Epic look, brutal violence, mini-series calibre plot

Rating: Null/10 (28 April 2000)

I saw a preview screening of "Gladiator" on April 27, 2000. The costuming, and the various period visuals are outstanding. The computer enhancements to scenes don't detract significantly. All in all they build the appropriate atmosphere, but it is the story that left me wanting for more.
You'd be forgiven for thinking that the film is one long battle sequence, as that is what's featured in the commercials and trailers. The battle scenes, however, might be the most successful part of this film.
The few intrigues and betrayals are a bit thin for a three hour film, though you would think that the luxury of that much time would offer us the chance to get to know these characters better. It doesn't. The various characters are a bit more than functional of the already mentioned thin plot, betraying what could actually be enthralling personalities to watch. We know that Russell Crowe and the rest of the company are capable of much more.
The violence in "Gladiator" is shot with a special shutter to give the action a strobed and washed out look- the same as in "Private Ryan". The first violent scene was highly disorienting, but not in an unpleasant way. After a breathtaking display of ancient weaponry deploying flaming volley after volley into a forest (the catapults are really cool), we see a melee explode from the woods. We are caught in the middle, and it's hard to know whom is doing the fighting and whom is doing the winning. This effectively brings the audience into the battle's confusion and terror. Well done.
Further incidents of violence in the film serve only to confuse. The action looked strobed, and while the disturbing clarity let us more clearly see the weaponry & slick moves in action, I found it distracting. While some might complain that the fighting was too glamorized (martial arts moves in a "Sword & Sandal" flick?), I really didn't mind. To the contrary, I found the choreography of the fights somewhat exhilarating.
I have doubts about the historical accuracy of the film. While the film is under no obligation to be historically accurate, I don't think that I would've chosen the overwhelmingly Shakespearean style of presentation that this film did.
Perhaps more authentic details would have helped make the three hours seem a little more worth it. All in all "Gladiator" is a good mainstream film. It's been a long time since America has seen a historical film of this magnitude, and it won't too much longer before Hollywood gets it right... after all, Rome wasn't built in a day.