5 May 2000

THE UGLY: Well, any Oscar® buzz for this movie is just patently absurd. I love Oliver Reed as much as any writer in America. I would have given him a Best Supporting Actor nod for The Adventures of Baron Munchausen in a heartbeat. He was brilliant. But this performance, because of the screenplay, is a one-off...a payday. Same with Harris. I have seen The Matrix...I know The Matrix and Gladiator is no Matrix. It's no Braveheart either. Nor is it Batman or Independence Day. It is better than Armageddon. I'd say the closest relation to this film is the first Mission: Impossible. It is compelling, beautiful and fun, but the story just gets caught in a quagmire of distraction.

And also ugly is that I will probably be branded a Gladiator-Hater for writing what I've written. You see, in this business, people expect you to be all-in or all-out. I like Gladiator. I do not love Gladiator. I look forward to seeing it again. But I never had that lift that I got sitting through some of the really fun rides of the last 20 years. I never felt truly surprised. I never really cared about anyone but the bad guy. And as we learned back in Die Hard 101 (really, Bond 101), the world's greatest villain is critical. But the good guy must be even better. John McClane (Wow! I just made that connection for the first time in my mind.) was every bit as cool as Hans Gruber. Bond could keep up with Ernst Blofeld. In this movie, the central character is so singular in his quest, so truly disinterested in the future of his nation, so obsessed with the father he lost in the first act, that the villain, who has a sick sense of humor, is more compelling than he. This movie is a Spielberg movie, but it is loaded with the black heartedness that Spielberg doesn't have. (Ironically, I believe that Temple of Doom is a great movie and that Spielberg's zeal for making the bad guys really bad, not any cynicism, is what got him into perceived trouble there.) And Gladiator suffers for it.

RADIO RADIO: I'm back in the saddle again. And this weekend, George and I will be joined by U-571 director Jonathan Mostow. Check it out on Saturday at 10am on KABC-790 in L.A. or on the web at kabc.com.

JUST WONDERING: If someone sends you an e-mail with "I Love You" in the title, apparently warning you about the new "I Love You" virus, do you open the warning or do you throw it out, thinking it may be the virus?

BAD AD WATCH: There are few quote whores quite as prolific as Maria Salas. Her mark is always the mark of excrement. And so, when she turns up on Viva Rock Vegas and I Dreamed of Africa, you just have to cringe. But while Sony outdoes themselves in that category by bringing Steve Oldfield, Omar Lugones and Bonnie Churchill to the party, Universal charts new waters, with Jeff Howard of "The Movie Guys With Jeff & Dave". Beauty dere. But perhaps my favorite pull-quote this week is for U-571, a movie which I really do like. But Universal marketing decided to just go ahead and say what they wanted to say. So they quote Pat Collins: "U-571 Is Not Just For Guys!" And I agree. But it is funny to see a header that doesn't use the words "best," "greatest," "love" or "rocked" that so clearly defines the message that the marketers need to get out there. Just for the record, if Gladiator is sold out, U-571 has a lot better chance of pleasing both parties in a date than I Dreamed of Africa would, even if it isn't bad at all.

READER OF THE DAY: PB & J writes: "The biggest problem I have at the movies is seat size. I'm over 300 lbs. and welcome the new "stadium-style" seating at newer theaters. But going to older theaters, like the local Landmark outlets (the only art-house theaters in town), can be extremely painful. I've missed a bunch of small-scale films that I was dying to see because the Hillcrest Cinemas, our best and newest Landmark, has seats that do not remotely accommodate my butt. The last time I went there, I walked out with armrest marks on my legs and a sore back. So I vote for mandatory "big-a**" seats. Also mini salt shakers for the popcorn, because you never get any salt in the middle of the bag."

And The King of Gaul writes: "There's one significant factor you've overlooked that will not allow Gladiator to reach the opening weekend heights of the two movies you mentioned. Both The Mummy and Deep Impact were PG-13. Remember, The Matrix, which was perhaps even more anticipated than Gladiator, and boosted by a trailer better (maybe the best ever, IMHO) than Gladiator's, opened with just over $27 million. Whether you think Gladiator is more accessible than The Matrix is a valid opinion, but the movie will still be hard pressed to approach the all-time May box office crown, despite its reviews (isn't it always "despite reviews"?) As for the mid-twenties prediction, I think the studio already printed up the press releases announcing the movie "exceeded expectations", so they set the bar lower.

E ME: You know, it's funny. I just had a ratings conversation with a friend yesterday about Gladiator and we both assumed that it had to be reaching for a PG-13. The Matrix was in more of a sleeper slot and it was hurt by that, long and short run, but an excellent point about ratings nonetheless. So, would you buy a ticket for a 13-year-old to see Gladiator? And as we all scream about creative freedom all the time, should DreamWorks have insisted that Gladiator be a PG-13 for commercial gain?