Rating: 
Summary: The best epic in years.
Review: Crowe does a fantastic acting job here.
Rating:
Summary: One of my Favorites
Review: Gladiator is one of my favorite movies. It has action, drama, great cinematography, outstanding fight scenes, love, great acting, and most importantly, it's a great story.For those who haven't seen it I don't want to give away the entire plot. Briefly, Maximus, the virtuous and victorious commander of the Roman army over the Visigoths, is asked by the dying Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, to become the protectorate of Rome upon his death and return the rule of law to the Senate, making Rome once again a Republic. Aurelius's evil and ambitious son, Commodus - fully expecting to made emperor himself - will have none of it, striking out against his father and destroying Maximus. Maximus becomes a slave, then a gladiator, eventually finding himself fighting in the Roman Coliseum in front of his nemesis, Commodus. The story has somewhat of classic plot line - similar in some ways to the Tale of Monte Cristo as Maximus seeks revenge, but more than revenge, he seeks to carry out the wishes of a dying emperor and a higher cause. The movie also paints Maximus as the classic Republican citizen, who wants nothing more after securing victory for Rome than to go home to his family and farm. Unfortunately, events conspire against him as he forced to make yet another sacrifice for this country. Even at the bitter end he seeks to serve Rome. On a side note, unlike others I didn't find the special features that interesting. They were pretty typical "The Making Of" documentaries. And the historical piece was not that new, to me at least.
Rating:
Summary: Really a Great Movie
Review: This is one of my favorite movies of all time, and everything is just great, including the story, acting, and definately the music. Go see it!
Rating: 
Summary: Ic.
Review: It's very boring.All other movies nominated in the Academy Award for the Best Picture are better than this one.
Rating:
Summary: I DID PAY CLOSE ATTENTION
Review: In response to the gentleman from Nevada whose review was, in turn, a response to my earlier critique of this film, I'd like to answer his answers to my original points, because it's clear that one of us didn't pay close attention to this film. First point: so the reviewer from Nevada didn't think Commodus was weak? If perhaps he read his history a litte closer then he would know that the reason why men like the actual Commodus (not the cartoon character depicted in this movie) were able to hold on to power the way they did is quite simple: Roman soldiers were the highest paid warriors of their day. They were paid very graciously by the emperor himself to ensure that he had their loyalty. This was put into effect after a mutinous sack of Rome by the Roman army itself, led by a disgruntled general (I won't get into details here, he can read it for himself if he likes afterwards). That being said, it was the EMPEROR who held true power, NOT the mobs of Rome. With his soldiers and personal guard behind him to protect him, there was absolutely no reason whatsoever why the emperor should have to fear a humble slave, even if that slave was an ex-soldier-turned-popular sports hero. Historically speaking, Commodus had the power to execute Maximus, even publicly if he chose, and there wouldn't have been the slightest thing that the mobs of Rome could've done about it. Perhaps if our friend from Nevada was aware of this fact then he would understand why I find this entire wanna-be BEN-HUR "I'll be back" plot so ridiculous. But if he chose to ignore it simply for entertainment's sake, that's not my problem. As for my feeling sorry for Commodus being my personal issue, perhaps so. But what's there not to feel sorry for? Did Marcus Aurelius not confess to his son "Your faults as a son is my failure as a father"? The poor kid was a product of his own father's lack of love for him. Pitiful. This scene should never have been added. It DOES leave some room for sympathy. So our fellow reviewer thinks my point about Marcus Aurelius not training the reluctant, politically inexperienced general in the rules of emperorship is crying over spilt milk, does he? For heaven's sake, the man is about to be in charge of an entire empire! This isn't spilt milk, it's a tremendous responsibility! Our friend is right about ONE thing so far: Maximus does make some mention of his unenviable situation, but that's not until towards the end of the film. My observation of Maximus not questioning why he was forced into this dreaded lifestyle is not a matter of whining, it's a matter of justice. Does our friend from Nevada presume to tell us that if he were wrongly imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit he would simply just stay quite on account that he's not a whiner?? Come on, dude! As for my point about Maximus' sudden popularity, once again it is our fellow reviewer from Nevada who didn't pay close attention, not I. It's very clearly seen in the movie that the big German gladiator