|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: ps- Your definition of "historical Rome" vs Roman history is nonsense- and you know it. posted by john dem on January 24, 2002 at 06:34:35:
... "based on or suggested by events of the past" as in a historical novel and "famous in history" as in occuring in a place such as HISTORICAL ROME (now often shortened to the word historic, but it applies the same emphasis). Furthermore, the word "historical" is an adjective used to limit or qualify the noun which follows it. Sheeeesh! It never occured to me that I'd be required to provide lessons in grammar in order to defend a good movie! My intent was simply to suggest why Gladiator is a fine, enjoyable film that's rich in detail in spite of the liberties it takes with the protrayal of historical and fictional characters. If you weren't entertained by it, that's not my problem.AuPh
Follow Ups:
I really ought to use smiley faces more often-8--> ~)D..bah.......humbug !
Anyway- I didn't say I didn't like the film- I did !
I really like Oliver Reed (the world has lost a truly dedicated drinker- and a fine actor)and Richard Harris and Russel Crowe. (As far as Spartacus goes- it was ok but Kirk just does not convince)
I don't mind seeing big- budget blockbusters- they are films to be enjoyed or not based on whatever criteria you choose.
It was colorful- had a hero and a villain- had some plot, the underdog triumphed even though he died in the end- good ol' Hollywood fare.
You don't have to give grammar lessons- but don't expect that a film like Gladiator should be judged on its accuracy- leave that out of it.
And your defense of your use of historical is hysterical.
nyuk nyuk nyuk
Yeah, at times it's hard to pick up on the virtual tongue-in-cheek, especially after feeling obliged to rain on Victor's tirade, but it was fun sparring with ya anyway. :o)Cheers,
AuPh
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: