good viewing, but FAR from great.

Rating: 4/10 (9 June 2000)

At least it was better than that 13th Warrior "movie" that came out last year... it's actually quite entertaining at time, but Gladiator is much too sloppy it seat itself on the top 100 list!
Beginning with a badly edited battle scene (what's with all the close-ups of swords clinging and such... I can't tell what the hell's going on!) and a cameo by an very, very old-looking Richard Harris, Gladiator finally shifts into high-gear when the guy starts to do his Gladiator-thing. The problem is that it takes too long to get there, and when the film's there they ruin it with ye standard old "revenge" plot - basically the same thing that brought down THE CROW.
Russel Crow is wooden, but there's some good supporting performances by Oliver Reed (his last performance), Derek Jakobi, and even a small role for seldom-seen actor David Hemmings (from HEROIN BUSTERS, DEEP RED, and SWINDLE) as a wig-wearing ring announcer. Ridley Scott's "dark" Alien/Blade Runner moody photography is out of place in the many interior and (in one case) exterior shots of Rome... which looks a bit too Computer Graphicky to buy. The high points come with the gladiatorial combat, which looks good and has some decent ideas and bloodletting, but is confusingly shot and edited. One thing I really didn't like was Joaquin Phoenix as the whiney bad guy... how would he have intimidated anybody?
The ending is highly unplausable, not to mention historically inaccurate. It's enjoyable at times, but is an overall groan-inducing experience. Not Scott's worst work, though not his best either.