pennypinch

So I decided to cave in and rent Gladiator. Wow, what a disappointment. That was the Empire Strikes Back of our generation, and you call that the best picture of the year? It must have been a pretty sad year for film, or the Academy has its head up its ass.

Sure, it was a visual spectacle. Sure, it was dramatic. But it was just silly. As sophmoric as it gets: "ooh, they're sword fighting!"

I also thought the rampant placement of phallic imagery/homoeroticism was a nice touch. Hooray for the Romans! Now where in the hell were the orgies?

Just more evidence corroborating the fact that the Oscars are stupid and dumb...like my bum.

ArkiStan

yeah. I agree. Braveheart was much better and it wasn't even directed by a world class director. One thing I liked better about Gladiator was the way Scott did the battle sequences. Personally I prefered the more abstract, less in-you-face style that Scott expressed the violence, though most of my guy friends loved Braveheart for the gore. hehe, to each his own.

hapoo

Braveheart was awesome, but i hated the fact that the same person was the actor, director, producer and probably every other part.

__________________

M_A_C

So if you had your way, you'd keep it the very same, except have the roman's shoot at each other with guns?

__________________

Meatwad make the moneys SEE!
Meatwad get the honeys G!

pennypinch

Ha ha. No. But admit it, a lot of the movie's mass and artistic appeal was the action scenes, something I'm not sure should weigh very heavily when picking the best film of the year. Most of the "cinemtography" was done on a computer anyway. And I thought the story was somewhat juvenile and simplistic. I dunno...I guess I just didn't like it much!

Chinpoko_Mon

I like Gladiator for the fight scenes too.. but the best script for all the nominees was best movie was definitely Traffic. And there wasn't an ounce of bad acting...

and boy, what a convincing drug addict that girl was...