Gladiator

Rating:
Summary: This film reeks of cheese!
Review: I was excited to see Gladiator, I really was. I expected a lot from the man who gave us Alien. Then I actually saw it and thought to myself, what a waste of money (I'm talking about the film, not my six bucks). In the first battle, the film takes a decidedly "Hollywood" turn. The battle is shot in a mixture of slow motion and blurred shots that leave everything to the imagination and leaves you hanging before the movie's hackneyed plot even begins to unfurl in its oh so predictable manor. Compared to Braveheart, Gladiator's battles are nothing more than campy and predictable fight scenes ala John Woo films. The acting and the characters are paper thin. Rather than come across as a mean-spirited monarch, Juaquin Phoenix (who's bad in any movie) simply acts like a whiny baby and spends the whole movie trying to get into his sister's pants. Russel Crowe (pure window dressing) acts like a typical Russel Crowe and spends the movie rather void of emotion. In Ben Hur, you could see and believe the anger and fury in Charlton Heston's face when he was framed by his best friend. In Gladiator, Crowe looks like he's trying to remember whether or not he left the oven on. The best performance in the movie by far comes from veteran actor Richard Harris. Unfortunately, he's not in it for too long. The film is basically a carbon copy of oscar winning epics such as braveheart. Man loses someone close to him and is forced into a position he doesn't want to be in. He goes up agains tremendous odds, triumphs, earns the respect of his people, and dies in the end, and right before he dies, Crowe sees a vision of his deceased family (Braveheart anyone?). If you're looking for a good Roman epic. Wait until March when Ben Hur comes out on DVD.

Rating:
Summary: the best of a disappointing year in films.
Review: i thoroughly enjoyed this film when i saw it in the theatres and when i saw it later on DVD. i also enjoyed the extras, and was wondering why some of those scenes were left out, like the meeting between the senators and priscilla's character. it really showed the importance of what was going on. i thought the lion-mauling-a-boy-scene was pretty stupid though and glad that it was left out. it should have been left out of the deleted scene selection. but in any case, even now in december, without having seen crouching tiger, hidden dragon yet, gladiator is still the best movie of the year and i hope it is well honored at the oscars.

Rating:
Summary: garbage
Review: this movie totally sucked --- someone else agreed on here so i`m not alone--the dialogue the plot everything is ridiculous but i agree too- all the hype had me expecting something great-- not one scene was any good and nothing that even approached that chariot scene from ben hur and that was made a million years ago --- nothing was convincing or beleivable or exciting or anything---hated it ! rip off !

Rating:
Summary: Six Degrees of Historical Separation
Review: When I first saw the battle scene and heard the battle cry of the Germania barbarians, I had to replay that scene a couple of times to make sure of what I was hearing. I thought that somehow a soundtrack from another movie made in 1964 had been accidentally included with this film. The 1964 movie I'm referring to is called "Zulu" and is based on an actual battle in January of 1879 between British troops and Zulu warriors in South Africa.

So based upon this "historically inaccurate" event, what are we to deduce? That the Zulu nation of 1879 used the same war cry as the Germanic tribes of 180 A.D. because they were somehow descendents and migrated from North Central Europe to South Africa?

I wonder if the same people responsible for this gaffe had worked on "Zulu", if they would have had the Zulu warriors yelling "Banzai"?

"Gladiator" was OK. I probably had preferred that Commodius had been dispatched as he actually had been from the historical point of view, and that Maximus had escaped, been reunited with his army and returned to Rome to battle Quintus and then found out he had been cheated out of his revenge with Commodius.

Another point between "Zulu" and "Gladiator" - in 1964 there were no computer enhancements done for "Zulu". What you saw was real, not digitally done to show the overwhelming force of Zulu warriors. Also the battle scenes were more "stable"....shot in real time....not done in 3 different speeds then spinning from here to there and back again.