who had earlier thought that Maximus was a coward for refusing to fight during training, was suddenly praising our hero with silly compliments RIGHT BEFORE THE TRIAL COMBAT, BEFORE MAXIMUS HAD PARTICIPATED IN ANY KIND OF FIGHTING, and not after Maximus had already built his reputation as a talented warrior. Why this happened is still not answered clearly by our friend. As for the major flaw I previously pointed out about one of Maximus' fellow teammates not informing our hero that he fought alongside the ex-general in Germania until the gladiators' first big fight at the Colosseum IS OF CONSIDERABLE IMPORTANCE TO THE INTELLIGENCE LEVEL OF THIS FILM. Let's remember one thing: Maximus chose to keep his identity a secret, which is why he allowed himself to be called, simply, "The Spaniard" by everyone. How is it, then, that a fellow soldier-turned-gladiator who trained and fought alongside a famous and well-liked general like Maximus, kept his knowledge of our hero's true name to himself?? Please leave logic at the front entrance of the theater. It is not hard at all knocking this film. How can it be when every illogical flaw it contains is presented right before my very own eyes? It was precisely because I watched this movie very closely (more than a few times, too) that I changed the way I originally felt about it. I suggest our friend from Nevada do the same.
Rating: 
Summary: The Moose Hole - 'Gladiator' Resurrects Golden Age of Cinema
Review: Does anyone truly remember the golden age of cinema anymore? It was the era when the screen was lit up with lavish epic-dramas set against ancient backdrops such as Greece or Rome, where the likes of Kirk Douglas and Charlton Heston fully controlled the attention of movie-going audiences across the country for three-plus hours, and when going to the movies cost you under a dollar (and that was including popcorn and soda-pop). Well it seems the studio executives in Hollywood are becoming quite nostalgic as they are willing to take a risk and return motion pictures back to the genre that many thought was dead long ago. And it was Gladiator, a film that contained what many thought was a washed-up director and no-name leading man, that resurrected the "ancient" genre thanks to its nearly $200 million domestic haul, massive DVD release, and its five Academy Awards wins including Best Picture. Now Hollywood is going all out in, what they hope will be, the new golden age of cinema complete with lavish three hour epic-dramas, gladiatorial and militant battle sequences, and overly-oiled up leading men ... if only they could be convinced to bring back old ticket prices, only then would we be truly satisfied but perhaps that is asking too much too soon. The story center on a man who was once in the service of a vast ancient empire commanding troops in grand feats of battle but now serves merely as entertainment in the gladiatorial events fighting for his life. Maximus Decimus Meridius was one of the greatest generals the Roman Empire had ever seen in that he courageously fought in battle, won the field when he was commanded to do so, and retained the loyalty and devotion of his troops. Here was a man truly a rare sight in the area of leadership, one that could, if given the opportunity to, lead Rome back to its former glory as a republic and not an empire. That is what the current emperor, Marcus Aurelius, sees in him and why he choose Maximus over his son Commodus to take control of Rome when he dies. Unfortunately Commodus suffocates his father before the announcement can be made public and orders Maximus to be secretly done away with. After escaping from his captors and returning home to find his wife and son crucified, he is taken by slave traders and made into a gladiator meant to kill other slaves for the enjoyment of the veracious crowds. When he is entered in the gladiatorial games in Rome, he sets out to enact his revenge on Commudus, either in this life or the next, all the in the effort of seeking retribution for the deaths of his innocent family. The story for Gladiator, though marred with numerous historical inaccuracies, is quite honestly one of the most entertaining and visually engaging epic-dramas in years. Though it is not the most original story line one could come up with (it borrows heavily from Hamlet and other Shakespearian plays), the plot does manage to keep the audience's attention even against a lengthy two hour and forty minute running time. Gladiator is one of the rare shining example for the rest of Hollywood ... a $100 million budgeted epic does not need tremendously famous leading men and women to be successful as long as the cast members that are used in the film are suited to their roles and work cohesively well together on screen, which this film demonstrates in spades. The role of Maximus Decimus Meridius is quite possibly Russell Crowe's most commanding performance to date, with the only exception being his role as Captain Jack Aubrey in the naval drama, Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World. He successfully transitions his