The Fighter

Before I saw The Fighter, I was ready to dismiss it as another variation on one of my least favorite Oscar bait archetypes: the sports underdog movie. Luckily, what I got instead is a bolder and rawer movie than the advertisements made it look, with some standout performances and a distinctive filmmaking style.

The movie is shot in a way that almost looks like a documentary, with less emphasis on production values and more on intimate character interaction. The style suits the movie well, giving everything an added sense of realism and making the drama more tense and personal. On top of that, the camera-work paints a genuinely bleak picture of a family stuck in a working-class Massachusetts slum.

The movie follows half-brothers Micky Ward (Wahlberg) and Dicky Eklund (Bale) and their family as one tries to make his name as a boxer and the other tries to reclaim it. Christian Bale once again proves how far he's willing to go for a role. He's the thinnest he's been since The Machinist, playing a delusional has-been who destroyed his career with his crack addiction. The character is equal parts charisma and desperation, and Bale plays the part brilliantly, earning every bit of his best supporting actor nomination. Wahlberg, on the other hand, is the most fit he's ever been, and gives a cleverly understated performance. The chemistry between the two half-brothers is the highlight of the movie, and every scene featuring them together stands out.

The boxing is the best I've seen in almost any movie. It's fast, visceral, and intense, offering a nice change of pace from an otherwise slow but gripping movie. However, viewers looking for an entertaining action flick should be warned: this isn't a fun movie. It's a mostly sad film that has as much to with desperation as with hope and ambition. Sometimes it's downright difficult to watch, but that less of a criticism and more of a compliment to the talent involved for crafting such a real and gritty drama. If you don't mind your sports movies a little dark and unpleasant, you'll be treated to a sharp script and a talented cast all delivering their finest.

Score:

It's A Wonderful Life (Day 12)

We all seemed to hate taking our medicine as children, didn’t we? It seems like this trend of resisting certain films – only to adore them when they’re given a chance – is a notable quirk of mine. But in terms of boosting personal morale, which has honestly been a bit low for me lately, maybe another visit to Bedford Falls is exactly what I need. It is ironic that a movie I used to hate watching as a kid every year now is easily my favorite of all time. Thanks for being persistent until I got its message, Dad, and Happy Birthday. This one’s for you.

DAY 12: IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE

I don’t even know how to review this film, or how this is going to read. So maybe I should just talk freely about it instead…Put bluntly, I have never seen a film that is so time-specific and yet so timeless at the same time. It is fitting that it begins with a series of prayers that go up on Christmas Eve 1946, in the little town of Bedford Falls, New York. In that particular moment, a man named George Bailey (James Stewart) is described to God by others as selfless, someone who some people owe everything to, someone adored by his wife and at least one kid…and yet, as we pan up to an image of blinking stars (one meant to be God, one Joseph…interesting metaphor, to say the least), they realize that Mr. Bailey is considering suicide. So they bring in a angel named Clarence, a simpleton but with the “heart of a child” (guess which strength is most cherished), trying to earn his wings. And in order to prepare Clarence, Joseph and God narrate George’s life for him…and in the process, we learn why he can be simultaneously so loved and yet so miserable.

I could give you every event that occurs in these flashbacks, but it would be a moot point. The appeal of this story is not merely in the sequence of events but in the details, in terms of the wonderfully varied characters and the little motifs that are, shall we say, “Hee-Hawed” into each scene. It makes them relatable and really helps you believe that these people have lived and laughed with each other for decades; in other words, you find genuine friendship developing on screen…But put bluntly, we find out that George has always had a longing for exploration but a sense of selflessness that is greater. He notices that his father’s work at the Bailey Building and Loan Association is small in one sense, but great as well because it is managed independently of miserable slumlord and financial titan Mr. Potter (Lionel Barrymore). And on repeated occasions, from tragedy to financial crisis, he repeatedly has to step up as the noble-hearted adversary to provide a well-intentioned place for people to take out loans and earn savings for their families. Some could argue that Bailey is a human model of communism and Potter capitalism, but it seems to be more of a basic difference – between, respectively, a man who sees money as a means to greater ends and someone who wants it for its own sake – and Stewart and Barrymore play off each other perfectly in this respect, each reflecting the contrasting effects (on the soul, more than anything) of sacrificing one goal for the other. Both of their efforts are top-notch, seeming simultaneously particular in their focus and universal in their ability to be understood, and you can either root for or despise them all the more for it.

