Nothing compared to Ben Hur

Rating: 4/10 (29 May 2000)

When I saw the first trailer of this movie I was excited. I always was a fan of the epic movies of the fifties and sixties and of ancient Rome too. I also adore "Alien" and "Bladerunner" (but who doesn´t?) so I expected a great, spectacular movie. I should have known better. Ridley Scott hasn´t made a really good movie since the early nineties and so "Gladiator" is a I-wanna-be-an-epic-film-but-am-only-a-plain-popcorn-movie. I just can´t believe how any one dares to compare it with classic epics like "Ben Hur", "Spartacus" or even "Quo Vadis?". OK it could be pretty good entertainment to the average audience but it´s a torture to viewers with knowledge of ancient Rome. The fifties and sixties epics weren´t completely authentic either, Ustinov was an outstanding Nero, but Nero didn´t burn Rome. But they managed to recreate the atmosphere of the Roman Empire. "Gladiator" doesn´t! This movie is located in some historic ´fantasyland. Take the cinematographic style of "1492" add battlescenes from both "Braveheart" and "Saving Private Ryan", a plot from "The Fall of the Roman Empire" and a gladiator school and fight scenes from "The Gladiators" and "Spartacus" even a little bit of "Star Wars" and you get "Gladiator". Sometimes such mixtures of well-known elements and images work out see "Star Wars". But although this movie lacks innovative ideas it features nearly every known cliché and is absolutely unrealistic concerning historic accuracy. Of course nearly no historic movie (see above) is completely accurate, but none of the epics of the past (leave out the trash from Italy or Spain) ignored history like "Gladiator" does. It starts right in the beginning. The roman legions fight a germanic tribe to conquer it´s land. Completely wrong! During the reign of Marc Aurel the Romans fought desperately though still successfully to keep the germanic tribes away from their borders. They did NOT fight to conquer Germania, they didn´t conquer any new german territories after their defeat in the Teutoburg Forest battle more than a century ago. The germanic warriors shown are pure fiction, nothing is correct, not their appearance or their weapons or the tactics they use (in the movie they have none!) The battle is completely unrealistic beginning with the battlefield in the midst of a forest, the romans avoided forest battles. The roman forces used ballistas at sea or at sieges but not in field battles. Instead of arrows they threw their pilums and then fought with their swords. The roman army was infantry since the late days of the republic and had no own cavalry, they only hired cavalry from allied tribes. A roman general who was respected by his soldiers that strong could never have been arrested this easily without the risk of revolting troops. Maximus would have cremated his dead family (romans didn´t bury their dead) and why on earth was Maximus captured and enslaved at his burned homestead (Hello George!) and brought to what, Morocco? He was a roman citizen and at least when he was identified in the collisseum he would have had to be released from his illegal slavery. The gladiators costumes were more like "Excalibur" a pure fantasy design. The CGI-made rome is more like L.A. 2019 from "Bladerunner". Totally unrealistic architecture, with the exception of the collisseum itself, not to mention the cityplan. And the dark, faded-out CGI´s of the city weren´t very convincing either and surely they didn´t impress me they just looked like a big videogame. Of course Commodus arrival in Rome was impressive and by the way looked like Riefenstahls "Triumph of the Will" (or like the Massassi Throne Room George?) but it would have needed nothing less than the entire roman army to fill this fictitious monumental plaza . The dark, sombre, windy palace was more like a medieval castle and didn´t create at all the atmosphere of a roman setting. I don´t want to say to much about the absolutely nonsense concerning the "political" background of the "plot" ("Fall of the roman empire" wasn´t that accurate too) but Marc Aurel wasn´t murdered, but Commodus was, after a 12 year reign of terror. There were no intentions at all to restore the "Old Republic" instead of the Empire (sorry George no violation of a "Star Wars" trademark intended) and the pseudo-democratic message in the end of the movie just hurts with its forced pathetic atmosphere. All of these mistakes (I left out a lot more, especially considering religion) could have been ignored if the movie would have what I call "magic". But it hasn´t, it lacks atmosphere, good cinematography (not ONE good shot of Rome!) and a convincing plot. It has some good actors, but Russell Crowe is no Charlton Heston, Joaquin Phoenix is no Ustinov and Harris is no Alec Guiness. Finally Hans Zimmers soundtrack is a mere desaster in a mediocre movie, an uninspired pseudo-vangelis music-jam from several non-roman cultures (why did he use HEBREW chants in the end of the movie?) without any regognizable or memorable leitmotives which doesn´t fit at all to the roman background. Hans Zimmer is definitely no Rosza! I know to most viewers I am a pedantic old-fashioned (although I´m only 31) nit-picker but I was shocked to see this lame and overhyped movie in the Top 250ies of the IMDB. When I came home it was past midnight but I had to watch "Quo Vadis" immediately as an antidot to the disappointing movie I had just experienced.
4 out of 10