The three good points of "Gladiator"

Rating: 2/10 (15 June 2003)

1. Derek Jacobi: I love Derek Jacobi and he is one of the world's most brilliant actors. However, seeing him perform in such a lowbrow, low-class, low-quality movie is disturbing. It's a bit like seeing John Cleese in James Bond films or Kenneth Branagh in "Wild Wild West." It's sad, really.
2. Sets and costuming: This film is visually stunning. I suppose Ridley Scott has to be given credit for his work here instead of being blamed for a bad script.
3. It ends (and this one takes far too long to happen)
"Gladiator" is almost as over-hyped as "The Sixth Sense" and "Titanic" in the pantheon of bad movies that somehow convinced idiots that they were good. Russell Crowe's performance is decent, but how in the world can you win a best actor Oscar for playing a completely flat, empty character like Maximus? Kevin Costner or Keanu Reeves can play a role this simple and do a decent job! It is possible to add some depth to this character in performance, but Crowe seems incapable, unwilling, or unallowed to do this and thus instead plays this one-dimensional piece-of-paper role and somehow gets accolades for it.
However, the part of this film that kills it is the thing that truly makes or breaks a film: the script. A good script can make up for bad acting (as evidenced in "JFK" and "The Matrix"), but good acting cannot make up for a truly bad script (as evidenced in "Best in Show" and "Titanic"). "Gladiator" is a case of the latter. Crowe doesn't give an amazing performance, but he is given little to work with. In fact, the only actor who really does have a full character to work with is Joaquin Phoenix, and he performs it quite well. The other characters hardly need acting, even though one is filled by the ever-brilliant Derek Jacobi. The truth of the matter, though, is that the script is trite and stupid. As a matter of fact, it's like a very ineloquent version of "The Tragedy of King Richard III" without the fascinating central character. There is also far too much battling in this film. I got bored with Kenneth Branagh's "Henry V" because of ONE long battle scene, but this film seems to have about five of that same length. "Gladiator" is like all of these "crime dramas" that are really just action films with just enough plot for stupid people to think they are intelligent.
In sum, if you want to watch a typical, run-of-the-mill action film set in ancient Rome, watch this. If you want to see nothing other than stunning visuals, watch this (though I would more suggest that you watch anything directed by Peter Weir if you want visuals). However, if you want to see a movie worth watching, don't bother.