Amazing visuals, but little sense

Rating: 7/10 (15 January 2001)

Last week a co-worker told me her husband thought Gladiator was "the best movie he has every seen." I figured I should finally see it, and we watched it on PPV. Now I guess I know more about my co-worker's husband.
We rated Gladiator a 7, and that is due to the terrific visual settings that convey an epic scope to the film. Without those settings, it would have been a 5. Gladiator revolves around the beliefs and actions of its main character, a man who seems to be stuck in the past and unable to see much around him for what it is. When his luck turns bad after a succession at the top, you feel sorry for the guy but also wonder why such a great leader of men didn't wake up sooner.
Honor, loyalty and "the good of Rome" is at the heart of Gladiator. If you don't buy into those concepts, then you have a hard time caring much about Maximus or his journey. In this case, I had a hard time with several things, including:

Maximus is portrayed as a successful leader who wants Rome to return to rule by the people through the Senate. Setting aside questions about whether the Senators actually represent "the people" well, the film makes absolutely no effort to show you anything about Rome that is worth preserving. Its citizens are described several times as a "mob." It's leadership spent years on a crusade in Germania that even the emporer said solved nothing. There are no scenes showing citizens who hope for anything better, be it democracy or real leadership or a vision. So what is it, exactly, Maximus wants to save by supporting the Senate? Even Maximus lives so far outside Rome on his nice spread that people call him "The Spaniard." He had never even *been* to Rome! Why should the viewer care who rules Rome?

Maximus is never set up properly as a fighter who could be an amazing gladiator. In the film's initial battle, he rides on a horse against basically a horde of undisciplined neo-Vikings on foot, and attacks from the rear, no less. He manages to survive, but we never see that he has any special skill in battle other than as a leader. From there we suddenly must believe that he can defeat five or more gladiators in a 5 vs. 1 scenario where his opponents have armor and better weapons! How did that happen? There must have been some great training going on in the gladiator school.

The film also never does enough to show Maximum's anger and motivation to meet the new emporer after Maximum's family is slaughtered (no big spoiler; by now you should know his motivation). Is he mourning? Yes. Is he mad? I guess. But he is never seething, or furious, or even apparently taking out his anger on his opponents. He simply kills mechanically, then moves on.

At one point a big deal is made of the fact that to survive in the Roman games, Maximus must "win the crowd." He promptly goes out into the colisseum with his school's fighters and they win, but not with any flair. Yet suddenly the crowd loves Maximus. Should't we have seen some effort on his part to win them over? This scene was especially disappointing because it is Maximus' first face-to-face with the emporer. Yet we see no emotion, no feeling. Just resignation. It was anti-climactic and a letdown.

I'm not sure why some people loved this film. Maybe they buy into the honor, loyalty, old soldier thing. I do, too, when I feel it is warranted. In this case, Maximus reminded me of most Kevin Costner characters: He is there, but wooden, and not very sympathetic. Russell Crowe may have played Maximus as too deadened by grief and not motivated enough by life or revenge. Ultimately, I was mostly uninterested.