Just saw this film, and came here to do a review on an epic style film with some pretty good historical accuracy, certainly more than most films about historical characters. Here, we are given an account of Julius Caesar's excursion into Gaul. Of course this is 60 BC, so we don't know if French men all sounded like Maurice Chevalier.
Nothing should surprise a person on the world wide web, and certainly nothing on IMDb should shock a person, but the ridiculous reviews that abound here are embarrassments to the people who wrote them.
This epic film worked on all levels. I am not easily entertained. Yet this smacked of old style epic directing, of de Mille, Lean, Ford, and others who knew how to sustain an audience's interest, who made films for the audience instead of insisting the audience be made for the film.
The film was well structured, full of action and drama, full of interesting characters. In fact, this is probably the most realistic looking representation of a couple of specific historical characters I have seen in film. To say more would be a spoiler.
The film had a few flaws. The child who plays the young hero is very wooden, and sounds like he is reading words. A few lines look contrived, particularly early. There is no real comic relief.
But the film flows very well, and has epic proportions. It is undeniably more entertaining than 90% of movies made after 1965. The characters seem alive and believable.
Of the famous modern directors, only Verhoeven and Jackson can rival this one with keeping an audience interested. They would have known the value of comic relief, too.
Now, for the real kicker. The ridiculous pans of this film that flood this site are a total humiliation for IMDb. This is an very good film. The low ratings make IMDb lose what little credibility it has.
And it reveals what we already know. That the main trouble with IMDb is that it is not representative of intelligent critics or of the populace. The fact is that IMDb, by its nature, is a site for many in the Entertainment business, and their relatives.
What we see here is "sour grapes". Some one in the cast or crew really got under the skin of a few people. And honestly, we do see proof to any rational mind that most of these "pan" reviews were written by one or two people with multiple fake user names.
How do we know? Because this film makes two mistakes in getting good reviews. First, it alienates the control freak. This is not a "control freak's" film. The control freak characters come across as control freaks. Look at IMDb's top 250, at the top 10. Most of them glorify and mollycoddle control freaks.
Don't underestimate the psychotic persistence of the control freaks. It's unfortunate that "mature" oriented films with "mature" and credible characters have to deal with this ridiculous rabid obsession of morons.
The other major reason for unprovoked poor reviews is that the film is very risk taking and iconoclastic. To say more is to be a spoiler again. Low ratings from the "sheep" of the world is inevitable for risk taking film makers.
The low ratings bespeak of IMDb users with severe psychotic conditions.
This is a very good film.
Nothing should surprise a person on the world wide web, and certainly nothing on IMDb should shock a person, but the ridiculous reviews that abound here are embarrassments to the people who wrote them.
This epic film worked on all levels. I am not easily entertained. Yet this smacked of old style epic directing, of de Mille, Lean, Ford, and others who knew how to sustain an audience's interest, who made films for the audience instead of insisting the audience be made for the film.
The film was well structured, full of action and drama, full of interesting characters. In fact, this is probably the most realistic looking representation of a couple of specific historical characters I have seen in film. To say more would be a spoiler.
The film had a few flaws. The child who plays the young hero is very wooden, and sounds like he is reading words. A few lines look contrived, particularly early. There is no real comic relief.
But the film flows very well, and has epic proportions. It is undeniably more entertaining than 90% of movies made after 1965. The characters seem alive and believable.
Of the famous modern directors, only Verhoeven and Jackson can rival this one with keeping an audience interested. They would have known the value of comic relief, too.
Now, for the real kicker. The ridiculous pans of this film that flood this site are a total humiliation for IMDb. This is an very good film. The low ratings make IMDb lose what little credibility it has.
And it reveals what we already know. That the main trouble with IMDb is that it is not representative of intelligent critics or of the populace. The fact is that IMDb, by its nature, is a site for many in the Entertainment business, and their relatives.
What we see here is "sour grapes". Some one in the cast or crew really got under the skin of a few people. And honestly, we do see proof to any rational mind that most of these "pan" reviews were written by one or two people with multiple fake user names.
How do we know? Because this film makes two mistakes in getting good reviews. First, it alienates the control freak. This is not a "control freak's" film. The control freak characters come across as control freaks. Look at IMDb's top 250, at the top 10. Most of them glorify and mollycoddle control freaks.
Don't underestimate the psychotic persistence of the control freaks. It's unfortunate that "mature" oriented films with "mature" and credible characters have to deal with this ridiculous rabid obsession of morons.
The other major reason for unprovoked poor reviews is that the film is very risk taking and iconoclastic. To say more is to be a spoiler again. Low ratings from the "sheep" of the world is inevitable for risk taking film makers.
The low ratings bespeak of IMDb users with severe psychotic conditions.
This is a very good film.