Gladiator

Rating:
Summary: Overrated and Overhyped
Review: "Gladiator" was the box-office blockbuster of 2000, so you probably should see it if you haven't seen it already, just to be informed. Still, this is a mediocre and vastly overrated film-- both as a would-be epic and as an action film-- and don't let all the hype and hooplah fool you into thinking otherwise.

I first saw this movie in the theater when it came out. I was unimpressed. I just rented it again on DVD to find out whether I missed something the first time. If I did, I missed it the second time as well. I still don't think it's a great movie. In fact, I still don't even think it's a *good* movie. In my book, I'd say it's just a bit below mediocre. If I were giving this a grade, I'd say it was a solid C-. In this review, I try to explain why.

In the spirit of optimism and fairness, I'll start with what I liked about the movie, before I come to my dislikes. I generally like the first half an hour or so. In fact, I think the opening scene of pre-battle preparation (before the legion's battle with the Germans) is the movie's high point. Even after the battle, there's still a lot of good stuff going on here: good tension and contrast-setting between characters with different values and ambitions (Marcus Aurelius vs. Maximus vs. Commodus).

Unfortunately, after the first half an hour, it's all downhill . Largely, I think, this is the fault of the writers. The story, as it is told, is just too implausible-- even within the internal world of the movie. At no point is my disbelief in the contrivedness of the plot ever suspended. The characters' actions seem to make little sense, given their place, position, and the circumstances in which they find themselves.

At the same time, the movie's plot is boringly predictable. There are no dramatic surprises, no sudden reversals, and when tension appears, it is usually a brief bubble brought about by some very good acting by Joaquin Phoenix (such as during the "busy little bee" confrontation), doing the best he can with a sub-par script.

The plot contrivances that are mixed in along the way rarely rise above the level of cliche-- and many lack any real relevance to the overall story. Take Commodus' incestuous attraction to his sister. It's extraneous and never goes anywhere-- except maybe to reinforce the (already well established) idea that he's a creep. In truth, Commodus, degenerates into a parodic strereotype of a corrupt and decadent tyrant after the scene where he kills his father. All that complex characterization that appeared at the beginning just gets tossed out the window. The same is true for his sister as well. Initially, she's supposed to be a ruthless schemer, a skilled liar, etc., but she degerenates into a naive love interest with so little skill at intrigue that she can't even keep a crucial secret trom her eight-year-old son, or stand up to a few threats by her brother. As for Maximus itself, do we really have any sense of what's motivating him after he gets captured? Is it a desire for vengeance? A sense of duty to Marcus Aurelius? Love for Commodus' sister? Duty to the principles of Rome? Ambition? It certainly doesn't seem like any of those are at work here. To me, it seemed like the only thing really motivating his actions was that the script said he was going to do them...

I also have some gripes about the historical aspects of this movie. No, I'm not just talking about little details-- like the fact that swordsmen in the arenas always wore helmets, or that Marcus Aurelius died fighting the Dacians (not the Germans) or even that Commodus' reigned for 12 years rather than six months-- those are just historians' nitpicks. My gripe is the bizarre decision to make Commodus into an wimp with little taste for (or skill in) battle. Far from being the milquetoast wuss that he's been made into here, the historical Commodus grew up in the legion camps with his father and was very much as soldier and commander. He also loved gladiatorial fights, and yes, was even known to participate in them himself in order to increase his popularity with the masses. It seems to me that this would have been something that the makers of this movie would have wanted to *use* rather than to change. Doing so could have made Commodus' decision to go out into the arena at the very end seem believable. It also would have helped to make that final battle into something that was worthy of the name-- an epic struggle between two great warriors. I think it also would have helped illustrate some of the points about modern-day mass political culture that Scott was trying (unsuccessfully) to comment on in the film.

I'm not even going to get started on some of the strange unhistorical (and IMHO, largly ideological) representations that were made here to 'sanitize' Roman culture to make it (and Maximus) seem so much nicer and palatable-- such as the decision to present slavery and gladiatorial schools as phenomena of 'foreign' Africa rather than as native Roman institutions), or the fact that when Maximus thinks about his villa in Spain, he imagines it as this pastoral setting with just his wife and children, with no allusion to all of the slaves who would have done the actual work there.

