Less historical than "Asterix the Gaul"...

Rating: Null/10 (5 May 2000)

...But who cares!!! In my opinion this film is far better than the hyper-realistic Titanic, which seemed rather sterile. Here we have a fictitious scenario based on real characters.
Marcus Aurelius, philosopher-emperor, who is remembered as a _philosopher_ (something he was concerned about in the film!!).
Commodus, the insane megalomaniac, who in *real life* fought in the Colosseum against lions and also other gladiators, thought he was a reincarnation of Hercules, and tried to rename Rome "Commodiana"! .... Maximus is not a real character, neither are the events depicted in the film. But it is a great story.
Highlights:
-Seeing a CGI Rome in all its glory was awe-inspiring!
-Battle against Germanic tribes: exciting *and* quite realistic!!
-Commodus, the insecure madman (not mad enough, though) was my favourite character. Nice white armour!
-The "Middle Period" of Roman history is so little-seen on the big screen - nice to see Hollywood get away from the usual Early Roman Empire/Caesar period.
-Proximo was also cool.
Bad points:
-As a student of history, I can't help but notice things were a *leetle* bit off reality. Saxon and Islamic helmets in a Roman amphitheatre??! Who is Maximus??? (But as I said, I don't mind).
-Combat was bloody and exciting, but Ridley's cinematics were a little choppy.
-Script was lame in parts. How about cool dialogue like Spartacus and I, Claudius?? Also, not enough swearing for *real* Romans...
But overall, a grand experience. For once a big budget film has good acting, good storyline, and the most realistic ancient battle seen on celluloid! Up the Marcomanni!!!
PS. An earlier reviewer claimed the Romans had no glass. Well, in short, they _did_. It's just that Hollywood doesn't normally depict it.