Tags

, , , ,

Last week I reviewed Braveheart a film that was fun and not historically accurate. Today I am going to review Gladiator. As I have mentioned historical inaccuracies generally do not bother me. However, For some reason today’s historical and royalty related movie does bother me because of its historical inaccuracies. As a royal enthusiast I really cringed with one of the premises of the movie. I also know that there are some people whose only information regarding historical events comes from watching Hollywood movies. That is not a good thing. Historical accuracy is not one of Hollywood’s best attributes. Despite the inaccuracies I really did enjoyed this film. The acting was very well performed, and it is a visually stunning film. I think it brings to life the time period better than any other film of its type. It is a great popcorn munching piece of eye-candy.

My main and only problem with the film is that at the end of the movie they would have you believe that the Empire was abolished and the Republic was restored. (Anti-monarchial sentiments?) But in reality that was not the case. The two emperors are historical figures who actually lived in real life. Emperor Marcus Aurelius ruled Rome from 161AD until 180AD, while his son, Commodus, excellently played by Joachin Pheonix, ruled from 180AD until his murder in 192AD. But hopefully most people are aware that there was not a restoration of the Roman Senate after the death of the emperor Commodus. The Empire in the West survived for another 284 years, while the Eastern, or Byzantine, Empire survived until 1453 when emperor Constantine XI was deposed by the Turks.

I think films such as this are good for capturing a way of life that can be hard for people to conceptualize, and they can also be an excellent impetus for investigating further into historical information.

Advertisements