Rating:
Summary: ONE OF THE BEST MOVIES I'VE EVER SEEN
Review: Some people may say that the story for Gladiator is too formulatic, too predictable. You know why? Because they haven't seen the movie! Ridley Scott's interpretation of the gladiatorial struggle is beautifully and brutally depicted, making you gawk and gasp at the same time. Ridley Scott is a genius by my book, especially for creating one of the best movies of all time! And the pace! Even though the movie is 154 minutes long, it captivated me the whole time and still captivates me! Russell Crowe did an outstanding job as Maximus. There is no other who could have made me root for the hero more than him when he turns and confesses his identity to Commodus. And the scenery is wonderful! The drastic use of colors, from rich to drab to rich once more. The colors themselves explain the movie alone, as do all the other essential elements. That is the main reason why the movie is so good: equal spectacle. The number of different storylines in Gladiator could have been difficult to portray, and could really slow down the film. But, once again praise to Ridley Scott for making the storylines fit into the story and actually boost it. If it weren't for Braveheart, this would be the best movie I've ever seen. Even if you haven't seen it, BUY IT! THERE IS NO WAY YOU CANNOT ENJOY, LOVE, OR APPRECIATE GLADIATOR

Rating:
Summary: Russell Crowe is Brilliant, but the movie is flat
Review: As much as I admire Russell Crowe's acting, I cannot and will not give this movie 5 stars. This cliche of filmmaking is flat and too shallow. I felt no emotions after seeing this film in the theaters. The story of a general becoming a slave and then regaining the rightful throne to the emperor of Rome. The problem is, he never makes it. He gets murdered by the evil Phoenix and hits on her sister. The best part of the film is the first 20min. very similar to the Omaha Beach landing in Saving Private Ryan.....

Rating:
Summary: Good looking film but not much else.
Review: The premise for Galdiator was supposed to be based on the gladiator fights in the Coliseum. Having done a report on the Coliseum, I was very exited about this movie. But it is a major disappointment. The movie is 2 hours and 35 minutes long but there are 15 minutes of battles or less. Most of the movie is a bunch of dialogue and more than half of it has no significance to the story. The special effects are OK but not spectacular. Some of the more ambitious shots look about as realistic as a CG cinema from a video game. I don't see how a lot of citics think it's one of the best movies ever made. It's not a perfect film. I seem to be the only one who agrees with Ebert who gave this film 2 stars out of 4. The only Acadamy Awards I would give this film are Best Actor for Russel Crowe, Best Director(the screenplay is not Ridley Scott's fault), art direction, and costume design. Gladiator will definitely be nominated for Best Picture but I hope it doesn't win. If it does, you'll know why the Acadamy Awards building will be on fire the next day.

Rating:
Summary: Gladitsover!
Review: This movie was a surprising disappointment. The acting was superb. Russell Crowe did a fabulous job portraying the main character, Maximus, and all the supporting actors were absolutely fabulous. The plot was somewhat captivating and easy to follow. However, it seemed to be on the same gore level as Braveheart (but, then again, what can you expect? Ancient Romans had a pretty sick sense of entertainment. I mean, who likes to watch people die gruesome deaths?). Though the actors and writers did an above average job, the directing could have been done better by a junior-high student. The camera was constantly switching positions, and except for a few longer speeches, mostly made by Maximus, the camera never stayed in the same position for more than five seconds. Secondly, throughout the movie, the director always goes to this overly-symbolic, confusing, unmentioned, unimportant scene with Maximus running his hand through a field (what is that supposed to signify?). Though this movie was fairly entertaining (mostly because of Russell Crowe), this is not an Oscar-calibar film.

Rating:
Summary: It has its moments
Review: This film was mostly a disappointment after all the hype. The plot was weak as was the dialogue, but the effects were what one would expect of a Ridley Scott film. Only really worth watching for the fight scenes. I Claudius was infinitely more authentic and successful in capturing the true feeling of Anciant Rome, and it had no special effects at all. The end of this film was ridiculous. As if that weedy Commodus would get in the ring with Maximus. Also, could'nt they have come up with a more imaginative name - Maximus. It's a bit obvious is'nt it!

Rating:
Summary: a Must see!
Review: At first when i saw this movie would be out, i got excited, and expected a whole lot from it, which tottaly destroys a movie, right? wrong. not this one. i expected a lot, and it surpassed my expectations! i was (and still am) into mideval times when i saw the film, and it just brought the fantisies of leading an army into war into life. It incorperated many fantasy aspects as well, and the part i like most about this movie is the ending isn't what you would expect. the special effects are great, the storyline flows well, acting is supurb, everything is just magnificent! if you havn't seen it, go see it now! you must see this epic film.