User Reviews (2,406)

  • angelo-296 June 2000
    10/10
    Breathtaking!
    Once again, Director Ridley Scott proves to be as professional as one can be. The recreation of ancient Rome is splendid, with all its magnificent buildings and atmosphere and he is able to show with all brightness the greatness of the Roman Empire, with its political problems and military discipline, and love and treason, of hate and jealousy, that still have a place in our world today. But the story has a glow of its own, to which all the beautiful scenery (believe me, it's awesome!!!) and great cinematography are just balancing factors. The plot is a rich one, that is as dynamic as it is present. He once again, after Blade Runner, 1492, and others helps us visit the depths of the human soul, which remains the same over all our historical and social experience. Even the fights, are displayed in such a way that all the blood is quite discrete, but still, making us feel like screaming and jumping out of our seats. I would also like to point out the performances of the cast, that is surprisingly good. We have some actors and actresses, who are not Hollywood icons, but are are greatly able to move the audience among screams and tears. All in all, we have guys like Russel Crowe, who are coming out to be part of a new and extremely promising harvest of people who are making each time more fans around the world. Well, you should see for yourself!
  • gregatory3 May 2000
    10/10
    A nail biting, intense modern epic!
    Most films require that the viewer identifies with the character to truly be engrossed with the film. If you can't feel something for the character, than the audience is lost.

    Luckily, in Ridley Scott's case, Russel Crowe is so captivating and convincing as a general loved by his troops and as a slave loved by the people that the movie really works. Possibly one of the greatest actors today, Crowe carries this epic film on his very capable shoulders.

    Not to say that he is the only reason this works. The supporting cast, most notably Connie Neilsen, buoy the film to new perspectives.

    Jacquin Phoenix definitely captures the egotisitcal persona he should display, stealing every scene he's in. Phoenix will surely be put on the map with Gladiator.

    But the real shining star in this film are the incredible action sequences which jolt the viewer right in with the opening sequences, as Maximus' true worth to the Roman Empire is displayed. Scott's camera work within these completed sequences takes a modern twist that really works for the gruesome scenes.

    Crowe will now get the respect he deserves for this collosal performance. Gladiator makes the most of its 2 and a half hours, marking a triumphant comeback for the long forgotten epics of the classic days of film. ALL HAIL MAXIMUS!
  • Dan Hackenjos19 February 2001
    10/10
    Edge of Your Seat Fun!
    Great Story! Great Writing! Great Acting! Great Directing! Great Score! This movie has it all. I especially enjoyed the mood of the film. Even though it has a lot of action, there is a subtle elegance throughout the picture that gives it great style. The movie flows effortlessly from scene to scene, while at the same time creating wonderful intensity and nail-biting excitement.

    The acting in the movie more than lives up to expectations. Russell Crowe is brilliant in his role as Maximus, the "general who became a slave, who became a gladiator, who defied an emperor." Crowe's intense style is perfect for the relentless determination and confidence of Maximus. Joaquin Phoenix is equally wonderful in his role as Commodus, the corrupt emperor. He plays a great villain because he is able to give Commodus depth by showing certain vulnerable or fragile sides, while at the same time instantly transforming to let the ruthless nature of his volatile character shine. It also helps that Joaquin has the classic Caesar look that works perfectly with his role.

    Connie Nielsen is also very good as Lucilla. However, perhaps the two finest performances in the movie were given by a couple of acting veterans in supporting roles. Richard Harris and Oliver Reed were exceptional in what will be remembered as crowning achievements at the end of their careers. Harris was perfect as Marcus Aurelius, the aging Caesar who reflects upon his life and contemplates how the world will remember him. And Reed, especially, gave my personal favorite performance in the movie as Proximo, the trainer for the gladiators. The way he spoke about the life of a gladiator, the splendor of Rome, and the "thrill of the Coliseum" really added excitement and anticipation during the viewing of the movie.

    Gladiator is filled with many memorable moments that one would need to see more than once to fully appreciate. The excitement felt for me when Rome is first shown in all its wonder and marvel is my favorite scene. But the whole movie is a rush! Hans Zimmer provides the absolute perfect score to capture the different moods in the movie. Ridley Scott sets the perfect tone with his artistic and creative directing. I would recommend it to anyone who can stomach intensity and enjoy an epic story for the ages. Next to Braveheart, this movie is the greatest of all-time!
  • Russell_12 September 2005
    10/10
    Can't be missed!
    "Gladiator" definitely is a classic film as it combines a simple, but moving, story with beautiful scenery, filming, direction and score – it is truly a "complete" movie.

    I am mostly compelled with the beautiful script which in a way reminds me of poetry, though it is still everyday language. I love the acting portrayed by the late Oliver Reed and also Richard Harris. Russell Crowe, Djimon Housou and Joaquin Phoenix are also superb and the parts suit them perfectly. There are also a number of less "popular" artists who also deserve a big "bravo". Amongst them I have to mention ex-Mr Universe Ralph Moeller who is mostly used as the comic relief of the movie. In Gladiator we can also the beautiful and popular Maltese TV Star and actress Ruth Frendo, who although has a small part, she is totally brilliant and outstanding.