And indeed, sacrifice is a central point here. Despite Bailey’s efforts showing notable impact on Bedford Falls and his blossomed relationship with Mary Hatch (Donna Reed) – a woman, in all honesty, much more attractive for her wholesome assertiveness than most actresses today – he continually needs to give up every opportunity to leave his town (even for vacations or honeymoons) to keep everyone else afloat. And every time he hears about his brother and friends in their noble adventures and endeavors, you can see how much it pains Bailey to hear about it. Any sort of shortcoming in makeup or clothing (because the film does span several decades) is more than compensated by the incredible use of body language by every member of the cast, especially in James Stewart as he reveals increasing bitterness and sense of being increasingly “trapped” in every subsequent scene. He knows that he could leave at any time he wants, and no one would fairly blame him for it…which makes it all the more heartbreaking when a mere slip of the mind threatens to throw it all away in one day. Ergo, the numerous prayers by family (he has four kids, by the way) and friend alike, and the way such heartbreak is displayed ranks right up there with Shawshank.

The direction by Frank Capra in these scenes is notably remarkable, because not a single line, camera close-up or visual detail is wasted. The fact that he made it specifically for black-and-white, and it STILL holds up even when colorized, shows how meticulous each shot is. Every action Bailey makes, for better or for worse (mostly better, though), has a direct impact somewhere later in the screenplay and serves to knock him down to his final rung before he is lifted up…through the appearance of Clarence that snowy night (and by the way, for a simple-minded angel, he is surprisingly competent in his job). To note one particular example, it is pointed out that Clarence (wonderfully performed, pure heart and all, by Henry Travers) is reading the book “Tom Sawyer”, which I did not always understand the reasoning behind. As it turns out, there is a scene where Mr. Sawyer fakes his own death, in order to find out how those around him would react at his funeral. A brilliant little clue for those not sure how God will tell his angel-in-training to handle George’s lack of self-worth.

About 75 percent of the film is built up to maybe 15-20 minutes of us seeing just how different the world (even beyond Bedford Falls, in some instances) would be without Mr. Bailey existing. Think “The Five People You Meet In Heaven”, except much less preachy. Needless to say, audiences are surprised…and yet not surprised…by how much worse things would be without him, and Potter is demonstratively proven wrong in his claims about the value of Bailey’s life. Again, the immaculate set design and perfectly-displayed nuances by the cast make the difference in this alternate universe all the more striking. This is truly character acting at its absolute best, and if you are not at least sniffling a little bit once George Bailey learns his lesson, you have a heart as granite-hard as Mr. Potter’s. OK, maybe it will come across a little too sentimental or sappy for some people, but its impact remains profound.

It shouldn’t come across as too surprising that this film absolutely bombed when first released, despite its five Academy Award nominations, only to be appreciated following its airing on TV a few decades later. Its message is, in all honesty, in striking contrast, to a numbers of the brutal, tragically flaunted ideas put forth in society back then (or even today, for that matter). But maybe that is why it is needed. Whether it is due to feeling unappreciated at work, overcoming a mistake, or simply feeling insignificant in an ever-shrinking global society, it is very tempting to focus primarily on building up yourself – because after all, if you don’t promote yourself, who else will? But while standing up for your dignity is all well and good, it is nice to be reminded that your acts of decency are cherished more than you know and probably make more of a difference than you can realize. The sentiment may be corny, but putting the previous question another way, if you don’t promote goodwill, why the hell not?

