Rating: 
Summary: another hollywood epic
Review: I just switched off the dvd, after rolling my eyes, huffing and puffing, and about ready to throw an ashtray at the tv -- but wait I can't afford to replace my tv (or the ashray) so let me rant a little. First I clicked on the "lowest ratings" of all the other reviewers out there, and I found (with a few exceptions) they all saw the same thing I was seeing: terrible script, terrible acting (come on folks, russell crowe is a compelling hero? he bored me to tears, mr. blue eyes, I guess, seducing all the teenie-boppers and asleep-at-wheel newspaper critics out there). this is just another (of many) generic hollywood epics, made only to make money, concerned more with looking good than telling a story, spewing out one cliche after another. I swear you can pick scenes out of this movie that were directly lifted from a dozen other movies. It's all made to be Shakespearian without recognizing that Shakespeare always made sure his plays had tension and suspense. Here you don't care. Mainly because you don't care about the supposed hero ... he has a family, which he cares deeply about (we're told), but you don't see the family ... and the plot is so disfused that you don't see the "bad guy" acting against his family. So what's motivating him? I tell you: a PC drenched, year 2000 Hollywood, cliche driven film whose sole concern is pilaging "ancient rome" for another excuse to pit the GOOD GUY against the BAD GUY. Problem is the good guy is Mr. All-American Boy and the bad guy . . . well, I fail to see who the bad guy is. I guess he's supposed to be the Freudian stricked new Emperior, who wouldn't even rank as a minor bad guy in a cheap Batman episode. Ugh, I'm disgusted. This movie, while it may look pretty, is a total disgrace to all forms of storytelling. I'm now totally convinced that any movie nominated for an Oscar is a total waste of time. I thought Titanic was bad -- at least it tried to tell a story. This movie is like a bad history lesson -- only they never bothered to read up on their history.
Rating: 
Summary: Hollywood Gets It Right (and History Wrong)
Review: Gladiator seems to be Hollywood's revenge of the small, more literary and intellectual movies which have garnered praise over the years (Miramax, anyone). It's a big-budget, no-holds-barred action thriller which delivers the action and the quality that makes it a much better production that alot of what has come out of the mill over the years. This is a well-made and well-acted movie- history is turned upside down (the emperor does survive his sister's palace coup in reality) but then again what's new in these kinds of movies. As far as the genre goes, Gladiator is a cut above the rest- and the cinematography is spectacular. The feel and the plot are vintage Roman epic but the visual production is unmistakeably modern-day. Gladiator is alot of fun and is great entertainment, however, i'm still baffled as to why this got the Best Picture Oscar and Quills wasn't even among the nominees. Also, Joaquin Phoenix did a much better job than Russell Crowe- who himself didn't act shabbily.
Rating: 
Summary: Very good movie, Great DVD!
Review: Make sure you get the DVD, not the VHS. The extra documentary is neat!
Rating:
Summary: Head Popping
Review: Bloody but good. Not much of a Story.
Rating: 
Summary: Unabridged Mediocrity
Review: A movie with stunning visuals and great action scenes. Does that really warrant all of the wet pants everyone seemed to have after watching this movie? By such a standard, 'Men In Black' could at least have scored a Best Supporting Actor. "Epic" it is not. The tendentious movie reviewers of this country are all about as laughable as Columbia Pictures' "David Manning." Apart from the great effects and visuals, and well-planned arena scenes, the laughable factor is greatly increased by how seriously the movie takes itself to be. The most boring, two-dimensional dialogue keeps happening over and over. Whiny-pants Russell Crowe's monotonally incessant, "I don't want to be a slave anymore," spiel is constantly shoved down our throats in lieu of any content; it is certainly no "CINQUE MAKE FREE!" Crowe's glottal delivery is strangely reminiscent of the manic-depressive Marvin the Paranoid Android from the 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.' The interaction between Crowe and the princess is so hammy one's fast-forward finger just begins to itch out of embarrassment. The loopy emperor-guy is so evil, and so pale you're thrilled when his purple-clad guard comes stomping in so that there is something interesting to watch. The incest line is supposed to be creepy, but all it does is help convince everyone that THIS CREEPY MO' IS GOING DOWN BLOODY-STYLE. If you want to see an exquisitely acted bad-guy, watch John Huston in 'Chinatown;' your skin will crawl. As is this review, the movie went on for far too long for the completely tragic, touching, and poignant (blandly inevitable) ending it produced. I'll let you in on a secret: Rome still bit the dust. The Germanic tribes that got housed in the first scenes ... they won in the end.
