Rating: 
Summary: "DON'T DIE. IF YOU DIE THEY WILL FEED YOU TO THE LIONS."
Review: Gee, I guess that's a pretty good reason why Maximus should try to hang in there a little longer. In an era in history when life was cheap, I'm skeptical to think that our hero's first concern would be as to where his rotting corpse will end up. Without a doubt stupid dialogue like this would seem quite out of place in any other Oscar-winning movie, but not surprisingly it sounds exactly like what you'd expect to hear in a joke like GLADIATOR. I admit I didn't always think this way. After my first viewing on the big screen I came out of the theater like everyone else thinking it was worthy of every Academy Award for which it would later be nominated. Now it just looks and sounds and feels like your average Jerry Bruckheimer flick. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to sound elitist here. I have my share of loud, brainless movies like PEARL HARBOR and THE ROCK in my dvd library. But the flaws in GLADIATOR are too great and too numorous to ignore, and it is precisely because this stupid film takes itself way too seriously in spite of itself that it should be regarded as an insult to everyone's intelligence. The following is a small (very small) sample of why this movie is so bad. As a villain, Commodus is too wimpy and childish for the viewer to hate. The more times I watched this movie the more I found myself feeling sorry for the poor kid. Such a flaw is fatal in a movie where you're supposed to cheer when the bad guy finally gets it in the end. If old, wise Marcus Aurelius was really as concerned about Rome's fragile state as he claimed to be, why then did he not just simply pass the throne of emperor over to Maximus while he was still alive? Don't you think the aging ruler could've tutored the reluctant and politically inexperienced general in the law and government, while at the same time live out his final years in peaceful retirement? Instead, however, he seemed content on letting poor Maximus figure things out for himself. Not once does Maximus question or complain about his new hard life as a slave. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen anyone in a movie so humbly accept such an undeserved fate! Was it considered normal and common for the slave traders of the day to snatch anyone they chose off the street and turn him/her into a gladiator? Not to my knowledge. On his first day in gladiatorial school Maximus refuses to participate in any kind of training, thus giving one of his future teammates, a big German slave, the impression that he might be a coward. Later, though, when the real fighting occurs the same big German guy who had earlier taunted Maximus by wacking him with a wooden sword is now all of a sudden showering our hero with silly compliments such as "The gods favor you." Go figure. It is after this first trial combat against opponents from another team of slaves that Maximus becomes a gladiatorial favorite with the public, despite the fact that there was nothing in his style of fighting which distinguished him from his brave colleagues. But I guess we shouldn't forget that Russell Crowe is the star of the movie, not Djimon Hounsou. "Anyone here been in the army?" Thus Maximus asks his teammate on their first day of combat at the Colosseum. "Yes, I served with you at Vindobona." WHAT??? You mean to tell me that a fellow Roman soldier-turned-gladiator who fought alongside Maximus in Germania waited 'till this moment to tell our hero, who used the stage name "Spaniard", that all this time he really knew Maximus' real identity?? "Today I saw a gladiator become more powerful than the emperor of Rome." Okay, so why then is this all-powerful gladiator still in chains and at the mercy of the little weasel who had our hero's family butchered? And you thought the line I used as the title for this review was stupid. Are you starting to get the picture now? I suppose I could also point out all the historical inaccuracies the movie contains, but that would be a little unfair, since most other costume epics are just as guilty of taking liberties with history, including the two highly superior films which provided this turkey with all the main story elements--BRAVEHEART and THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. To put it plainly (again), GLADIATOR is a very bad film. It cannot even fall in the category of "guilty pleasure" because once its stupidity has been laid bare to the viewer it becomes practically unwatchable. Were it not for a few good action scenes, I'm quite positive that more people would probably agree with me. In any case, stay cool.
Rating: 
Summary: When in Rome.
Review: Once upon a time, Hollywood made films like this on a regular basis. Russell Crowe sucessfully carries on the sword-and-sandal tradition with this star-making performance, bringing a newfound realism that past epics like 'Ben-Hur' and 'Ten Commandments' lacked. The excellent cast, especially Joaquin Phoenix as the amoral Commodus, help to personify the debauchery and arrogance of ancient Rome, while Crowe delivers both as a man's-man and also as a humbled slave, defeated in life by Rome's excesses but redeemed in death by his devotion to family and honor. A fine epic, well worthy of its many awards.
Rating: 
Summary: Once was enough
Review: There was ALOT of hype surrounding this movie. I watched Braveheart(5), The Patriot(4) and Gladiator(3) back to back. I would rank them in that order 1,2 & 3. I hate sitting on the fence by giving it 3 stars. However I think it is a bronze medal performance.