All that said, I think I could still forgive all of the faults I allude to above (and many others I'm not bothering to mention) if the combat scenes kicked butt. But, they don't. In fact, the action scenes here are embarassingly awful. At first, I thought the weird and jarring photography during the opening battle (between the Romans and the Germans) was supposed to be an artistic effect to simulate the confused and fragmented experience of battle (like the landing sequence of "Saving Private Ryan"). But, as the same thing cropped up again and again in each gladiatorial combat-- and even in a few scenes involving more mundane action (e.g. Commodus stepping out of a litter)-- I'm convinced that there's just really *bad* editing throughout this. (The worst was during his battle with the Gaul and the tigers.... the action here looks about the same quality you might find on a 1950's sci-fi film... or perhaps more accurately, from some sort of streaming video being viewed on a slow modem connection.) For a movie entitled "Gladiator", you would have at least they could have come up with better combat action than this! I couldn't stand it...

In short, this may be a "must-see" movie, but it's also a quite mediocre movie.

Rating:
Summary: hidden footage
Review: A great film and enough has been said about it already, so here's the trick to seeing a hidden section on the 2nd disc showing more about the cut Rhino scene.

On the 2nd disk find the cut rhino scene, then when you see the three frame concept art of the rhino fight, select "UP" and the rhino in the middle frame should highlight.. Then press enter and that will take you to the test footage of the computer animated rhino and also the full text of how the fight would have been played out.

This works on the R2 ( UK ) disk not sure about R1

Rating:
Summary: Vast in scope, grand in vision
Review: One has to hand it to Ridley Scott, it took some major balls to make a film like this. And the biggest surprise is that he actually pulled it off. And only Russell Crowe could have played a General turned Gladiator without a hint of vanity. If nothing else, Gladiator is simply a visual masterpiece -- overflowing with grand palaces, spectacular battles, fearsome gladiatorial contests, and a massive re-creation of ancient Rome that only an army of slave laborers or modern computer graphics could achieve. The story, concocted by a team of screenwriters including the literate William Nicholson, is pure potboiler. The great hero Maximus (Russell Crowe) is destroyed by a young, degenerate emperor called Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix), who slaughters the general's wife and child. Maximus escapes the blade but is enslaved, made a gladiator, and eventually returns to fight in the Roman Colosseum, where he will of course exact revenge on Commodus. The best parts of the script are the wry comments on the nature of "entertainment" and politics, and the way public opinion can be manipulated in either arena. This is a nice sardonic touch, although with millions of dollars on the line, Scott is busy rattling his own sword.

Gladiator's literary narrative is perfectly balanced by the strength of its visual style. Whether in squalid pits under the Colosseum or the blazing sun of its magnificently recreated battleground, the burnished light gives every composition a dazzling, painterly quality. Computer-enhanced shots of the virtual Roman landscape are full of detail, from the statuary and columns of the Forum to the retractable velarium sun roof over the freshly minted Colosseum. Ditto the actual interior sets where bedchambers and Imperial throne rooms sparkle with authenticity. There are a few cracks in the film's magnificent façade. John Mathieson's herky-jerky camerawork makes the otherwise masterful opening battle look like Saving Centurion Ryan, and a nonsensical moment where Maximus and Lucilla kiss seems to exist only to spice up the trailer. Scott makes a few other missteps - including too much Commodus/Lucilla dialogue, and failing to make Phoenix as menacing (a la Tim Roth's foppish swordsman in Rob Roy) as the film's final scenes require. But such complaints are mere quibbles. It may bear some flaws and familiar elements, but Gladiator's script is a great story well told, evading the clichés one might expect (facing your best friend in the ring, etc.) and staying completely one-liner free. Scott also adds spiritual resonance to Maximus' journey, elevating a simple quest for revenge to a Homeric search for inner peace via surreal dream sequences and subtle motifs. The most affecting symbol is the very first the audience sees - a gauntleted hand gently caressing a wheat field. Though initially inconsequential, by the film's end, this image becomes one of the more haunting in recent memory. Such touches give Gladiator a soul, placing the film in the lower pantheon of cinematic greatness.

And not that I place any importance on the Oscars (how could anyone?), but Gladiator, with its epic scope and execution, easily deserves the 'Best Picture' nod over the smug amd self-important 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon'.

Rating:
Summary: Make it stop
Review: I don't know what all the hooplah is with Gladiator. The fight scenes? COuldn't have been the fight scenes, the camera was shaky, much of the deaths were off screen, and, did I mention, the camera was shaky?

The story? Umm, seems to me just like your typical revenge type story strung together with the Gladiator battles to keep your attention along with some incest.

Ah, the lovely scenery. Nope, just bland dark muddy colours here. They don't reflect the theme much either, even good events take place in front of hideous backdrops.