Rating:
Summary: to gag is not enough
Review: Actually, I would like to give this movie a negative star rating. Ridley Scott basically raped the Roman Empire and put a modern socio-political spin on a time when there weren't even free elections. Seeing Maximus throw down his sword and shout, "Are you not entertained?" at spectators of a gladiator fight had me screaming, "Die next time!" Of course, Maximus had to be the adult, white male, accepting of all other colors, creeds, and genders (and he loves those innocent little kids). Good stuff, for today to be sure, but that's what makes this movie fiction and not historical fiction. It's odd that this happy, feel good concept is juxtaposed to a dark, gloomy back drop and morose faces on characters. Scott was clearly trying really hard to say something, maybe even something important, which makes this bad movie all the more embarassing.
Rating:
Summary: Good story
Review: Good story. I admire the way the ending was handled. It could have ruined the entire film for me, but instead it was beautifully portrayed. I was awed by Crowe's character's fighting skills. I especially liked that last fight. I'm a big fan of action and horror flicks but I found the violence in this film to be especially graphic. Some may find that realism to be a plus. Parents might not want their younger kids to see this film. I must say that the costumes and the scenery in this film were a definite plus. They did a very good job of recreating the Colliseum. It all looked so real.
Rating:
Summary: Good * Hype = Great ??
Review: Some movies get hyped into 'greatness' - this is an excellent example of the kind. I'm not saying it's not good, but make no mistake, this is no 'Ben Hur' or even 'Braveheart'. The 'epic scale' is more or less achieved, aided considerably by some impressive Computer Graphics, and the action sequences are mostly well done. However the storytelling could've been better ........ and in a strange way, the movie lacks soul. It doesn't really shake you up when it supposedly should. Russell Crowe is competent as the chief protagonist, but his role is not emotionally demanding. I believe he's given finer performances, eg in 'Insider', without winning any awards so i guess it's some kind of poetic justice that he must win it for this. Phoenix Joaquin is more impressive as the villain, even though his character has no shades - he's just evil through and though. Connie Nelson as his sister & Crowe's ex love interest is fair.Most of the support cast do their job well. The technical aspects of the movie, like cinematography, graphics, etc and the score all quite good. All in all, a movie worth watching, but you should do that first to decide whether it's actually worth **buying**.
Rating:
Summary: BEST MOVIE OF 2000
Review: I first saw the trailer for Gladiator and I never thought i would have been as good as I first thought it was. I went to the theatres and watched it and after it was over I was amazed because I have never in my life see a movie like this and withouta doubt this is the greatest movie of 2000 and one of my favorites of all time. anyways watch this classic for yourself and it will just turn your prospective of movies upside down, Russel Crowe glows in this classic.
Rating:
Summary: uggh
Review: PRO 1 - it is really nice looking, the grainy-ness, for me, enchances the movie, and gives it a real ... furniture 'authentic' look. PRO 2 - The soundtrack, it was the best thing about this movie, and with the dvd you can watch it with just the sound, thus combining the two good things about the movie. In fact, if this were a silent film, it could probably get 3 or 4 stars... CON 1 - the accents were a bit overwhelming... romans probably didn't speak with accents that were a hybrid of stuffy harvard head and hammy actor british, and the actors probably would have been much better if they wern't trying to accent and act at the same time. CON 2 - Theaside from some really cool head-lopping-off techniques, there's not much to redeem the overused narrative content, which is the bad kind of overused narrative content. OVERALL - the movie isn't god-awful, it just isn't that great. The DVD is one of the better of the ones i've seen. while it is a WORTHWHILE RENTAL, it is a COMPLETE WASTE BUYING.
| 