Good enough to watch, but maybe not good enough to add to your own DVD collection. Watching it once was enough for me. Maybe go rent it.
Rating:
Summary: Film of the actions, not the pages
Review: Gladiator was the first in a series of recent successful Russell Crowe movies, and I think he started on not so bad a foot. The plot is centered on a general (Russell Crowe) who is loved by all, until the emperor's crazed son gets wind that Crowe is supposed to takeover instead of himself. As all jealous based plots go, Crowe is sent away and stripped of his old life. This is much like Dante in Monte Cristo, except for the fact that Crowe becomes a gladiator instead and has to find himself and "old Rome" through the games instead of a prison cell. It is an okay movie overall, but really the only things that made this movie interesting to me were the gladiatorial games themselves. I feel that the dialogue and basic plot overall is lacking, but I understand that the basic plot highlights the action, and therefore not meant to stand up to much criticism in the first place. Historically it is off too, but not everyone cares about that kind of thing these days, but if you do be warned. I would say this movie is worth a rental, and maybe on a personal level you will find it more exciting than me, but I would not just go off and buy it.
Rating:
Summary: We salute you, Ridley.
Review: Gladiatorial combat is immortalized in this film, the only way it can be: through stunning action sequences and beautiful imagery. It also immortalizes, above all, director Ridley Scott. Roger Ebert complains of people with short memory spans praising this film while forgetting that films like Spartacus have supposedly done this before. Well, I have a good memory, and I remember Spartacus. In fact, I kept on remembering that film while watching Gladiator, only in the context of, "This is so much better than Spartacus. It goes beyond." The action is better, the visuals are better, the story is better, and the acting is better. Sorry, Kirk. Since this is an action film, the story isn't the most important element, but for an action film it is actually quite good. For one thing, I liked the disturbing under-the-surface incest element going on between Commodus and Connie Nielson. Furthermore, it was interesting to see how Crowe gained support among the gladiators until it became as if he were a general leading his army again. The plot itself needed to be there in order to fully create a sense of grandeur. With its insurrection story, the rise of the hero and his trek to the capitol of Rome, and the look at the people in power, the plot creates a sense of time-and-place necessary for an epic that couldn't exist with the visuals and action alone. The acting is among the best one can ever seen for an action film, and there is plenty of fine dramatic work pulled off by the two main actors. Russell Crowe is now one of the best "new" (four or five films so far) actors in film. We believe, in his glances and the ways he delivers his many great lines, that he is Maximus. He is poignant, hate-filled, and sorrowful all at once. The praise he is getting is deserved. But why isn't Phoenix being lauded just as much? He carries the film in the second-largest role just as well as Crowe. His Emperor Commodus isn't a good villain and has no real character, but Phoenix adds so many layers to him and turns him into a great antagonist that that alone makes his performance excellent. He commands attention just as Crowe does. All by himself (no help from any great dialogue or development), he creates a villain that is prissy, whining, ambitious, pathetic, and malevolent, and worthy of our hate as well as our pity. It's a wonderful transformation. To sum it up, the characters themselves aren't really developed at all- but the acting is so good that it seems they are. Now, onto the action, which, as I had hoped, is plentiful and intense. It has diversity and grandeur. All the fights were fast, hard-hitting, uncensored, and very bloody, which is what they should've been like. And every single fight sequence is unique from the others. There's the match where two men fought chained to each other, the opening war battle, Maximus vs. numerous other fighters, and the final sword duel, to name a few. This is so much more than just two half-naked men fighting with swords, which is what it could've been. The film also captures the feel and the motion of combat. Ridley Scott speeds up the film slightly during fight scenes to show the chaos and rapid reflexes necessary to survive. During the fight scenes, the camerawork is nonstop and covers the combat as one big blur to the fighters. (But we can still follow the fights themselves.) This film also stands out in my mind as one of the most visual, image-driven action films I've ever seen. Thanks to Ridley Scott, practically every scene is jammed with wonderful detail, art direction, even distinct lighting (the Collosseum orange, other parts of Rome dark blue). Just look at the wide multitude (seemingly infinite number) of battle masks, weapons, and locales. Cinematography is skillful and impressive. There are tons of memorable shots, like Maximus entering the ring with rose petals coming down on him like rain from above, Commodus' pure white battle costume (when he's being risen up on the platform he looks like a demented angel ascending to heaven), and the images used to represent Crowe's home- the gentle hand carressing the wheat reeds, the door to his house, etc. They had a surreal quality and each were bathed in their own distinct color. Excellent work, Ridley. A very impressive film. So why can't all summer movies be this good? We'd be spoiled.
