Is it really that good? (Gladiator (DVD))

Member Name: BlackSwan

Product:	Gladiator (DVD)
Date:	06/09/09 (13 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Strong, cast, huge visual effects and the return of the sword and sandal epic!

Disadvantages: Lead hero lacks depth and the epic scenery reminded me of a Playstation game, even back then!

Okay, seeing the huge amount of positivity posted on here about this "classic" I don't know if the the wisest move is to put up this old review I published on Amazon back in 2002, but I thought I would give it a shot. It would appear that, unlike Titanic, time has not changed the general consensus of opinion on this multiple Oscar-winning picture:

I am probably amongst the very few who were a little disappointed by Gladiator. Judging by just about every review given here, Gladiator has been accepted as a classic example of modern filmmaking and a successful take on the Roman epic not seen since the sixties. The films' ejaculatory response at the Oscars seemed very reminiscent of Titanic and like the aforementioned film, appeared to be a bit over the top. This is not to say I felt the film wasn't any good; on the contrary I recommend it to any DVD/Video collector who is a fan of Ridley Scott films, Roman epics or general big budget blockbusters. I am not going to argue its deserving of a place amongst them, but rather where that place should be.

At face value Gladiator has a bevy of ingredients that should ensure a cinematic work of art. This includes a strong cast, a great director and a huge budget. The ingredients proved to score both at the box office and with the critics, but in hindsight I can't help wonder what all the fuss was about.

Ridley Scott is a master at creating visual masterpieces. His movies are a joy for the contemporary cinema-lover and home-cinema owner. From the opening credits to the final reel you always that you are a part of a major event. Having said this, Scott is often criticised for sacrificing substance for style. I don't believe this is fair criticism, but having said this I don't consider Gladiator a good example to defend my case. Likewise, Russel Crowe is an excellent actor, but compared with previous and later roles, the lead character, Maximus, is not a great example of his talent. He is a straightforward hero who is shown to be a near indestructible warrior yet humble and gracious. There certainly is something of the Shakespearian tragedy running through Gladiator, but the virtuous Maximus shares more in common with an American action hero than the flawed Hamlet, which is the most obvious comparison.

Joaquin Phoenix tackles a far more complex role and should have been given a best-supporting actor Oscar for it. The character of Commodus shares little in common with the insane real-life Roman ruler, but - who cares- the film never pretends to be historically accurate. Phoenix's character is not a Byronic-hero type baddie, but more of a reflective pantomime villain. He appears fully aware of his own evil, but rather than revel in it seems almost helplessly held in it. Like all the best villains he not only arouses the audience's negative feelings towards him, with his skulduggery and generally evil ways, but also stirs an emotion usually reserved for the good guys. You can't help but feel some sympathy for the character.

Oliver Reed is fine form in his final role, placing his tongue firmly in his cheek and helps lift us above the computer-generated backdrops. At first, these landscapes do appear impressive, but after a while you can't help feel you are in the middle of a video game. Derek Jacobi's presence sadly only serves to remind me of the far better written Roman drama he starred in, I Claudius. For anyone who is seriously interested in dramatisations of the Roman Empire, this series is a must to buy on video.

In comparison to its rivals I would Gladiator as an above average film. Compared to Ridley Scott's films it is better than GI Jane, on a par with Hannibal, but not as good as Alien or Bladerunner. Rating it against other Roman epics it is superior to The Robe and beats Cleopatra hands down, levels with its almost overly clever and historical contemporary The Fall of the Roman Empire, but falls short of its obvious rival Spartacus. Finally, as a big budget extravaganza it easily beats Independence Day, is at least equal to Titanic, but is no Lord of the Rings.

Summary: It's an enjoyable and ambitious romp, but ultimately an overblown and over-rated above average film