Something, something, but not very good.

Rating: 2/10 (26 December 2000)

There are probably some spoilers in this review. On the other hand, if you have already seen this movie, spoilers don't make any difference and if you have not seen it, spoilers may not make any difference either because I very much recommend that you don't bother wasting your time to see it anyway.
Considering the hype that Gladiator had before, during, and after its release to the theaters, this had to be one of my worst disappointments. The good guy-bad guy situation was so obvious that I think all the people involved with making this movie must have been too close to it to see what they were doing. Either that, or they thought viewers were all stupid. A little character development might have helped here.
This movie is basically about two guys. One is General Maximus something that ends with an s, something else that ends with an s, and he is a really, really good guy. Then there is the son of the emperor, something that begins with a C and ends with an s, who is a really, really bad guy. How do we know this? The movie's first major scene is the general bravely leading his troops into battle (and fighting hand-to-hand himself, which seems dumb for the commanding general), and wins a great victory. He then shows his fine personal side by having a heart-to-heart with the emperor. General Maximus says he now wants to go home to his wife and kid and there is a gooey filmover that shows the audience what a nice family life he has. His boss tells him that he wants the general to take over leadership of Rome since the emperor is about to die. The good general goes away to think about it. Then the emperor's son comes in and finds out this distressing information when he talks to his dad. Naturally, he then murders his father so he can lead Rome himself. What a bad guy he is!
The general is awakened to find this out and examines the body so as to determine that he had indeed been murdered. Things get worse for the general when the naughty son orders him executed. A bunch of the son's soldiers then take the luckless general away. They promptly botch the execution, however, when the general with his hands tied and unarmed somehow kills everyone. The general then rushes home, but gets there too late and discovers that his family have been horribly tortured and killed and the farm burned. Can the son get even worse and the general even better? In this movie, the answer is yes, of course.
The general is then captured and placed into slavery and made a gladiator in order to please the blood-thirsty people. He then makes an amazing recovery to kill about a zillion other gladiators who have no redeeming characteristics. The son implements his plan to lead the people by hitting on his own sister, making advances to his nephew, and planning 150 days of killing to cement his loving bond with his countrymen. This guy is definetly no George Washington.
While this is all going on, we movie viewers are treated to some of the silliest special effects ever. In one scene, an ordinary chariot explodes when crashing into the side of the stadium. In another, tigers pop out of the middle of the stadium to try to kill the already hopelessly overmatched gladiators. Nothing works and the slave-gladiator continues to mess up the son's plans by killing everybody he faces. Even "the only undefeated gladiator in Roman history" (remember when defeated, a gladiator is dead) is coaxed out of five-year retirement to come back and be easily killed by the indestructible general.
The movie's ending is still more rediculous. For historical accuracy, all the people in the movie, including the slaves, have perfect teeth, look clean despite impossible conditions of sanitation, and are so well fed that a few look overweight. I just don't understand what everybody sees in this film.