Solid, but nothing special

Rating: 8/10 (17 June 2000)

Walking into this movie, I was extremely hyped. Walking out of this movie, I was reading the list of ingredients on the back of the Malteser packet. Enough said.
Gladiator is certainly worth seeing - the visuals are impressive, the action is fast-paced, and Russell Crowe is gruff and heroic. But that's about all. The script is so-so; the plot is basic and predictable; and, most disappointing of all, you really don't get sucked in emotionally. I mean, all a film like this aims to do is:
(a) present a two-dimensional hero;
(b) do some nasty things to his relatives; and
(c) get you squirming in your seat waiting for the bad guys to get what's coming to them.
It was like this in Mad Max ('Road Warrior' for you Americans out there), in was like this in Braveheart, it was like this in Rob Roy, and it was like this in virtually action/drama ever made. For the film to succeed, an audience should be 'angry' when the relatives get fried, and 'pumped' when the good guy gets revenge. I was pretty non-plussed on both counts.
As for specifics:
Russell Crowe is good but not fantastic (and nowhere near as good as his performance in LA Confidential)
Oliver Reed's character is overdone and annoying (the only thing he adds to the film is the 'pick which scenes Olly is dead in' game - as he died before filming finished and is computer generated in some parts).
The CGI effects are, as always, dreadful. Although the stadium itself looks ok from the inside, the wider shots of Rome look fake. Why they PERSIST with these crappy effects I don't know.