|
Directed by: Ridley Scott Starring: Russell Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix IMDB posted:Plot Outline: When a Roman general is betrayed and his family murdered by a corrupt prince, he comes to Rome as a gladiator to seek revenge. I saw this film a few months after its release on DVD, and needless to say regret not seeing it in the theater. Spectacular acting, a great plot that captivates throughout the most of the film combined with an amazing soundtrack make for a one hell of a spine-tingling experience. 5/5
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 04:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 01:16 |
|
|
I think Gladiator would enjoy the reputation it deserves if it hadn't won the academy award for best picture, which many feel (understandably) it was unworthy of. It's a victim of its own success in that way.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 04:26
|
|
|
Yes, this was definitely one of my all-time favorite movies. The scenery, settings, the action, actors, all well played out. Crowe played it perfectly. Also Joaquin (sp?) Phoenix did it just as well. The proves that Ridley Scott is one of the best directors of our time. The whole incest thing with Phoenix and his sister was a bit weird though. 5/5
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 04:28
|
|
|
I think my animosity for this movie stems not from it's quality as a movie, but the fact that it doesn't deserve anywhere near the praise it's gotten. It's possibly the least-deserving winner of Best Picture in the last 20 years. The movie was an above average action movie, but not much more. Crowe was solid as usual, but I think that his Best Actor oscar is somewhat tainted by the fact his previous role in The Insider, and his subsequent role in A Beautiful Mind, were much more deserving. 3/5
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 04:28
|
|
|
As others have said, this was a mediocre, gladiator action movie. Nothing more, nothing less. How it garnished such critical acclaim is beyond me. It was an enjoyable film, but certainly not a timeless classic that everyone should see. If you want to see a complete and thorough gladiator epic, watch Spartacus, the definitive gladiator movie.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 04:45
|
|
|
quote:Douche4Sale came out of the closet to say: drat, wish I'd said that. What I thought was funny was that Gladiator was Spartacus in reverse. In Spartacus, a gladiator becomes a general. In Gladiator, a general becomes a gladiator.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 04:48
|
|
|
quote:mangler103 came out of the closet to say: Shakespeare in Love.  Anyways, this film is decent for what it is, but it doesn't set out to do much other than have lots of brutal violence and slow motion choppy-cam fight scenes with choral music playing in the background. Plus I really really really don't like Russell Crowe. 3/5
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 04:50
|
|
|
quote:The Walrus came out of the closet to say: 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 05:05
|
|
|
I liked it a lot. The acting, script, cinematography, action, and visuals are all very well done. Connie Neilsen did a great job as Lucilla, Joaquin Phoenix was excellent (and easily hateable) as Commodus, and I don't get the criticism for Russell Crowe for this, because I thought he made a very convincing character. It's good as an action movie, it's good as a drama, and it's good as a historical epic (even if not exactly accurate, as historical epics seldom are). What really sets the mood for the movie for me though is the score. I'm a huge fan of what Lisa Gerrard can do with her voice, and Hans Zimmer's work along with her voice was a brilliant accent to a lot of the more powerful scenes. I saw it in the theater twice and I own the DVD. As for the Oscar win, I thought it was between that and Traffic that year, and I enjoyed Gladiator more as a film. I won't say it's an absolute must-see classic, but I tend to take film production into account when rating a movie too, and this wasn't only a good film, but it was extremely well put together. 5/5
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 05:26
|
|
|
quote:mangler103 came out of the closet to say: I just can't agree with this enough. You're dead right on both points. Gladiator's win for best picture hosed over both Traffic and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. And why Russel Crowe, a capable actor who touched on real brilliance in both of those films (EDIT - the ones mangler mentioned, not mine) would win his Oscar for a role that was basically grimacing for three hours is beyond me. Gladiator is a movie that degrades which each successive viewing. The visuals are beautiful and emotive when you first see them, but re-exposure just draws your attention to how little else of merit there is in the film. The pacing, the plot, and the acting are all seriously flawed, and they just don't live up to the undeniably gorgeous photography. Ridley Scott seems to be making a career of gilding swap meet junk. Would vote 2/5 if my browser wasn't hosed right now. Aaron Burr fucked around with this message at 07:23 on May 3, 2004 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 07:21
|
|
|
I don't know how to say it, but this movie reeked of pure emotion. I loved it. The visuals were outstanding, the acting was moving, and the action was enthralling. 5/5
