Long, technically poor, would be epic.

Rating: Null/10 (4 December 2000)

I know it's useless complaining about inaccuracies in these historical movies, nobody really cares and if the end results are entertaining all is forgiven. Let's just say, as many others have pointed out, in battles Roman legions just did not fight as depicted here.
Technically the movie is poor. Ridley Scott has used his old trick of using muted colors and shooting in murky light to cover the fact that the effects are not very good. It worked in BLADE RUNNER but here it doesn't work at all, and the computerized scenes are very obvious.
As always seems to be the case in these historical films the British and Irish garner the acting honors. Derek Jacobi, Richard Harris and Oliver Reed are fine in their roles but Joaquin Phoenix doesn't register in his at all. Connie Nielsen is attractive but doesn't have too much to do.
I have never been able to understand the appeal of Russell Crowe. I find his acting range very limited and with his squat physique, pudgy face and shifty eyes he hardly suggests an heroic figure. Useless to say any of that to women however they just do their (smiling slightly) routine. It must be his muscles and deep voice.
Some blood and gore in the arena scenes for those that like that sort of thing and no doubt the movie will do a blockbuster rental business but I found it all rather a bore.