Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just saw Pompeii. This is not a good movie either as cinema or history. If you are looking for a mindless action flick that pastes on a gaudy veneer of history with a putty knife...you might like to get it for a buck from red Box. It has no higher quality at all. I want to stay away from specifics so that I do not spoil for those who are going to see it one way or another but here are some observations:
1) Not even an attempt at historical content. It is as if it was written by someone who does not particularly like history. I knew we were in trouble when the movie starts out during the "revolt of the Celtic horse People." Well who the hell are they? It is like the script writer could not be bothered to pick up a copy of THE CONQUEST OF GAUL to pull a name such as the Nervii or the Helveti. Perhaps the writer did not even know that Romans had writers who recorded details about various peoples.
2) After a Braveheart-esque massacre of the hero's family when he is a boy (actually, it reminded me of nothing so much as the original CONAN THE BARBARIAN) he becomes a gladiator known as "The Celt." Again, it is not really plausible that he would have self-identified as such. The fighting is all wrong with lots of fancy sword play rather than bullying with the shield as they actually did in the era. Real gladiators were fat to protect against sword thusts- I know they can't have a fat guy in the role, but his rock hard abs were just damned annoying.
3. Once that is established, it becomes a series of other sword -and-sandle movie tropes loosely stitched together- the plucky noble girl love interest, the Roman baddie, the ethnic partner. There is no character development what-so ever. It is as if the writers trust that we have seen this so often before we know who to root for and hiss at.
4) One scene is an abject, naked steal from Gladiator.
5) Everything in the movie is damned implausible. For example, the hero, in a two day period, gets in a violent fight, is lashed 15 times with a whip, is set up in a gladiator-esque arena massacre which he must kill a dozen fighters, is paired in another individual combat, and still has enough juice left to go get the bad guy.
6) The dialog is very poor.
7) The only nod at history is a mention of Emperor Titus- who they embarrassingly mention as a corrupt man. Titus of course was known for his bravery, piety, and generosity.
8) The digital effects were..well...digital effects. They are fun for what they are, but at no point during the eruption do you feel like you are watching anything other than a cartoon.
9) There was a nice touch a the end.
10) Robert Harris, a famous and well beloved author, has written a vastly superior novel about Pompeii. I really wish they would have bought the rights and used it as a template, as it had a lot of the history and human element that this one lacked.
Again, as a Saturday night rental for a buck-sure. As a decant piece of historical fiction or cinema....
BOMB
I agree with almost everything you've mention, saved for one thing; they did a heck of a job portraying Pompeii as it actually may have been, in its heyday. Last year I had the fortune to go there. So while I was a the movie theater, I was having a blast recognizing the places that I've visited just months ago.
But again, who goes to the movies expecting to learn actual history? To me, movies are a really good way to get cheap entertainment. Never in life, would I expect that in a flick, I'd get to learn snitching about actual facts.
For that, thank god we've books.
I agree with almost everything you've mention, saved for one thing; they did a heck of a job portraying Pompeii as it actually may have been, in its heyday. Last year I had the fortune to go there. So while I was a the movie theater, I was having a blast recognizing the places that I've visited just months ago.
But again, who goes to the movies expecting to learn actual history? To me, movies are a really good way to get cheap entertainment. Never in life, would I expect that in a flick, I'd get to learn snitching about actual facts.
For that, thank god we've books.
Glad you got to see the real place. I heard that it actually is an endangered site for one reason or another. I suppose that it is a plus for the movie.
Lots of people are making the argument about Pompeii and 300 that they are meant to be movies, and not history. I understand the argument, but:
A) Why not make movies about the actual history when it is much more interesting. As someone noted, this was an event in which you had a desperate navel rescue attempt by Pliny the Elder...not interesting enough? We have to have gladiators instead.
B) If you are going to spend the money to have a historical backdrop, why not have some real history?
C)I think people might like to see dome real history.
Glad you got to see the real place. I heard that it actually is an endangered site for one reason or another. I suppose that it is a plus for the movie.
Lots of people are making the argument about Pompeii and 300 that they are meant to be movies, and not history. I understand the argument, but:
A) Why not make movies about the actual history when it is much more interesting. As someone noted, this was an event in which you had a desperate navel rescue attempt by Pliny the Elder...not interesting enough? We have to have gladiators instead.
B) If you are going to spend the money to have a historical backdrop, why not have some real history?
C)I think people might like to see dome real history.
I agree with you, real life surpasses fiction by a landslide.
Myself, I'd love to go see a film about actual history as well. Perhaps the movie makers think most of us wouldn't pay to see a historical film, perhaps they're right for the most part, who knows.
I used to get bother by movies like 300 or Titanic, until I realized, that if I wanted a story with real content, I'd be better off recreating it in my mind while reading a book.
I agree with you, real life surpasses fiction by a landslide.
Myself, I'd love to go see a film about actual history as well. Perhaps the movie makers think most of us wouldn't pay to see a historical film, perhaps they're right for the most part, who knows.
I used to get bother by movies like 300 or Titanic, until I realized, that if I wanted a story with real content, I'd be better off recreating it in my mind while reading a book.
Cheers
Speaking of Aztecs....
One movie I would love to see is the war between the Mexica/Aztecs and the Purepecha/Tarascans. it could focus on the obsession of Axacayatl to beat them despite the terrible costs, and demonstrate the glories, passions, obsessions...the epic story of the people's of the Americas before Comulmbus.
Yeah, I will hold my breath. But wouldn't it be great?
Glad you got to see the real place. I heard that it actually is an endangered site for one reason or another. I suppose that it is a plus for the movie.
Lots of people are making the argument about Pompeii and 300 that they are meant to be movies, and not history. I understand the argument, but:
A) Why not make movies about the actual history when it is much more interesting. As someone noted, this was an event in which you had a desperate navel rescue attempt by Pliny the Elder...not interesting enough? We have to have gladiators instead.
They do.
Quote:
B) If you are going to spend the money to have a historical backdrop, why not have some real history?
They do.
Pompeii wasn't meant to be realistic in anyway. It's clearly just supposed to be a silly movie based on what I've seen from the trailers. Pompeii is just used as a setting for what ever crappy story the screen writers came up with.
300 isn't a good example either, because 300 actually is an accurate adaption. 300 is based on a graphic novel that was written by Frank Miller. Now of course, the actual graphic novel in itself is highly ludicrous, but I think the 300 movie does a decent job at capturing Frank Miller's over the top comic. 300 (the comic) wasn't supposed to be historically accurate.
Pompeii wasn't meant to be realistic in anyway. It's clearly just supposed to be a silly movie based on what I've seen from the trailers. Pompeii is just used as a setting for what ever crappy story the screen writers came up with.
300 isn't a good example either, because 300 actually is an accurate adaption. 300 is based on a graphic novel that was written by Frank Miller. Now of course, the actual graphic novel in itself is highly ludicrous, but I think the 300 movie does a decent job at capturing Frank Miller's over the top comic. 300 (the comic) wasn't supposed to be historically accurate.
Accurate films about the ancient world are extremely rare.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
