@@Nerdy_The_Punk I have a hard time forgiving it for what it did to Cleopatra. That said, it did make you feel like you were in ancient Rome -- it's the most authentic portrayal I'm aware of.
I read it was originally supposed to be a much longer series, but it got cancelled after two seasons. Unfortunately, they had to condense the timeline a lot in the second season.
Hi everyone I'm here to correct a slip up. Jared meant to say Sarmatians not Samaritans. Also, millenia, not centuries at 10:24. Once in awhile mistakes happen while trying to watch something and speak while filming. Hope you're having a good day.
I love Gladiator, hell I love Kingdom of Heaven. But my god I wish Ridley Scott could just tell a historical epic without making up a bunch of nonsense. Believe it or not, the people who lived back then had interesting lives you don't need to spruce up for modern audiences.
Rhe thing is, he doesn't write his movies. Unlike other big directors where it's really their project from conception to production, Scott is really just directing. The only project I can say he really put story notes into is the alien sequels, but even those he doesn't even have writing credits for. He literally just films what's written in the script. It's really the Hollywood writers at fault for any inaccuracies in the plot or history.
who cares. real history had pacing issues that i'm glad to do away with. i don't watch ridley scott epics to earn a history masters. i watch to be entertained. i read wikipedia to learn the facts later.
Check out The Last Duel - its extremely historically accurate compared to movies like this. Also Ridley Scott, really great movie and true story (dont spoil it just go watch).
Have you seen modern audiences? Have you seen the tripe that passes as a "Hollywood blockbuster" these days? Superhero movies, horrible retreads and reboots...its all very terrible. Any quality historical movie almost seems destined to flop because there isn't an all powerful character capable of taking on entire armies single handedly. It's extraordinarily disheartening
It is really great when you discuss the wider thematic context. Or the intentions of the writer/director in relation to the time and place the film was made. Most historical based dramas are as much about the times they are made as they are about the time they depict.
This movie is my second favorite film of all time, right behind Disney's animated Brauty and the Beast. I think part of the reason why is because this film was more so my introduction to Roman History so I watched this film before the cloud of historical inaccuracy rained down upon it. And purely as a film it's damn near perfect. Even more so when it comes to the extended version, my preferred version to watch. I can only think of two filmmaking mistakes in this movie which just goes to show how incredible this movie is despite those mistakes. It's a cinematic masterpiece and I wished more filmmakers today made Historical Epics like this.
i love that you're a student of film in addition to history. the backstory of the film's production can be just as illuminating as the history it's trying to portray.
As a person who has seen my fair share of movies, i remember one amusing quote from my social studies teacher way back in 1976. "Movies are to make money to give a return on investment". Anything else within budget that can help sell the "product" so much the better. Cruel but dont expect the cinema to put out any historical film 100%. Some come close, but.... its about money. Just my 2 cents. Jared as always spot on review, no need to add anymore. Thanks.
To me the opening battle scene is the best depiction of the Roman army at war. The way that the barbarians surge forward, then back, shows a feature of many ancient engagements, the two armies spending hours or days facing off, making intimidating gestures, making noise, perhaps single combat taking place, etc. The professional Roman army of the Principate was the opposite, having an aggressive no-nonsense method of quickly and silently marching within javelin range, the with a sudden unsettling shout throw javelins and rush the enemy, all the while staying in precise formation.
They wouldn't use catapults in the forest. Also Barbarians weren't really uncivilized, despite what Romans thought that every not Roman was a savage, Barbarians were no strangers to body armor among other things, like the Teuton forest wouldn't have uniform single tree types, which was an artificial development after the XVI century, but a huge, dense variety
Excellent video! I am excited for this two part series. This movie was so exciting for me when I was young. Obviously this movie lacks historical accuracy, but as you have stated in the past, movies can still provide an opening for excitement into the subject area. Thank you for covering this movie.
@@ReelHistory Would you consider doing a commentary on the TV miniseries I, Cladius (13 episodes, covering a time before Claudius' birth to his death? Derek Jacobi stars as Claudius, and I'm honestly curious to know to what extent they took historical liberties on that show.
An English director makes a film about ancient Rome, filmed mainly in Europe (Morocco aside) starring an Antipodean Lead with a multicultural cast and this film is some how an allegory for 90's America. Nice one 👎🤌👏
Making esoteric references to lines in Band of Brothers is the mark of a true historian in my book. I thought I'd be the only one thinking of Bill Guarnere's "Visigoths? Jesus Christ..." line for this movie.