    Actually I got to IMDb while I was looking for her name on the internet, in fact on IMDb she has some very stunning photos. I was lucky to meet Ruth Frendo whilst she was filming in another Maltese production. Ruth Frendo is not only a gorgeous and talented actress but she is also amazingly intelligent and very down-to-earth. We will definitely be seeing more of her work in the future...

    The scenery used for "Gladiator" is brilliant – and the opening battle scene is definitely one of my top favorite scenes. The modern camera technique contrasts sharply to the brutality of the gladiators actions and blood shed during the movie; and I love the light contrasts thanks to the lenses which most definitely have been used to create a surreal feel to the entire movie.

    "Gladiator" deserves all the awards and great reviews it has received, and for those of you who still haven't gone and watched it – I can assure you that it will be well worth your time and money. So go on and rent it now!
  • Spikeopath6 August 2014
    10/10
    They said you were a giant. They said you can crush a man's skull with one hand.
    Ridley Scott's Gladiator is not a perfect film, I would think that the hardiest of fans, of which I'm firmly one, know this deep down. Yet just like Commodus in the film is keen to point out that he himself has other virtues that are worthy, so does Gladiator the film. Enough in fact to make it an everlasting favourite of genre fans and worthy of the Academy Award acknowledgements it received.

    In narrative terms the plot and story arc is simplicity supreme, something Scott and Russell Crowe have never shied away from. There has to my knowledge as well, never been a denial of the debt Gladiator owes to Anthony Mann's 1964 Epic, The Fall of the Roman Empire. Some folk seem very irritated by this, which is strange because the makers of Gladiator were not standing up bold as brass to proclaim they were unique with their movie, what they did do was reinvigorate a stagnant genre of film for a new generational audience. And it bloody worked, the influence and interest in all things Roman or historically swashbuckling of film that followed post Gladiator's success is there for all to see.

    What we do in life echoes in eternity.

    So no originality in story, then. While some of the CGI is hardly "Grade A" stuff, and there's a little over - mugging acting in support ranks as some of the cast struggle to grasp the period setting required, yet the way Gladiator can make the emotionally committed feel - overrides film making irks. Crowe's Maximus is the man men want to be and the man women want to be with. As he runs through the gamut of life's pains and emotionally fortified trials and tribulations, we are with him every step of the way, urging him towards his day of revenge splattered destiny; with Crowe superb in every pained frame, winning the Academy Award for Best Actor that he should have won for The Insider the previous year.

    Backing Crowe up is Joaquin Phoenix giving Commodus preening villainy and Connie Nielsen graceful as Lucilla (pitch Nielsen's turn here against that of Diane Kruger's in Troy to see the class difference for historical period playing). Oliver Reed, leaving the mortal coil but leaving behind a spicy two fold performance as Proximo the Gladiator task master. Olly superb in both body and CGI soul. Richard Harris tugging the heart strings, Derek Jacobi classy, David Hemmings also, while Djimon Hounso gives Juba - Maximus right hand man and confidante - a level of character gravitas that's inspiring.

    I didn't know man could build such things.

    Dialogue is literate and poetic, resplendent with iconic speeches. Action is never far away, but never at the expense of wrought human characterisations. The flaming arrows and blood letting of the Germania conflict kicks things off with pulse raising clarity, and Scott and his team never sag from this standard. The gladiator arena fights are edge of the seat inducing, the recreation for the Battle of Carthage a stunning piece of action sequence construction. And then the finale, the culmination of two men's destinies, no soft soaping from Scott and Crowe, it lands in the heart with a resounding thunderclap. A great swords and sandals movie that tipped its helmet to past masters whilst simultaneously bringing the genre alive again. Bravo Maximus Decimus Meridius. 10/10
  • paulyb2 May 2000
    Cecil B DeMille eat your heart out
    The epic blockbuster returns with the 21st Century's answer to Cecil B DeMille, Ridley Scott and his dramatic tale of courage and revenge, GLADIATOR - "the general who became a slave, the slave who became a gladiator, the gladiator who defied an emperor".

    Once a great roman General, and as good as adopted son of Marcus Aurelius Caesar (Harris), Maximus (Crowe) is forced into exile by Commodus (Phoenix), heir to the throne, after the death of Marcus. Saved from death by slavers, he is purchased for use as a gladiator by Proximo (Reed) and ends up in the arena of all arena's, the Colloseum, where he proves unbeatable under his guise as "The Spaniard".

    And with a budget of over $100m, Scott certainly delivers the goods. GLADIATOR transcends the notion of 'blockbuster' that we have become accustomed to in the age of electronic and special effects wizardry and instead offers a good old fashioned action film along the lines of Spartacus and and Ben Hur. Not only are we drawn into an archetypal story that contains all the classic elements a filmgoer could dream of (love, loss, courage, despair, good triumphing over evil etc etc) - also on offer is a visual feast of cinematic painting after painting - a rich tapestry of images that are breathtaking and ultimately visually satisfying. From the plains of Germania, to the desert stronghold of Zuchobar, and finally to great Rome herself, John Mathiesion, the cinematographer is to be commended highly for his general inventiveness and ability to capture so much on film. The opening battle scene is superb as a cast of thousands erupt across the screen and provide an indication that we are about to see a film that pays incredible attention to detail throughout its entirety. In every way, Scott has created a world for us that scuttles films of similar epic undertakings (and budgets!) and sends them to their dooms at the bottom of the murky depths of film history where they belong.