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 11:14
|
|
|
Pure emotion, Hans Zimmer's score and Connie Nielsen. What more could you want? 5/5
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 12:10
|
|
|
quote:The Walrus came out of the closet to say: My sentiments exactly. I just saw this movie again yesterday, and remembered why I loved it. While I do agree that the Oscar was undeserved, I still think that as an action movie, it still kicks all kinds of rear end. The Germanic horde battle is so amazing, with the organizational, tactical and technological superiority of the Roman army depicted very well. Joaquin Phoenix was a great villain, too. 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 15:52
|
|
|
I thought Gladiator was an above average action/drama movie because of the attention to detail, the excitement it generated, and the small way you grew attached to the main character, however, it was not really 'Best Picture' material in the way something like Return of the King was. The reason I bring up RoTK is because it did what Gladiator did, which is pay attention to detail, generate excitement, and make you feel attached to the characters, but it did it on a much better scale and with much more attention to characterization. In my opinion, Russell Crowe's character never really developed a personality and was somewhat two-dimensional in the movie. 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 16:05
|
|
|
Good movie, the ending was one of the best I have ever seen. The details are interesting to see. Good acting all around. 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 16:14
|
|
|
I loved this film, especially the arena scenes. However, my only complaint was that Joaquin Phoenix couldn't seem to get his accent down. And hey, if that's my biggest complaint then you know I'm going to give this movie: 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2004 19:06
|
|
|
My favorite aspect of this movie was the incredible Hans Zimmer score. 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2004 19:13
|
|
|
I liked this movie better the first time, when it was called Braveheart. Still, very well made.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2004 14:17
|
|
|
It was pretty good, but not the best. The filming technique used for the fight scenes was obnoxious as hell. Here's hoping 'Troy' does the Roman/Greek era better. 2.5 out of 5 manbabies
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2004 18:14
|
|
|
Complete crap. I hated this film, despite Oliver Reed, despite Ridley Scott. And wtf is it with the Emperor of Rome getting into an arena to fight a gladiator? Could they not think of a less cheesy, unconvincing, dumbass ending? Yes, let's hope Troy is better. 1.5/5 - bonus marks for good use of CGI (take note Wachowski brothers).
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2004 21:09
|
|
|
From a historical standpoint, I gave up even attempting to gague its accuracy after a certain point (I forgot where I gave up thhough because it was by no means accurate). However, I liked the plot and the action and everything so much that I just got giddy while watching it. I just flat out loved the film. It was motivational too, and I suppose is no coincidence that drat near every football team in this country watched Gladiator at some point in the season to get pumped up. 5/5
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2004 04:23
|
|
|
A good action movie, but definitely not a great film by any stretch. Watching it a second time, I remained thoroughly baffled as to how academy voters could select a film with an inspirational scene of the old gladiator giving an awkward, cliche-ridden monologue on the glory of the fight as he stands to be silhoutted by the rising sun. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2004 08:04
|
|
|
I really only think this movie had falling flower petals because it worked at the academy awards the year before. It was making itself out to be so much more of an artistic masterpiece than it was, instead of just running with a bit of fun slash-em-up type stuff. Someone becomes a hero from from their position in nowhere, where they wre wrongfully thrown! It's meaninful, because... Oh, wait, I forgot to carry the one, it isn't. Yawn. 2.0
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2004 22:41
|
|
|
I still cant get over that this movie won Best Picture. Other than being boring when there is no action, none of the characters outside Crowe's was in the least bit interesting, but the ending was so lackluster i couldnt believe it even as i was watching it. Not wanting to spoil it for those who have not seen it yet, lets just say that its a lot smaller and anitclimatic than you can possibly imagine. Some of the scenes in the movie were beautiful but other scenes feel tight and confined, wasting the chance to show us what Rome look like in the peek of its civilization. There is so little to this movie other than Crowe's character and although that might work in other movies, it does not work in sweeping period pieces like this one. This movie could have been set in 1950's Rome for all you know if not for the way the people were dressed as so little is seen of the city and of its people except for the Collisium. I think of this as just an action movie that thinks of itself as something more when its not. 3/5
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2004 23:34
