The work of mediocrity

Rating: 6/10 (5 May 2000)

I was disappointed. I did not have high expectation, but I was taken in by the word of mouth that alleges Gladiator is a great epic akin to Ben-Hur. Sorry, but Gladiator fails to beat Ben-Hur by the distance. In fact, Ben-Hur is marginally better than Gladiator.
There are problems with this film. The cinematography, however beautiful and majestic in some scenes, is murky and at times irritating -- especially the sped-up method used for chaotic effect that left me cold even in the midst of carnage (hasn't this been done already in Saving Private Ryan?). There's a lack of focused direction by Ridley Scott -- the result is too many scenes that droll on and on. I felt no empathy for the cast's stilted performance of the characters throughout the film. The editing is confounding in the heat of the major war battle and gladiator duels. Even a good performance by Russell Crowe can't save this film from being doomed to failure.
I despise the flashbacks. It's the cliche that has been done to death. That's the most irritating part of the film besides that annoying and insipid young actress girl. Right in the beginning of the film after the prologue, with the main character's hand weaving through the wheat field, I knew Chuck Rudolph was right when he murmured: "Malick be damned". (For those who don't get the quote -- it's a sarcastic reference to Terrence Malick's 1978 Mid-Western classic "Days of Heaven")
Although technically impressive, the movie fails to engage me in the story I find meandering and tedious. Though I wasn't bothered by gore, I find the audience's positive response to blood and carnage cynical and despicable, especially after the fact Dreamworks/Universal showed the TV spot comparing Gladiator-esque violence favorably to football and hockey.
It's not a terrible movie, but it's certainly not great as the majority of the moviegoers seem to believe. Gladiator is as mediocre as Braveheart, and that's the only compliment I have for this film.