    The cast is generally very strong. Crowe proves himself very suitable to the task with a great emotional range and depth of character. His accent ocassionally bugged me (as did the mish mash of accents on offer - but that is I guess a legacy of 'internationally casted films'), but this aside, he was well and truly up to the task. Phoenix is also excellent as the disturbed Commodus, as is Nielson as Lucilla, the daughter of Marcus who "should have been a son" and finds herself torn between loyalty to her brother and doing what is 'right'. The old guard thesps of Harris, Reed and Jacobi (Grachus) are uniformly strong as supporting characters, and Spencer Treat Clark (Lucius) does a fine job as the young heir to the throne.

    Add to this great cast excellent editing and post production work, and an intricate soundscape (including a magnificent Hans Zimmer score), and you have a film that, despite its length, was highly palatable and had me in there from beginning to end. A must see.
  • wideawakedreamer4 June 2000
    10/10
    Today I saw a movie become more powerful . . .
    The movie is the story of Maximus (Crowe), a general who leads the Roman army to victory over Germania in the beginning of the movie. The dying emperor of Rome, Marcus Aurelius, is watching this battle.

    The emperor's son, Commodus, then arrives with his sister Lucilla, and it is discovered that Commodus fully expects to be announced the new emperor of Rome in a few days. Aurelius, however, has other plans--he wants to make Maximus emperor, and requests that of the general, who wants nothing more than to go home to his family.

    I went into this movie having just watched Ben-Hur in my film studies class and having watched an episode of Xena only a couple of weeks earlier that featured the story of Marc Anthony and Cleopatra. So you could say I was in the perfect mindset to watch a "sword-and-sandal" movie. I wasn't sure what to expect, having somehow avoided all the hype that accompanied this movie. But I was not disappointed.

    Gladiator features some wonderful cinematography by John Mathieson. The battle scenes are very graphic. (This movie is not for the squeamish, that's for sure.) There were some scenes in particular that really struck me, such as when Crowe appears to be floating over the ground very fast. The use of color and color tones added a great deal to the mood of the movie. Excellent.

    The script was being written and re-written as the filming was going on, yet it doesn't show that the actors had no idea how the movie was going to end when they began filming. The acting is terrific. Russell Crowe is wonderfully cast as Maximus. Many reviewers agree that he is now officially a star. Joaquin Phoenix also proves his mettle as the emotionally troubled Commodus, whose behavior and emotion toward his sister could give anyone the creeps. Connie Nielsen makes you believe that, as Lucilla, she really is torn between natural loyalty to her brother and doing what she knows is right. Oliver Reed, in his last performance, is memorable in his role of Proximo, the former gladiator who is the owner of Maximus and brings him to Rome. In short, the actors were brilliant in their roles, not over-acting, but giving subtle, strong performances.

    The script itself is very good. Although some elements are a little hard to believe--the fact that no one recognizes Maximus when he's a slave?--this film calls for a willing suspension of disbelief, which one would happily comply with. (It's really no fun to nitpick such a movie.)

    It's true that this movie does pretty much follow the Braveheart formula. However, this movie includes some elements, such as the cinematography and the incredibly graphic battle scenes (one reviewer likened it to Saving Private Ryan, "only better"), that are spectacular in itself. Overall, a great movie that I highly recommend.
  • comingaround19 August 2000
    10/10
    One of the Greatest Movies I have Ever Seen
    Warning: Spoilers
    This is wonderful storytelling. The opening Battle Scene simply mesmerizes, showing the brutal nature of combat for Roman conquests. I went back to see the film again. The first time I didn't hear anything Crowe said before the battle. I was just too visually caught-up. The second time I listened very closely and caught the wise yet succinct line from Maximus "what we do in life... echoes in eternity." Awesome.

    A simple man v. an emperor. I just loved the resilience Maximus showed throughout the movie. I find in most movies, there is an irritatingly slow process where the character has to "find himself," not so with Gladiator. Maximus does what is needed.

    I liked how there were only two or three issues within this film. One was the afterlife. Aspects of the afterlife are opened, but not overdone. Love of family is given sizable focus. I liked the theme of love of country that we see as well, although it may not be justly deserved, it is never questioned.

    The visual effects were amazing. It actually had me wanting to believe that's the way Rome actually looked in all it's glory. The battle of Carthage reenactment was really great.

    The ending is just hypnotic. Intentionally or unintentionally it was simply emotional. The music is wonderfully beautiful as if Maximus' family are telling him...you have arrived.

    Bottom line: magnificent. Visually and emotionally satisfying.
  • copperccso7 September 2002
    One of the Greatest Movies Ever
    I love history, and to me, Gladiator is a masterpiece. It is the most accurate picture of the Roman Empire Hollywood has ever put out. People declare Spartacus a masterpiece, but Gladiator far outdoes Spartacus in quality. The costuming, the acting, the screenplay, the scenery, and the fighting styles made me think that I had traveled back to 180 A.D. Russell Crowe is a true Hollywood tough guy, and he is superb in this movie. Joaquin Phoenix is outstanding as a villain, one of the best in movie history. He played his character as if it were a psychologist's dream case. Connie Nielsen plays one of the strongest female characters that I have ever seen. The choreographer of the action sequences was brilliant. Ridley Scott did an outstanding job in recreating the Empire, including the multitude of ethnic groups within the Empire and accurately depicting everyday life. If you're looking for insight into what the Roman Empire was like, this is a perfect depiction.
  • ccthemovieman-11 November 2006
    8/10
    A Throwback To The Epics Of The '60s
    An intense Roman epic, a la "Ben-Hur" or "Spartacus," it was nice to see something like this made again. It had been since the 1960s that we had seen a 3-hour extravaganza like this.