|
|
|
quote:Pipski came out of the closet to say: This is one of my favourite films of all time. The battle scenes, the music, the acting, and the cgi all blend together to make a great film.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2005 20:31
|
|
|
AM I NOT MERCIFUL?? I loved Phoenix's performance in this, and Crowe is just awesome in everything. Cinematography: impressive CGI: tasteful Emotion: chock full of it Violence: HELL YEAH One of my favorite films. 5/5
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2005 06:00
|
|
|
Maximus: Are you not entertained? Yes I was. Excellent film. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2005 18:17
|
|
|
Russell Crowe could hardly act his way out of a wet paper bag, but the real loser in this one is Joaquin Phoenix's appallingly unconvincing Commodus. At no point did he come off as anything resembling menacing. They could have given the role to Orlando Bloom and gotten a more frightening performance. These sad facts combined with the boring action and the ludicrous ending make me wonder if Oscars actually mean anything anymore. Maybe I have a chemical imbalance that throws off my taste in movies or something, but I am forced to give this one a 1.5/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2005 04:40
|
|
|
Review There are so many elements in this movie that I really thought worked well. The music is by far one of the movie's strongest points. Hans Zimmer always does a good job, and the addition of Lisa makes it even better. While maybe not worthy of best picture, Gladiator is definately a well shot movie, with great use of CGI. I also am a fan of the way Ridley shot the fight scenes. The characters in Gladiator are all very interesting, and the way they interact with each other is very compelling. I love the themes of life/death, power/honor, etc in the film, and don't think they were overplayed or cheesy. Overall one of my top movies, and have watched my DVD copy quite a few times. Rating 5.5/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2005 10:24
|
|
|
I find that subsequent viewings of this are less kind, but in general it's a good movie. Probably my favorite soundtrack outside of a John Williams piece, too. The whole juxtapositioning of a real life historical setting, combined with the embodiment of an old Republican myth (Maximus is obviously playing to the legend of Cinncinnatus, the soldier/farmer/dictator trinity) is a fun game of "what if". Commodus, while not a menacing heavy, has enough power to lend credibility to his threat, and plays the character roughly in line with the history books. Richard Harris, for what limited time we see of him, has the old philosopher king's dreary stoicism well heard. I'd give it a solid 4.5 on my book. It's a nice appetizer if you're wanting Rome stuff, but you probably should look into Spartacus or the HBO Rome series for bigger helpings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2006 07:54
|
|
|
Along with the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven, Gladiator is one of the most entertaining epics. The second half of the movie ranks up there with some of the greatest hours in cinema ever. The first viewing of Gladiator is an experience similar to see Star Wars, The Matrix, and other epics for the first time. I certainly would put it above Braveheart in terms of epics that won an Oscar, especially considering the movies it beat out for it. Crouching Tiger and Traffic were good, but it was leagues above Chocolat and Cast away. Regardless it was the best movie of the year for sure, even if Russel Crowe was better in The Insder. Pros: Great Action, acting, soundtrack. Cons: First 15 minutes after the battle with the barbarians is bland, even if it is very important plotwise. Rating: 5 of 5.5
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2006 04:05
|
|
|
Watched this again the other day after not seeing it for a good while. It has not held up well. The dialogue is horrible. I forgot how much it's 'For the Glory of Rome' this and 'Greatness of Rome' that. Over and over like this is the one concept that's everyone's motivation. I have a sneaking suspicion it's a concept that is quite anachronistic at any rate. The acting isn't great either, although I guess the actors had a pretty rough time of it having to do something with painfully one-dimensional characters. There are some cool fight scenes. I can't see myself ever watching it again. Pros: Harris and Crowe (when he's killing people) Cons: The script. 1/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2006 14:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 01:16 |
|
|
Not without its faults but still a classic historical movie. The plot runs a little thin in places and it could probably have been better with thirty less minutes near the end. The movie has a great historical setting and a literary inspiration for its main character(the book, Eagle in the Snow, which I recommend with a 5), but at its heart this is an action movie with more fight scenes you can shake a vitis at. The movie has some drama in it but it's more akin to any other 'Big Hero gets Revenge' flick, not a thoughtful analysis of ancient Roman society and decadence. For that, get Spartacus, which is the far better film. For up to date action scenes and badass one-liners, get Gladiator. 3.5
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2006 02:30
|
|