Scott is a visual storyteller, but not an auditory one (mild spoiler)

Rating: 10/10 (24 April 2003)

Director Ridley Scott has rarely made movies that have strong emotional content. Mostly they are showcases of his visual flair, here is no exception. Nonetheless, I find Gladiator better than Braveheart for the following reasons.
1) More epic in scale and better use of lighting rather than Braveheart's take on Henry V.
2) There is a visual style here that Mel Gibson doesn't provide in his movie. There are many Scott trademark shots and some new ones.
3) More characters to deal with. Overall, Braveheart was Gibson running the whole show. Here there is a helpful supporting cast to get him through. Kudos to the late Oliver Reed.
4) Less outright brutality. If Braveheart is a medieval version of Saving Private Ryan, then Gladiator is a Roman take on John Woo's "THE KILLER". 'Nuff said.
Both films have their highs and lows, but the biggest fault I have with this one is that there is very limited sound effects usage. Only one or two different slash sounds seem to be used for the (MULTITUDE, I kid you not!) stabings.
In the end, you may or may not like it so rent it first. I give it 4 out of 5.