Salve! I am a Roman Reenactor from California. 1st and 4th Century soldier. LEGIO II AVG, COH V. Great movie with some minor issue at the beginning of the movie. There was a nice posting of a guy who did the battle scene in the beginning of the movie. It was filmed in Ireland… small wooded area. The “snow” in the movie was 1/2 of the fire arrows going up by mistake… no CGI, real arrow machines…. Took months to make them and woosh, up burned up. The large Balista artillery fired over the set and way off the film lot. They turned them down but no go. Those are CGI…..
Jared is bringing me back to the good old cable TV days patiently (furiously) waiting for the next episode to be available! I feel ending it on the "Are you not entertained" clip was nothing short of audience abuse! 🤣 Honestly wasn't expecting this movie, but very much looking forward to part 2! 👍
34:07 Yes they would.....the movie was called the phantom menace :D........ Oh about grachi.....the live 250 years ago and not during the time this movie takes place.
I recall reading that gladiatorial combats may have been first introduced into Roman culture through the early Republic’s interaction with the neighbouring Etruscans. This is when Rome was a backwater city state still struggling for control of the Italian peninsula. In the early days, gladiatorial combats were indeed small scale, usually witnessed by few people and often part of funeral rituals. Fast forward to the time when gladiators were mainstream entertainment. This movie is not an accurate representation of these fights. Gladiatorial combat was stylised and played according to defined rules. Many bouts had referees in attendance. It is also a myth that every fight ended in a death. Gladiators were very expensive and if one was killed, the person sponsoring the games had to pay the gladiator’s owner for a replacement. Nonetheless, as a film and a semi-mythological representation of Rome, Gladiator is a great piece of modern cinema. Great video, I’d like to see more content covering ancient history.
Nice touch on Historiography So important in the study of History. In fact, so important that at Michigan, we were required to take it as part of our core curriculum for the major. History 300 was one of my favorite and most influential courses. .
I think of Gladiator as an entertaining movie that happens to be during a historical time, and they didn't let history get in the way of telling g a good story.
one small little deatil in the opening battle was overlocked in this review. when you see the roman cavalry riding through the forest you can see soldiers with long blonde hair under their helmets. because the romans were not neccessarly famous for their good cavalry they often relied on germanic cavalry auxiliary.
About Maximus being a farmer, I'm not sure if people realise that members of the Senatorial class considered agriculture the only befitting occupation, and that engaging in business of any sort was considered prohibitively unseemly.
24:24 I find it really interesting that it's here where you bring up Stanley Kubriks Spartacus as I always felt that it was the specific shot of the gladiators looking up at the coliseum for the first time as the shot that most invokes the style of Kubriks Spartacus
I'd like to see a breakdown or examination of the British TV adaptation of the novel "I, Cladius". It was produced in the early 1980s and is very much a product of its time and place.
34:30 that reminds me of my history classes in school, all they wanted to teach me about was crop rotation and the common prayer book but all I wanted to hear about was Hastings, Waterloo, Agincourt etc
One thing nearly all get wrong is thumb down was to drop weapons, thumb up was to give the killing stroke and to this day in Italy thumbs up is like a middle finger is to us.
One of my favorite classes in college was a seminar on the Roman family. We would examine various sources (translated) and talk about domestic life. Mostly about the wealthy and slaves though, as the wealthy left behind most of the primary sources
I saw this movie in theaters when it came out. Ever since I still to this day use "Strength and Honor" in normal everday life. "Have a good, buddy" "Strength and Honor!"
Richard Harris was 68-69 while filming this movie. He looked WAY older than he was because of his rather wild lifestyle. So goes for Oliver Reed who was only 62 when he died. Making fun of the moviemakers for calling Maximus "Spaniard" then noting the Romans called the area "Hispania"...well the words are pretty close, aren't they?
I loved the beginning battle for its cinematography and action, but a Roman Legion wouldn't disintegrate into a wild frenzy of one on one fights with the enemy as we see here, they would hold to their ranks and remain cohesive, in fact doing so is what made them so dangerous. Also a Roman cavalry unit would not attack through a forest, ever, lol. Dangerous for the horse which could trip and fall, they can't hold a cohesive unit or line which makes the impact of their attack weak. It just wouldn't happen this way ... but it sure looked good:)
Interesting theory, but this movie wasn't strictly made by Americans. It was made by a Brit and in Europe & like all of Ridley's films, has a Eourocentric P.O.V.. The original scripts were by Americans, but as I can tell by your comments, you know a ton was changed on set. Like, Crowe came up with "Strength and Honour", as that was his school moto as a kid! I like to think if this movie as Rome's Greatest Hits. Lol. I know the opening battle isn't strictly accurate, but this was first movie where I felt the full power of the Roman army - that terrified so many for hundreds of years. Other movies, like Spartacus, just seemed like a bunch of marching around. Lol. If you watch the Director's cut, it fills in a lot if the gaps (like showing it took much longer for Maximus to get from Germany to "Spain", with him camping on the way and sewing up his wound). Maybe check that version out for part 2?
