« Leftovers... | <__trans phrase="Main"> | Susan Boyle Got Second Place »
Naturally Rusty wins. The big German ringer is laying at Russell Crowe's feet and when JP gives a big thumbs down to Fritzy, Rusty tells him to cram it where the sun don't shine. This leads to another big face to face meeting in the middle of the Coliseum where JP tries to egg Rusty into trying to kill him, so Joaquin Phoenix's guards can kill Rusty. Only Russell Crowe isn't biting and he leaves the arena and makes JP look like an even bigger douche then he was before.
RC: Really? My band just put out a new CD
Both thinking to themselves: Jesus, what a loser.
Rusty has another meeting with JP's sister and tells her he's now on board with her "get rid of Joaquin Phoenix for the good of Rome" conspiracy. Then Rusty puts into action a plan that calls for the split second timing of the coordination of the Roman senate, his new gladiator buddies and his old legion that is like 200 miles away.
Unfortunately this plan involves neither screaming, yelling, cutting people's head's off while riding on a horse, or even rolling around in the mud. Joaquin Phoenix figures out in less time then it would take to solve this puzzle on Wheel of Fortune:
RUSSELL CROWE _S A N_TW_T.
Joaquin Phoenix kills a bunch of senators, Russell Crowe's old war buddy who was going to bring Rusty's old legion to Rome, Oliver Reed, pretty much all of Russell Crowe's gladiator buddies except for Moprah, and takes Rusty prisoner to boot. Not only that, but JP tells his sister if she doesn't start making with the hillbilly love he's going to kill her son.
So is that the end of the movie? Does Joaquin Phoenix win? Of course not, don't be silly. Why? Well for starters the movie is called Gladiator and not Batshit Crazy Incestuous Roman Emperor.
No, Joaquin Phoenix decides he needs to fight Rusty in the Coliseum in front of everybody in Rome. Now JP isn't a total idiot so he stabs Russell Crowe right before the fight, because how hard could it be to kill a guy who is bleeding to death?
Apparently it's harder then one would think, because even though Russell Crowe is on death's doorstep and we have to watch about 74 black and white scenes literally showing a door to the afterlife, Rusty is still able to shove a knife through Joaquin Phoenix's throat. (By the way this is an awesome ending for a movie and I wish more best picture winners would end this way. Oh and yes I am looking right at you Driving Miss Daisy. )
Rusty then drops dead and JP's sister comes down to the arena and tells everyone what a great guy Russell Crowe was and they carry his body off, and then Moprah goes home. The End
Here you have it, a movie with a lot of important lessons. Like playing to your strengths, especially if you just happen to be a gladiator and your strengths include screaming, yelling and stabbing. Also this is a movie that shows even with a great cast, a good story, and rich production values, it is still possible to tap into that crap goodness.


Comments (9)
I TOTALLY agree with you about this movie!! My main problem wasnt with movie of the year though, but with best actor. Now even though this movie sucked, I think that Tom Hanks' acting skills in Castaway were far better than Crowe's in gladiator. I even made a monologue about in drama class b/c I was so mad about how everyone LOVED Gladiater, and all I could say was "Meh". Glad I'm not the only one.
1 of 9 | Posted by purplex15 | Posted on May 30, 2009 12:25 PM
Oh, waffleboy, that was HILARIOUS.
This was a pretty good movie, but it was an effing GLADIATOR MOVIE, so how good could it be? Ben-Hur notwithstanding.
It's funny, but recapping decent movies can be just as funny as recapping bad movies.
2 of 9 | Posted by pixielated | Posted on May 30, 2009 6:46 PM
Hi purplex15,
Yep, Tom Hanks was awesome in Castaway. You have to be to pull off a movie with no dialogue for 15 minutes and where a volleyball should have got second billing. So I'd admit that Hanks had a slighly better performance then Russell Crowe that year, But I can live with Rusty taking the statue home; mainly because there have been years that the academy totally boned the family dog on the best actor award. Here are three off the top of my head.
In 1998 the award could have gone to Tom Hanks for Saving Private Ryan or Edward Norton for American History X and I would have been happy either one. Hell I would have been happy if they'd given the oscar to the kid parking the cars out front instead of Roberto Benigini for Life is Beautiful, and I'll let you all in on a little secret; nowadays the Academy would be tickled pink too. They pretty much caught a severe case of coyote love by the Govenor's ball when they passed out this one.
That was bad but in 1992 the Academy showed us that drinking and voting just don't mix (even though if you get enough nips in you that voting both starts to feel like Cheers). I would have given the Oscar to anyone on this list: Robert Downey, Jr for Chaplin, Clint Eastwood for Unforgiven, Steven Rea for The Crying Game, or Denzel Washington for Malcolm X. In short, I'd have given it to anyone but Al Pacino for Scent of a Woman. Okay, I wouldn't have actually given the Oscar out; I would have been chasing Pacino around the parking lot whacking him with a big stick until my arms got tired shouting "hoo haw! HOO HAW!!" *
And just to show you how long the Academy has been screwing this stuff up we can go back to 1982, when Ben Kingsley wraped himself in a bedsheet, sported a Lindsay Lohan insta-tan, did a damn near three hour immitation of Apu from the Simpsons and walked home with a gold statuette for Gandhi. Here are the performances the Academy passed on that year: Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie, Jack Lemon in Missing, Paul Newman in The Verdict and Peter O'Toole in My Favorite Year. Probably the strongest field in the decade and they managed to reward the weakest performance. Jesus, they would have done better drawing a name out of a hat.