I absolutely cherish everything about this movie, and not least because it reminds me why I admire my father so much. Growing up, he NEVER told me (despite my curiosity) how much he made as a lawyer, preferring to say he made “Enough” – enough to provide for us, enough to give back to charity, and enough to assume all his responsibilities. I see a good deal of George Bailey in him, and maybe that is the best compliment I can give him. But maybe by watching this film regularly – with its carefully written script, fantastic pace and buildup, and characters that every everyman can relate too (I haven’t even begun to describe them all adequately) – maybe I can enjoy the feeling of being truly “rich”, too.

Score:

TOMORROW (DAY 13): GROUNDHOG DAY

The Day The Earth Stood Still (Day 11)

Greg's Take:

Old sci-fi films have a rare talent for taking the most unsubtle premises and making them feel sincere rather than contrived. And The Day the Earth Stood Still exemplifies that talent better than most. The premise of an alien coming to Earth to deliver an ultimatum seems like something out of The Twilight Zone, complete with an obvious message that would be dismissed as heavy-handedness if it were done in modern times. For a lot of people this could easily be seen as a flaw, but for me it's part of the appeal. Movies like this manage to combine the goodheartedness of moral fables with the "anything is possible" intrigue of science fiction, which might be enough to leave an impact on even the most jaded viewers.

The highlight is Michael Rennie as Klaatu, the alien who comes to Earth with a simple yet powerful message: make peace or be annihilated. He pulls off a careful balancing act of class, wit, and deadly potential, without ever being too overt about his true nature and intentions. On top of that, his dialogue is superbly written, making any scene with him a joy to watch. And as he begins to find value in the planet he first savagely condemns, it forces the viewer to feel the same.

Admittedly, the production seems very obviously dated, so the goofy looking robot and flying saucer that are supposed to represent technology far superior to ours seem like benign threats at worst. Seeing the future through the lens of the past will always feel a little awkward, but this movie is smart enough not to turn itself into an effects spectacle, instead putting its focus on exploring humanity from an outsider's viewpoint. And in this respect it succeeds.

Score:

Ian's take:

The film does still feel like a success, even after all these years and corresponding advances in CGI. But the reason why this film succeeds is not merely because it evaluates humanity from an outsider’s perspective. We have cheesy Keanu Reeves remakes and other preachy pseudo-Messiah films for that. Maybe this is just me being a bit shell-shocked from angry television commentary, but this film also works for me because it actually makes humans seem…real. Every reaction they have against Klaatu, from the man wanting credit for helping the Pentagon to the armed forces concerned about protecting the public, doesn’t seem forced and instead holds a somewhat justifiable (though not always correct) sense of reasoning behind it. At a certain point, the excuse that “humans will attack anything different from themselves” (aka James Cameron Syndrome) feels stale to hear at best.

Particularly noteworthy are the characters that seem to modify their opinions properly, based on the new information they receive. In the process of finding temporary lodging under the alias “Mr. Carpenter”, Klaatu befriends a WWII-begat widow named Helen Benson (Patricia Neal) and her son Bobby (Billy Gray). What works so well is that Helen and Bobby do not immediately think that “bright, strange man” is the same as to “message-bearing alien” at first glance. Instead, they simply note his unique intelligence (and lack of knowledge of basic US history), while Helen appreciates his bond with her naturally curious and surprisingly well-mannered son. Of course, they eventually piece things together and find themselves in the mix of world-altering matters…but their natural charisma and likability makes us eager to follow them along as they discover the truth, and Edmund H. North’s adapted screenplay (based off Harry Bates’s “Farewell to the Master”) really does make it feel like a fun mystery of sorts – intriguing for its characters, even if you can guess most of the answers before it ends.

But any cheesy Bobby/Encyclopedia Brown jokes aside, there really is a successful buildup to the final scene that feels organic and well-earned; and the ultimate speech by Klaatu really is a phenomenal payoff that allow for some fun interpretations of the film. Where do these aliens come from? Are they from another world in this present moment, or from Earth in the future? Is the warning of destruction solely related to outside weapons like Gort, or does it also involve the atomic-based chaos that humanity can now unleash upon itself? One thing is for sure: even with some special effects and suspense-building devices that feel a bit primitive, its central message remains as powerful today as it has ever been. For that alone, Gort stands head-and-shoulders above the average B-movie classic.

