The film that 'won' the crowds of the new millennium...

Rating: 9/10 (30 April 2017)

In 2003, the American Film Institute presented the Top 100 Screen-Characters, fifty each in the hero and villain category, with the fiftieth spots belonging to the most recent characters: Alonzo Harris (Denzel Washington) from "Training Day" was the last bad guy and in the heroic department: General Maximum Decimus Meridius, Russel Crowe as the titular 'Gladiator'. His reputation outgrew "Training Day" and deservedly so, as the film not only resurrected the 'swords and sandals' genre but a new trend of spectacular entertainment that defined film-making of the new millennium.
Like Jesus Christ in the Antiquity timing, there would be a before and an after "Gladiator" and like Caesar, one's got to give Ridley Scott the credit he deserves. He didn't use CGI for the sake of special effects but for storytelling, it was still the post-"Titanic" era where CGI was used for the sinking, but the rest was made of flesh, props and bones, "The Phantom Menace" had CGI as vital as the actors, maybe more, but Scott used them to recreate the Coliseum, to make the cheerful crowds look real, to transport us into a universe that had deserted screens ever since the 60's: Antique Rome, as if its historical fall had spread to Hollywood. The use of CGI isn't perfect but it is the job of the story to distract your eyes and mind so that you won't try to spot the flaw, and speaking for myself, I was so enthralled by the story that I didn't even want to spot any flaw.
Indeed, the real power of "Gladiator" is in the story, one of disconcerting simplicity, whose pitch could take indeed the time of an elevator ride but the treatment and the performances enrich it with a Shakespearian texture. You can say it's a story of an ambitious son who kills his father, Emperor Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris) to prevent him from restoring the power to the people, but the performance of Joaquin Phoenix is of a dark, brooding and twisted man who can't stand the paternal rejection and surrenders to the reality of his own wickedness and commits the irreparable act. You can almost feel Commodus killing a part of himself with his father, the only shade of goodness left in his heart. If he can't rule because he's too amoral, so be it, and let's start a descent that will go as far as turning the victor of the Barbarians into a mortal enemy.
Yes, I started with the villain, but it's the villain that gives its flavor to the film, and Commodus encompasses such a high degree of corruption that he inevitably highlights the straight morality of Maximus, his father's most faithful lieutenant, the son he wished he had. Oscar-winning Russell Crowe plays the general with enough depth and passion to be as believable as Mel Gibson when he played William Wallace (Gibson was the initial choice) but the real power of Crowe is to keep a low profile, never overplay the heroism figure, he's a man not guided by power or ambitions, freed from any corrupting torment, his only wish is to get back to his home near Trujillo. His moral 'cleanness' creates the perfect balance with a villain whose mind is clouded by hatred, Maximus seems "one-dimensional" because we relate to him as a good father and a good son while we're more captivated by the back-story of Commodus. The Emperor's last line "your faults as a son are my failure as a father" are the kind of lines Shakespeare might have been proud to write.
There are elements of "Julius Caesar" and "Spartacus" but the resulting mix is unique and a standalone classic served by powerful performances, Connie Nielsen is the sister of Commodus and Maximus' previous mistress, and Oliver Reed makes his final performance as Proximo, the slave merchant and former gladiator who starts to respect Maximus as he realizes his value and encourages him to "win the crowd" as the only way to earn his freedom. Maximus couldn't care much about freedom, his only wish is to avenge his family and join them in the afterlife, a secret he shares with his fellow slave, a Numidian played by Djimon Hounsou. The films covers many layers from spectacular entertainment to its arousing story and while not being totally accurate, it is engaging in every department and captures the essence of movies as an art of storytelling and spectacle, using special effects, even to recreate a heart-pounding fight with a tiger, something meant not to be noticed.
And all the special effects of the world wouldn't have a point if we didn't care for the characters in the first place.The film is known for having been severely bashed by Roger Ebert himself, I read his review and I got some of his points about the fuzzy and muddy look, and yes, there might have a few abuse of the bluish American light, but there's a scene that can summarize my feeling. When Maximus is encouraged by the crowd to kill one of the gladiator, he's popular already, he earns the respect of the crowd but when he spares the fighter, there's a hesitation, some of the audience boos but it then turns into cheers again as he's called "Maximus the Merciful".
When you win the crowd, whatever you do will look good, I guess whatever Scott did could pass, his film, along with the Best Picture Oscar of the year, had won the crowd as well, and deserves a special nod as one of the most defining and influential movies of the 2000's. Or well, let's just say "I was entertained" to the point I didn't want to spot any visual flaw. That's how good it is.