Rating: 
Summary: Stupendous!!!
Review: The year 2000 was one of the worst year for movies. Thankfully this is not one of those dissapointment.This movie is all about a general who becomes a Gladiator and want's revenge on what happens to him ( i wont tell you what happens). The action is stupendous as well as the story line. This movie will surely please you. This movie is nominated for 12 Osars!!!!!!
Rating:
Summary: Ignore the backlash - enjoy this film for what it is
Review: There's such a bitter, aggressive backlash against this movie throughout the internet, especially since it received its dozen Oscar nominations. The fact that Gladiator was such a box office smash seems to inspire many to question its "legitimacy," leading such wannabe critics to dissect nearly every frame of the film and throw in plenty of hostile descriptions, such as "weak," "cliched," etc. Eventually, you must trust your own judgment and appreciate Gladiator for what it is: a bold, rousing adventure film. It succeeded brilliantly at what it set out to be: exciting summer escapism. Its filmmakers never intended it to be War and Peace. It takes the best aspects of the old "sword and sandal" genre and reintroduces them in a broader, fresher and more contemporary style. What a wonderful summer it was in 2000, enjoying repeat viewings of Gladiator and its protagonist, Maximus, a (refreshingly) noble soldier (instead of the more 80s-style wild, out-of-control action hero) - played by the commanding Russell Crowe, the finest actor to emerge since Anthony Hopkins and Robert DeNiro. As for the Oscar question: how about putting this all in perspective? If Gladiator is as "seriously flawed" as its detractors claim it to be, how do we measure Titanic or other epics that have won Best Picture? How about Braveheart? The Unforgiven? Dances With Wolves? Reds? What about some of that dialogue in Spartacus that made director Kubrick remove his name from the credits? Plenty of imperfections among all those titles, isn't there? Is Gladiator perfect? Definitely not, but then, what film is? Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon? Almost Famous? They're a long ways from that in my book. Does Gladiator measure up to, or exceed, the quality of most Best Picture winners? ABSOLUTELY. Yes, 2000 probably WAS, overall, the "worst year in movie history," and the prospect of an action/adventure film winning Best Picture -- a movie that never set out to preach or enlighten -- seems inappropriate and unfair. But instead of being angry about that, I'm going to sit back and be grateful for the sheer joy and escapism that Gladiator brought me this past year. Thank you Ridley Scott, Russell Crowe, Dreamworks, Universal and a wonderful cast and crew for giving me a summer I'll never forget.
Rating: 
Summary: Fun, semi-mindless entertainment
Review: I'm a bit taken aback by the fact that this film recieved so many oscar nods, but it indeed is a film that is immensely enjoyable, and both Russell Crowe and Joaquin Phoenix give outstanding performances.
Rating:
Summary: Bought my DVD player because of this film
Review: I finally broke down & bought a DVD player just because of this film. This is Russell at his best & is the big box office hit his career needed. Only thing I did not like about the film was the relationship between the brother & sister. That was not needed. I write this 2 days after the Oscar nominations. Well deserved!!
Rating:
Summary: Ut pictura poesis (A poem is like a picture)-Horace
Review: A multimedia feast!! Ridley Scott rejuvenates the Roman epic in this tale of a general (Russell Crowe) who sets about avenging his murdered family and saving a dying civilization. The film can best be described as a dance of sound and imagery (Even before the film begins, look for the floating human skull above the DreamWorks logo.). As the film begins, the haunting soundtrack and smoky backdrop immediately take the viewer back almost 2,000 years to Imperial Rome. Indeed, the transcendental scenes that bookend the film underscore the ancient Romans' notion of wanting to rise above the misery of Life. Don't expect the film to be historically accurate. That's not vital to its message. We can forgive the film's depiction of Marcus Aurelius's death, so long as we get a glimpse of his Stoic outlook on life. Hans Zimmer's score is as complex as the film is rich with concepts. His cheap ripoff of Holst's "Mars: The Bringer of War" during the Germania battle is a bit over the top, though. The Roman Colosseum is the focal point of the film's major plot. Sadly, the computer-generated structure falls a bit short on realism. One must wonder how Billy Wyler could recreate a provincial circus for "Ben-Hur" without benefit of digital technology, when 41 years later, Ridley Scott must rely on a puny Maltese amphitheater which he expands in cyberspace? Moreover, Rome itself, as shown in the film, looks like a B-movie backlot (Again, I allude to the spacious "Ben-Hur" scenes of the Eternal City.). This cheapening of the film is not forgivable. Did the DreamWorks crew refuse to pony up the dough for a proper Roman epic? Ridley succeeds, though, in giving the viewer a glimpse of ancient Roman values. When Maximus, the Roman general, reminds his legionnaires that "What we do in Life, echoes in Eternity," he speaks of the idea that one can be remembered as being honorable or despicable depending on one's actions. Emperor Commodus reminds his sister, Lucilla, that their father said Life is but a dream. Bracchus, the Senator, tells his colleague that Rome is the mob, and when one controls the mob, one controls the Empire. Maximus's tireless journey through much of the Empire, facing death every step of the way, to exact revenge is, in a way, a retelling of "The Aeneid." These are but a few of the many themes of Roman life that bind the film together. The imagery, the soundtrack and the many plots make "Gladiator" the latest Ridley Scott film to become a cult classic.