Score:

TOMORROW (DAY 12): IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE

Our scores and what they mean

For anyone curious, here's what our scores represent. 


0 hombres - Simply put, this is a movie with absolutely no value whatsoever. To give you an idea of how hard this score is to achieve, if a movie gets even one thing right (one funny joke, a comprehensible plot that wasn't plagiarized, a passable performance, a decent action sequence or a single well-shot scene) it warrants at least half an hombre. There's a saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day, meaning even with complete incompetence, you're likely to get something right, if even just by accident. These movies are clocks so thoroughly broken that they're only right on the off chance that their warped and mangled hands point to a better clock.


0.5 hombres - A truly terrible movie. A top contender for worst film of the year if not longer. While sitting through a 0 hombre movie could be seen as a test of fortitude, these movies will only garner disappointed looks from people wondering why you wasted your time and/or money.


1 hombre - An awful movie. It's not unwatchable but it's not worth watching even for free. These movies could be much worse, but that's the closest thing to praise they're going to get.


1.5 hombres - A very bad movie, but one with at least a few redeeming qualities. Like a  bacon, lettuce, and dead raccoon sandwich, there are elements that work but it's far from a satisfying whole.


2 hombres - A bad but by no means terrible movie. Maybe even a guilty pleasure for some. For the rest it might be worth catching on TV if you have time to kill. Watchable enough that you can save your voice to rant in frustration another day.


2.5 hombres  - A mediocre to passable movie. Might be a worthy rental for fans of the genre or style, but nothing worth going out of your way to see. In the immortal words of Bart Simpson, "Meh." (Not making this up by the way. The Simpsons features the first credited use of the phrase "Meh.")


3 hombres - A decent movie. Too flawed to recommend with enthusiasm, but worth the price of a ticket. The bards will sing of its adequacy for ages to come.


3.5 hombres - A good movie, nothing more and nothing less. Add your own snarky commentary here if you want.


4  hombres - A very good movie. Not likely to win many major awards, but it's bound to satisfy fans and win over some skeptics too. Worth owning and rewatching, but not quite worth starting a new religion over.


4.5 - An excellent movie, maybe even a masterpiece held back by some minor flaws. A serious contender for best of the year for its genre. The sort of movie you'll want to send us angry hate mail for, demanding to know why it didn't get 5 hombres.


5 hombres - A true masterpiece. Possibly one of the decade's best. While it's not as impressive as earning the coveted 0 hombres, only two or three movies a year can hope to earn this distinction. The difference between a 4.5 and a 5 is largely subjective (technically it's all largely subjective but I think you know what we mean.)

Guess Who's Coming To Dinner (Day 10)

At this point, there are currently about a dozen or so romance films being released each year. Most of them are comedies that follow an annoyingly similar formula – main characters meet by chance, wacky hijinks ensue (which you’ve likely seen in trailers), love develops, one character screws up and admits his folly (yeah, almost always the guy’s fault), they kiss, credits roll. But what about films that follow them after love is set in place? You get a film that is more serious, but likely more effective in what it can talk about issues beyond the romance itself.

DAY 10 – GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER

It is always quite unusual to watch a film so directly tied to the problems of its own generation, one that we can barely imagine existing today. This is such a film, which depicts the events of one day in 1967 San Francisco. Joanna “Joey” Drayton (Katharine Houghton) is bringing home Dr. John Prentice (Sidney Poitier), and is ready to tell her parents that they are set to be married – and quite soon. John comes across as an almost frustratingly ideal candidate for marriage – incredibly accomplished and well-respected in the medical world, charming, well-reasoned and gentle (dammit, he sets a high bar) – but the most notable trait of his may be one outside his control. Namely, he’s black. Despite leading a very progressive newspaper and art gallery, respectively, Matt and Christina Drayton (Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn) find themselves put to the ultimate test of tolerance right in their own home.

