Gladiator

Rating:
Summary: is there anything crowe can't play??
Review: The basic plot follows Maximus, a Roman general forced to fight for his freedom. That is the plot stripped to the bare bare bare essentials, for it is so much more than that. Russell Crowe immerses himself in the role, and, if one overlooks the ambiguous British (?) accent that he and so many other characters toss about, the acting is pretty strong throughout.

There are some definite parallels with "Braveheart," (ie the "Hold...... Hold...... HOLD" bit, if you're familiar with both movies) but this movie strives to be put in its own class. I, myself, have never seen any of Scott's other movies, but he handles himself well in this movie. There are some instances where he comes across as trying to be innovative and "new age," (ie exposed-film shots, eye-rolling experimentation with color/texture of film during dream sequences) when he is really a (albeit GREAT) conventional director.

The fight scenes are presented in a very original manner, and you feel like you need to see the movie again just to truly grasp what the HECK is going on. Along the same lines, there is the "Whoa, cool... killing" aspect to the movie sometimes, but (say it with me) it's to be expected. And they really are cool and original! Sorry, random testosterone outburst.

The cinematography is generally exquisite, but falters occasionally (especially in one instance when it does one of those annoying "hey, pay attention to this" zoom-ins while someone is speaking.) The script is actually more intelligent than you would think, but it is not without flaws. Classic line: "This vexes me. I'm terribly vexed." The audience laughs when it should be cowering in fear. Speaking of, Joaquin Phoenix fills his role as the flawed Commodus, but only shines through occasionally. Similarly, Connie Nielsen is merely sufficient in her role. She can pull up tears and be the strong-woman type, and that's what's required of her.

Although the movie presents concrete historic names (not so sure about Maximus himself, but it does throw around names like 'Marcus Aurelius,' among others) and places, the credits admit that the story is completely fictitious. It also has a difficult time depicting that--time. I was very confused about that. Movies that try and imply time by facial hair and dirt confuse me.

Now, to the good: THE MOVIE IS BEAUTIFUL. The costumes are AMAZING. I could watch the entire movie on MUTE just to gawk at the amazing costumes and makeup, especially on Nielsen's character, Lucilla. They are GORGEOUS, and sometimes distracting from the plot itself (but not in a bad way.) The scenery and special effects are equally breathtaking and seamless. Scott's beautiful use of color is also appreciated in the "real world" majority of the film, but, once again, the forced dream sequences come across as an old-timer trying to be hip.

Rating:
Summary: It wasn't that great
Review: I've seen Gladiator but don't own it. Looking at all these great reviews for it, though, I'm admit I'm tempted to buy it. The movie has many good parts in it, like in the beginning when there's a big battle. All the battle and action scenes in the movie are good too, but the opening one is my favorite. This is all I really liked, though, the action. The other stuff -- the acting, dialog, and ending -- wasn't any good. For those who've read 'Hamlet' you'll know the ending was unoriginal. I vaguely remember reading 'Hamlet' in high school, but I know it ended with poison, like 'Gladiator' does. So the ending's no good. The acting and dialog is pretentious. So many looks and words are exaggerated or embellished for effect. R. Crow's performance is good, and he's a good actor, but I think he's almost too good, to the point where he's unbelievable. For me, and I'm sure for everyone, I need to believe a movie to really appreciate it.

Rating:
Summary: Great DVD to Own
Review: An excellent story, with unusually lavish extras. A quality documentary on Gladiators in the Roman era accompanies one of the better films in recent memory.

Rating:
Summary: Picture of the Year
Review: Aside from the rather liberal historical modifications, I think Ridley Scott did a smashing job with this film. Definitely in leagues with other "masterpieces" such as Blade Runner and Alien.

Rating:
Summary: Best movie? Nah!!!
Review: I realise I am voicing a minority opinion here but I just did not enjoy Gladiator. For me, it was an ok movie and nothing more. It certainly does not compare favourably to classic Roman epics like Spartacus and Quo Vadis. The acting and the dialogue were mediocre at best. I certainly did not feel any sympathy for Maximus in his time of sorrow. Derek Jacobi's senator was a waste of screen time. Commodus came off as a whiny cowardly brat.
The best movie of 2000 was Titus. The acting was first class , the directing superb and the movie had a dialogue from a true master, William Shakespeare. Too bad the academy did not agree with me.

