a different path.

In Braveheart, William Wallace did not rally the Scots, defeat the English, march into London, kill the king of England in a duel, and establish a democracy. Why? Because that isn't what happened; and it would have turned a great movie into a crappy movie. In Dances With Wolves, John Dunbar does not rally the Sioux nation in a war to conquer the United States, kill Ulysses S. Grant in a duel, and establish a new form of government in Washington based on Sioux practices. Why? Because that isn't what happened; and it would have turned a great movie into a crappy movie. In Gangs of New York, Leo DiCaprio's character did not face Abe Lincoln in an arena, kill him, and establish a new form of government in Washington where the Irish were the ruling class. Why? Because that isn't what happened; and it would have turned a mediocre movie into a crappy movie.



***SPOILER ALERT!!!***





So in Gladiator, an exiled Roman general kills the Emperor in the arena and in so doing allows the reestablishment of the Roman Republic in 182 A.D. You know what? It didn't happen that way, and it turned a great movie into a crappy movie. The makers of this movie took all the plausibility of setting and trashed it. They took a pretty good historical action movie and turned it into a suck-ass fantasy. And the better the movie is before the movie-makers pull their pants down and squat over it, the more I resent the dump being taken on it. And that's the case here.

Lost in Translation (2003)

Lost Souls

[9/10 · 29 March 2004]

It's been a long time since a movie has made me hurt the way this one did. Perhaps "hurt" isn't the right word. "Ache" is more like it. I could so completely identify with both characters.

Bob is a middle-aged actor caught in a life which has lost its zest and purpose, doing what he "ought" to be doing (making money doing whiskey commercials) instead of doing what he WANTS to do (plays). And then a young, beautiful, intelligent woman enters his orbit. On that level alone, with its mute longing and sexual tension, I can identify with him.

And then there is Charlotte, a student of philosophy seeking herself, her soul lost and adrift. She doesn't know who she is, doesn't know what she wants. Her life is a quest for authenticity of self. And I identify with her because so much of my life I have been seeking the same thing.

This movie isn't for everyone. They will call it boring, lifeless, limp. There are people, I realize, who have never experienced that kind of longing, who had never sought meaning in their lives, and searched for their own lost souls. They live for the here and now, without giving a thought to the spiritual aspects of life.

A friend said introverts will love this movie, extraverts will hate it. I think that is a fair surface assessment. This movie is all about the inner lives of two people whose souls connect for a brief time in an alien city. It is a love affair not of bodies, but of minds and spirits.

Some this movie will make angry. Some this movie will make weep.

Closet Land (1991)

A Classic

[12 November 2003]

I still think about this movie sometimes, over ten years after viewing it. It was disturbing and painful to watch. I saw it twice, about 2 years apart. I have always viewed it as a cautionary tale about what can happen under an abusive government that sees phantoms and subversion around every corner. (Think "Patriot Act." Yes, I realize that comment might land me in one of those rooms one of these days.) The acting was pitched perfectly, and the setting served its primary function: it did not distract from the psychological drama. This movie is haunting, and I really wish they would release it on DVD. Here's hoping.

Panic Room (2002)

Home Alone Without the Comedy

[4/10 · 3 November 2002]

An absurd movie all around. This movie is filled with unintentional silliness that ruins any suspense. And one character, the dad, is introduced JUST to fulfill a role in the non-climactic climax. Just an all-round bad movie.

Desperado (1995)

Not Nearly as Good as El Mariachi

[6/10 · 3 November 2002]

This movie again proves the axiom that sequels RARELY match the quality of the original. 'El Mariachi' was a very entertaining movie, worthy of praise. But Desperado just doesn't achieve the same mark. Antonio and Salma are sexy together, but they are wasted in this film.