Rating: 
Summary: Ripoff
Review: *Gladiator (R)- Ridley Scott is a favourite director of mine and I waited anxiously for this. While I was never bored during the films lengthy running time (even when so much of the time is spent fawning over unimpressive CGI shots of the Coliseum), I was absolutely enraged that the film is basically a remake of The Fall of the Roman Empire and the screenwriter's of that far superior film are not even acknowledged. If you want a roman epic, rent Ben Hur, Spartacus, The Robe, Fall of the... or countless others. Joaquin Phoenix was brilliant.
Rating: 
Summary: Cartoon.
Review: Finally getting around to this one . . . Just because *Gladiator* was rewarded by the Academy for taking a gigantic risk with a lot of money -- i.e., reviving the long-dead genre of the sword-and-sandal epic -- and then succeeding at the box office DOESN'T mean that it's a good movie. In fact, it's a lousy movie that gets nothing right. I'm not referring to the veracity of its history: hey, it's a Hollywood epic, and if a Senator (Derek Jacobi) wants to say that the Roman Senate was "elected" by the people, I can live with that. (But it appeared that Jacobi -- Mr. I-Claudius, remember -- had some trouble delivering that line.) What I'm talking about is storytelling ability. The movie is a rip-off, pure and simple, of Mel Gibson's better movie, *Braveheart*. Now that I'm thinking about it, perhaps the lack of historical correctness DOES have something to do with why the story is so bad. Any halfway-serious attempt to construct a faithful narrative about the Empire under the Antonines and the colorful royal family that's featured here (philosopher-king Aurelius, and his bloodthirsty, brutish heir, Commodus) would doubtless have ameliorated the temptation to simply remake *Braveheart* with togas in place of kilts. Take Commodus, for example. A moron, to be sure; but a healthy specimen who acquitted himself quite well in the Colosseum, fighting real gladiators. Gibbon tells us that he was also able to slay 100 lions with 100 arrows -- 1 shot per lion. A man of such physical prowess would certainly have provided a more suspenseful match-up with Russell Crowe's fictional general-turned-slave-turned-gladiator Maximus. By the way, we also wouldn't have had to witness the embarrassing spectacle of the film's climax, in which we're led to believe that the Republic was restored. Those of us who know better can only shake our heads at this incongruity. This movie may as well have taken place on Tattooine . . . because it certainly doesn't recall ancient Rome. The digital animation, coupled with the don't-blink, headache-inducing, super-fast editing, doesn't help the movie's cause, either. Director Ridley Scott refuses to keep the camera still, presumably to prevent us from noticing how cheesy the animation really is. Well, I noticed, Mr. Scott. I noticed. Even when you used your camera filters to drench your computer-animated Rome in a bluish tint the approximate shade of Woolite, I noticed.
Rating: 
Summary: Amazing
Review: For those of you who may not know this, GLADIATOR IS A FICTIONAL STORY. Despite this the movie does a LOT to get things right. You have to appreciate that simple fact. It's truly a visual masterpeice, you are actually take back to ancient Rome. The battle at the beggining is very well done. For those of you say it's historically innacurate... it's fiction.... though some events are obviously based on fact... it's simply meant to entertain.... and that it does. It does an excellent job of showing the struggle of power between the emperor or Rome and the senate, the plotting, schemeing, and corruption that occured, and how instable an emperor could be. It's about time we have more EPIC's on scale with movies from the 50's and 60's. Gladiator is an awesome movie and I reccomend it to everyone.
Rating:
Summary: Best Epic of Its Time
Review: If you like epic movies, don't miss this one.
The movie is very well made The scenes are well filmed, and though many scenes are very violent, you can tell that the graphic violence has been toned down because this is not the real intent of the film. Rome and the Coliseum are nicely recreated.
The movie is 2 hours 30 minutes, and is captivating throughout. I found every bit of dialog to be gripping, interesting, and vital to the story. Though the film is long, I do not see where any bit could be cut. All scenes seem vital to the story.
This film worth owning to view again and again.
Rating: 
Summary: The Great 2-Hour Film That Wasn't
Review: The Story: Russell Crowe plays Maximus, a Roman general and favorite of the dying Emperor Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris, acting brilliantly). Maximus leads the Roman army in a final defeat of the barbarians in Germany, and the Emperor is about to name him his heir, with the charge of returning Rome to the status of a Republic, when the Emperor's jealous and power-hungry son, Commodus (deliciously evil and disturbed, as played by Joaquin Phoenix), kills the Emperor, names himself Emperor, and orders Maximus slain. Maximus escapes but is enslaved. Oliver Reed (another great performance) trains Maximus as a gladiator (unnecessary) and brings him to Rome, where he becomes a crowd favorite. This, of course, infuriates Commodus, but he dares not defy the populace, as they already despise him. Plus, Commodus is busy lusting after his sister (Connie Nielsen), who secretly supports her departed father's notion of returning Rome to a Republic. However, she must tread carefully, as her son, Lucius, is heir to Commodus, but is also becoming a target of Commodus' jealousy.Commentary: So, this sounds like a great film, but I gave it only four stars. Why? The acting is great, the story is great, ancient Rome is boldly brought back to life, and Ridley Scott does his usual job of giving the film an ethereal, dreamlike quality. BUT . . . the film really drags at times, and especially during the first half (but even some of the second half). There are no unnecessary scenes, but many scenes are unnecessarily long and detailed. If this film had been carefully edited down to two hours, it would have gotten that fifth star. I enjoy long movies ("Saving Private Ryan", "The Green Mile") and long books (George R.R. Martin's "Song of Ice and Fire" trilogy), but only if they do not drag. This drags. I'm still glad I watched it, though.