Granted if I was looking at Crowe's and Hank's performances that year as an actor I might be a little more cranky about Rusty winning, but let's face it I like movies with tigers, pits and big honking Germans so I can live with it. Besides when you look at some of the years I mentioned it's not that bad, and sadly purplex, sometimes not that bad is as good as it gets.
Thanks for stopping by.
* And if I wasn't a bigger man I would have pointed out the Academy should have given the best actor oscar to Pacino in 1974 for Godfather II instead of to Art Carney for Harry and Tonto...man I don't think I'm ever going to be a bigger man.
3 of 9 | Posted by waffleboy09 | Posted on May 31, 2009 10:24 AM
Hi Pixeiated, glad you liked it. Just one thing, let's stop this irrational hating on gladiator movies. These movies aren't silly just because the actors douse their bodies in baby oil and try to turn their co-stars into steak tartare. No because you see when you look at movies like Alexander and Braveheart (and trust me, we'll be looking at both of these jewels), it's not the gladiating that makes them silly. It's the simple fact none of the male actors are wearing pants As my one boss told me right before he gave me my severance check, pants=seriousness.
Anyway, thanks for stopping by.
4 of 9 | Posted by waffleboy09 | Posted on May 31, 2009 10:32 AM
Loved the recap... even though I lost the Wheel of Fortune portion, as I didn't realize the first "t" was't part of the last word and added a different vowel. ;) For the life of me, I couldn't figure out what word "an_" would spell. D'oh!
While I do agree that Tom Hanks' performance in Castaway blew this whole movie out of the water, I did really buy the "sad panda face" scene. How many movies have a man sobbing (not the usual glistening eyes), let alone a man sobbing with snot running down his face, through his moustache and beard? Then again, maybe that's why I'll never be a part of the academy.
I do think they gave Crowe the Oscar for Gladiator, as they may have felt guilty for giving Kevin Spacey the Oscar for Amercian Beauty the prior year and overlooking Crowe's performance in The Insider. Don't get me wrong, Spacey was brilliant in AB, but I do think that Crowe was just that little bit better. Gladiator? Not so much.
And wow... I had forgotten just how badly the Academy had dropped the ball. Those 1998 and 1992 choices? Holy crap! Now I know why I don't normally watch the Oscars... although Hugh Jackman in a tux just may change my mind. ;)
5 of 9 | Posted by Devlin | Posted on June 1, 2009 10:55 AM
"JP: I'm thinking of becoming a rapper
RC: Really? My band just put out a new CD
Both thinking to themselves: Jesus, what a loser."
Best. Caption. Ever. I. Shit. My. Underwear.
Waffleboy, I LOVED this, perhaps we should suggest to Flipit that these need to go up on the recap side, not the news side, I don't think people are having enough opportunity to peruse them, and they're awesome.
BTW, this movie was like softcore porn for me, not because of the fighting, but because of all the nearly naked menzes in leather loinclothingzes. Awesome job!
love, J-Mo :)
6 of 9 | Posted by J-Mo | Posted on June 1, 2009 3:53 PM
Hi Devlin,
sorry about the spacing issue on the wheel of fortune puzzle. It was my first one, it's stuff like this that makes you appreciate just how good Pat and Vanna are at their job.
Russell Crowe was good in this movie, no doubt about it. If he doesn't have a great performance this movie isn't a hit; Hanks was just a little bit better. I think you're right, Crowe not getting an Oscar the year before had a little to do with him getting an Oscar in 2000, as did the fact Hanks already had two. That's the sort of stuff that the Academy does all the time, and it's why sometimes their picks are a little less then stellar.
Still after all the grief I've been giving the Academy, I do admit for the most part they do best job of passing out awards. Let's face it, if the yahoos who run the Grammys ran the Oscars, Then Twilight would be the most honored film in history.
Hugh Jackman in a tux is pleasant to look at, and I thought he did a pretty good job at the last one. Although maybe we should just give people what they want, put Hugh in a Chippendale's outfit and have him shake his grove thing until the end of the show. I bet the bitching about running long would drop down to practically nil.
Anyway Devlin, thanks for stopping by.
7 of 9 | Posted by waffleboy09 | Posted on June 3, 2009 9:14 PM
J-Mo! You Phee-Nominal human being you! I'm so glad you liked this one, and I'm honored you pooped yourself. That's the highest honor a writer can get. You know Dickens said it best when he said; "If somebody reads A Tale of Two Cities and doesn't end up with a pantload, then I didn't do my job right. Are the hookers here yet?" Okay, maybe he didn't say it exactly that way, or even remotely that way, but thanks for the complement.
There is plenty of prime beefcake on display in this movie J-Mo, but between this and Conan I'm starting to get the feeling that a fun night for you is to go to the big and tall store, and "just hang out."
I hadn't given the matter of these running over on the recap side much thought. One the one hand I like there being something new showing up in Moviegasm every week, even my crap ramblings. On the other hand I'd be a liar if I didn't say I want as many people to read these things as possible. Oh and to worship me as a god, and appease my wrath by throwing random Jonas Brothers into a volcano, that would be beyond awesome. Wait, what the hell were we talking about? Oh where to put these things? I don't know, that's up to Flipit. I'm just going to figure out how to only use 5,000 words to talk about Highlander.
Love you J-Mo!
8 of 9 | Posted by waffleboy09 | Posted on June 3, 2009 9:37 PM
By the way, if you just thought, "man if Rusty's wife and kid weren't in the movie anymore I bet we could have a pretty kickass action movie," then all I have to say is, hold that thought.
I almost spit my yogurt onto my computer, that was HILARIOUS. Great recap!
9 of 9 | Posted by dearcrabby | Posted on June 11, 2009 10:01 AM