    Like Ben-Hur, this is a story of a successful man who loses everything thanks to an evil man, and then has to fight his way back up to seek revenge on that man and to obtain his freedom back. It's a tried-and-true formula. This movie doesn't go to excess on the violence as some of the other more recent epic films did, such as "Braveheart" or "The Patriot."

    The acting is excellent, beginning with Russell Crowe, who has established himself as one of the best actors of today. Joaquin Phoenix also put himself "on the map" as an actor with his portrayal of the evil "Commodus." He's so annoying you want to slap that sucker, which means he's doing a good job acting. Kudos to the rest of the cast, too.

    Too bad they don't make more of these type of films, as they did in the 1950s and 1960s.
  • moondoggy886 March 2002
    Special effects and powerful acting make Gladiator an epic.
    I borrowed this movie on DVD, but I wish I had seen it in the theater for it would have been a lot more fun and powerful there. Despite this, Gladiator is one of the most powerful and moving films I've ever seen. The plot goes so smooth together, as well as the acting and the terrific musical score. Director Ridley Scott puts all effort into making this film an epic, and he does just that. I'd have to say that anyone who likes Ridley Scott (I sure do) should see this. It is a lot like Ridley's other movies (Black Hawk Down was also amazing). If you can stand a little bit--well, ok a LOT of blood and gore, then you should see this. Russell Crowe shows an excellent performance like no other. I don't think there's one bad movie that Ridley Scott has made or that Russell Crowe has acted in. The fact that the brutal battles involving innocent slaves in this film actually happened in real life centuries ago makes it even more interesting and powerful. Emperor Commodus is a truely evil and life-like villian who shows a lot of his wits in attempts to get his revenge against Maximus.

    Ridley Scott went to many different locations to shoot this film to make it real, and he does. The film is set in Rome, and it looks just like it. You feel as if you are there in the crowd, hearing them cheer and cheer to see the death. To some of you, this may sound a little barbaric, and believe me the film is VERY barbaric and brutual, however it teaches a very strong lesson of what happens when an economy turns as violent as Rome was. Ridley Scott goes to many lengths to make this movie real, because even though the characters are fictitious, all of this really did happen. Innocent people had to go through brutual fighting while thousands of people cheered for either their death or the enemy's death. If you were an inexperienced fighter, chances are you would get killed. But the strange thing is that Rome LOVED this. People came from all over to see these fights and to see the blood that was shed, that is why you can't blame the characters in this film for being so forlorn and saddened the whole time. The film itself is very dark. The theme is dark and the ending is dark. From beginning to end there is excessive violence (for those action movie-goers, this is a movie for you). But if the violence is concerning you, don't let it. The special effects make the movie great, but it's the acting and storyline that make it spectacular. HIGHLY RECCOMMENDED for anyone who wants a good time. Definitely makes you think. ***** out of *****.
  • Ben Nicholson8 November 2005
    10/10
    If I Could Give This Movie 11/10, It Would Be A 12!
    Warning: Spoilers
    Gladiator! A thrilling tale of a Roman general who must battle against all thinkable odds to avenge the death of his family and restore justice to the empire. The plot is simple, legendary general Maximus Decimus Meridius, after many victorious campaigns and battles wants to return to his peaceful home in Spain, However the kind, fair and dying Emperor Marcus Aurelius wishes to bestow his title on him over his cruel son, Commodus. Commodus is understandably annoyed and kills his father calming the title of Emperor. Maximus is sentenced to death along with the rest of his family back at his home in Spain. Maximus escapes but is unable to save his wife and son. His loss of will to live makes him an east target for slavers and he is soon sold as a gladiator. He fights his way into the coliseum in Rome were he wins over the crowd and uses his celebrity status to defy the Emperor, to whom he swears his vengeance for the death of his family, after many battles and political backstabbing he gets his chance to fight the Emperor in the Arena.

    This is just such an amazing film, it captures every emotion possible in only the way an expert director can achieve, we can go on for whole scenes without the need for speaking, everything is told through the genuine body language and expressions. And when there is conversing we get such emotion and wonderfully powerful quotes – "What we do in life, echoes in eternity" Wow.

    The opening scene is spellbinding, showing the true gore of battle, the fight scenes are marvellously realistic, discarding the popular "pretty" sword fighting for brutal aggressive force. The audience in the arena express every emotion, surprise, anger, and enjoyment. The cast is brilliantly chosen; we can really see Russell Crowe as a gladiator, in Commodus, Joaquin Phoenix gives us a man we can really hate, Connie Nielson shows real emotion and passion in the role of Lucilla. So apart from the spellbinding acting, scarily realistic fight scenes and the amazing script, what else can we look for? The music is just stunning, its exactly what we need brought in at exactly the right time, truly wonderful directing. And then we have the stunning special effects, we can really visualise the greatness that is Rome, the fight scenes really make you believe. Some critics have condemned the lack of historical fact, for instance an emperor would never fight a gladiator, and these comments cannot be denied, its true.