Rating:
Summary: Almost as GREAT as Braveheart!
Review: I loved this film when I heard Russel Crowe say "on my singal unleash hell." This movie for me was fun. I enjoyed seeing the rise and fall and rise of Maximus the great. The whole time I was hoping that he would evenge the death of his family and kill Commodus. It showed the strength of the human spirit and a man with a good soul will be able to be at peace with himself in the end of the day as Maximus was when he was dying. The only criticism people have of this film was that was not historically accurate. I am not one of those cinema fans who expect movies to be exactly accurate. My God it is an entertaing movie and with a great plot. If you want to know about the history of Rome for historical accuracy read a book. Some people watch movies for messages, I on the other hand watch movies to be entertained!
Rating:
Summary: Hacking Away at History
Review: The film shows Imperial Rome winning a battle in the Black Forest. But wasn't that one of the few battle Rome lost? Rome's economy was based on slavery; they had to continually conquer new lands to replenish the cheap labor needed for their plantations, owned by the rich and politically connected ruling class. Sort of like today's corporations, except now the conquest of foreign lands means there is no need to import cheap labor; they send the factories there. After the battle we see some high level intrigue among the leaders. The speech of a tired old Caesar ("End the corruption, Restore the Republic") suggests the leader is senile. Handing power to a popular military leader is the antithesis of a republic! And so the stage is set for personal conflict, a simplified way to explain economic and political conflict. The General rejects the new Emperor's hand, and is rejected in turn. He escapes execution, his family does not. Somehow he winds up in North Africa (?) without crossing the sea. (Does his travails remind you of 'Yojimbo'?) Then the gladiator scenes follow - to remind you of professional sports? He is told that popularity makes the star, not statistics! The special effects recreate ancient cities, but the lack of movement in the backgrounds tell. Do some of the scenes remind you of 'Star Wars"? Or some of those costume imports from forty-plus years ago? Like many other films, the action picks up when the story line lags. Do rulers still use circuses to entertain and distract the masses from their problems? Only in other countries. Caesar and Maximus both expire, but they don't say what their replacements do. This seems like the sickest movie since 'Silence of the Lambs', and appears to have done as well at the box office. Does this movie have any redeeming social values?
Rating: 
Summary: there are way too many reviews already, but what the heck
Review: Gladiator is worthwhile the first time. The second time it's boring. The frist battle scene is very good, even in historical accuracy (they even tap the swords against the sides of their shields before the fight starts!). After the first battle, hollywood once again takes great liberties with history. Did you know that Commodus actually died by being strangled in his bathtub? And, Marcus Aurelius wasn't always that great of a guy.
Rating:
Summary: Ridley Scott hits bottom with this career triumph
Review: I watched Gladiator on TV last night - what a piece of ... Oscars all around for this garbage? [I] always knew the Oscars were BS, but now I really know it for sure! Was Ridley Scott sleepwalking when he did this? I know he's inconsistent (see Bladerunner for one of his great films) but this verges on Paul McCartneyesque erosion of talent. This is from the same year "Traffic" was released - not a perfect film but surely more Oscar-worthy than this waste of celluloid (and waste of my time). I will grant that this type of "epic drama" is best suited for the big screen, not chopped up for television, but ... is ... whether it's 20 feet tall or the size of my TV.
This movie is glaringly dumbed down - it relentlessly plays to the lowest common denominator, whether in its annoying and intrusive musical score (the placement and use of the music more than the music itself) or it's laughable "faux Shakespearean" dialogue ... what, the Romans spoke fake Elizabethan English? Bad fake Elizabethan English? I realize there's precedent for this type of speech in historical dramas, but it frequently doesn't work and it's certainly misplaced here. The special effects, scenery, etc. look good but, as with the recent Star Wars movies, the window dressing doesn't really matter...Forget Gladiator.
Rating:
Summary: GREAT movie
Review: I Loved this movie the first time I saw it. I admit that it is a little bit gory (OK, so a WHOLE BUNCH gory, but, hey!, that is one of the reasons I liked it. On peculiar thing I noticed was: in one of the battle scences, the score sounded a little too much like Mars, the bringer of war; from Gustav Holst's "The Planets." Of course, that is just something that a music buff would notice, and anyway, it didn't take away from the movie, the composer was probably just learning a lesson from the master. GREAT movie though.
|
