Gladiator

Rating:
Summary: Oh so overrated. ..
Review: Gladiator is far, far less entertaining than the big sword'n'sandal epics from the fifties and sixties. Russel Crowe's Maximus could have been far more imposing as a character than he is now (he spends most of the film as a brooding wimp). Joaquin Phoenix's Commodus is a weak, immature villain who never really poses a major threat to the hero. The story is full of illogical events, the CGI recreation of Rome is dodgy, and the historical context... well, the less said the better. And the fight scenes are shot and edited in such a way that they hurt the spectator's eyes AND it is nigh impossible to make out what is going on (with the exception of the final duel, where the freneticism makes place for more traditional camerawork; unfortunately, it isn't a very suspenseful or exciting one). I'm probably giving this movie one star less than it deserves, but nevertheless I was very, very disappointed. Anthony Mann's Fall Of THe Roman Empire wasn't perfect, but it treated the same historical subject matter in a much better way than this.

Rating:
Summary: It could have been great
Review: Of the film itself, the end is awful. If you want to watch epic battles and duels and plot and everything, watch this film, then turn it off 10 minutes before the end. Dream what should happen, then take the disc out.

Put simply, a great film but the ending is so feeble, it completely fooks it up.

Rating:
Summary: Simply Overrated...
Review: If it weren't for the rousing battle scenes and stunning locales, Ridley Scott's half-hearted epic Gladiator would've been a total flop. Gladiator is by no means a bad movie, but as far as a great one? Not even close.Russell Crowe delivers a star making turn as Maximus, a loyal Roman general whose loyality is put to the test when he refuses to follow the orders of the newest emperor (Joaquin Phoenix in a BORING performance). Accused of treason, Maximus' family is killed and he sentanced to die. Of course he escapes and begins his unholy quest for revenge against the new emperor. Gladiator begins with a rousing battle scene and has many to follow, all of the acting credible and the story is undeniably interesting, but there are too many flaws for this one to be considered a masterpiece by any means. Many of the sequences between the battle scenes almost exist solely for filler purposes, they serve to bring the film from one fight scene to the next. There is nothing wrong with this type of film, if it weren't pretending to be something more. Crowe makes for a great action hero, his enemy in this film, Joaquin Phoenix is annoying and sickening. Phoenix is normally a superb actor, but his character in this film acts the part of the cliched Roman Emperor. He kills his father, babbles on and on in scene after scene about NOTHING and even pointlessly lusts after his sister. There is a lot that could've been removed from this film without damaging the story, audiences sometimes think that a long movie automatically makes for a good one. That is not the case here. Gladiator is not a bad film, just boring. Director Scott thinks he's doing a film of more substance than he really has, proof of this comes in the pretentious "death" scene at the finsh. Comparisons to Braveheart are unfair, this is a bloated Hollywood 'epic', not terrible, not very good, and very unmemorable. Whereas Braveheart used gruesome battle scenes to move the story along, Gladiator seems to exist FOR the battle scenes, they are incredible, but to find something else of value in this film is the real challenge. It's hollow, pointless and pretty limp. Another case of Hollywood going through the motions. Some will like it, others will agree with me, but in the end, it's all in the opinion.

Rating:
Summary: No Doubt One My Favorite
Review: This movie is just plain great. It just had everything right, it had the right stuff. A great cast, plot, and director. The movie had the perfect person to play Maximus(Russell Crowe), the devious villain Commodus(Joaquin Phoenix), the emperor Marcus(Richard Harris), and his daughter Lucilla(Connie Nielson). It was just packed with unbelievable action. And that's why it was rated 'R' but you know what? it's necessary. You need the violence. Without the violence, it would just be three hours of pure rubbish. I think the first time I got interested in this movie was when I saw the trailer. To me, I always say that the previews are the best part of the movie. And when it is a good movie, the enjoyment is even better. Like this one, I don't remember the previews but I know this movie is good. I saw this movie about a week after it was released because I anticipated that it was going to be really crownded. Conisdering that it was a blockbuster and all. And I was right. When I went to the theaters, it was pretty crowded. The audience really got into the movie, that's how good it was. Like at the end of the movie, almost everyone was applauding. At the end, mom had tears in her eyes. If I had a choice, I would definately see it again in theaters. But if you hadn't seen this movie, go and do so, regardless of all the other bad reviews you see on this page.

Rating:
Summary: Braveheart is DEAD
Review: Gladiator is one of those movies that doesn't just stun and amaze you, but adds something significant to its genre. In Gladiator's case, it's in the action scenes. Most action movies try to slow down the action (Braveheart, The 13th Warrior, etc.) for at least some of the battle scenes. Not Gladiator. Oh no. Gladiator does the opposite. Along with some camera techniques that I can't begin to describe, this makes for possibly the most visceral and engaging action sequences since, well, Seven Samurai. As for the story, it is surprisingly well done, and while many discredit the movie for its "historical inaccuracy," it is sure a whole lot more historically accurate than say, The Patriot. Actors are generally strong from the indomitable, electrifying Crowe to the loasthome yet, admittedly, effective Phoenix. A broad range of realistic characters is well represented here. The musical score is stirring, ominous, and, when necessary, complements the action very nicely. At over two and a half hours, this is one movie that really takes advantage of its length (seven battles makes for a long movie and a whole lot of head-lopping). Not for the faint of heart. Certainly for just about anyone else. Definitely for those who have been starved for some really engaging swords-and-axes-and-arrows combat.

