Pompeii (4 Stars)

I read mixed opinions about this film before I went to the cinema today. Normally before I go to see a film I check out what film critics are saying. The reviews of critics are usually safe, because they're professional enough to steer away from spoilers. I always avoid reading the Wikipedia article about a film before seeing it, because it almost always gives a full plot description, including the ending. The critics vote roughly 2-1 against the film. Since the film was released two months ago in America I was also able to check the user ratings on Amazon.com for the film, and it seems that the general public is evenly divided on whether they like it or not.

As my four star rating already tells you, I liked the film when I saw it. In fact, of the people who went to see the film with me -- I went to see it with the Birmingham film club -- we all liked it, although one of us had reservations. I'm prepared to defend my opinion of the film against those who hate it, but I'll admit its weaknesses.

We all know the story of Pompeii. It was destroyed in 79 AD when the nearby Mount Vesuvius erupted. It was the most thorough destruction of a city by a volcano that has ever been recorded. I was shown pictures when I was in junior school, and during my studies of Latin in grammar school I returned to the topic. There are no immediate eye witness reports, because nobody survived. A historian known as Pliny the Younger wrote the following report, which is quoted in the film:

You could hear the shrieks of women, the wailing of infants, and the shouting of men; some were calling their parents, others their children or their wives, trying to recognize them by their voices. People bewailed their own fate or that of their relatives, and there were some who prayed for death in their terror of dying. Many besought the aid of the gods, but still more imagined there were no gods left, and that the universe was plunged into eternal darkness for evermore.

However, we have to remember that this is not a report from Pompeii itself. Pliny was in Misenum, about 20 miles away on the other side of the Bay of Naples. He is obviously not describing the screams in Pompeii itself, but the lesser suffering around him, which was restricted to dark clouds and falling ashes. I also have a suspicion that he was dramatising his account of the disaster, making it more appealing through exaggeration.

Due to this lack of a first hand account, I knew before I entered the cinema that the bulk of the film would be a work of fiction, leading up to the destruction itself. I reject any criticism of the film based on the accuracy or the relevance of what happened before the disaster. This part of the film is story-telling, and it's what is needed to separate it from documentaries of the disaster.

The film's fictional part is a classic love triangle, such as we already know from disaster films like "Titanic", "Pearl Harbor" and "Dresden". Love triangles always make good stories, whatever the variations. They're something that people can relate to. And love triangles go well with disasters. Doomed love. That's something that can evoke tears from the hardest of men. The film tells the story of a young slave captured from a tribe of horse-keeping Celts in northern Britannia. His name is Milo, but as a gladiator he's called "The Celt", because the Romans claim that he is the last Celt left alive. He falls in love with a noble lady from Pompeii, Cassia, who is being pursued by a Roman senator called Corvus. The triangle is complete.

The gladiatorial scenes are so similar to "Gladiator" that the film could almost be accused of plagiarism. Almost? Maybe some of the critics do make this accusation, but I reject it. The life of a gladiator and the scenes he had to portray were doubtlessly similar from one city to another over the centuries, so there's no shame in showing similar scenes.

The disaster itself is stunningly filmed. The horror of destruction is brilliantly portrayed in the panic of the people while fire is raining down from the skies. Just as in "Titanic" we see small vendettas being played out in the middle of the devastation, as if people care more about killing others than saving their own lives. It's impossible to underestimate the depths of evil.

So what is my main criticism of the film? Simple. It was too short. The romance should have been stretched out for an extra hour. It should have been a three-hour film like "Titanic", "Pearl Harbor" and "Dresden". We could have had a passionate night in Milo's cell; it was a usual practice for noble ladies to pay to visit the gladiators. We could have seen Cassia tearfully submitting to Corvus in order to do the best thing to help her parents. Maybe more gladiatorial training and an extra fight. "Pompeii" is a good film, worth watching at least once, but it doesn't measure up to the other three films, in quality or in length.

Before I went to the film I went to McDonald's to try one of their new double cheeseburgers. I don't care what anyone else says, I enjoy eating at McDonald's. I don't visit their restaurants often, but I consider their food to be good and nutritious, whatever the haters say. However, yesterday I was disappointed. The burger that I ate yesterday at the McDonald's branch in Birmingham's Paradise Forum was virtually tasteless. I don't know what they did wrong, but if it had been my first visit to McDonald's I would never have gone again.