    But I think we can forgive them that one fault for such an amazing movie. Without hesitation I give this movie a truly deserved 10/10!
  • cjswan16 May 2000
    Is Crowe the 'next action hero?'
    Germania, 150 AD, the setting of Gladiator's opening scene. Far from the blazing sun and dazzlingly beauty of ancient Rome, Ridley Scott shoots the opening sequence in a subdued light. The Roman legions are nonetheless impeccably turned out as they face the comparatively disorganised rabble that inhabits this miserable environment. Caesar's soldiers seem somewhat misplaced here. However, Russell Crowe is at home in this environment of knee-deep mud and merciless snow. He commands the screen with all the virtues of his motto: ‘Strength and Honour.'

    The plot, with its hero-to-zero-to-hero nature, runs through Gladiator's every vein. As General Maximus, Russell Crowe is welcomed by Marcus Aurelius Caesar (Richard Harris) to take the Roman throne as Emperor of a new Republic. All does not run smoothly however as mislead heir to the throne Commodus (Phoenix) takes over Rome with ill-gotten domination, having dispatched his own Father. Maximus is cast out to find his family murdered and his Spanish farm burnt to the ground. Taken in as a slave by Proximo (Reed), Maximus becomes a Gladiator and starts his journey to the Coliseum and revenge against Commodus.

    Scott's cast is powerful and he is not left wanting as powerful performances are delivered by all. Due to his untimely mid-production death, Oliver Reed is created in some scenes by the grace of computer graphics, which are as convincing as they come; sometimes making it difficult to differentiate between Reed himself and his computerised counterpart.

    It is, however, the supporting actors who create many of Gladiator's best dialogue-based scenes. In an accomplished demonstration of her acting ability as Lucilla, Connie Nielsen saves the occasional scene as Joaquim Phoenix shows us that he can ‘do evil', but is less convincing when it comes to the more emotional qualities of his role.

    As a vehicle for the plot, Scott's beautifully created and highly symbolic (there is an image of fire in nearly every shot of the film) dialogue scenes are of a certain merit with digitally created backgrounds that encompass the meticulous nature of the Roman Empire. However, dialogue alone does not an epic movie make, and it is in the film's spectacular action sequences that Gladiator come into its own. Shot on location in Malta, Scott's first arena was built by an army of locals and commanded some 5000 extras (a large majority of whom were of a cardboard variety). All of this pales in comparison as we arrive in a digitally created Rome which makes some scenes in Ben Hur some somewhat small scale. The Coliseum is immense, both inside and out, and the computerised provides the electric atmosphere in which Crowe and his feline companions (four sizeable, and real, Bengal tigers) perform.

    The battle sequences are perfectly choreographed and shot as iconic masks and typically Roman chariots are abundant in their power and imagery. As swords clash and heads roll, Ridley Scott is triumphant in the application of special effects technology and his directorial prowess.

    Always one to embrace technology, Scott's views over Rome's landscape are reminiscent of the beautifully created cityscape of Blade Runner. This is a film that fears so little and boasts so much, even a lady archer being sliced clean in half by a spiked chariot wheel!

    All those involved with Gladiator should be delighted and confident with their creation, for indeed this is a convincing and enthralling display with epic proportions to take the wind from James Cameron's titanic sails.
  • Nazi_Fighter_David25 October 2005
    9/10
    "Gladiator" brought a poetic vision in a new and very cinematically richly way...
    Warning: Spoilers
    When you go to the ruins of Rome now, you get really no sense of the scale and the grandeur of what that forum would have been… It's hard to get it anywhere except from some of the great epic films of the past like "Quo Vadis," "Ben-Hur," "Demetrius and the Gladiators," "Barabbas," and "The Fall of the Roman Empire."

    Scott's "Gladiator" is build around a mythic character, a man trying to find his way home... It is around someone finding inner strength in a tough time… Maximus is somebody who doesn't want to be a soldier… We realize this is a man who is pursuing the ultimate which is transcending death and finding love after death which completely transforms your reaction to the man, a man who is very, very strong but very, very loving…

    The plot, familiar from Anthony Mann's " Fall of the Roman Empire," had Crowe as Maximus, the proud well-loved Roman general in the army of Emperor Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris). Maximus whose motto is 'Strength and Honor' is like a son to Aurelius, a statement that left Aurelius' own son, Commodus perturbed...

    Disappointed by the news that his father privately decides to name Maximus his successor, and being a young ambitious son lusting for power, he murders his father, and orders a strike against the general... One of the best scenes of the motion picture is where Commodus is told by his father that he is not going to be the emperor… Joaquin Phoenix is easy to hate in a frightening and vile character...

