Best Picture???

Rating: 7/10 (4 April 2001)

"Gladiator" is by no means a bad movie, but it doesn't hold a candle to "Traffic" or "Crouching Tiger".
It seems that Hollywood wanted to celebrate the rebirth of a classic genre, the Roman epic, but it's a shame that such an unspectacular film has received so many accolades.
In particular, I was highly disappointed with the cinematography. Why, oh why, do all modern directors (other than Ang Lee) think that every action scene must feature a shaking camera and intermittently altered film speed, both of which interfere with the viewer's ability to actually SEE what's going on? The battle scenes, while impressively staged, were not filmed nearly as well as "Braveheart", the swordplay looks quite tame compared to "Crouching Tiger", and you can find more impressive Colosseum action in "Spartacus" and "Ben Hur". The plot and dialogue were hack writing at best and revisionist history at worst, with clearly American sentiments filling in for anything recognizably Roman.
There is actually a lot to like about this movie. The sets are dazzling, the acting is quite good, and the drama is often quite real... although it isn't sustained throughout. Russell Crowe gives a strong performance and commands a tremendous screen presence, although he displays less range than in his earlier work. Joaquin Phoenix manages (barely) to avoid falling into the realm of camp, although he is dealt quite a few inane lines. In fact, all the main actors deserve tremendous kudos for salvaging what could have been a bomb in less capable hands. It's worth noting that "Gladiator" received Oscars for acting and costumes, not for directing, cinematography, or screenplay.
But Best Picture? Are you kidding me? This isn't even Ridley Scott's best picture. I demand a recount.