Gladiator

Rating:
Summary: Simply excellent.
Review: I have to admit that when "Gladiator" won Best Picture at the Academy Awards I kind of wondered wheter or not it had enough epic quality or even film quality to deserve the award. The first time I saw it was several months earlier and I remember leaving thinking that it was a pretty good movie but without the notion that it would pick up any major awards. Then a few months after the Oscars I watched it again and I found that it left me with just a good feeling. Granted, all of the blood and guts marres that "good feeling" but the film ends really well and when looked at closely has a lot of substance. Several people have told me that "Traffic" was a much better movie and deserved the Oscar but while "Traffic" did have much more relavence to modern issues and was factually correct, it just didn't leave me with the right feeling for its genre. "Gladiator" is an enjoyable movie if you don't hold a cinematic grudge against it for being an "action" film.

Rating:
Summary: An Epic
Review: After watching Gladiator for the third time, I found myself as interested and attentive as I was during the first viewing. It IS the best movie of the year and next go-around; it will be in the AFI top 100 films of all time. A top to bottom brilliant movie!

Rating:
Summary: Best Picture
Review: This is the best of the best pictures in ten years. There has not been a best picture as good as this since "Driving Miss Daisy". The special effects are average in appearance. The acting has been well done. The photagraphy was glorious. It is a classic epic. The story was a return to tradition(much like the old Roman dramas). I highly recommend this to epic lovers or people who like well done movies.

Rating:
Summary: Entertainment.
Review: The movie is obviously full of historical inaccuracies and the combat scenes are obviously highly stylized, but hey, it's a movie. I can't speak for everyone, but I watch movies for entertainment, not enlightenment. On that note, this was a pretty good movie. A little long, and some of the dialog was a bit too melodramatic, but you can definitely waste a couple hours on worse fare.

Rating:
Summary: A moving epic, can't be missed!
Review: This is by far one of the best movies that I have ever seen. Russel Crowe definitely earned his Best Actor award in this movie. Joaquin Phoenix is also excellent in this movie, his performance was underrated. The story itself is moving and gripping, you actually feel something for the characters. Many 'historians' criticise this movie because of the innacurate events that take place in the movie. It is clearly stated at the end of the movie that it is based on events in history that have been altered, and it is a work of fiction.

Ther story itself does not drag, and is very moving. Maximus Desimus Meridias, a general in Emperor Marcus Aurrelius' Legion is betrayed when the son of the Emperor finds out that he wants to pass his powers to Maximus when he dies. Commodus(Joaquin Phoenix) gives an exemplary performance as the son of Marcus, who in jealousy kills his father to prevent him from announcing the passage of power to Maximus. When Maximus refuses to pledge loyalty to Commodus, he is ordered to be executed, but escapes. Afterward, a horrific chain of events leaves Maximus with no more than a quest for vengeance, when he is picked up by a slave trader and turned into a Gladiator. Describing the movie does it no justice. It must be seen through your eyes to be fully appreciated. Ridley Scott once again directs a maserpiece.

The acting is great, and this can definitely be the movie that made Russel Crowe. Joaquin Phoenix also gave a memorable performance, and it was very disappointing not to see him win the award for best supporting actor. Wonderful movie, do not miss this, whatever you do. You will NOT be disappointed.

Rating:
Summary: Over-hyped, Under developed, thinly veiled BraveHeart copy.
Review: I have read articles where it is mentioned that Director Scott first wanted Mel Gibson as Maximus, but Mr. Gibson, feeling his years a bit, replied that he was to old and recommended Crowe as the best person for the job. So Mr. Scott lost Mad Max, But stole so many plot and scene ideas from Gibsons 'Braveheart', that if Gibson had appeared, this Hollywood pap festival might have been considered a sequel. How Crowe snared the best actor award for his gutteral, mono-syllabic General/Slave/Gladiator is beyond me. The myriad computer effects are so poorly done, that almost all the generated landscapes look like a childs water color. The fast/slow motion moments, the the realing camera work, all make for virtual indigestion. Crowe, after being enslaved, becomes even more reticent, and is the least impressive physically of all the would be Gladiators. Joaquin Phoenix plays the new Cesar on the Pax Romana block, and plays it very poorly. Scott seemed to want him to come off as a wicked, evil, back stabbing, incestious dog. Instead Phoenix is more a sniveling, cringing annoyance than a mad tyrant. The plot ,which is hackenyed and thin, is also incongrously slow. I think Rome was Built and conquered in less time then it takes for this dud to complete. Save your money, time and patience, because this movie isnt worth any of those.

Rating:
Summary: I'd add on an extra star for the features on the DVD.
Review: While I found this movie entertaining, the time between action sequences was filled with a very average story and some pretty cringe-worthy dialogue. I also thought the fight sequences where a bit too stylised making them very nice to look at but reducing their impact. Gladiators main movie peer would obviously be Braveheart which a think is a better all-round film, although allot of my friends disagree. But hey, what do they know!

Rating:
Summary: Great movie
Review: I'm not a collector or fan of movies, but this is one DVD I had to have. It's a little long as movies go, but it's a great movie.

Rating:
Summary: Not Oscar Worthy
Review: The hype surrounding Gladiator led me to believe that this would be an incredible movie. What it proved to be was a TYPICAL epic with the basic plot of every other epic ever made. The acting is done fine but was not superb by any means. Aren't we getting a little tired of revenge as the main theme for movies? It's time to expand our minds. Movies such as Traffic accomplished this goal. It was an original film. Gladiator won because it had "cool battle scenes" which were not the greatest ever made. They were poorly designed and the speciall effects were not as well thought out as the special effects in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Gladiator proved to be typical in many respects. The plot was obvious to begin with. It's heartwrenching that his family was murdered but give me a break. Let's talk about ultimate movie cliche. My family was killed, I must avenge their death. Gladiator follows the Last of the Mohicans pretty well, differing only in the time period it takes place. The Academy needs to become more true to the nature of their awards. The BEST movie of the year should be chosen, not the most typical.

Rating:
Summary: History as told by MTV
Review: With over a thousand reviews here already, my opinion is not going to count for much, but I have to say this. I strongly believe that the tremendous success of this movie at the box office and the awards is tragic testimony to how the art of film-making has declined from story-telling to mere sensory stimulation.

Consider: music that never lets up; reverb added to every voice, even when characters are talking out in the open; constant use of quick camera cuts to ensure that you never have a chance to study or reflect on anything; every scene keyed to the same pitch of intensity, so that there is little to distinguish a fight in a small provincial amphitheatre from the climax in the Colosseum. It's all just a barrage of noise and light calculated to keep your reptile brain stimulated while your intellect shuts down.

Compare this film to Spartacus, a movie that could probably never be made in this era because the younger generation, overstimulated by movies like Gladiator, would consider it boring. Despite the lack of computer FX, the action scenes in that movie are so much more successful because (a) they stand out against the background of long, slow, quiet plot and character development and (b) they are coherent, unlike the muddled battles and fights of Gladiator, where you don't get much of an idea of what is going on besides general mayhem.

It's really sad that manipulation of the senses has become so confused with artistry. Sad because more movies like this will be made, while we get to see fewer and fewer that offer any stimulation for the higher parts of the brain.