Have you looked at it twice?

Rating: 4/10 (3 October 2001)

I used to be a big Ridley Scott fan, when masterpieces like Alien and Blade Runner made me think he was almost Kubrick's peer.
Since 1492, yet, I wonder who is actually this guy. I just can't believe someone can change so much from artistic craftmanship to commercial fast mediocre production.
All of his movies since 1492 has been merely average Hollywood productions, with solid scenery and photography I agree, but nothing more than Roland JoffÃ© or some other directors. And his movies then respected all of Holywood's codification, would it be for the music, the editing etc... CLICHES!!
And Scott was almost forgotten by the cinephiles...
With Gladiator, suddenly, Scott makes a "come-back", with a lot of advertising... Then what is it?
Well, to me, it's the same Ridley Scott who made 1492.
While Gladiator has a brillant photography, the poor psychology, the mediocre scenery and the bad editing turns the whole thing into an average peplum with lots of visual effects to compensate the lack of substance.
Sure, some scenes are very good, Ridley has a lot of savoir-faire then is able to make some very good shots just because he's fundamentally talented.
But I simply can't understand how so many people just can't see the vacuity of this film, and the mediocrity of its production!
So my question to all the people who rated this film with reverential "10" is: Have you actually looked at it twice, and AFTER all the hype?