Rating:
Summary: got to see!!!!!!!!
Review: i would not recomend this dvd to any one under the age of 15 and not to watch this if you are sacared of things it is very grown up film but is very well done ilove RUSSELL CROWE!!!!!

Rating:
Summary: Great film that will be remembered
Review: I recieved the movie "Gladiator" for Christmas this year. This is a very good movie but I warn you it does take a few times to really understand and grasp the whole plot and fully appreciate this movie. This movie is full of digital effects, but they are not overused as they are in some movies. The digital effects are perfectly excecuted. The main character "Maximus" is played by Russell Crowe, who in my opinion did a good job of acting out the illustrious personality of Maximus. He did a good job changing the personality of Maximus as he was in different situations. There where points in the movie when Maximus was a reverant man, and other points where he was a cold blooded killer.

Joaquin Phoenix, brother of River Phoenix, played the evil Roman emperor Commodus. Joaquin did a good portrayal of the emperor, who is known in the history books to probably have been insane and obsessed with gladatorial sport. He bankrupted the Roman treasury by spending all his money of uneccesary things having to do with sport. Some also say he was the emperor who started the downfall of the Roman Empire. Joaquin did a great job in my opinion, and his portraying of the Commodus was mostly accurate to the history books.

Now some naysayers have said it was impossible for the Emperor to have ever fought in the Colosseum. Well, I have researched the Roman Empire and Commodus often appeared in the Colossuem to fight poorly armed gladiators who had only wooden weapons and no armor, while the Emperor has metal weapons and was well armed. There where many other stipulations in the Emperors favor, and I am sure he would get a little "help" if the battle was not going his way. The real Commodus also appeared in chariot races, but he never raced in the Circus Maximus because he did not like to do it in public.

There where a few small plots in this movie that did not conform with history, such as the fact the Marcus Aurelias probably did not have any problem with Commodus becoming the new emperor after he died. However, this is a great movie, and it is well acted and has a great plot. It might not be able to satisfy the regular history buff, but it can satisfy the normal American, which is what has made this such a great film. The directing, the acting, the digital effects, it is all here in this one, so I would reccomend you buy this DVD immediately.

Rating:
Summary: This action movie is deeper than it appears
Review: Gladiator is a story about the journey of a man as well as a light review on the workings of Rome. I watch it over and over, and even my most "action movie" fearing friends love it. The power of Russell Crowes character is moving even in its 15th viewing. An unbelievable circumstance is made highly believable primarily because of his performance.

I took the opportunity to rent a similar story, Spartacus, recently. I expected that the thing that would make me like Gladiator more would be the special effects and exciting battle sequences. However, it turned out that the sheer believability of Crowe's Maximus just made Kirk Douglas' Spartacus pale miserably in comparison.

Rating:
Summary: Elaborate Does Not An Epic Make
Review: I'm very picky when it comes to buying DVDs. Like most people, I prefer instead to rent, and even then I read up beforehand, because I don't like supporting [bad stuff].

Gladiator is a megaproduction that you have to watch a few times to really appreciate, with the exception of Ridley Scott's direction. Some criticise it as being too dark, the dialoge stilted and uneventful, or a very jaded representation of Rome, and they're right.

As an epic, Gladiator falls far short due to it's narrow-scope and jumbled pace, making for a rough and confusing ride, which leads up to a somber, anti-climactic end that leaves you with the same pervading unease you had throughout the film. Suffice it to say, I didn't really enjoy watching Gladiator at first. Even grand-scale recreations get boring if there is no substance behind them. The performances from Russel Crowe and Joaquin Phoenix drew me in at times. The two DVD set is excellent and packed with a variety of features, and the picture clarity is about the best I've seen.

- Louis

Rating:
Summary: Everything
Review: This movie has everything that there should be in an action movie, great job Russel and Ridley. Ohh yeah great special features.