Better-than-average, and that's it.

Rating: 6/10 (11 February 2002)

Unlike many Hollywood blockbusters, the huge-budget special effects are justified. The Colosseum scenes are truly visceral, and it took a giant budget to really bring them to life.
However, there's nothing in this movie that will enrich or edify you in any way, and it doesn't stand up to repeated viewing the way a top notch film would.
Utterly undeserving (in contrast to "Spartacus" and "Ben Hur", both of which having uplifting messages and strong acting to go along with Roman period pic fun) of Oscars, but not a complete waste time, especially if you see it on the big screen, where some of the imagery will linger with you.
(Some small spoilers follow).
I will cite this irony in Gladiator's defense: Some of the 'cheesiest' parts of the film are also the closest to historically accurate. For instance, Joachim Phoenix's performance will constantly remind you that he's an actor 'playing Commodus.' The irony here is that by the best historical accounts, Phoenix nailed it; Commodus *was* an actor, playing himself. (Also, he did enter the gladiatorial contests, and was a complete lunatic).
The wistful longing for the Republic was probably passe by the time of the passing of Marcus Aurelius (known as the last of the "Five Good Emperors"), but certainly something that had been a common sentiment in Rome for the first two centuries after Augustus (mostly due to the motley crew of idiots, lunatics and monsters who ruled immediately after him).