    Ridley Scott creates a lot of beautiful scenes between the characters… He did some fantastic work in all of those wonderful scenes in the film… But there's another moment between the emperor and his daughter Lucilla (the Danish beauty Connie Nielsen) that I loved very much… Harris says, "Let's not speak of politics. Let us pretend that you are a loving daughter and I'm a good father. " They walk for a few seconds and Lucilla says, "This is a pleasant fiction." I felt this short scene so sophisticated… It seemed to me wonderfully insightful, simple in terms of amount of words, but complex in terms of understanding this strange relationship…

    One of the most successful bits of casting was Oliver Reed… He's a harsh and rough businessman who makes his living off the death machine and yet, inside, there was some kind of ethical person that would come out at the right moment…

    Ridley Scott's epic film does not romanticize a democratic Golden Age of Rome but a decaying, blood thirsty empire on the edge of its fall... Through its beautiful music, through Russell's performance and through Ridley's soulfulness, "Gladiator" brought a poetic vision in a new and very cinematically richly way that really gave the audience something different, so emotional and so intimate…
  • almagz19 November 2005
    9/10
    Nitpicking is only criticism
    There is so little to find wanting in this film and not wanting to merely repeat its many deserved praises, all I can do is question a couple of historical points.

    It is unlikely that a Roman general would be sold into slavery and forced to fight in the arena. Exiled, yes. Killed maybe. Asked to commit suicide to retain his property, most likely.

    It is unlikely that he would return to find his family crucified, of all things. Romans were very specific about who got crucified and why. Romans usually avoided it, no matter how cruel the tyrant(?) was.

    Roman legionnaires would NEVER have a tattoo unless they were barbarians who got one BEFORE joining a legion. Marking or mutilating the human body was expressedly anti- Roman. No statue or depiction exists of a main-period Roman showing a body-marking. The bonding feature the writer was attempting was an inappropriate borrowing from the 20th century German SS.

    Great entertaining movie nonetheless.
  • Mr_PCM7 December 2005
    10/10
    The Greatest Epic of the 21st Century
    Warning: Spoilers
    If only Peter Jackson hadn't come along and done a rather good trilogy of films, we might possibly be talking about the greatest film of the 21st Century so far. Its sweeping but simplistic heroic tale, crunching fight scenes, award-winning special effects, towering acting and soaring score set this film apart from all the pretenders that followed it. Ridley Scott single-handedly re-invented the epic genre with this story of a Roman solider who is betrayed, loses everything and is sold into slavery, only to fight his way back as a gladiator, all the while driven by vengeance for his murdered family.

    Russell Crowe gives quite simply the performance of a lifetime as the Gladiator Maximus, one that deservedly won him Best Actor at the 2000 Academy Awards (although his performance in the following year's Beautiful Mind was arguably even better, even if it didn't win him his second consecutive Oscar), and provided a thinking woman's alternative to the likes of Pitt, Cruise and Clooney to swoon over. His gravely voice and impressive physique combine to give him a huge presence, which literally fills the screen. His dialogue is sparing, but his actions speak far louder, adding a stoic sadness to his vengeance-driven heroic character. Before Gladiator, Crowe was a good secondary actor; after Gladiator he was catapulted to the top of Hollywood's A-list, and remains there, thanks to this career-making performance –proving him to be one of the finest actors of his generation.

    Joaquin Phoenix is fantastic as the scheming and corrupt Emperor Commodus who betrays Maximus and has his family killed. He manages to be delightfully and totally evil without ever descending into the realms of pantomime villain, which is a tricky line to walk, and manages to avoid being overshadowed by Crowe's monumental performance.

    The fight scenes are rousing and superbly choreographed, in particular a scene where Maximus marshals his fellow slaves into an army against marauding chariot archers in the Colosseum. The dialogue is kept simple and never overbearing (no need to worry why all of Europe speaks the same language) and culminates in one of the most memorable pieces of script that is destined to join the ranks of 'Play it Sam' and 'Are you talking' to me' as one of the most quoted (and misquoted) lines in movie history – although it is rather wordy. But here it is, in full; 'My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius. Commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions, loyal servant to the true Emperor Marcus Aurelius; Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife, and I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.' As Crowe turns to the Emperor in the arena and delivers this line, it proves to be one of the most electrifying moments in cinema history – hairs will stand up, spines will tingle, guaranteed.

    The action is set to some truly beautiful music, and it is shameful Hans Zimmer missed out on the Oscar for Best Score. Ridley Scott was similarly unlucky in the Director category.

    The film is however tinged with sadness, as it proved to be the final (but triumphant) swansong for the careers of Oliver Reed and Richard Harris, both of whom died shortly after making this film. Neither could have delivered much finer performances, and if any performance had to be a final one, both delivered one worthy of such a status here. Reed in particular is a revelation, reminding older generations and showing a new generation of his considerable talent.

    An inspiring film, rousing, exhilarating, exciting and moving. Superbly acted, directed, scored and visualised. A tribute to how great films could be once, and could be again.
  • Jessica Carvalho24 October 2005
    10/10
    A general who became a slave. A slave who became a gladiator. A gladiator who defied an emperor.
    Warning: Spoilers
    This movie is awesome! I think it's great to be in one of IMDb's top 250 best movies, because it deserves it. Every time I watch 'Gladiator'I stay touched by the story and I never get bored of it.

    It's one of the most excellent movies already made in the movie's history! Russel Crowe is terrific in the role of Maximus and so is Joaquim phoenix great as commodus. For people who enjoys history,specially ancient history,is a chance to see how was Rome many centuries ago, and also know better about the gladiators, the Colosseum and how some things worked in that time.

