Rating: 
Summary: This movie is at best OK if you have a brain that works....
Review: I must admit that I really liked this movie the first time I saw it on the big screen. I liked it so much that I saw it again. I bought the DVD when it was released way back when. I popped the DVD in the other day to watch it again and I could not watch more than 20 minutes of it.The opening battle scene is impressive and exciting along with the excellent score. But the dialogue was too much (or too little) -- corny, pretentious, SHALLOW, and outright ridiculous. Every word that Maximus says is sooo politically correct and he's so gooder than good. Every line that Commodus utters is so nefarious (in the shallowest of ways) and he's presented as the epitome of evil. But the character development doesn't cut it -- like the 95% of all movies made today. Watch the movie. These guys sit around and try to say the most meaningful and insightful things in as few lines as possible. But it doesn't mean anything. The scenes involving the two senators talking about the games and any conversation between Commodus and Lucilla are perfect examples. They try to pass these conversations off as deep and revealing, but they make me gag over how stupid they are. I noticed these things when I watched it the first time, but I overlooked them because I wanted to enjoy the movie and not critique it too much. I can't do that anymore. It's not in my nature. The special effects are so overdone. They're impressive in the fakest sense. I watched Spartacus again before I watched Gladiator again, and there is no comparison. Gladiator ripped off so much from Spartacus, but the result is so cheesey. Spartacus took its time to develop the characters while Gladiator just introduced some traits and assumed that the audience would just accept the rest--I don't think so. Spartacus is complex and straightforward at the same time. Lawrence Olivier, Kirk Douglas, Peter Ustinov, Jean Simmons, and the rest of the cast were excellent. There were good good guys, mean good guys, so-so guys that were both good and bad (Peter Ustinov's Batiatus), and bad guys that were still somewhat good if you understood them (Lawrence Olivier's Crassus). I could go on and on. Watch the movie. The end scene between Olivier and Simmons is worth the price alone -- beatiful acting and moving drama. Then watch Gladiator -- MERCY!
Rating: 
Summary: Gladiator stretches the bounds of believability...
Review: The worst of all is the notion that a man who can go single handed against 10 or so other gladiators and slice them all down (or to pieces) one after the other in a small arena on the outskirts of the empire - would so calmly allow himself to be re shackled at the end of each performance by a minimum security force belonging to a merchant/slave trader. High Plains Drifter was a much more realistic scenario.
Rating: 
Summary: Awful!
Review: I think Gladiator has to go down in cinema history as the worst movie ever to win any academy award(s) and yet, it got Best Picture. First, the historical research into the period depicted was nonexistent. The initial battle scenes were done incorrectly, according to my Roman military historian friends, and the armor and weapons were totally wrong. Simon Atherton has no excuse for this; he could have consulted any number of reenactment groups in the UK for how to make Roman armor and weapons. Then, when the movie company moved to Malta, things went downhill from there and never recovered. I remember some discussion about the slave tunics not being hemmed; they were made wrong in the first place, so it did not matter, anyway. The costumes, which to my surprise, won an academy award, were also equally incorrect for the period, turning the cast into just about the silliest bunch of clowns I have seen in a long time, especially Crowe in that rediculous silver helmet worn in the gladiator scene. However, sometimes a movie with bad background research can be redeamed by good acting. Gladiator has about the most wooden acting I have seen in a long time, but I can't blame Russell Crowe and other members of the cast, they had a terrible script to read. The plot line was nonexistent and went nowhere slowly, and the ending did not resolve anything except to strengthen my resolve to never to see a Ridley Scott film again. The only way this disaster could have won the awards it did was due to somebody who owed somebody favors and "lets my people get together with your people and we'll do lunch." The one thing that deserved an Academy Award were the computer graphics which did to a very nice job on restoring the Coliseum.
Rating: 
Summary: Brilliant, Masterpiece, Mesmerizing, etc.