But why am I wasting my time writing this? Gladiator can be described in three words: SEE IT NOW.

Rating:
Summary: Fantastic film proves blockbusters don't need to suck
Review: Brilliant film, one of the fasted 3 hours I've ever experienced. If you are one of the few who haven't seen this film, make sure to rush, rush to the video store to rent it, because you're missing out on one of the best, if not the best, film of this new millennium (so far, of course).

The story centers around the trials and tribulations of Maximus, a highly decorated general in the Roman army, whose life is destroyed by a mincing, weasily royal heir who doesn't want Maximus to take his throne. The comparisons to Braveheart are valid, but the real difference between the two films is in the level of acting: Russell Crowe is an amazing thespian, whereas Mel Gibson is just decent. Every scene is permeated with a sense of longing and anger, which really propells the popcorn nature of the film into something a lot deeper.

Overall, it's a great film to look at, but thankfully it's a bit more than your typical MI:2 "excuse to use FX". Definitely a winner, and will probably be remembered come Oscar time - they always love an epic.

Rating:
Summary: BRAVEHEART 2: GLADIATOR!
Review: Yes Gladiator is a good movie, and yes, it is epic, in story, scale, and performances.... But what seems to be overlooked here are the unmistakable parallels that can be drawn between this movie and Braveheart, the best epic in this genre.

Ridley Scott delivers a solid product that rivals his best work (Alien, Blade Runner, Legend, and Thelma and Louise). It may in fact be his best work to date. Nevertheless, while watching the movie I couldn't help but keep thinking about how it felt like Braveheart.... set in Rome.

Our hero is a reluctant soldier, who prefers to go home and run his farm and raise a family (sounds familiar?). But instead the ones he loves are brutally massacred and he has nothing left to live for except revenge and justice (beginning to sound familiar yet). As you would expect he ultimately achieves this, but with a tragic conclusion that when compared to Braveheart now begins to feel clichéd.

Please remember, however, that this is a good movie... in fact its one of the best movies in 2000 (and yes this does not say much, because this has been a dismal year for movies). The open battle is grand, but Scott films it in style that tries to hard capture the chaos of battle and this results in a sequence that lacks in coherence and lucidity.

Nevertheless, if you haven't seen this movie, and you love epics that play in this space, then WATCH THIS MOVIE! ... And if you still want more watch BRAVEHEART 3: THE PATRIOT!

With regards,

RAYHAWK.com Web Site Design

Glendale, California.

Rating:
Summary: One of the best films of the year
Review: This is a very good movie and I advise everyone to see the movie. The film was 3hours long, but it was not boring. I especially liked the fighting scenes. The setting was awsome a brilliant film what else can I say

Rating:
Summary: A mess.
Review: *Gladiator* is the story of Maximus (awesome name, eh?), Rome's best general and heir to Marcus Aurelius' throne, and his subsequent downfall thanks to the Emperor's sniveling, scheming son Commodus (an even more awesome name, based on an actual guy!) . . . AND his subsequent escape from slavery via the gladiator trade.

The film attempts, I think, to be a "throwback" to all those tunic 'n' toga epics of the 1950's, but with a modern sensibility. The first question I pose is: do we really need an update of those terrible films? Here's my second question: in a movie purporting to be about the horrors of the Roman sports arenas, why do we see so little of that horror? The storytellers seem to want to say something about violent entertainment and the corrosive effect it may have on people, but the violence is obliquely presented and the "people" the violence is supposedly coarsening are never seen (except as CGI stand-ins). Comparisons to *Saving Private Ryan* are bogus -- say what you want about the other film, there the gore was made explicit. Director Ridley Scott, mindful of avoiding an NC-17 rating, chooses to IMPLY violence. He does this by simply NOT HOLDING THE CAMERA STILL. The camera whizzes, jerks, suddenly slo-mo's, goes all grainy, occasionally reverts to black and white -- does anything and everything but actually record what we're supposed to be seeing. During the opening battle scene and the later fight scenes, I felt no sense of "being there", or really witnessing anything . . . except the excesses of the latest motion picture industry's camera technologies. Also, the LSD-inspired "dream sequences" were over-the-top, to say the least, and some of the worst-filmed stuff I've seen all year.

Finally, the story had zero suspense: you know what's coming every step of the way, and you know how it will all end -- with Maximus facing the nasty Commodus in the Colosseum. Considering what an interesting lunatic the REAL Commodus was in history, the screenwriters' pedestrian effort here puzzles me. Oh well. . . .

Rating:
Summary: Good but Overratted
Review: Gladiator promises the return of the great action spectacle of the 1960's but instead delivers a so-so 90's version of Spartacus. Crowe is good and the acting is decent but the story is just too long and the action scenes are done in a choppy slow motion style that takes away from any excitment we should be feeling. Plus the ending is a total downer. I just love these period epics like Braveheart, Titanic and Saving Private Ryan where the filmmakers decide to kill off the hero for the sake of nobility. This film's ending is no exception only that it has none of the impact those other films had. This film is disappointing. I was rather looking forward to it's release too.