character from a dynamic general in the beginning of the film to a barbaric gladiator by the mid-way point of the film, and yet at the same time he maintains some of those leadership qualities that made the character so enduring to begin with. Another relatively unknown, at the time of this film's release, actor who manages to light up the screen was Joaquin Phoenix with his exuberant and often disturbing performance as the Emperor Commodus. The character is so overly emotional, viciously conniving, and eerily mysterious that one can't help but have extreme hatred for him from the moment you first see on screen. Phoenix does a tremendous job at emotionally setting a character that you are meant to hate, which only fuels already fervent enthusiasm for Maximus as he progresses through the film. Possibly the only slightly famous name on the list of cast members belongs to the late veteran actor, Richard Harris, though the only people who may have really recognized his name would have been film enthusiasts and fans of his work. Harris presents a character that, although he is the emperor of a vast empire, is frail and grandfather-like in manner and actions, which makes his death scene all the more excruciating to watch. And praise must also be given to Connie Nielsen, the only woman of the cast, who showcases a strong and caring woman trapped between the wishes of her dead father, the brutality of her powerful brother, and her enduring love for Maximus. It is not till the final sequence of the film till we see her fully come into her own and present it a way that is eloquent and yet commanding at the same time. Overall, Gladiator successfully resurrects the once dead epic genre albeit more sanguineous, vicious and gut-wrenching then its golden age predecessors. Visually, and emotionally, this film is nearly perfect with Ridley Scott's direction taking the ancient world of Rome and presenting to the movie-going audience that is neither overwhelming nor is it trivial to their view of the story at hand in this film. The only major complaint that can be made about this film is its constant lack of respect, or reverence, to historical events and characters involved in the plot of the film. One can say that this is an action-drama that is not meant to be played out for historical purposes but the fact that it deliberately takes historical figures and twists their lives to make them more interesting for the overall plot of the film should be disturbing to many educators, though, it must be clearly noted, that this is hardly the first, nor last, time Hollywood is guilty of such a crime. But taking the film, despite all of that, for what it is, Gladiator is one of the most enthralling and emotionally compelling dramas of 2000, though not at quite the level of being the best picture of the year.
Rating:
Summary: Gladiator is among the elite
Review: Gladiator is a film that I could spend all night talking about, most of it good talk. In fact, from a story stand point, the film is ingenius and creative. The idea that a slave, a gladiator could be more powerful than the will of the Emperor is well thought through. I think the film did a masterful job pointing out what Rome was back then: an empire ruled by corrupt rulers and influenced heavily by the Roman mob. This is true, if you know your Roman history. The film isn't historically correct, big deal, it still tells a fantastic storyline. But I will dedicate this review in reply to another review written six days ago by someone that tried their hardest to knock this film. The viewer from Los Angeles wrote a very bad review in which he fails to prove, despite his numerous examples, of how Gladiator is such a bad film. His first criticism is that Commodus is too weak of a bad guy. How so? He performs as a typical young, inexperienced yet ambitious little brat would. I never saw him as weak. A pompous brat, yes. But weak, not really. As far as feeling sorry for him, that's your issue, there's nothing to feel sorry for about him. Then the reviewer complains that Marcus Aurelius' character isn't wise because he didn't take the time to train Maximus when he was young. Well, gee, let's all bawl over spilt milk. Who cares what he should've done. The reviewer complains next that Maximus never does complain over his situation. Not true. In scene where Maximus is talking with Marcus' daughter and he is chained to the wall, you can hear the frustration inside him. In fact, if the reviewer had taken the time to look into Maximus' character to begin with, you would see that Maximus is a humble man, not a whiner. And that Maximus doesn't have to out right say "Gee, I hate being a slave." You get the idea through his discouragement by refusing to fight and his frustrations of being a slave and having to kill for a living. The reviewer then whines about how Maximus is given so much herald in his first battle even though he did nothing special. Again, not watching the film very closely. The film doesn't show us all the battles Maximus battles in, but it would be apparent that he gains a