Rating: 
Summary: Awful, Just Awful
Review: First, let's get one thing clear: if it was possible to give this movie nothing, I would gladly do it. There are so many things that are worng about this film I can't even begin to list them all. Russell Crowe was NOT even partially good in this role. I don't even know why he got it. It should have gone to someone who could act. Also, the film did not have to be that long. Don't get me wrong, some films need length in order to deal with everything in the story, but this one did not. It could have easily been 90 or 100 minutes and summed everything up that it needed to. The result of this version is that it moved too slow when if it was cut, the pace would have better. It should also have stayed away from most of the historical facts that were included. It made the plot all the more iffy: it should have either been factual or fictional, not somewhere in between. The only good thing in this film was Joaquin Pheonix, who played the part he was given exactly as it should be. It's a shame everything else was just awful.
Rating: 
Summary: Good Movie, but Best Picture of the Year?
Review: This was a good action flick, and all the fights and battles are great. Russel Crowe does a great job and deserves praise. But the movie doesn't flow logically. The reasons Crowe was made a slave aren't clear... he's crying at the death of his family, and a foot appears... next he's a slave. This coming from the man who has fought his way out of so many battles, including death in Germany when the current ruler was overthrown. There are several moments where I wasn't sure why things were happening. That's okay for an action flick, but I expect more from the Academy. Are we ready to throw plot development out the window when the action is good? Man, I hope not! By the way, the recreation of Rome was awesome, another plus for the movie. So why did I give it only two stars? Well, to be honest, in protest over the Academy's nomination... not that the field was all that great this year...
Rating:
Summary: INCREDIBLE!!!
Review: I wouldn't do this movie justice if I spoke too much on it, I am afraid of not giving enough praise. This movie was just beyond incredible. Everything was perfect. The action... intense and extrememly well executed... the story line... incredibly breath-taking... I have watched this movie many times. I even bought the movie on my college budget because I think it was almost necessary to own. Don't even worry about renting it before you buy, You WILL love this movie.
Rating:
Summary: When In Rome...
Review: Oddly enough when I first saw this movie I didn't know much about it, perhaps my memory is a little foggy from the time. I do remember though walking out of the theater and thinking to myself I have got to have this one on DVD. Well I have it now, and have probably watched it 15+ times. The acting is very good for an epic-action movie, and the special effects of Rome are surrealistic. You don't have to be a fan of Ancient Rome to enjoy this movie, in fact students of Med civilizations may chafe at the idea of a Roman General turning Slave to Gladiator to killing the Emperor. This movie makes that idea work though. The drama between characters is thick enough to cut with a knife. To my immense surprise Joachim Phoenix played the part of Commodus to perfection...His contribution to the movie surpassed any of the other actors/actresses in my opinion. I would recommend this movie to anyone, and if you have a good surround system it's all the better, the musical score blends very well with the action, and the drama. The cinematography has been very well done, especially the scene where Commodus is riding into Rome for the first time to the Senate building...the use of a slightly blue filter adds to the effect so well. Ok. I've got to stop raving about this movie...hope everyone enjoys it as much as I do.
Rating: 
Summary: All in all a I mediocre film.
Review: Russell Crowe does an adequate job in this long "epic". He doesn't have the charisma and draw of other great actors, but he does well enough to keep you watching. I didn't find this to be the incredible action movie that many portrayed it to be. The battle scenes were good, although not at the level of greats like Braveheart or the Patriot. I found much of the movie to be slow moving, although the subplot with Ceasar and his sister was intriguing. Young Ceasars character played by Joaqin Phoenix was excellent. He had me hating him within minutes! Over all this is a good film, but don't expect it to knock your socks off.
| 