Maybe, Russel Crowe's acting. Some of his lines are compelling, while others are bleak, empty and hollow.

I nearly fell asleep between action scenes, which ultimately diminished into hand to hand battle. I didn't care how the movie ended, all I cared about was when. I yearned for another battle like the chariot one, but it never came. I yearned to see an umpredictable ending, but didn't. This movie failed to deliver in almost every category.

But it did have an ample amount of gore...is that why people liked it? Blood may keep some people held, and blind them from a boring story and 1 dimensional characters, but not me.

Rating:
Summary: The talented Mr. Ridley
Review: As much as I love the opening battle sequence of "Gladiator," the jerky camera movements and strobe-like appearence made me dizzy to the point of almost falling out of my chair. Blood and guts are strewn across the screen like confetti on the first day of the millennium and right in the middle of it is one of the more compelling (and depressing) characters of the year 2000. Russell Crowe is one of the best things about the movie "Gladiator," because with all of its spectacle and grand battle sequences, it lacks in the dramatic sense and its special effects are so video game-ish at times, I thought I was watching a medieval version of "Final Fantasy VII." Some of the sequences involving the colosseum are so see-through and fuzzy that I was tempted to laugh, but the truth of the matter is, a movie like this isn't measured on the quality of its visual effects and dramatic highpoints (it actually does have a few). A film like "Gladiator" is graded on the superb nature of its art direction, cinematography, battle sequences, the courageousness of its hero, and the length of the venomous fangs of its villain. On those levels, it succeeds as well as any Roman epic ever made. Russell Crowe does make the perfect hero, and Joaquin Phoenix is fantastic as Commodus. The dramatic highpoints, which we always know are coming, but the payoff is worth the wait, are very well written. The battle sequences are plentiful, and when they don't look like they were shot with strobe-vision, they are extremely intense. The art direction is fabulous. We are actually stepping back in time with this film. It looks and feels real as we watch it, despite the bad special effects. And of course, a film like this, on such a grand scale, needs a director who has directed many influential films over the years. "Gladiator" has Ridley Scott, who has directed such films as the 1979 sci-fi horror epic "Alien," which was only surpassed by James Cameron dynamically intense "Aliens." He has also directed "Blade Runner" and "Thelma and Louise." There are more, but these are the true heavy hitters.

The basic plotline of "Gladiator" is Rocky on a series of downer narcotics. Russell Crowe is the leader of the Roman armies, General Maximus Decimus Meridius, who is the "father to a murdered son, husband to the murdered wife, and I will have my vengeance in this life or the next." (Those lines are delivered with such power that I slammed my fist down with a "hell yeah" in the theater) And it is true, Maximus was betrayed by the newly crowned Emperor Commodus, after Commodus killed the rightful leader of Rome, his own father, Marcus Aurelius, the last of the good emperors. Commodus is one sick puppy. He kills his father to make sure Maximus does not take the throne from him, which was the wish of the dying Aurelius, plans to take his sister as his queen (yuck), and instead of dealing with the plague proposes a series of games to keep the people of Rome occupied. ("He'll give them death, and they'll love him for it.") Commodus has it all worked out, until the supposedly dead Maximus removes his helmet and announces his resurrection to the entire empire. Commodus thinks he can deal with this by arranging a series of unfair fights that he believes will end up with Maximus as the loser - meaning dead. But Maximus isn't so easily taken down. He can fight. OH MAN, CAN HE FIGHT! The plotline moves like a convential fight movie, with the scarred hero and the fiendish villain, and we know that by the end of the movie, Maximus and Commodus will fight. This much goes without saying, but "Gladiator" does have its fair share of surprises, and those pleasant events make the movie worth watching.

"Gladiator" doesn't deserve the Best Picture Oscar, that honor, I believe, belongs to "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," but it is truly heroic filmmaking of the highest calibur. I just would've liked to see something with better visuals and a better handled sense of drama. Not that I'm knocking "Gladiator" for its faults (I own the movie). Almost every movie has its faults; "Gladiator" just happens to wear its flaws proudly.

Rating:
Summary: Better than I expected
Review: After reading some of the comments here and being generally leary about Hollywood blockbusters, I did not expect much from this film. I was pleasantly surprised.

