amazing

Rating: 8/10 (22 May 2000)

Let me say that I saw this in an old theater with natural reverb, that was freezing the whole time. I've noticed Ridley Scott movies have a slightly muddy soundtrack. It's hard to describe, but it's noticeably when you view them. The natural reverb of the theater made it difficult to understand some of the movie, but I still found myself enjoying this movie.

Fuzzy, muddy, indistinct? I don't think so. Practically every scene in this film is beautifully shot, and looks like it could be turned into a painting. From the contrast of fire against the dark woods in the beginning, to the fights in the Coliseum , this film looks amazing. The cgi people weren't going for stark realism, but a very stylized look and I believe it works. If you look at the Coliseum the first row of people is real, and the second is cgi, and for the life of me I couldn't tell the difference. Since everyone seems intent on comparing this to Braveheart, I'll do the same. To put it simply, it makes Braveheart's cinematography look amateurish by comparison.

On top of the amazing cinematography, you have a completely immersive score. I never found it cheesy or manipulative, and I HATE manipulative scores (for example: Braveheart).
What can I say about the story? It's a simple revenge story, but that really doesn't matter because the execution is so masterful. It's about death and redemption. My only complaint is that it seemed like some of the plot was cut out to make this more of a summer movie. I'm sure the dvd will fix the situation, though. Is this completely historically accurate? Of course not, and it doesn't pretend to be. It's a fictional tale, told in a historical setting. Demanding 100% historical accuracy from a movie that doesn't claim to be historically accurate is absurd and unfair.
Overall, though, I don't really care what other people think about this movie. To me it is a work of art.