reputation as time moves on due to how all the gladiators begin to respect him. Duh. Then the reviewer has a problem with a soldier admitting he served under him. Who cares if he just now brings it out? What is your problem, are you this skeptical of an individual that you have to have a tantrum over everything? If anything, it just raises question marks, it doesn't make it a bad film. Geez. Then the reviewer makes his biggest mistake in his criticism of Gladiator. The reviewer doesn't understand how Maximus is more powerful than the emporer. Again, pay attention to the film and you'll see why. As I stated in the beginning, the film is ingenius because the point of the film is to show how a slave in chains, yes chains, can wield more power through influence than the emporer. Again, I don't understand this nitpicking of this film from this reviewer. It's unfounded and a lot of the criticisms have answers to them if you just watch the film carefully and pay attention. This film has a lot of deepness and it is because of its deep qualities that makes Gladiator champion. Grade: A+
Rating:
Summary: A Great Movie in the Vein of the Classic Roman Epics
Review: The epic may have passed from popularity decades ago, but every so often the genre crops its head up and shows us just why these types of movies are so compelling. "Gladiator" is a solidly acted movie and well directed. I'm not going to hide the fact that Ridley Scott is my favorite director, and this movie is a good example of his directorial talent. "Gladiator" certainly has its drawbacks, the most obvious existing in its historical inaccuracies. Although the rewriting of history is irksome, I have to admit that this is only a movie. As such, it's primary concerns are maintaining quality acting and artistic vision. None of the emperors - Marcus Aurelius and his son, Commodus - are true to their historical personas. In actuality, both were very strong individuals. I tend to think that "Gladiator's" Commodus is more like Caligula or Nero - obviously insane with dysfunctional sexual tendencies. However, since this movie is not a biopic, this is not a major concern. It's intention was to create a compelling story centering around a fictional general. Both Richard Harris and Joaquin Phoenix (especially Phoenix) create multi-dimensional characters. The ending, which I won't spoil here, is completely inaccurate, but, again, I don't consider this a detractor from the film. The only real thing that bothered me in this film was, firstly, the "iffy" dialogue the studio squeezed out for Oliver Reed's Proximo after his death. I suppose recasting his character would have been impossible and disrespectful to Reed, but I don't think that they did an adequate job continuing on his character. My second criticism is that the movie didn't show enough of the Roman Senate. I would have liked to have seen how Commodus's rising power affected that elite class as a whole, but then again, that probably wouldn't have been in keeping with the nature of the film, which centers around Maximus. Again, a solidly acted movie with the spectacular Ridley Scott at the directorial helm. Give up your reservations against its historical inaccuracies and embrace its artistic vision.
Rating:
Summary: Great Entertainment
Review: You know, I adore this movie. But I'm not sure I can really say why. I don't do it often, but when I do, I can slip the disc into player and sit through it like I had never seen it before. Granted, the story is not all that original. And there are logic flaws (ie Maximus was raised with the emperor's family, but had never been to Rome...unlikely!) But still, there's just something about this movie. Maybe it's that I can sit and watch it, and for the whole 2+ hours I can lose myself in the story. A story that just moves. From point A to B to C... The pace just keeps pulling you along with it. I never saw it in the theater, but the film on the DVD is awesomely beautiful. Or, maybe I adore this movie because Maximus is a character you can't help but root for. And from scene one you get pulled into his story and it won't let you go until the very end. On the surface, in this day and age, and given the subject matter, I can understand how some people are surprised to learn of the awards it's won. But once you've seen it, you'll know it deserved every one that it has received. GLADIATOR is why I watch movies. GLADIATOR is entertainment.
Rating:
Summary: One of 2000's best movies.
Review: I am a big fan of Ridley Scott's work. Alien and Thelma and Louise were wonderful, and he definately made a great comeback in this film. Gladiator is one of the grandest movies. The places that this movie takes you is almost like you are there. The fight scenes were very real and dramatic. Russel Crowe was destined to play Maximus. He outshined Mel Gibson's role in Braveheart. Jacquin Pheonix played a wonderful villain in the film as well. This definately every Academy Award that it received. This movie is the greatest film based on the Roman times other than Ben Hur. I highly reccomend this film.
|
