i just rented that movie-im serious-was that simply a “slasher” film disguised as an historical drama?
don’t tell me they were trying to create the realism of war, because after mel gibson witnessed his son shot to death and his home burned to the ground, and after he hatchets a man to death in front of his sons until he is covered by the guys blood, he still cracked jokes and acted like everythng was normal-
and then he is slashed repeatedley in the big scene by the british sadist (before he wins the fight of course), yet later shows absolutely no ill effects from these wounds-real wars leave real wounds, physically and psychologically-
so i conclude that this was basically a “slasher” film just like friday the 13th etc etc-hatchets in heads, cannon balls taking off heads and legs-
and that goes for gladiator too-gratuitous violence masquerading as a historical drama-
or am i wrong??? too sensitive? too old?

Not a “slasher” as that would be horror, more along the lines of an action film (e.g. Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, etc.)

And I found it very disappointing that they passed up several good chances to have Mel take off his shirt.