    I will not write about the plot here, because many people already did this; I will only say for people that never watched this movie, that it deserves to be watched and, if you have some money, buy the DVD!
  • therryns18 February 2003
    Violent with a purpose
    I saw the movie on video because I was nervous of the gore others had mentioned, but the movie was like a poem. You could not have left out one drop of blood, one terrifying character, one disturbing dream, nor could you have added anything at all. Deeply violent, yet not one gratuitous drop of blood was shed, not one encounter without reason. A classically made film, and a beaut. Don't miss it, whether or not you've seen something that disappointed you, or had a bad day at the arena. Think "Spartacus" and you've got it.
  • screenman6 January 2008
    6/10
    Pretentious and Mediocre
    Evaluating opinion of this movie by the 'Hated It' selection, I lost count of the number of contributors who gave it just one star. I thought they were being unnecessarily 'Roman' in their ruthlessness, but the result does show how disappointed so many viewers were and the extent to which this movie has polarised opinion.

    I diplomatically place myself somewhere in the middle.

    For me, scepticism set-in at the outset. That much-vaunted battle scene didn't sit right at all. In combat, the greatest Roman strength lay in the legion. The scrupulously drilled and disciplined foot-soldiers worked in unison, advancing upon enemies in their orderly units and maniples.Their Shields interlocked to create a mobile wall that could form-up on all flanks and even provide overhead protection. In between, they used their short, stabbing swords.

    The legions, then, were only at their best in the open. In dense forest, their advantages would have been squandered, any fight being a brawl upon the same terms as the enemy. Morover, their big Shields would have been an encumbrance and the short swords inadequate. A good Roman general drew the enemy out to fight on his terms, not the other way round. I'm not a scholar of Roman warfare; it may be there were occasions when Romans had no choice, but this is where the question marks began to pop-up. Check out the impeccable piece in 'Spartacus', where the Roman legions deploy by the textbook, drawing their enemy down from the hill. Perhaps Mr Scott felt that a more faithful rendering would seem like too much of a rip-off. In any case, this battle is quite incidental, and seems to exist only to grip the viewer's attention for the next couple of flatulent hours.

    Neither was I aware that the Roman army employed fire-bombs. It's not for me to say they didn't, but I have no reference to this tactic at all.

    I thought Ridley Scott made a futile attempt to create an 'arty' film. The frequent dream-like flashbacks to a hand running through spears of corn reminded me of the recurrent unicorn dream from his fascinating but equally pretentious 'Blade Runner'. From time to time there's even the same high-pitched warbling 'oriental' chorus, intended to project mood, but failing again. Some directors don't seem to realise that cinema-goers have memories.

    General Gruntus Maximus (Russel Crowe) surely got the easiest Oscar in history. He was believable as an uneducated slob in the way, perhaps, Spartacus should have been; but cerebral enough to be a general? I don't think so. And you don't rise to be a career general in an army whilst obsessing as a farmer about your harvest. You're either one, or the other.

    There was one particularly absurd scene in the arena when he was chopping-down competitors as quickly as they could be set against him. What then - weren't they trained gladiators, too? I was half-expecting him to begin walking sideways along the arena walls like 'Neo' from 'Matrixus'.

    As to the 'spectacle' of Rome; well, that was all just computer-generated hokum. The back-room boys can whip-up anything in that way now just by tapping a few keys, so what's the big deal? Check-out the 'real' thing in 'Fall Of The Roman Empire'.

    As with 'Titanic' and 'Pearl Harbour' a splendid opportunity was missed here to do something really wonderful, but because of flawed vision and misplaced directorial self-belief we finished up with mediocrity. Glorious mediocrity.

    Still, bread and circuses usually please the crowds.
  • CherryBlossomBoy22 October 2006
    7/10
    Victory of production over a lousy script
    There is an unwritten rule in movie making that if you have an excellent script it doesn't matter how you film it. If you have a lousy script - then everything else matters, the direction, the cinematography, the acting, the music... "Gladiator" is an epitome of the latter half of that rule. The case where direction, music, acting and art direction completely redeemed a crappy story.

    For me it took watching it in German overdubbing. As I don't speak German there was nothing to detract me from visuals and music. And it's a new experience on another level. But more on that later. First the crappy part. The story.

    Make no mistake, whether you care about history or not, this is a horrible script. It's taking huge (and quite unacceptable) liberties with the period it purports to portray, it's unconvincing even on its own terms, the dialog is pretty much high school and in its core it's a predictable revenge story told a zillion times before. Apparently (according to a documentary about Hollywood screenwriters) only Russell Crowe didn't know what turd the script was so he contributed himself with the juvenile "husband of the dead wife" speech.

    Ridley Scott and his crew apparently knew what stinker they had to work with and did their best to defeat it with excellence in all areas and actually made two films in one.

    On the surface it's a revenge story. The hero, a favorite army general turned gladiator, seeks revenge against a young emperor, who had general's family killed during the tumultuous succession to the throne. The military battles and the gladiatorial bouts required for this aspect of the movie are done both to tremendous detail and on a grand scale. With the help of CGI they are seen in all their glory and gore. Some accuse Scott of shying away from action but his direction shows everything one needs to see. Yes, the cuts are brief, the camera sometimes doesn't follow through, but the editing is pure poetry and you miss nothing. Cinematography-wise every frame is shot in a way that you could just hang it on a wall as a nice picture. Costumes and scenery are impeccable. A revenge story, yes, but well worth watching.