I enjoy your channel but at time mark 10:25.... I think you mean 2000 years as opposed to two centuries. I was also disappointed in the stirrups on the calvary but I hadn't considered the safety of the actors. That is interesting.
I consider this in the same vein as The Last Samurai. That being not for the history but for the visuals and scenes. Essentially it allows us to see what the world used to (somewhat loosely) looked like.
I always wondered what made the battle scenes look so cool in Gladiator, some sort of effect, and I read/heard somewhere a while back that the effect was that some clips are shot in 60 fps (or higher than normal fps), compared to the regular movie frame rate of 24 fps. Is that what you meant by "stop motion?" As far as I know, stop motion is actually using the camera like a photo camera, taking a single frame, shutting it off, moving your characters around, take another frame, etc. I messed with it with my parents big old 80s camcorder when I was a kid haha.
One thing that I feel is never reconciled is the fact that the audio of the Germainians is out-and-out STOLEN from the movie "Zulu!" The director took the easy way out and must have said "give me some 'tribal' chants" and they chose AFRICAN chants for the Germanians! Shame shame shame!
Hey Jared I see that you've been doing WW2 content lately. I was wondering if you've ever seen or would consider to viewing and reacting to "the fallen of WW2" by Neil holorun?
Would you ever consider reviewing The Alamo from 2004? One of the biggest box office bombs of all time but actually a pretty decent movie in my opinion.
Well, yes I was entertained. But that's what Hollywood and Ridley Scott do. The writers at Hollywood cobble together rough outlines of stories that are vaguely related to historical events and they get visual artists like Scott to get things looking very close to historic authenticity as viewed through 21st century eyes, but noone pretends it's History. It's not meant to be. It's entertainment. That said, it's fun to pick holes in things, especially the glaringly obvious errors. My biggest peeve with all sword and sandal movies involving the arena is the "thumbs up, thumbs down" rubbish. It's just plain wrong. The signal the crowd gave for clemency was to stand up, wave both arms upward from the waist to shoulder height and shout the Latin for LIVE (I think it was AVE, but I might be wrong, does anyone know?) The signal for death was to raise your thumb and jab it towards your throat, shouting "mordez" or something similar meaning DEATH. The second thing they always get wrong in Roman films is the style of fighting used by the legionnaires. They didn't wave their short fat swords over their heads, or even attempt to cut with them. They were stabbing swords, and that's exactly what they did. Their method of fighting was to hold the heavy scutum (shield) in front, covering themselves from chin to knee, hold the sword out to the right hand side and viciously stab the person diagonally to the right under his upraised arm, penetrating the rib cage. Then, because your mate on your left has done the same thing to the wally in front of you, you push him over with your shield, then smash the bottom edge of your shield onto his face, then stamp on him with your hobnail sandals. Job done, and onto the next barbarian. This was exhausting work, so you did your five minutes in the front rank, then the next rank moved up. That's Roman war machine tactics, as per Marius' manual.
I can all be guaranteed you that Samaritans never fielded an army in Germania. Yes, they would fight the Romans, but in Roman occupied Israel. Napalm? The Eastern Roman Empire had Greek fire. Generally speaking, the Roman Pilum was thrown. Given the opportunity, the Romans would have thrown at least one Pilum, assuming that they had multiple pila. They might then have used the remaining one as a spear. But close quarters combat like this really is what the gladius was for.
@@ReelHistory And I didn't know or I forgot that these Sarmatians were part of the Marcomani war. The Roman-Greek colonies in the Black Sea certainly had skirmishes with them along with more peaceful contact. Of course, the Sarmatians were first partly displaced by early Goths, which led to this conflict. Rome would have to deal with them again when the Huns displaced a large portion of them as well as Gothic peoples.
Caesar was embodiment corruption. Everyone knew it. Augustus was also a tyrant and a murderer. Julius Caesar is next to Adolf Hitler AFAIC. Read the letters of Cicero. Watching Caesar rise was like watching a slow motion tsunami destroy society… and no one could stop it…. I need to add.. obviously Caesar was keeping in a line of tradition long established to make promises to the poor so he can get power over his enemies..(EG Gracci brothers,). A tradition still held to this day.
Thanks for covering this! My Latin teacher in High School loved this movie and always recommended it to us. My BA is in Classics so when I finally got around to watching it, I realized how bad it is actually is. My biggest problem is that Galen isn't in the movie when he would've been the medic for the gladiators and Commodus. Oh well, at least it's entertaining!
