I find it strange that a man responsible for Alien and Blade Runner has also done some really terrible films. Film making is an industry that gives a lot of credit to directors and actors, but nothing like as much credit to the writers. The more I think about that, the crazier it seems!
A movie is such a collaborative creative venture. As an audience, we like to blame and praise whoever is at the helm, but often the truth is much murkier.
I actually enjoyed Napoleon more than Gladiator 2 since, as a history buff, I could at least understand what was happening and why even as they tried to cram Napoleon's entire life into one film. But Gladiator 2 really is just Gladiator, again, except far more convoluted; as you mentioned. I'm just scratching my head most of the time, and by the end I'm rooting for Denzel's character to win. No counter argument is presented to his declaration that "strong rule the weak." That's antiquity (hell, there's an argument that is still the law). What exactly is the main character's counter? What is this dream of Rome he is referring to? The dream for a few select rich to have an oversized say in the Republic? Movie's not bad, just turn your brain off and enjoy the spectacle...or just rewatch Gladiator 1.
It's funny how different a person's reaction to the same story can be. Being a history buff just made me more frustrated by the Napoleon portrayal, not less. The battles looked strangely small; the tactical genius on display in them didn't come through. Napoleon came across as incompetent in the film and if you want to paint Napoleon as a monster, fine. That's one thing. But you can't paint him as incompetent. It just rang false to me personally, and that's not even taking account of its writing as a movie, which was meandering and unfocused. I should just make a video on this. Haha. I have a lot of thoughts.
@@AlaniTheScriptMage I have a soft spot for Napoleon for some reason, likely just for the audacity in the attempt. I get what the film is going for, "military genius Napoleon is also socially weird whose love life influences much of his decisions." But, he wasn't THAT weird and romantically inept. And while trying to make Napoleon uncool is admirable, you know to bring him to a human level. The fact is Napoleon's feats are just too cool not to be presented as cool. Yes, in reality, the initial coup with Parliament was a bit of a comical farce. But this is also the same guy that won Austerlitz and later came out of exile and convinced everyone to join him for another go. You can't act as though he never did anything cool or charismatic. Still, I enjoyed it more than Gladiator since it wasn't that historically inaccurate and I could understand the intent. Whereas Gladiator 2 is, I don't even know what. It wants to be the original, but subvert the original, yet still be the original, again. Why CGI angry monkeys? Ugh.
Read the first ten chapters of Bonesong for free! www.amazon.com/kindle-vella/story/B0DC3J555G
Maybe Gladiator is one of those movies that doesn't need a sequel.
After Napoleon I decided I would never watch a ridley Scott movie ever again
Prometheus did it for me.
That's fair. Napolean was one of, if not the *worst* movie theater experience I ever had. I'll probably make a video on it one of these days.
Joaquin Phoenix has been on a losing streak lately w Nap & Joker.
I find it strange that a man responsible for Alien and Blade Runner has also done some really terrible films. Film making is an industry that gives a lot of credit to directors and actors, but nothing like as much credit to the writers. The more I think about that, the crazier it seems!
A movie is such a collaborative creative venture. As an audience, we like to blame and praise whoever is at the helm, but often the truth is much murkier.
@@AlaniTheScriptMageAlec Baldwin agrees! Lol
Starwars - Andor is a palate cleanser.
I actually enjoyed Napoleon more than Gladiator 2 since, as a history buff, I could at least understand what was happening and why even as they tried to cram Napoleon's entire life into one film. But Gladiator 2 really is just Gladiator, again, except far more convoluted; as you mentioned. I'm just scratching my head most of the time, and by the end I'm rooting for Denzel's character to win. No counter argument is presented to his declaration that "strong rule the weak." That's antiquity (hell, there's an argument that is still the law). What exactly is the main character's counter? What is this dream of Rome he is referring to? The dream for a few select rich to have an oversized say in the Republic?
Movie's not bad, just turn your brain off and enjoy the spectacle...or just rewatch Gladiator 1.
It's funny how different a person's reaction to the same story can be. Being a history buff just made me more frustrated by the Napoleon portrayal, not less. The battles looked strangely small; the tactical genius on display in them didn't come through. Napoleon came across as incompetent in the film and if you want to paint Napoleon as a monster, fine. That's one thing. But you can't paint him as incompetent. It just rang false to me personally, and that's not even taking account of its writing as a movie, which was meandering and unfocused.
I should just make a video on this. Haha. I have a lot of thoughts.
@@AlaniTheScriptMage I have a soft spot for Napoleon for some reason, likely just for the audacity in the attempt. I get what the film is going for, "military genius Napoleon is also socially weird whose love life influences much of his decisions." But, he wasn't THAT weird and romantically inept.
And while trying to make Napoleon uncool is admirable, you know to bring him to a human level. The fact is Napoleon's feats are just too cool not to be presented as cool. Yes, in reality, the initial coup with Parliament was a bit of a comical farce. But this is also the same guy that won Austerlitz and later came out of exile and convinced everyone to join him for another go. You can't act as though he never did anything cool or charismatic.
Still, I enjoyed it more than Gladiator since it wasn't that historically inaccurate and I could understand the intent. Whereas Gladiator 2 is, I don't even know what. It wants to be the original, but subvert the original, yet still be the original, again. Why CGI angry monkeys? Ugh.
Lol. I can respect that point of view. And yeah, those monkeys were strange.
What's the step past turning your brain off to enjoy a movie?
Drogas