Pompéi

In 79 A.D., a Celtic tribe of horsemen is slaughtered by the Roman Senator Corvus (Kiefer Sutherland), his right-hand man Proculus (Sasha Roiz) and their army. The boy Milo is the only survivor that is captured later and sold as slave. Seventeen years later, the slave Milo (Kit Harington) turns into an invincible gladiator in a province and is brought to Pompeii to participate in the games in the arena. While walking to Pompeii, the noble Cassia (Emily Browning) and her chaperone Ariadne (Jessica Lucas) cross with the path of the slaves and Cassia is fascinated by Milo. He shares the cell of Atticus (Adewale Akinnuoye- Agbaje), who is near to get his freedom depending on winning his last fight. Meanwhile Cassia meets her parents Severus (Jared Harris) and Aurelia (Carrie-Anne Moss) and learns that she has been betrothed to the corrupt Senator Corvus that is pressing her parents to marry her. During the games, the Mount Vesuvius erupts and Milos and his friend Atticus succeed to escape from the arena. But Milo wants to save his beloved Cassia in the middle of the chaos and the Romans.

"Pompeii" is a full of action and dull romance in the tragic environment of the last days of Pompeii. Disaster movies were popular in the 70's ("Airport", "The Towering Inferno", and "Earthquake" among others) and Paul W.S. Anderson returns to the genre after "Titanic". The entertaining story is silly with poor lines and dialogs, but never boring. Kit Harington, the "Jon Snow" from "Games of Thrones", makes it worth to see at least on DVD. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Pompeia" ("Pompeii")

This was a complete waste fo time. Here are the main reasons:

1. The performance by the main characters was very poor and artificial. 2. The director did a bad job, as did the editor. 3. The main story is weak and uninspired. There are clichés all over the place. Dialogue is poor and boring. The whole story is completely dubious and it is hard to take the movie seriously. 4. Historically speaking, the film sacrifices the real events that occurred for the sake of extra special effects. The fact that two cities were destroyed before anything got to Pompeii is ignored completely. The 'fire rain' on Pompeii also never happened, as did the tsunami. It simply made no sense to add everything but the kitchen sink into this movie. 'The Gladiator' was fictional, but it never claimed to be anything else. This film claims to be based on real events, when it clearly isn't in the most important aspects of what happened that day. In Pompeii, people died because they inhaled the smoke, not because fire rained down on them or tsunamis washed them away. The arena (stadium) was never destroyed by the earhquake and it still stands in Pompeii to this day. Dubious to the extreme.

Overall very very poor.

Many people are out there saying it's "historically inaccurate", it's "a remade of gladiator WITH A VOLCANO!" and a very cliché film. but I'm saying it is a really good movie on it's own, considering that this IS A DISASTER MOVIE. And in many aspects this is better than 2012, Volcano, or other movies like these. For starters, there is an actual plot to the movie before the volcano erupts.

Other things I liked:

• The gladiatorial theme is well presented. You can see people who hate being a gladiator, people who are just waiting for their freedom, people who believe they are gods in the arena, and so on, and you can watch how the majority of Romans loved these shows, but some didn't. You can make yourself an idea of the weather of that theme.

• The romance is believable. I mean, it happens very fast, but it's not Disney's "Real Love" They are just two people who LIKE each other caught in the massive chaos of a volcano, not much more.

• the special effects are plain awesome! Not only the gigantic explosion and lava bombs, and tsunamis. Also the small things, like the views of the city in the background, and the aerial shots.

• The city was amazing. People complain "Pompeii is not a port city" Well, actually it WAS, but the eruption changed the shape of the coastline. And the fact that THAT city shown in the movie WAS Pompeii. They actually shoot in place and then recreated the city out of the remainings using CGI. So the grid shape, the walls and everything is in place just as it was 2000 years ago. Archaeologists have in fact praised the director for his recreation of the city

• the volcano. It's the star of the movie without a doubt. It seems to have almost a personality. The way the eruption happened was very close to what actually happened. Some artistic liberties were made for the sake of entertaining. You won't be seeing any clichéd lava river because Mount Vesubius doesn't work that way.

• The ending. It was amazing. I can't spoil it for you, but making it in any other way would have damaged the quality of the film.

• The acting. It was really good for what I was expecting. Milo surprised me a lot, because I could really believe him as a lead man. The girl also. She seemed so plain in photos, but once the movie started I could say she nailed the part perfectly and was by no means just "miss fanservice", as girls in these kinds of movies tend to be. The real surprise was Atticus. The actor totally stealed the movie for himself in every scene, something that was perfect for an invicted champion in the peak of his gladiatorial career.

What didn't I like? The fact that the other famous city in the vicinity of Vesubius(Herculaeum, I think it's called) wasn't showed in the aerial shots. I mean, obviously the movie would be to complicated if we include it in the plot, but an aerial cameo of this other city would have been a fine addition to the movie, and would have improved the accuracy of it.

I think most peoples and my main issue with the film is the subject matter. Everyone has seen the events of pompeii on screen many times and hence the plot and ending are no surprise, so we must be entertained by only the visuals and some sort of love story. The acting and directing were mostly fine. Kit Harrington and Emily Browning were passable and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje put in a noteworthy performance. The visuals and effects were by far the best aspect and kept the film very watchable and enjoyable to an extent throughout. The script was poor and most of the usual disaster movie clichés appeared at some point or other but in no way was it as awful as in say, 2012. Overall its probably not something to see at the cinema, but probably worth a watch on DVD or TV at some point. 5/10

Let's start with the positive: the movie looks great, the visuals and effects really work. Little else does, though. The cast acts wooden, the story is predictable and boring, borrowing many elements from Gladiator and the end is cheesy as hell. Overall a real waste of time.