An overrated mess.

Rating: 1/10 (7 July 2000)

Aside from Russell Crowe's strong performance, GLADIATOR is a chaotic mess. The editing is jumbled and confused, especially in the Arena scenes. To say this confusion is "realistic" is absurd, since when facing an opponent in the Arena, the most important thing is to remain clearheaded and outmaneuver him if you are to win. The celebrated battle in the forest in the beginning is just a silly attempt to ape the D-Day segment in the similarly overrated SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. As for the supporting performances, the best that can be said is that Richard Harris is dour and Oliver Reed is enjoyably hammy. Joaquin Phoenix is never convincing for a moment as the emperor. His performance would be more at home in a modern high school pageant. The photography resembles a European perfume commercial more than an evocation of ancient times. I wasn't aware the only color available in Rome was gold. For a truly excellent version of the same story, check out Anthony Mann's superb 1964 FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. While both films are based on the same historical characters, GLADIATOR shamelessly "borrows" many plot points from the earlier film, to less effect. Russell Crowe's supporting cast cannot hope to compete with such classic actors as Alec Guiness, Christopher Plummer, James Mason and Sophia Loren in FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. It would also be pointless to compare the directorial style of Anthony Mann, who is without a doubt one of the great American filmmakers of the 50s and 60s, with that of Ridley Scott, who directs like he's making a commercial for GLADIATOR perfume or a music video for a band dressed as ancient Romans. Just compare the finale man to man combat in the Arena in Scott's film with the same scene in Mann's. No comparison.