Pretentious and Mediocre

Rating: 6/10 (6 January 2008)

Evaluating opinion of this movie by the 'Hated It' selection, I lost count of the number of contributors who gave it just one star. I thought they were being unnecessarily 'Roman' in their ruthlessness, but the result does show how disappointed so many viewers were and the extent to which this movie has polarised opinion.
I diplomatically place myself somewhere in the middle.
For me, scepticism set-in at the outset. That much-vaunted battle scene didn't sit right at all. In combat, the greatest Roman strength lay in the legion. The scrupulously drilled and disciplined foot-soldiers worked in unison, advancing upon enemies in their orderly units and maniples.Their Shields interlocked to create a mobile wall that could form-up on all flanks and even provide overhead protection. In between, they used their short, stabbing swords.
The legions, then, were only at their best in the open. In dense forest, their advantages would have been squandered, any fight being a brawl upon the same terms as the enemy. Morover, their big Shields would have been an encumbrance and the short swords inadequate. A good Roman general drew the enemy out to fight on his terms, not the other way round. I'm not a scholar of Roman warfare; it may be there were occasions when Romans had no choice, but this is where the question marks began to pop-up. Check out the impeccable piece in 'Spartacus', where the Roman legions deploy by the textbook, drawing their enemy down from the hill. Perhaps Mr Scott felt that a more faithful rendering would seem like too much of a rip-off. In any case, this battle is quite incidental, and seems to exist only to grip the viewer's attention for the next couple of flatulent hours.
Neither was I aware that the Roman army employed fire-bombs. It's not for me to say they didn't, but I have no reference to this tactic at all.
I thought Ridley Scott made a futile attempt to create an 'arty' film. The frequent dream-like flashbacks to a hand running through spears of corn reminded me of the recurrent unicorn dream from his fascinating but equally pretentious 'Blade Runner'. From time to time there's even the same high-pitched warbling 'oriental' chorus, intended to project mood, but failing again. Some directors don't seem to realise that cinema-goers have memories.
General Gruntus Maximus (Russel Crowe) surely got the easiest Oscar in history. He was believable as an uneducated slob in the way, perhaps, Spartacus should have been; but cerebral enough to be a general? I don't think so. And you don't rise to be a career general in an army whilst obsessing as a farmer about your harvest. You're either one, or the other.
There was one particularly absurd scene in the arena when he was chopping-down competitors as quickly as they could be set against him. What then - weren't they trained gladiators, too? I was half-expecting him to begin walking sideways along the arena walls like 'Neo' from 'Matrixus'.
As to the 'spectacle' of Rome; well, that was all just computer-generated hokum. The back-room boys can whip-up anything in that way now just by tapping a few keys, so what's the big deal? Check-out the 'real' thing in 'Fall Of The Roman Empire'.
As with 'Titanic' and 'Pearl Harbour' a splendid opportunity was missed here to do something really wonderful, but because of flawed vision and misplaced directorial self-belief we finished up with mediocrity. Glorious mediocrity.
Still, bread and circuses usually please the crowds.