Rating: 
Summary: Excellent Quality Transfer
Review: The movie on the DVD is sharp, clear, and looks perfect. The menus are laid out well and the supplementary materials are well done and interesting.
Rating: 
Summary: Very good movie
Review: I don't know about any of you but I really thought this was a good movie yeah some parts of the movie were slow but they all had something important in it which kind of summarized and put the movie together... Maybe those people who didnt enjoy this movie wasn't really into movies like this.
Rating:
Summary: Very good, but Braveheart is better.
Review: This a great movie, but it lacks the power of Braveheart. It is one of my 20 favorites though
Rating: 
Summary: Don't bother
Review: I saw this movie when it came out and it was good at the beginning and the tiger arena was cool; but then it dragged ALOT. Also the director wasn't being reasonable, 'cause what are the odds that a roman emperor would fight a gladiator in an arena. Plus wouldn't the emperor's courtiers realise that he was a phycopath. And he is because HE KILLED HIS FATHER. ...
Rating:
Summary: Too Long, No Hero Here
Review: So, whom was I supposed to be rooting for? Russell Crowe's character was essentially a killing machine, first as a tool for the expansionist Roman empire and then for a slave owner and blood-thirsty Romans. After the guy and his soldiers slaughter a bunch of overmatched barbarians, I'm supposed to feel sympathy for him? I mean, it would be like cheering for Gen. Custer after one of his rampages against Indians. This is kind of a problem with Ridley Scott movies (most of which I like). You can't really get too involved with characters like Decker in Blade Runner or Sigourney Weaver's character in Alien. But you can appreciate the special effects and cinematography. And you can do that with Gladiator. Which is good because you can't figure out some of the plot and you don't really care. It's also at least 30 minutes too long. I've seen all five of the 2000 Best Picture nominees. This one was better than Chocolat. The other three, particularly Crouching Tiger, were far more worthy.
Rating:
Summary: Enter the arena and don't look back
Review: "Gladiator". Even the name invokes reverence, and the film honors the rich history of Rome and its rulers. The filming is exquisite, beginning with a cryptic, foreshadowing scene that leaves the viewer waiting to unwrap the present that is: "Gladiator". In my opinion, the mark of a true actor resides in the eyes. Only two places have I scene true, genius acting. One of which was Joaquin Phoenix's Caesar. In most films, there is a typical villain that all love to hate. Usually, the villain has one side to his/her personality, but not so with Caesar. I must admit, Caesar was my favorite character, Joaquin Phoenix made me truly sympathize with Caesar and made me realize that there is more to a person than hate and greed. Caesar was an individual with issues that corrupted his personality. Joaquin Phoenix's Caesar was not your typical "bad guy". The many fight sequences of "Gladiator" were perfectly done. The sword fighting seemed almost an intricate dance, with the dancers moving to the flow of the music that fills the theater or living room. It makes almost a sickening (but not the less beautiful) parallel: the wonderful music, the intricate dance moves, and the blood. It seems that one of Gladiator's themes was the gradual degration of present day society into the gruesome games of the past. Wrestling disturbingly seems just too similar to the gladiators. It seems that all roads (even the roads of time), really do lead back to Rome. The director of "Gladiator" pulled all the stops out on this one. When the Colosseum comes into view, it is so realistic that I almost feel that I am partaking in the battles and dances of sword fighting. When it comes to "Gladiator", buy it, rent it, borrow it- just get it! Enter the arena, don't look back, and join the dance.
Rating:
Summary: Give Me Spartacus Anyday.
Review: It's a sorry thing to see what passes for best picture nowadays. Gladiator makes for five straight best picture winners that have been anything but good. Gladiator is centered around a Roman general, Maximus Decimus Meridius, played by Russell Crowe, who has been granted the keys to the empire by the ailing ruler Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris). Marcus Aurelius is killed by his son Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix) after he tells him that he has chosen Maximus to be the next emperor. Commodus then orders Maximus and his family destroyed. Maximus manages to escape from his executioners and is captured by slave traders at the ruins of his former estate in present day Spain. The slave owner who has bought him is an entertainer. His entertainment is the gladiator games. This is how Maximus becomes a gladiator. I will not explain how the rest of the story unfolds; but, let me just say that it is trite and uninteresting at best. Gladiator is visually stunning at times. The battle scene which opens the movie is one of the best I have seen. Also, the sequence of images as Maximus makes his way back to his estate are also intriguing. However, these alone do not make up for holes in dialog and acting. Crowe gave a passable performance as Maximus. I believe he appeared to give a best actor like performance mainly because those around him gave, at best, below average ones. I was particularly amused by Phoenix as the troubled emperor Commodus. His attempt at being villainly seemed more like the pouting of a child after his mother tells him he cannot have the candy he so desperately wants while standing in line at the supermarket. As far as gladiator movies go, Gladiator is way behind Spartacus in my book. If you really want to see a soaring drama of Roman times (that's historically accurate too), then that's the movie for you.
Rating:
Summary: Incredible!
Review: One of the greatest movies I have ever seen. Ridley Scott, you da man.
Rating:
Summary: Who cares and stop complaining!
Review: If you want to see perfectly accurate history or a dialogue that is above an average 4th grader's vocabulary, let me make a suggestion; read a book. If you want to see what can't be made in books like amazing special effects or highly engrossing action, see this movie. I'm sorry, but the average American is not up to the intellectual level of historical treatises/ dramatic literature and this movie like nearly all movies is made for this average American. If you are looking for an intelectual experience from modern, mainstream American cinema, good luck, because that is nearly impossible. If you can't enjoy the elements that Gladiator is unshy as presenting as its major attributes, maybe you shouldn'y waste your money. Otherwise, see this movie quickly.
Rating:
Summary: A grand action-drama.
Review: Winner of 5 Oscars including Best Picture, Gladiator is an astonishingly engaging epic spectacle with a grand action-drama genre. The action is brilliant; you get everything from gruesome killings to leaping tigers in some visual effects that look truly real, you won't even notice they are computer-generated or CGI. The drama is the heart of the movie however, the back-story is the story of a man, his love for his family, his strong abilities and his will to escape. This man is played to perfection by Russell Crowe in one of his most gritty roles to date. There is also a fantastic supporting cast - Oliver Reed, Joaquin Phoenix, Connie Neilsen and Amistad's Djimon Hounsou - all give life to interesting roles. Okay, so there are lots of flaws in the editing, Joaquin's scar changing from right to left and an aeroplane crossing the arena, but, this is a movie you watch for enjoyment, not to diss the mistakes that come up, even though they do. The film also has an amazing DVD with great stills, a brilliant making of feature and a 2-disk special. Enjoy!
| 