You could find every reason in the world for these parents to oppose the sudden marriage, and this film slowly brings out details that would bother many even if skin color was not the issue. He’s 37 (and already in a terribly tragic marriage before), and she’s 23. They only met about a week and a half earlier, while she was on vacation in Hawaii. And, oh, might I add that due to professional duties on Dr. Prentice’s part, the parents are essentially given one day to ultimately decide whether they can approve the marriage with “no reservations”? Make no mistake: unlike in many romance-based films, the film never, ever questions whether Joey and John truly care about each other. They are deeply in love, and its positive depiction of an interracial relationship was remarkable groundbreaking for its time. But fittingly (and almost frustratingly), the practical questions gradually become minute in comparison to the giant multi-colored elephant in the room, even as the titular dinner becomes increasingly complicated – and life-changing – to the futures of everyone involved.

In all honesty, I cannot imagine a situation where the age, speed and genuine feelings in a relationship would be dwarfed by skin color…and I suppose that is a sign of how different things are now. But in the context of this film, it is a question every single character must ask. In 1967, interracial marriage was still illegal in a number of states and would surely warrant ridicule and social separation of some kind anywhere…and the families of both lovers are well-aware of this. Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn are the true main characters in this film, for although they are merely two of the parents, the questions they must consider most correspond with what the audiences of the time felt, and they are exemplary in their efforts. They fit the role they should and their onscreen chemistry (this being their ninth pairing) is downright tangible, with Hepburn showing graceful resolution in her belief that love is what is most important and Tracy gradually revealing a more frustrated personality that is all-too-aware of the cruelty other people are capable of. I will probably say it a million times over the course of this year, but for some reason – maybe because there was less rush to get to the next scene in films of the past – actors in previous generations do appear to get more immersed in their character’s lives and emotions. And because they believe in it, so does the audience.

In fact, everyone comes across as believable, as decent people who want to do the right thing but are not sure how to do so in conjunction with the slow rate of social growth in mainstream society. The younger generation already feels prepared to take the next steps forward, to the point where one can identify himself as just “a man” instead of as “a colored man”. Poitier and Houghton are refreshingly forthright in this regard, with Houghton showing the resolute certainty in the future that heartfelt love produces at a young age and Poitier displaying the idealistic charm and yearning of a man simply longing to fall in that state once again. They present racism as a flawed mentality that is not permanent, something that feels like it will be around forever but is already in the process of fading away with the previous generation. And to the film’s noteworthy credit, through the critiques of the Drayton’s black house cook Tillie (Isabel Sanford) and John’s parents, they present racial bias as something that needs to be overcome on both sides of the aisle.

Maybe this review is a little shorter because, frankly, my assessment of the film should match how straightforward the film itself can be. Director Stanley Kramer and his cast must have truly felt a collective desire to tackle such a controversial topic, and in a way that said “Screw you!” to those willing to hide away from or condemn those standing against it. This is most poignantly emphasized in the final scene, which actually contained the final speech of Spencer Tracy’s illustrious career (he would die barely two weeks later, and they all knew he was dying at the time) and one where the tears of everyone in the room were real. And thus it moved audiences as well. Personally, I may have some issues with how sometimes the fixation on race relations feels a little…well, forced in occasional scenes. But considering the social context of the time, it was probably necessary and only feels dated now because it did its job then. And on top of its powerful message, fantastic acting and wonderfully subtle camerawork by Kramer, such passion by everyone involved makes it feel like a film you want to finish, with characters you want to see grow and eventually live happily…if not perfectly…ever after.

Score: 9/10 

(must-see for anyone sick of romantic comedies, Kutcher or Aniston)

TOMORROW (DAY 11): THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (ORIGINAL)

No Strings Attached

I'll begin this review by saying that I've never been the biggest fan of romantic comedies. This is because too often they're not very romantic or very funny and rely too heavily on being cute and quaint instead. If you're a fan of the genre, feel free to take my criticisms with a grain of salt.