You missed the part where he barbarians, taunting the Romans just before the battle, are literally using Zulu war chants from the movie “ZULU”. Still, the battle scene, in spite of inaccuracies, is my favorite part of the movie.
What I notice in any movie that has an empire, be it Roman or Galactic and all points between, is that the people are always English accented. I wonder why that is? I bet it's because the British empire is a known quantity that the average person can grasp. It's the most recent empire most people know of.
Would it be very likely that a relatively famous Roman General becomes suddenly a slave even after an assassination attempt? Roman Generals I thought were fairly high prestige positions.
2000? wow is this movie really that old? Hilarious how many people got worked up about the historical accuracy of this movie and I always laugh because i never watched it for that aspect.
Who would watch CSPAN when they could be watching MMA? Me. I would actually say I, Claudius is a more intriguing piece of Roman historical fiction than this. Also starring Derek Jacobi as Claudius, the actor who plays senator Gracchus in this.
Which was a fun insight for those if us who saw the film in theatres. Also, the casting was so good, those who knew his career knew Oliver Reed would've played Maximus if Gladiator had been made 1970 - and he would've been fantastic!
I like your videos but I hate it when you pause the video and then put your face so you could explain something. You could just keep the video playing and speak in the background.
If I have to watch one more movie that depicts pre-gunpowder warfare as a massive donnybrook of unorganized chaos, or that overplays fire munitions... Even the film based on Frank Miller's graphic novel "300" is more historically accurate than this turd. From Gladiator, to Braveheart, are just CRINGE to anyone that knows anything about ancient warfare. And when I watch Gladiator, several Mel Brooks jokes come to mind...
There is a two season long series called "Rome" of which my Latin teacher in school said it is really cool. It would be worth a try if time allows.
That show is awesome. It is not historically accurate but it is historically authentic.
@@Nerdy_The_Punk I have a hard time forgiving it for what it did to Cleopatra. That said, it did make you feel like you were in ancient Rome -- it's the most authentic portrayal I'm aware of.
Cool to look at, but not much of it is actually historically accurate.
I would love to see Reel History do Rome!
I read it was originally supposed to be a much longer series, but it got cancelled after two seasons. Unfortunately, they had to condense the timeline a lot in the second season.
Hi everyone I'm here to correct a slip up. Jared meant to say Sarmatians not Samaritans. Also, millenia, not centuries at 10:24. Once in awhile mistakes happen while trying to watch something and speak while filming. Hope you're having a good day.
I think he also meant 2 millennia instead of 2 centuries at 10:24
Review the 1964 film "The Fall of the Roman Empire." Big budget film that bankrupted a studio in Spain. Also starring Christopher Plummer.
Oh fun! This was my "comfort movie" I used to watch frequently (as background noise) in my teens and early 20s.
Same here! I would put it on to fall asleep to.
I love Gladiator, hell I love Kingdom of Heaven. But my god I wish Ridley Scott could just tell a historical epic without making up a bunch of nonsense. Believe it or not, the people who lived back then had interesting lives you don't need to spruce up for modern audiences.
I know what you mean. Scott’s historical films are visual masterpieces.. and I even enjoyed KoH for that .. but yeah…. He Prometheuses history
Rhe thing is, he doesn't write his movies. Unlike other big directors where it's really their project from conception to production, Scott is really just directing. The only project I can say he really put story notes into is the alien sequels, but even those he doesn't even have writing credits for. He literally just films what's written in the script. It's really the Hollywood writers at fault for any inaccuracies in the plot or history.
who cares. real history had pacing issues that i'm glad to do away with. i don't watch ridley scott epics to earn a history masters. i watch to be entertained. i read wikipedia to learn the facts later.
Check out The Last Duel - its extremely historically accurate compared to movies like this. Also Ridley Scott, really great movie and true story (dont spoil it just go watch).
Have you seen modern audiences? Have you seen the tripe that passes as a "Hollywood blockbuster" these days? Superhero movies, horrible retreads and reboots...its all very terrible. Any quality historical movie almost seems destined to flop because there isn't an all powerful character capable of taking on entire armies single handedly. It's extraordinarily disheartening
It is really great when you discuss the wider thematic context. Or the intentions of the writer/director in relation to the time and place the film was made.
Most historical based dramas are as much about the times they are made as they are about the time they depict.
I just discovered your channel. GREAT WORK!! THANK YOU ❤
Thank you for visiting.
This movie is my second favorite film of all time, right behind Disney's animated Brauty and the Beast.
