They don't make Best Picture nominees the way they used to, I guess

Rating: 8/10 (26 February 2001)

"Gladiator" is a good movie, but I'm amazed at how many people gave it ten out of ten stars. I know standards fall as time goes on, but that's a rating that should be reserved for a movie that will stay with you for years to come. All About Eve is such a movie; so is the Godfather. This isn't going to be one.
Don't get me wrong, it's great to see old pros (Reed and Harris) and relatively new pros (Crowe, Phoenix, Nielsen, and Hounsou) go through their paces; Crowe in particular is better than I've ever seen him before. However, the plot is well worn, the dialogue occasionally lapses into silliness, and the CGIs bother me. I can remember a time (was it really only two decades ago?) when filmmakers who wanted a mindbogglingly spectacular set built one--they did the work, they spent the bucks, they expended the sweat. The CGI Colosseum seems like cheating, somehow, and several other shots are so obviously faked, they detract from the action.
Speaking of the action, it is quite good. Scott has definitely lost none of his knack for tense pacing; I was surprised to see that two hours had gone by and I hadn't even felt them. The fight scenes are not only believable, which isn't even remotely a given in action movies, they're so entertaining they inspire not only excitement but a vague sense of guilt. And after being weaned on the mega-buff steroid stallions of the 80s and early 90s, it's very nice to see the athletic but not Conanesque Maximus in action.
All in all, a good flick, but I'm pulling for Traffic or Crouching Tiger to take home the gold statues. This just isn't the kind of movie that deserves them.