supershaman
Iscritto in data feb 2002
Ti diamo il benvenuto nel nuovo profilo
I nostri aggiornamenti sono ancora in fase di sviluppo. Sebbene la versione precedente del profilo non sia più accessibile, stiamo lavorando attivamente ai miglioramenti e alcune delle funzionalità mancanti torneranno presto! Non perderti il loro ritorno. Nel frattempo, l’analisi delle valutazioni è ancora disponibile sulle nostre app iOS e Android, che si trovano nella pagina del profilo. Per visualizzare la tua distribuzione delle valutazioni per anno e genere, fai riferimento alla nostra nuova Guida di aiuto.
Distintivi2
Per sapere come ottenere i badge, vai a pagina di aiuto per i badge.
Recensioni3
Valutazione di supershaman
Roger Corman has an unusual reputation. He has produced or directed a large number of "cheapie" movies--including this one, which was shot in Russia(per the DVD commentary, even the interior shots were done on soundstages in St. Petersberg).
Sometimes, one just doesn't feel like some sort of heavy-duty, call-to-action movie--say, like "Spartactus"(1963). On the other hand, if you feel like being entertained, "Arena"(2001), is likely to "hit the spot" very nicely. Just like a lot of Roger Corman's films.
The fact of the matter is that, surprisingly, the screenplay is well-crafted and not as goofy as you might think. The Romans did try to implement their customs wherever they conquered--including the contests of the gladiators as they were being performed in the Great Coliseum in Rome. And there was even a disastrous attempt to perform them in Greece(the Greeks rioted because of the carnage). Female gladiators--while unusual--were not unknown and some of them even appeared in "Gladiator" with Russell Crowe. A wooden, scaled-down clone of The Great Coliseum in Rome is not only possible, it is likely that there were hundreds of them in the forested frontier regions of the Empire.
A nice, fun movie for an evening's entertainment.
But you could say the same thing about other movies from Roger Corman, notably "The Undead"(1957) and "The Dunwich Horror"(1969). Incidentally, many of today's movies are just that--entertainment--and, IMO, no apologies are necessary.
Movies with "a message" are not--and should not be--the only alternative.
Sometimes, one just doesn't feel like some sort of heavy-duty, call-to-action movie--say, like "Spartactus"(1963). On the other hand, if you feel like being entertained, "Arena"(2001), is likely to "hit the spot" very nicely. Just like a lot of Roger Corman's films.
The fact of the matter is that, surprisingly, the screenplay is well-crafted and not as goofy as you might think. The Romans did try to implement their customs wherever they conquered--including the contests of the gladiators as they were being performed in the Great Coliseum in Rome. And there was even a disastrous attempt to perform them in Greece(the Greeks rioted because of the carnage). Female gladiators--while unusual--were not unknown and some of them even appeared in "Gladiator" with Russell Crowe. A wooden, scaled-down clone of The Great Coliseum in Rome is not only possible, it is likely that there were hundreds of them in the forested frontier regions of the Empire.
A nice, fun movie for an evening's entertainment.
But you could say the same thing about other movies from Roger Corman, notably "The Undead"(1957) and "The Dunwich Horror"(1969). Incidentally, many of today's movies are just that--entertainment--and, IMO, no apologies are necessary.
Movies with "a message" are not--and should not be--the only alternative.
For a relatively young, post-war Boomer like myself, this spellbinding movie poses a question which is more fascinating than Hitler himself ever was. Out here in ultra-liberal California, why do we still pay any attention to this guy? He died in the Bunker in Berlin on April 30, 1945, five years before I was even born.
Over the years, I've seen multiple object lessons on the benefits of tolerance and the sheer self-destructiveness of intolerance. I've seen everything improve from my love-life to my job prospects, as I have become more tolerant, more "easy-going" over the years.
Maybe it's because World War Two is one of the cases in which good really did vanquish evil.
On the other hand, maybe there is something mesmerizing about mental pathology, or at least the type that this neurotic SOB had. This guy was no BS-ing Spiro Agnew, no sobbing Jimmy Swaggart, he was the "real deal", a man who truly did the devil's work. And yet, who coolly maintained a distance between his person and the "Final Solution to the Jewish Problem". An animal-loving, sentimental vegetarian who loved bloody war. A raging maniac who revelled in his own anger, but who never himself killed anyone in civilian life. An adherent of "physical culture" who was sallow-skinned and infected with syphilis. A charismatic figure who spent his private life in an odd sort of solitude. A man who lived for a "glorious" past, but whose operatives created jet airplanes, robot bombs and the first ballistic missile, majorly contributing to the Twentieth Century which he so detested.
Yeah, sometimes pathological men are entertaining. And this movie tells us something about him and a great more about ourselves. Research on the Third Reich itself can become a form of conquest.
Over the years, I've seen multiple object lessons on the benefits of tolerance and the sheer self-destructiveness of intolerance. I've seen everything improve from my love-life to my job prospects, as I have become more tolerant, more "easy-going" over the years.
Maybe it's because World War Two is one of the cases in which good really did vanquish evil.
On the other hand, maybe there is something mesmerizing about mental pathology, or at least the type that this neurotic SOB had. This guy was no BS-ing Spiro Agnew, no sobbing Jimmy Swaggart, he was the "real deal", a man who truly did the devil's work. And yet, who coolly maintained a distance between his person and the "Final Solution to the Jewish Problem". An animal-loving, sentimental vegetarian who loved bloody war. A raging maniac who revelled in his own anger, but who never himself killed anyone in civilian life. An adherent of "physical culture" who was sallow-skinned and infected with syphilis. A charismatic figure who spent his private life in an odd sort of solitude. A man who lived for a "glorious" past, but whose operatives created jet airplanes, robot bombs and the first ballistic missile, majorly contributing to the Twentieth Century which he so detested.
Yeah, sometimes pathological men are entertaining. And this movie tells us something about him and a great more about ourselves. Research on the Third Reich itself can become a form of conquest.
This is a particularly fine film, but the other users missed an item that I would like to mention.
Namely, communism or, rather, the specific type of communism which was practiced within the old Soviet Empire, was a subtle poison to the human spirit.
In a critical scene, just before the fatal run across the border, the Circus manager questions a roustabout about his betrayal of his community(the Circus) and everyone whom he ever knew there. This man, with a straight face, announces that he and the other manual laborers are the heart and essence of the circus. Along with the movie audience, the manager(played by veteran actor Frederick March) is shocked that anyone could convince himself that people come to see him and his fellows, not the aerialists, not the lion tamer nor even the clowns.
There are no paranoid political rants here, but that form of communism is "busted" for its "divide and conquer" tactics. People took appalling risks to flee communism and this film gives the viewer part of why they were willing to take them. I couldn't imagine then and I can't imagine now that "a higher standard of living" was the reason for this.
Namely, communism or, rather, the specific type of communism which was practiced within the old Soviet Empire, was a subtle poison to the human spirit.
In a critical scene, just before the fatal run across the border, the Circus manager questions a roustabout about his betrayal of his community(the Circus) and everyone whom he ever knew there. This man, with a straight face, announces that he and the other manual laborers are the heart and essence of the circus. Along with the movie audience, the manager(played by veteran actor Frederick March) is shocked that anyone could convince himself that people come to see him and his fellows, not the aerialists, not the lion tamer nor even the clowns.
There are no paranoid political rants here, but that form of communism is "busted" for its "divide and conquer" tactics. People took appalling risks to flee communism and this film gives the viewer part of why they were willing to take them. I couldn't imagine then and I can't imagine now that "a higher standard of living" was the reason for this.