Are you not entertained?

Rating: 10/10 (19 February 2001)

From the opening moments of Gladiator, and till the last, it is clear that you are being treated to Oscar® quality entertainment. Ridley Scott, who directed one of my all-time favorites, Blade Runner, almost never misses. But few directors can ever hope to hit the mark so cleanly and convincingly as Scott does with Gladiator. Gladiator is magnificent, thrilling, moving, epic, heroic and a dozen other things so conspicuously absent in so many movies and so abundantly present here.
Russell Crowe was born to play this role, and he occupies the character with epic vigor and a presence that has a tendency to overpower a scene. It is, of course, true that Crowe's ego made him nearly impossible to work with, and he is said to have proclaimed during filming that he was the greatest actor in the world. There are, in fact, moments in the film where it would be difficult to argue with him. Still, he has subtle moments as well. There is a scene, late in the movie. Maximus is near the end of an epic struggle and all the contentious forces of Rome are whirling around him. He is asked by Lucilla, the emperor's sister, with whom he apparently had an affair years ago, if all that had happened made her seem different. Crowe replies, with stunning understatement, "You laughed more." I knew in that moment that Crowe had won the Oscar®, and deservedly so.
The story is, quite simply, largely fabrication, though to some extent based on fact. It is true that Commodus was the only Roman emperor to fight in the Coliseum, although his battle with Maximus, as well as its magnificent conclusion, is entirely fictionalized. In fact, Maximus Decimus Meridius is a completely fictitious character perhaps composited by screenwriter David Franzoni and director Ridley Scott, who clearly gave themselves full literary license to rewrite the relatively common story of Commodus into something breathtakingly memorable.
Hollywood has been in the movie business a long time. There are many great movies, but few are great on the scale of Gladiator. Every aspect of Gladiator comes together so spectacularly that any shortcomings it may have are easily overlooked. Scott's inspired direction, Hans Zimmer's thrilling score, supplemented by Lisa Gerrard's stirring vocals; all conspire magically to contribute to Gladiator's success. John Mathieson's cinematography, which Scott relied on in Robin Hood and Hannibal as well, is painterly and dark, perfectly matched to the story and characters. There are movies of the genre, towering achievements in cinema from decades past, held in higher regard than Gladiator, but in many ways even they are not Gladiator's equal. Gladiator is not only a peer to the likes of Spartacus and Ben Hur, but, ultimately, their superior. And for the curious, or the skeptical, I would put the Battle of Carthage scene up against the Chariot Race scene any day. Perhaps it isn't as disturbingly, agonizingly long, but the heroism and courage played out in the Carthage scene is without equal.
A few of the common problems with epic films are necessarily present. Some of the characters are not fully developed, which, given the story arc, is common in epic films which are based on events rather than subtle characterizations. As for historical inaccuracies, much cited in derision of the film, I don't think Scott is presently seeking an endowed chair in History at any major university, so if he took a few liberties with a well-known story to heighten the drama, I can only reply with a quote from the main character; "Are you not entertained?"
The lore surrounding Gladiator is definitely fascinating. Oliver Reed, who died during principle filming, had to be recreated digitally in some scenes. Despite the difficulty of this effort, it was less expensive than refilming Reed's scenes and many of the cast insisted that Reed remain a part of the film. Richard Harris is rumored to have refused to learn rewrites, complicating his scenes early in the film. In both cases, their immense contributions to the film make it all worthwhile.
Scott's signature touches, a washed-out color palette, the ubiquitous slow motion splattering of blood, and, most notably his tendency to magnify characters by using tight close-ups against backgrounds compressed by the application of telephoto lenses, may have been a bit overdone, but the combined effect heightens the action, the drama and the characters and somehow imbues them with a sense of history fitting the story.
In short, Gladiator may be the best sandals and swords epic ever, and a worthy heir to the mantle handed down from its predecessors. Russell Crowe is glorious as the brooding and relentless gladiator bent on revenge. Joaquin Phoenix is electric as the devious and ambitious Commodus, and without a doubt should have received the Best Supporting Actor nod. With Oliver Reed and Richard Harris, sadly both now deceased, added for flavor, this is as great an epic as any.
So many reviewers want to dislike movies that are popular, as if it proves that they are gifted with an appreciation of fine cinema that escapes lesser moviegoers. I say nonsense. The reason everyone thinks this movie is great is because it is great. It's beautiful, it's moving, it's just plain fun. Grab some popcorn and prepare to be entertained.