Overrated

Rating: 5/10 (1 November 2000)

I don't live in the States, so by the time Gladiator got here, I had a fair idea of what to expect - an impressive, well acted, well directed historical spectacle. And since Russell Crowe is had impressed me in the past, I went and saw it. About five minutes in I got a strange feeling that I'll end up disagreeing with the reviews.
Wow, did I ever. Let's start with the acting: inconsistent best describes it. Crowe was good, though not up to his L.A Confidential and Insider standard. Derek Jacobi and Oliver Reed turned in decent performances as well. Joaquin Pheonix overacted a bit but for the most part I thought he did an okay job. Richard Harris was ridiculous and Connie Nielsen was very pretty, but calling what she did acting would be a stretch. The kid was very annoying.
Now, the other problems: Many sequences in the movie were so dark I couldn't see the actors' faces. Obviously not a good thing. Is this meant to convey the darkness of Maximus's predicament? The oppressiveness of the Roman Empire? The treachery of Commodus? I wonder...
Still, the biggest problem was the screenplay. A lot of the dialog was plain silly, and I spent much of the movie wondering what motivated some of the characters. The whole thing seemed horribly one dimensional and contrived.
Maybe it's just me? Well, I went with four friends, all of us with very different tastes. None of us enjoyed Gladiator, and I think my friend summed it up best when she said she was very impressed, but she doesn't think she liked it.
Despite my rather negative opinion, I'm going with a 5/10 on account of the movie's better performances and some nice cinematography. But as for Crowe films, I'll take L.A Confidential any day.