Review: I'm going to keep this somewhat short, and sweet. Gladiator is absolutley brilliant. Ridley Scott directs this Roman epic, and he enlists the talents of Russell Crowe as the lead character, Maximus, a General in the Roman Army. Alongside Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix is the Emperor, after his father passes on. This film grips the viewer and holds them intensely right from the beginning, with a battle scene so fierce it will draw comparisons to the scenes from Mel Gibson's Braveheart. Right from there the viewer expects sheer brilliance for the rest of the film, and that is exactly what they get. Crowe's performance in Gladiator is the best performance given by an actor since, once again, Mel Gibson's portrayal of William Wallace in his classic, Braveheart. Crowe's dialogues are just perfect for delivery, tone, volume, everything. Body actions match precisely to his words, and much is the same for the rest of the characters. Phoenix, the Emperor, makes you believe that he really is a mean S.O.B, with a real evil look to boot. Although I'd have to say the best performance given by any actor ever would be Al Pacino as the Great Tony Montana in Scarface. Now, Scarface is my favorite movie of all time, and after that movie, few have been able to list as classics on my all-time list. In order (1-5) my favorite movies of all time are: 1. Scarface, (Al Pacino) 2. Braveheart,(Mel Gibson) 3. Gladiator,(Russell Crowe) 4. Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, 5. Juice, (Tupac Shakur). To put Gladiator into this position, in my opinion, is a testament to the movie, its makers, and its actors. So in all, this is the best movie in years, and well worth buying as a permanent fixture in your collections. Oh, and see if you can spot WWF's The Rock as one of the Gladiators. Enjoy!
Rating:
Summary: Enough Said
Review: When is the prequel coming out??? If you have not seen this movie you must live in a cave - must see on DVD - VHS does not give the same result for the Unlease Hell track ! BUY IT, Borrow it or Rent it!
Rating:
Summary: Gladiator
Review: This may not be totally true to Roman History, but it is a beautifully done film of that genre. Russell Crowe is excellent and certainly did earn his Oscar. I love Roman History and I enjoyed this film very much. As for the critics, all I can say is, can you make something half as good?
Rating:
Summary: Gladiator brings the term Epic, back to the screen.
Review: Not for a long time have we been spectators to an epic film... Gladiator brought us back into the realm of our past, and I loved it for that. It brought us back to the tremendous Roman Empire, to the command of a General, fighting for his Ceasar, his Empire, his Rome... However, like always things take a turn for the worst, and the General is outcast by the Thrown's heir, mourns for loved ones past, forced into slavery and regains a sword to revenge, in the form of the crowd. The story is a moving and stunning one, providing a good backbone to the film. The backbone is supported with an incredible array of images and scenes, (for example the breathtaking flaming arrows flying high over the battle field, in the opening scene) with amazing special effects transporting us back into the world of Rome, the world of an Empire... its lavish and ornate theatres, games and lives. Russell Crowe had caught my attention in 'L.A. Confidential', but secured it with this. As the General, slave, and gladiator, Crowe stands his ground next to some true cinema legends, and I was impressed with his performance. Joaquin Phoenix also delivers well, and brings our attention back to the whinny, creepish badies, thursty for power and unattained glory. The British legends are drawn upon... with the likes of Richard Harris, as the aging Ceasar, who I'm pleased to see back on the big screen likewise with the late Oliver Reed, as the freed Gladiator, following a distinctive absence of their work. To me this will always be Reed's film, and although not his finest hour (with contenders like The Three Musketeers), it is certainly up there with the best; Harris said that this would have revived Reed's career, he may have been right... I will always remember him for this, the crowd will remember. Director Ridley Scott (Blade Runner/Alien) adds a rung to his ladder with this masterpiece of cinema, reaffirming him as one of Britain's best directors. The film can boast a multitude of awards under its belt, especially in regards to the Oscars, which I must admit being disappointed that it didn't carry away a few more... The Gladiator DVD 2 disc, is among the top ten DVDs of all time, in terms of its picture and sound quality. With superb extensive extras to match, the likes I have not seen since the DVD release of 'Bridge On The River Kwai'. The documentaries cover all areas of production, and invites you back into the world of Rome through the eyes of a spectator, a spectator in the crowd... It won me.
Rating:
Summary: Boring and So Predictable
Review: I don't know what all the hype is about. This movie was barely worth the rental fee that I paid. I would wait until it's on TV personally. I don't really think that Juaquin Phoenix should be acting and I don't think that Russell Crowe is all that fancy either. I would have enjoyed the movie more if they had both been eaten by lions.
Rating:
Summary: "Best Picture"??? Please....
Review: This is a perfect example of how Hollywood politics often influence the Academy Awards. Because despite the enormous marketing muscle behind it, this film is essentially a B movie with grade A special effects. The acting is okay and the story is alright. But come on. This has to be the longest film ever made that contains no character development whatsoever. In a nutshell, after spending gobs of money producing it, the studio executives commanded that this movie win the big award. And "the people" obeyed.
Rating:
Summary: Superb
Review: Do I dare say I prefer this to Braveheart? I guess I just did.
|