    But on another level "Gladiator" plays out like a remake of "Fall of a Roman Empire". But it's not in the script. It's in the mood set again by production. This other story is about the decline and death of classical Rome and its ideals. There is simple yet effective symbolism to express it, the play on dark and light and the sunrise-sunset arc. The movie starts with a battle at dawn, the way the Rome itself had once dawned, fighting. There is an ideal Roman hero, valiant and dutiful, there's a typical Roman villain, clandestine and scheming. Hero does his best in the light, the villain does his worst in the dark, whenever they swap environments during the movie they fail miserably. The story ends at sunset, symbolizing the end of the Empire itself, and although an uplifting speech is given at that point it is defeated by the setting sun.

    The feeling of the doom is constantly emphasized by melancholic music. The dreamlike experience of the main character who is already dead but doesn't yet know it is enhanced when he finally visits Rome and the city is an idealistic, blown in proportions version of itself. The script may be a complete falsification of history, but the feeling of decline one gets when watching those scenes is probably completely faithful.

    So forget the story and the closing speech. Watch and listen the movie. The Roman Empire is living and dying once more before your very eyes.
  • jmgatt2 January 2007
    10/10
    real life situation for an epic
    There's all you might imagine, a real life situation for an epic. Remember that such battles where very common, not to mention the thousands of lives lost. Ridley Scott put the viewer into suspense and tension during the very first battle we had, not to mention the grandiose strategy Maximus had.

    Shot in Malta: Ricasli and other locations, the arena built had over 5000 extras. All awaiting for the signal...

    Roar did the crowd when Maximus entered. They loved him, a man of honour, a normal being, a prisoner, a warrior. Their HERO!

    Ridley Scott direction excelled at its best in Gladiator conveying the authenticity of life, our ancestors have lived!
  • jimberg13 June 2001
    Great Story but Far From Historical
    Firstly, Romans never referred to the Colloseum as the "Colloseum". It was called the Flavian Amphitheatre.

    Commodus was an actual emperor who ruled from A.D. 180 to 192. He did indeed fight in the Colloseum against gladiators, and was quite good at it because he never lost (Maybe he cheated like in the movie).

    His sister, Lucilla, did conspire with his wife Crispina to have him killed. They were caught and banished to an island and later killed.

    His mistress Marcia tried to drug him to death but failed, so they had some athlete strangle him to death. He died on New Year's Eve A.D. 192.

    He was a nut case, and was quite murderous, but that's about the only things real about the movie.

    Other than the historical problems, the story was great. I liked Maximus and really hated Commodus. It was your basic struggle between good and evil.
  • SECurtisTX30 March 2004
    1/10
    A Movie for the Toilet Bowl
    Warning: Spoilers
    This movie is the very epitome of what I hate about movies. The Hollywood-ization/bastardization of what could have been a great movie. The FX and action were great, the characterization was adequate, the plot was dumb, and the ending was abysmal. Why doesn't anyone in Hollywood have the courage to take a movie where it ought to go instead of where the test audiences say it should go?

    This is a gladiator movie. You know what that means? It was set during the Roman Empire. During the reigns of Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus. It was NOT a fantasy. When you set a movie during a historical time frame, there are certain rules you have to abide by. One of those is, you do not rewrite history on a grand scale. The main reason to set a movie within a historical context is to give it plausibility. You do not then crap on that plausibility by having the characters do things that would have caused all of history to lumber down a different path.

    In Braveheart, William Wallace did not rally the Scots, defeat the English, march into London, kill the king of England in a duel, and establish a democracy. Why? Because that isn't what happened; and it would have turned a great movie into a crappy movie. In Dances With Wolves, John Dunbar does not rally the Sioux nation in a war to conquer the United States, kill Ulysses S. Grant in a duel, and establish a new form of government in Washington based on Sioux practices. Why? Because that isn't what happened; and it would have turned a great movie into a crappy movie. In Gangs of New York, Leo DiCaprio's character did not face Abe Lincoln in an arena, kill him, and establish a new form of government in Washington where the Irish were the ruling class. Why? Because that isn't what happened; and it would have turned a mediocre movie into a crappy movie.



    ***SPOILER ALERT!!!***





    So in Gladiator, an exiled Roman general kills the Emperor in the arena and in so doing allows the reestablishment of the Roman Republic in 182 A.D. You know what? It didn't happen that way, and it turned a great movie into a crappy movie. The makers of this movie took all the plausibility of setting and trashed it. They took a pretty good historical action movie and turned it into a suck-ass fantasy. And the better the movie is before the movie-makers pull their pants down and squat over it, the more I resent the dump being taken on it. And that's the case here.
  • EugeneandSasha1 November 2005
    9/10
    Gladiator is better than...
    Gladiator is the best epic war film. Gladiator has the best war scenes I've ever scene. Better than Troy and much better than Alexander. I liked the digital effects in Gladiator. Troy and Alexander are pretty fun to watch, but in Alexander, i really want to forward it to exciting scenes, like war sequences. Gladiator, I can just sit there and watch it, because if you miss a part, you won't get it. The end was great, i really liked it. It was the best fight scene at the end. Every part kept me interested and there wasn't one part that bored me. It had one of the best endings ever. So if your tired of crappy, imitating war movies go to this one it's the best there is.

    10/10
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.