I think part of the reason why is because this film was more so my introduction to Roman History so I watched this film before the cloud of historical inaccuracy rained down upon it. And purely as a film it's damn near perfect. Even more so when it comes to the extended version, my preferred version to watch. I can only think of two filmmaking mistakes in this movie which just goes to show how incredible this movie is despite those mistakes. It's a cinematic masterpiece and I wished more filmmakers today made Historical Epics like this.
i love that you're a student of film in addition to history. the backstory of the film's production can be just as illuminating as the history it's trying to portray.
Thank you for your videos. Your hard work is appreciated!
You're welcome!
Okay intro already darn good. Looking forward to watching this review.
Enjoy!
As a person who has seen my fair share of movies, i remember one amusing quote from my social studies teacher way back in 1976. "Movies are to make money to give a return on investment". Anything else within budget that can help sell the "product" so much the better. Cruel but dont expect the cinema to put out any historical film 100%. Some come close, but.... its about money. Just my 2 cents. Jared as always spot on review, no need to add anymore. Thanks.
nothing cruel about it. only a fool goes to movies looking for the truth. go for the entertainment and if you're that interested, read a book.
Great way to start the weekend. It was interesting to hear all the inaccuracies. Really enjoyed this video, thank you!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Love Gladiator. Love Historical Fiction books and movies.
To me the opening battle scene is the best depiction of the Roman army at war. The way that the barbarians surge forward, then back, shows a feature of many ancient engagements, the two armies spending hours or days facing off, making intimidating gestures, making noise, perhaps single combat taking place, etc. The professional Roman army of the Principate was the opposite, having an aggressive no-nonsense method of quickly and silently marching within javelin range, the with a sudden unsettling shout throw javelins and rush the enemy, all the while staying in precise formation.
They wouldn't use catapults in the forest. Also Barbarians weren't really uncivilized, despite what Romans thought that every not Roman was a savage, Barbarians were no strangers to body armor among other things, like the Teuton forest wouldn't have uniform single tree types, which was an artificial development after the XVI century, but a huge, dense variety
Excellent video! I am excited for this two part series. This movie was so exciting for me when I was young. Obviously this movie lacks historical accuracy, but as you have stated in the past, movies can still provide an opening for excitement into the subject area. Thank you for covering this movie.
Hope you enjoy it!
@@ReelHistory Would you consider doing a commentary on the TV miniseries I, Cladius (13 episodes, covering a time before Claudius' birth to his death? Derek Jacobi stars as Claudius, and I'm honestly curious to know to what extent they took historical liberties on that show.
I would love to see your breakdown of HBO's Rome series after this. I think you may have some valuable insights. Keep up the good work!
An English director makes a film about ancient Rome, filmed mainly in Europe (Morocco aside) starring an Antipodean Lead with a multicultural cast and this film is some how an allegory for 90's America. Nice one 👎🤌👏
This video made me want to see the professor's take on the 2 seasons HBO series Rome
I'll add that to our list
Making esoteric references to lines in Band of Brothers is the mark of a true historian in my book. I thought I'd be the only one thinking of Bill Guarnere's "Visigoths? Jesus Christ..." line for this movie.
We are in good company here.
Salve! I am a Roman Reenactor from California. 1st and 4th Century soldier. LEGIO II AVG, COH V. Great movie with some minor issue at the beginning of the movie. There was a nice posting of a guy who did the battle scene in the beginning of the movie. It was filmed in Ireland… small wooded area. The “snow” in the movie was 1/2 of the fire arrows going up by mistake… no CGI, real arrow machines…. Took months to make them and woosh, up burned up. The large Balista artillery fired over the set and way off the film lot. They turned them down but no go. Those are CGI…..
Kicking off my Saturday right!!
Thank you sir!!!
Just seen the thumbnail for this video - I think you nailed that one!!! Looking forward to part 2.
Jared is bringing me back to the good old cable TV days patiently (furiously) waiting for the next episode to be available! I feel ending it on the "Are you not entertained" clip was nothing short of audience abuse! 🤣 Honestly wasn't expecting this movie, but very much looking forward to part 2! 👍
I’d really love to see an episode breakdown of The Pacific.
34:07 Yes they would.....the movie was called the phantom menace :D........ Oh about grachi.....the live 250 years ago and not during the time this movie takes place.
I recall reading that gladiatorial combats may have been first introduced into Roman culture through the early Republic’s interaction with the neighbouring Etruscans. This is when Rome was a backwater city state still struggling for control of the Italian peninsula.
In the early days, gladiatorial combats were indeed small scale, usually witnessed by few people and often part of funeral rituals.
