I really liked this one.

Rating: Null/10 (8 May 2000)

Well, first off, this movie is NOT a historical account, but rather historical fiction set against the backdrop of historical events (compare with A Tale of Two Cities - the story itself is not historical, but the setting takes place at a specific point in history (the French Revolution)). However, the Emperors Marcus Aurelius, who ruled from 161-80 AD, and Commodus, who ruled from 180-92 AD, are both historical figures.
What I liked most about this movie was that it gave a glimpse into what the glory that was Rome must have been like. We see through the character of Commodus how devious and really messed up most of the Emperors of Rome must have been (Caligula, Nero, to name a few), and we get to see that it was a very violent and bloody period in human history. But then, the same can be said for any other period in history when war or conquest played a major factor (Spanish conquest of the Americas, the American Civil War...and so on).
All this to say, so what if the movie is full of historical flaws? Who cares if certain characters did not really exist? People will always nitpick at things without taking the time to just sit back and make a paradigm shift and look at a movie like this from another angle. And for me, that means that the essence of that period in human history was captured and portrayed accurately. If you want to get any more accurate, then go to a library and read a book on Roman history. But for the space of time that was given for the movie, it was a job well done.
There was another review that questioned the existence of glass in Roman times. The setting of the movie is 180 AD, there have been archaeological finds of glass artifacts which date much farther back than that.
I recommend this movie. Even if it may be a cliff note version of history as told through the life of a fictional character.
I give this one a 9 out of 10.