A good film being confused as a great film

Rating: 3/10 (19 March 2001)

This movie basically came off as I expected, a good film, fun to watch with a lot of eye candy. However, a great film it is not nor will it ever be (let's see what history has to say). The script is horrid and predictable. Crowe does his job, maintain a dark and quiet intensity throughout the film (much like L.A Confidential, a projection that he did even better in that film than in Gladiator). The character of Commodus, with all of his flaws, was perhaps the most inept bit of scriptwriting I have seen (in a film that is supposed to be of high quality with great writing). Some have said that he lets down his guard and shows us a pitiable side (and a depth of character). There is nothing that comes across as pitiable. He wallows in self-pity, and when combined with his depravity as a human being, there is nothing there to like, nevermind find sympathy for. The script took an easy way out by giving us an antagonist that is far too easy to hate. If there was anyone deserving of a "best supporting actor" oscar nomination, it was Richard Harris as Marcus Aurelius and not Joaquin Phoenix. All in all, it was a good film, fun to watch, not quite as nice on the tv screen as the movie screen, and definitely not deserving of a best picture nomination (take off chocolat and gladiator (saw all 5 nominated) and put up Almost Famous and Billy Elliot for the award...now those are great films and worthy of the honor).