Fast forward to the time when gladiators were mainstream entertainment. This movie is not an accurate representation of these fights. Gladiatorial combat was stylised and played according to defined rules. Many bouts had referees in attendance. It is also a myth that every fight ended in a death. Gladiators were very expensive and if one was killed, the person sponsoring the games had to pay the gladiator’s owner for a replacement.
Nonetheless, as a film and a semi-mythological representation of Rome, Gladiator is a great piece of modern cinema.
Great video, I’d like to see more content covering ancient history.
Nice touch on Historiography So important in the study of History. In fact, so important that at Michigan, we were required to take it as part of our core curriculum for the major. History 300 was one of my favorite and most influential courses. .
This will be a good watch.
I hope you'll do a break down of the movie "A Bridge Too Far" in the future.
I believe it is planned for the future, I would guess 17th September?
I think of Gladiator as an entertaining movie that happens to be during a historical time, and they didn't let history get in the way of telling g a good story.
one small little deatil in the opening battle was overlocked in this review. when you see the roman cavalry riding through the forest you can see soldiers with long blonde hair under their helmets.
because the romans were not neccessarly famous for their good cavalry they often relied on germanic cavalry auxiliary.
About Maximus being a farmer, I'm not sure if people realise that members of the Senatorial class considered agriculture the only befitting occupation, and that engaging in business of any sort was considered prohibitively unseemly.
24:24
I find it really interesting that it's here where you bring up Stanley Kubriks Spartacus as I always felt that it was the specific shot of the gladiators looking up at the coliseum for the first time as the shot that most invokes the style of Kubriks Spartacus
I'd like to see a breakdown or examination of the British TV adaptation of the novel "I, Cladius".
It was produced in the early 1980s and is very much a product of its time and place.
34:30 that reminds me of my history classes in school, all they wanted to teach me about was crop rotation and the common prayer book but all I wanted to hear about was Hastings, Waterloo, Agincourt etc
Time to go rewatch Gladiator while I wait for part 2!
One thing nearly all get wrong is thumb down was to drop weapons, thumb up was to give the killing stroke and to this day in Italy thumbs up is like a middle finger is to us.
One of my favorite classes in college was a seminar on the Roman family. We would examine various sources (translated) and talk about domestic life. Mostly about the wealthy and slaves though, as the wealthy left behind most of the primary sources
I saw this movie in theaters when it came out. Ever since I still to this day use "Strength and Honor" in normal everday life.
"Have a good, buddy"
"Strength and Honor!"
Richard Harris was 68-69 while filming this movie. He looked WAY older than he was because of his rather wild lifestyle. So goes for Oliver Reed who was only 62 when he died. Making fun of the moviemakers for calling Maximus "Spaniard" then noting the Romans called the area "Hispania"...well the words are pretty close, aren't they?
Make Roam Great Again! Loved this movie when I was a kid. It holds up well.
Before I clicked the vid I yelled are you not entertained lol and thats the first thing you say lol 😂
You are clearly a person of good taste.
If you do HBO Rome.. I’d suggest Checking out Commentary…. Their history guys are on it and acknowledged and explain their reasoning
I loved the beginning battle for its cinematography and action, but a Roman Legion wouldn't disintegrate into a wild frenzy of one on one fights with the enemy as we see here, they would hold to their ranks and remain cohesive, in fact doing so is what made them so dangerous. Also a Roman cavalry unit would not attack through a forest, ever, lol. Dangerous for the horse which could trip and fall, they can't hold a cohesive unit or line which makes the impact of their attack weak. It just wouldn't happen this way ... but it sure looked good:)
Interesting theory, but this movie wasn't strictly made by Americans. It was made by a Brit and in Europe & like all of Ridley's films, has a Eourocentric P.O.V.. The original scripts were by Americans, but as I can tell by your comments, you know a ton was changed on set. Like, Crowe came up with "Strength and Honour", as that was his school moto as a kid!
I like to think if this movie as Rome's Greatest Hits. Lol. I know the opening battle isn't strictly accurate, but this was first movie where I felt the full power of the Roman army - that terrified so many for hundreds of years. Other movies, like Spartacus, just seemed like a bunch of marching around. Lol.
If you watch the Director's cut, it fills in a lot if the gaps (like showing it took much longer for Maximus to get from Germany to "Spain", with him camping on the way and sewing up his wound). Maybe check that version out for part 2?
Review the 1964 film "The Fall of the Roman Empire." Big budget film that bankrupted a studio in Spain. Also starring Christopher Plummer.
I can’t believe you missed the fact the Germanic warriors are chanting in Zulu…
I did mention that but it ended up on the editing room floor.
You said a mixture of Germanic tribes and "Samaritans". Did you mean Sarmatians?
