Great visuals, plot contrived

Rating: 7/10 (15 June 2000)

When I saw gladiator, I couldn't help juxtaposing it with Braveheart: Very similar story lines and both movies try to be epic in scope (not to mention that people compare the two australian stars, russell crowe and mel gibson). I enjoyed Gladiator's breath-taking visuals and its WWII style battle scenes and even its occasional gore, but i walked away from the movie thinking that it was lacking something. Gladiator lacked qualities that made braveheart a true epic. Perhaps i speak too harshly of gladiator because i compare it to Braveheart, but i thought that braveheart was immensely more powerful. Gladiator's Maximus, though suave, spent too much of early screen time not wanting to be involved (then later being forced into action) whereas Wallace from braveheart is shown as a child to build history and align the audience's sight and sympathy with the soon-to-be older wallace. Beyond little petty things such as that, Braveheart is more more grand in scope than gladiator. Braveheart dealt with the issue a nation of people who were struggling againt tyranny and the passion of one man, further powered by the fury of his slain bride, to free his country. Gladiator shows corruption within one system of government and one man who is quite indifferent about it. Only later... way later does Gladiator push its protagonist into limelight to shake up the scene; but with what motivation? Only that to avenge his lost family (something that braveheart used as its auxillary motivation) and to kill the corrupter of Rome. Sorry Maximus, but Rome became corrupt anyway. Talk about phyrric victories.