This movie follows old friends Emma (Natalie Portman) and Adam (Ashton Kutcher) who decide to become friends with benefits, swearing to do away with love and romance. If you've ever seen a romantic comedy before, you know exactly how this idea will end. But as with every romance, it's the bumps along the way that define the story. In this case it's a mostly rewarding blend of surprisingly bold and bizarre humor. The comedy focuses on the flawed and awkward relationships between flawed and awkward characters, featuring a quirky but likable cast of supporting characters. The highlight is Kevin Kline as Adam's father, who gives out terrible life advice and has a thing for younger women. Every scene with him is a high point of the movie. The most disappointing performance is Carey Elwes as a side character with only two lines despite top billing. It's an even bigger waste of his talent than Saw 3D.

There's unfortunately also a decent number of unfunny moments and jokes that simply fail to pay off. Other scenes just feel altogether useless, especially those that follow largely unexplored side characters. Luckily these are outnumbered by the movie's funnier moments. And some jokes, particularly one about a balloon, are some of the funniest I've heard in the last year.

The two leads both handle their parts adequately. To say that Ashton Kutcher is a limited actor is an understatement, but this role falls perfectly within his range, and for what it's worth he nails it. His role doesn't demand much, nor does he add much to it, but he pulls it off with charm and knows how to laugh at himself.

Natalie Portman's role is a little more demanding, and she does justice to it too, but after Black Swan it's disappointing to see her going back to eye candy roles. Still, it's refreshing to see Portman show a sense of humor, though she doesn't handle comedy as naturally as Kutcher. At times I could almost feel her cringing at some of the lines she had to deliver. Also, I have some problems with how her character is writtern. I'm not going to call Emma a slut, but her obsession with constant casual sex and crippling fear of romance and commitment comes off less like an endearing quirk or flaw and more like a serious personality defect.
On the other hand, it's nice to see Portman show her range and see her character learn to overcome her fear of intimacy, even if it's possibly the most obvious rom com cliche.

I had more fun with this movie than I expected to, but for others who share my skepticism of romantic comedies, I can't promise the same. I can guarantee that this is a better than average romantic comedy by recent standards. What exactly that's worth I'll leave for other people to judge.

Also, just a final random thought: since this movie and Friends With Benefits have essentially the same premise and are coming out at about the same time, wouldn't it make much more sense to call the one with Justin Timberlake No Strings Attached?

Score:

Gladiator (Day 9)

About midday yesterday, it was suggested by my father that I take a look at the most recent Dan Brown novel, “The Lost Symbol”. There is a symbol of world-changing importance lost, Robert Langdon must find it, you get the basic formula for his stories. I never read his previous books as a whole and was honestly skeptical when I began reading…I ended up putting it down after reading to the last page, following 16 straight hours of my eyes glued to the text. Why am I telling you this? I guess it sometimes takes a while for someone's work to pull you in; the same could be said for this film.

DAY 9 – GLADIATOR

In all honesty, I have heard some combination of three common replies when asking people about this film: “I have not watched that film in ages”, “I think I remember a few action scenes” and “Eh, I recall it being okay”. So it shocked me when I learned that this film was actually a juggernaut in 2000, scoring a Best Picture Oscar (along with 4 other wins and 7 other nominations….unreal) and a plethora of praise by critic and fan alike. Why the discrepancy? Now normally, it would help to give a basic summary of the plot and then my overall impressions. But that may not work as well here, seeing as my opinions changed as the film progressed. Bear with me on this.

We are given a basic summary, in both text and action, of the state of the glorious Roman Empire. It is the late 2nd century, and the reach of Emperor Marcus Aurelius would even make Leonidas and all of Sparta uneasy if opposed to it. One battle of resistance in the Germanic barbarian region is all that remains for peace on every frontier, and General Maximus Decimus Meridius (Russell Crowe, at his rugged best) is at the forefront of their triumph. Unrivaled in his combat abilities and the ability to lead with integrity, he is beloved by his soldiers and (as we learn) the Emperor as well. This presents a conflict when Aurelius, in his aged state, presents his intentions to pass the throne to Maximus instead of his biological son Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix, much more charismatic when clean-shaven) – a decision Maximus is not too thrilled about, preferring to return for home to dote on his wife and young son. I am hoping that it does not give too much away, but let’s just say that it never ends well when a brooding character sees longed-for power slip through his hands.