Yes. A verbal slip on Jared's part. It is hard not to get tongue-tied at times.
re: Napalm - of course there was such a thing a Roman Fire but that's a few hundred years in the future and specifically in the Eastern Roman Empire.
10:24 I assume that Jared meant to say that "Gladiator" took place almost two *millennia* before "Saving Private Ryan."
I enjoy your channel but at time mark 10:25.... I think you mean 2000 years as opposed to two centuries. I was also disappointed in the stirrups on the calvary but I hadn't considered the safety of the actors. That is interesting.
You should do this for kingdom of heaven
Great suggestion.
As usual, a good job.
PS. I read that the type of tall wheat shown at the beginning and end, did not exist at the time.
Interesting point, I'll have to look into that
I consider this in the same vein as The Last Samurai. That being not for the history but for the visuals and scenes. Essentially it allows us to see what the world used to (somewhat loosely) looked like.
You're not wrong.
The Gracchi brothers were in the republic era not the imperial.
What’s in your wallet?!😂😂😂
I’d love to see a run down of Kingdom of Heaven with Orlando Bloom
I always wondered what made the battle scenes look so cool in Gladiator, some sort of effect, and I read/heard somewhere a while back that the effect was that some clips are shot in 60 fps (or higher than normal fps), compared to the regular movie frame rate of 24 fps.
Is that what you meant by "stop motion?" As far as I know, stop motion is actually using the camera like a photo camera, taking a single frame, shutting it off, moving your characters around, take another frame, etc. I messed with it with my parents big old 80s camcorder when I was a kid haha.
Never bought that a Roman noble could ever become a slave!
One thing that I feel is never reconciled is the fact that the audio of the Germainians is out-and-out STOLEN from the movie "Zulu!" The director took the easy way out and must have said "give me some 'tribal' chants" and they chose AFRICAN chants for the Germanians! Shame shame shame!
Hey Jared I see that you've been doing WW2 content lately. I was wondering if you've ever seen or would consider to viewing and reacting to "the fallen of WW2" by Neil holorun?
Thanks for the suggestion.
Would you ever consider reviewing The Alamo from 2004? One of the biggest box office bombs of all time but actually a pretty decent movie in my opinion.
Agreed!
12:45 I think the commentary for the film mentions that this idea is inaccurate within the world of the film.
I caught a funny mistake Jared made, he said Gladiator is set almost 2 centuries before the invasion of Normandy
We meant millennium of course.
Regarding the "napalm," would the Romans not have utilized Greek Fire?
Well, yes I was entertained. But that's what Hollywood and Ridley Scott do. The writers at Hollywood cobble together rough outlines of stories that are vaguely related to historical events and they get visual artists like Scott to get things looking very close to historic authenticity as viewed through 21st century eyes, but noone pretends it's History. It's not meant to be. It's entertainment.
That said, it's fun to pick holes in things, especially the glaringly obvious errors.
My biggest peeve with all sword and sandal movies involving the arena is the "thumbs up, thumbs down" rubbish. It's just plain wrong. The signal the crowd gave for clemency was to stand up, wave both arms upward from the waist to shoulder height and shout the Latin for LIVE (I think it was AVE, but I might be wrong, does anyone know?)
The signal for death was to raise your thumb and jab it towards your throat, shouting "mordez" or something similar meaning DEATH.
The second thing they always get wrong in Roman films is the style of fighting used by the legionnaires. They didn't wave their short fat swords over their heads, or even attempt to cut with them. They were stabbing swords, and that's exactly what they did. Their method of fighting was to hold the heavy scutum (shield) in front, covering themselves from chin to knee, hold the sword out to the right hand side and viciously stab the person diagonally to the right under his upraised arm, penetrating the rib cage. Then, because your mate on your left has done the same thing to the wally in front of you, you push him over with your shield, then smash the bottom edge of your shield onto his face, then stamp on him with your hobnail sandals. Job done, and onto the next barbarian. This was exhausting work, so you did your five minutes in the front rank, then the next rank moved up.
That's Roman war machine tactics, as per Marius' manual.
I can all be guaranteed you that Samaritans never fielded an army in Germania. Yes, they would fight the Romans, but in Roman occupied Israel.
Napalm? The Eastern Roman Empire had Greek fire. Generally speaking, the Roman Pilum was thrown. Given the opportunity, the Romans would have thrown at least one Pilum, assuming that they had multiple pila. They might then have used the remaining one as a spear. But close quarters combat like this really is what the gladius was for.
That was a slip up, meant to say Sarmatians. I'll put a quarter in the oops jar.