If you can get by the preposterous premise of the film, you will find a literate script, good performances, and a movie that really moves along at a fast pace. It is the only Roman epic that I would willingly see again besides Spartacus. In fact, there is a lot in Gladiator that can be compared to the first half of Spartacus but Spartacus remains the superior film. I am glad that the producers of Gladiator chose to emulate Spartacus rather than The Fall of the Roman Empire(which was a terrible film) upon which the plot was based.

Some good things about the film include the lack of sex and foul language which would have restricted the viewing of this film. There is plenty of violence but it's in a comic book style and not too realistic. The use of Oliver Reed and Richard Harris was truly inspired and they contribute to the film in the way that Alec Guiness contributed to Star Wars. The overall quality of acting is very good. The special effects are fine and the scenes in the Colluseum are especially memorable.

It is not a great film, or even the best film of 2000, but I enjoyed it and would recommend it with enthusiasm.

Rating:
Summary: Overhyped, Overpraised & Over Nominated
Review: Gladiator is a good movie. Got that? A good movie, not a great movie. Not even an excellent movie. Just a good movie. I saw it in the theatre and was disappointed because I was hoping for greatness and something special. Instead, I got an opening battle that was shot so murkily it was hard to follow the action (it IS much better & clearer on the DVD), and then a story that was by turns interesting (Crowe's journey) and boring (Phoenix's machinations and lust for his sister etc.). It shifted from good action sequences (although they were over edited to almost incomprehensibility on the big screen....again better on the DVD) to lifeless passages outside the arena. Russel Crowe, as usual, was very good. Joaquin Phoenix was a joke (and I don't give a damn if he was nominated for an Oscar). The story became more ridiculous as it went along...that an emperor of Rome would allow a man sworn to kill him to live for 10 minutes past discovering his identity was laughable. And wound up with this Hollywood clap-trap ending where all the Romans are going to join hands and march into the sunset and restore "The Republic". This is junk writing and popular hooey. So, I give it the good rating for action & production values and a good cast giving okay performances. But if this lightweight piece of nonsense wins a bunch of Academy Awards it will only be further proof that that august body of voters wouldn't know a real film with depth and integrity from a hole in the wall.

Rating:
Summary: Yawn.....
Review: I just finished watching Gladiator. It's all right, but certainly not the great cinematic work it's being touted as. It was remarkably like Ben Hur. All it needed was Charlton Heston, a chariot race, and a few lepers. The background music was less than subtle. The music in itself was very nice, but the viewer gets beat over the head with the "choir of angels" bit. I heard a great deal about Joaquin Phoenix's performance as the evil Commodus as well. There were a few moments when he was very much like the Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. Instead of saying "I am vexed!", I was waiting for him to say, "That's it! Christmas is cancelled!" (at least Alan Rickman was comical and enteratining as well as menacing). I'm all about Russell Crowe in a skirt, but this just wasn't that great. Those of us who have just sat through all two and a half hours of this ho-hum yawn-fest salute you......

Rating:
Summary: Excellent! Can I love this movie any more?
Review: Wonderful action, great characters, perfect musical score, what else do we need? The DVD only adds to the movie's greatness, with the addition of commentary, behind-the-scenes video, and more. Sure, this isn't exactly the most historically accurate movie ever made, but it IS a wonderful bit of fiction, sure to satisfy the most hardened action lover, with enough intrigue and romance to fill the needs of others, too.

As an avid "Romanophile," I have some issues with the portrayal of Rome as merely a blood-thirsty population of savages, plus numerous inaccuracies in staging (I even found myself trying to see how they solved the problem of canopies in the Colosseum). Still, the movie, as a whole, sucks you in, and suspends even the most scholarly disbelief (even knowing that the armor is injection-molded resin ... This is what epic Roman stories SHOULD be like. Of course, what more do I really need to say? See the list of awards it won? 'Nuff said.

Rating:
Summary: I don't normally like CG special effects but these're good
Review: I thought they did a pretty good job redoing Rome. I still prefer models, mattes, real set construction-- but these computer renditions didn't look half bad. Usually I hate the computer graphics in movies.

The way buildings (palaces, huts, tents, etc) looked inside was real good. I guess the "property department" was responsible for that.

Good action movie... especially the opening scenes with the barbarians. The action is the draw for this film-- it's a "guy" movie. Lots of hack and slash, military comraderie, etc.

This is Oliver Reed's last movie. He's one of my favorite character actors and does a good job as a local gladiator manager.

Joaquim does decent job making the evil Commodus almost sympathetic in spots.

Finally, I liked the fact that they presented the ancestor worship/veneration that in some ways was more important to the average Roman than the Zeus pantheon.