Rating:
Summary: Where is Maximus Originally From?
Review: I have been arguing about Maximu's Nationality. In the Movie the claim is that he is from Spain. However, he was just named a Spaniard by his master after he lost his wife and only son. So can someone help me here please. email me as soon as possible.
Rating: 
Summary: Got A Problem Mate!!!
Review: Yes the tough man of Hollywood is shown in all his glory, playing the part of a fallen Roman general "Maximus" who seeks revenge on the man who killed his wife and child. Sold into slavery and brought by none other than the man of all bar room fights, Oliver Reed, Maximus becomes a Gladiator and soon plots his advesarys downfall. A real blood and guts movie not for family viewing. As a two disc set, this package has absolutly everything you need to know about the making of this film and the history of the Gladiator. It is such a shame that a big deal was make over the constant bloopers that showed up in the final cut, bcause you can now see them. Thats why I have given it four stars instead of five.
Rating:
Summary: The Best of Its Kind
Review: That pretty much says it all. It is a great fantasy with exciting action, a good story, impressive visuals, solid acting, a well written script and a good ending. It's definitely not historically accurate or overly new and innovative. It may be THE single best video to try out a new surround sound system with - which I did. It certainly takes you back to the days of Hollywood's glory. Gladiator is a true epic and a great movie.
Rating:
Summary: 'Are You Not Entertained?'
Review: Gladiator presents to movie goers a refreshing and original piece of story telling. The plot is easy to follow but contains enough twists and creativity to keep viewers interested. Personally, I myself would rank this movie high on my list of the greatest films of all time...Entertaing and truly superb, Gladiator is a true winner.
The performances were extraordinary. Russell Crowe is amazing as Maximus, but the real standout, omitted in earlier reviews, is by Joaquin Phoneix, as the looked down upon Caesar of Rome, Commodus. My two other favorite were played out by Connie Neilsen and Richard Harris. Overall, the charcters brought their emotions upon the auidience very well and let me relate to them.
Technically, the film acheives greatness all across the board.
From the spectacular visuals, state of the art direction (Ridley Scott), and fitting costumes, to the screenplay and powerfull score (Hans Zimmer).
The many battle scenes are breathtaking and extremly fun to watch. Some memorable scenes included the opening battle with the barbarians of Germania, The first colleseum battle in Rome, the tiger fight, Maximus' getaway, and the climatical concluding battle between Maximus and Commodus.
Overall the film is unflawed. Bound to give you chills, Gladiator is the story of betrayal, lost love, revenge, and loyalty. As you know gladiator won multiple oscars at the 2000 Academy awards inclusing best picture and actor, Joaquin recieved only a nod. PLease, if you have not yet seen Gladiator, rent it, NOW! even if you care less for the genre Gladiator is sure to deliver
Rating: 
Summary: "What we do in life echoes in eternity."
Review: It is strange that Ridley Scott's "Gladiator" is the one film he has directed that was honored with the Academy Award for Best Picture. It is strange because of all the films he has made, "Gladiator" is easily one of his more mediocre efforts. Hopefully, future film-historians will not consider this the apex of his noteworthy career. A general named Maximus (Russell Crowe) is a favorite of dying emperor Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris). After he spectacularly triumphs in a vital military campaign, Marcus names him protector of Rome. But the general is betrayed and left for dead by Marcus' son, Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix), after he learns his father has decided to not bestow upon him the mantle of leadership. Maximus, however, manages to escape his executioners and winds up becoming a gladiator in North Africa. Under the mentorship of Proximo (Oliver Reed), Maximus fights his way up the competitive ranks and becomes a beloved figure among the public. His celebrity soon brings him into contact with Commodus and gives the wronged warrior an opportunity for revenge. "Gladiator" is a mixed bag from start to finish. Every positive to the film is muted by a negative. The action sequence that opens the film is good but the gladiatorial battles that follow are average. The special effects work done with Oliver Reed's stand-in is impressive but the special effects work done with the computer-generated tiger is horrible. Even the acting is uneven. Crowe, Harris, and Reed are fine but Phoenix and Connie Nielsen turn in weaker efforts. Well, a lot of directors usually produce at least one less-than-inspired work sometime in their career and "Gladiator" is clearly Scott's creative hiccup. Do yourself a favor and check out his more noteworthy works like "Alien" (1979), "Thelma and Louise" (1991), and "Black Hawk Down" (2001) to gain a better appreciation for the man's talents.
|