@@ReelHistory And I didn't know or I forgot that these Sarmatians were part of the Marcomani war. The Roman-Greek colonies in the Black Sea certainly had skirmishes with them along with more peaceful contact. Of course, the Sarmatians were first partly displaced by early Goths, which led to this conflict. Rome would have to deal with them again when the Huns displaced a large portion of them as well as Gothic peoples.
The only one to fight the corruption of the senate was: Julius Caesar. Father of the greatest man to ever live.
Caesar was embodiment corruption. Everyone knew it. Augustus was also a tyrant and a murderer. Julius Caesar is next to Adolf Hitler AFAIC. Read the letters of Cicero. Watching Caesar rise was like watching a slow motion tsunami destroy society… and no one could stop it…. I need to add.. obviously Caesar was keeping in a line of tradition long established to make promises to the poor so he can get power over his enemies..(EG Gracci brothers,). A tradition still held to this day.
I thought Maximus scrapped off the tattoo to conceal his identity, not so much to scrape away his old life.
The wheat is too short. It was longer back in those days.
Thanks for covering this! My Latin teacher in High School loved this movie and always recommended it to us. My BA is in Classics so when I finally got around to watching it, I realized how bad it is actually is. My biggest problem is that Galen isn't in the movie when he would've been the medic for the gladiators and Commodus. Oh well, at least it's entertaining!
You missed the part where he barbarians, taunting the Romans just before the battle, are literally using Zulu war chants from the movie “ZULU”. Still, the battle scene, in spite of inaccuracies, is my favorite part of the movie.
Indeed. We were aware but forgot to mention it. Sometimes we say so much we forget to point out the obvious.
What about Ben hur
I’m Spartacus
I’m Spartacus
That guys Spartacus
Do you see any allusions to Cincinnatus in the opening of Maximus dreaming of farming?
What I notice in any movie that has an empire, be it Roman or Galactic and all points between, is that the people are always English accented. I wonder why that is? I bet it's because the British empire is a known quantity that the average person can grasp. It's the most recent empire most people know of.
I always assumed (as an American) that it was to make the culture seem foreign while not requiring subtitles.
Would it be very likely that a relatively famous Roman General becomes suddenly a slave even after an assassination attempt? Roman Generals I thought were fairly high prestige positions.
Given the context of the script, it's a bit like what happened to Andy Dufresne at the end of Shawshank Redemption.
@@ReelHistory Its Hollywood where suspension of disbelief is the Ring that rules all.
The brothers Gracchi were not twins!
Oops. Did I say that?
Ralph Cifaretto will be pleased.
🤣
Why is the wheat so short?
o0o Fun!
When are you going to do Waterloo is the reel question??
Greek Fire maybe?
Why do that germanic warcry sound so familiar? 🤔
Blatant rip-off of Zulu.
@@Skfoster64 Oh yeah, I had a feeling that I heard it in another movie. Great movie as well.
@@Skfoster64 Not a rip-off. It was a Homage from Ridley Scott.
America is in desperate need of a Cincinnatus character.
2000? wow is this movie really that old? Hilarious how many people got worked up about the historical accuracy of this movie and I always laugh because i never watched it for that aspect.
It's a wonderful movie....but we gotta do what we gotta do here at Reel History
Can you do hbo John Adams miniseries
It is on the list!
Napalm? Have you not heard of Greek Fire?
Who would watch CSPAN when they could be watching MMA? Me. I would actually say I, Claudius is a more intriguing piece of Roman historical fiction than this. Also starring Derek Jacobi as Claudius, the actor who plays senator Gracchus in this.
Which was a fun insight for those if us who saw the film in theatres. Also, the casting was so good, those who knew his career knew Oliver Reed would've played Maximus if Gladiator had been made 1970 - and he would've been fantastic!
"2 centuries before WW2"? What?
I think he meant 2 milleniums. hahaha
I'll make sure Jared has some coffee before filming our next video, sorry about that. - Andrew
Jared here. I cringed when I heard myself say that after the video went live. A poor verbal slip on my part for which I ask everyone's apology!
I like your videos but I hate it when you pause the video and then put your face so you could explain something. You could just keep the video playing and speak in the background.
No, actually, I can't. Copyright strikes are a thing. Our videos barely skirt the line of avoiding them with how much we show.
If I have to watch one more movie that depicts pre-gunpowder warfare as a massive donnybrook of unorganized chaos, or that overplays fire munitions... Even the film based on Frank Miller's graphic novel "300" is more historically accurate than this turd. From Gladiator, to Braveheart, are just CRINGE to anyone that knows anything about ancient warfare. And when I watch Gladiator, several Mel Brooks jokes come to mind...
Hated it; every minute of it.