(Insert rant, starting now. Vague spoilers, beware.) And for that matter, for an aging Emperor that has led a massive expense of the Empire, you would think Aurelius would be prepared for betrayal of some kind. Why not write a letter with his intentions just in case something goes wrong, if you are not going to have at the very least, what is he thinking when he attempts to console (to someone losing their sense of self-worth, for that matter) by basically “It’s not your fault you suck, it’s mine”?! Seriously? Give this guy a lecture on letting someone down easy! (End rant.)

Long story short, the way Aurelius is presented reveals a great deal about where Ridley Scott’s strengths and flaws as a director stick out. He is a near-unparalleled genius at battle and action sequences, immersing yourself in a way that gets your adrenaline pumping. That being said, especially in this film, some of the more dialogue-centered scenes feel a bit stiff and sometimes results in characters that feel tacked on for the sake of moving the plot forward. But as the power struggle ensues, and Aurelius’ vision of a return to republican government gets choked away, Phoenix and Crowe exhibit enough intensity and raw emotion to keep you interested in how events unfold. And when one of them makes a no-return choice and the other faces devastating losses for it (and they hold nothing back in revealing this, thank God), the action picks up and the film accelerates into overdrive.

From that point on, it becomes a raw revenge movie for Maximus even as he is captured and put into the slave trade (to fight as a gladiator dubbed “The Spaniard”, for public entertainment), channeling his inner pain into a tangible way to destroy the life that irreparably damaged his. Thankfully, once action is ingrained, it makes the characters introduced more compelling too. Oliver Reed, as Maximus’ buyer Proximo, magnificently fills the role of an aged warrior whose passion for the fighting in arenas is infectious; and since he died during the production of this film, what a way to show your magnetism on the screen to the end. A fellow gladiator named Juba (Djimon Hounsou) becomes his closest ally, and his natural charm serves well to develop the emotional dimension (e.g. regarding the afterlife) of Maximus’ progress. And Commodus’ sister Lucilla (Connie Neilsen), a former lover of Maximus, shows great strength and almost masculine poise in how she responds to the political chaos around her (which, admittedly, did sometimes feel a bit like “breathing scenes”, to give audience a chance to settle down between different battles), which helps us see how Maximus’ battle is somehow keeping hope for Aurelius’ vision alive.

So in essence, the incredibly brutal action scenes, authentic atmosphere and set design (at times, near-impossible to tell it is not really ancient Rome we’re seeing), and (mostly) compelling performances compensate for the occasional dry dialogue and excessively sharp separation of action and discussion. But…there must be a reason why Gladiator resonated more deeply than most other period pieces, and I may have an idea about it. What is sort of interesting to me, in the process of seeing Maximus claw and slash his way to his final destination, is how closely the gladiator scenes resemble our enjoyment of team sports today. Much like in ancient Rome, we idolize those willing to put themselves into such danger….but would usually prefer to see it from the stands. We do tend to be fickle about who we support and who we condemn as unworthy…but almost always, we will support those who deliver results in their competitions. And, sadly, even though we know the horrible toll such events take on “fighters” then and now, we still embrace it because it makes us experience life in its most intense manifestation….because it makes them feel alive too.

My apologies if this seems a bit too long-winded, because it is not intended to be. More than anything, just know that Gladiator is a film that effectively presents violence in a way that does not feel pretentious or slipped in for shock value (and there is a great deal of it, make no mistake). Ridley Scott does a great job of putting audiences in the moment, in a realistic manner that helps us sympathize with the plight of Maximus like we would for any well-told news story of a broken warrior, an aspiring athlete striving to be great again. Despite the slightly predictable storyline and the occasional faulty line or character, what I expected to be a glorified B-movie turned out to be much deeper and more personally relevant experience than I anticipated. Hopefully, the upcoming Super Bowl will be equally compelling – but don’t count on it if the Bears beat the Packers this weekend.

Score:

So I guess my thumb, in judgment, is pointing up

TOMORROW (DAY 10): GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER