Rent "Spartacus" instead . . .

Rating: 2/10 (8 May 2000)

I had high hopes for "Gladiator." This is the first Roman epic to appear in years (not counting the recently released "Titus," as it is more Elizabethan than Roman), and with the promise of Russell Crowe and a large budget, I thought it would be a wonderful way to spend a Saturday afternoon. Though Crowe does deliver a fine performance, this film is crippled by a ridiculous script, delivering thinly drawn supporting characters and perhaps the worst ending since last year's "Pushing Tin." I admit, many of the gladitorial combats are amazing to watch, but they simply cannot support the story. As far as accuracy to Roman customs and history goes, the filmmakers succeed in their portrayal of Roman death games as being widely varied: we see games involving animals, chained gladiator pairs, and battle reenactments ("the Battle of Carthage" scene in "Gladiator" is quite powerful and darkly comic), yet, they make the standard mistake of the "thumbs up/thumbs down" issue in the Roman arena. When the crowd wanted an emperor, or other game sponsor, in Rome to allow an athlete to live, they raised their hands, not their thumbs, to indicate a show of mercy. I admit, this is a minor point, but one could imagine that the filmmakers might have done a little more homework on such issues. Incidentally, there are numerous readable and engaging scholarly works on the subject of the Roman games, Roland Auguet's 1972 "Cruelty and Civilization" in particular. "Gladiator" contains other glaring historical inconsistencies, but I dare not mention them for fear of spoiling the ending.
If you're craving a Roman epic, I would suggest skipping "Gladiator" in favor of Stanley Kubrick's 1960 "Spartacus," an occasionally flawed, yet much superior film.