High quality, little content

Rating: 6/10 (3 September 2003)

WARNING - Big spoilers (but if you can't figure out the entire plot after the first 20 minutes, go back to TV)
I just saw this movie on DVD, watched it all, enjoyed it as a fight movie, but felt dissatisfied. Then came up with the following analogy. The movie is like a 20 Oz high quality Sirloin stake. The cinematography and fight scenes were great, but after the first 8 Oz you start to feel you have the measure of the thing, why eat the next 12? The story was a very old one, the only question to be resolved - does Maximus kill Commodus before he dies? 12 oz later, the answer is yes. Oh, the stake never lost its quality - the Coliseum was great, more excellent battles. But 8 Oz would have been fine.
The acting was very uneven. Joaquin Phoenix turned in a great performance as Commodus. Oliver Reed had the best role since Oliver. Russell Crowe was just not there. That he used a lot of the same tics for Maximus as for Charles Nash was odd - but this is the guy who did LA Confidential - what happened? Derek Jacobi being saddled with the 1-d Gracchus made me want to cry - this is the actor who made I, Claudius!
And it is not that Ridley Scott can't thrive with 1-D acting - he did after all, make Blade Runner with Mister Frown, Harrison Ford. But that movie had a great, interesting, novel plot. This one could have been lifted from any of a 1,000 different predecessors.
But why is it so not compelling? Compare to another period piece with odd accents - The Lion in Winter - lots of satisfying complexity there and Katherine Hepburn. A story that could twist in many directions and characters that were passionate - with many different passions. (OK - it did have an unfair advantage in screenplay from the Bard.) But when the acting is gripping, you can overlook all the anachronisms. And a movie motivated by the love of a woman, but with no strong female role, isn't likely to convince you of its passion.
Finally (really!) there is THE MEANING OF IT ALL. When Max is dying on his feet, but gives(!) democracy back to the Senate (Gracchus), to fulfill the wishes of a dying emperor(!), what are we meant to take from this? Hopeful interpretation - democracy handed over at the point of the sword has as much chance of living a long life as the dying man handing it over. Pity President Bush didn't see that. More likely interpretation - there is no deep meaning. Ridley Scott thought that if you do a little regime change and "hand over" democracy, then you have yourself a Triumph. Hmm, perhaps President Bush did see this movie this way...