Better than Ben Hur? Indeed it is.

Rating: 9/10 (24 May 2000)

This is the first Roman epic for many years, so many were ready to rip into it, with comparisons to Ben Hur and Spartacus awaiting.
First things first, this easily holds up to the aforementioned epics, whilst surpassing them in several areas (the realism for one). Secondly, it puts Russell Crowe into the running for the "real man" roles that Harrison Ford and Mel Gibson are getting too old for.
The whole cast come off looking well, especially given the fact that there were only 35 pages of useable script. Add to that the fact that from those pages, Ollie Reed and Richard Harris would still refuse to use some of the dialogue because they didn't like it. Much of the script was done in situ. A Roman epic as done by John Cassavetes?
The only sticking point (performance-wise) was the occasionally hamminess of Joaquin Phoenix's Emperor Commodus (given that his name is also used to refer to a toilet, he's forgiven). He more than makes up for this by being very effective the rest of the time (thus he only rates a 0.2 on the Ustinov scale of hammy scenery chewing).
The action scenes are stunning, easily outdoing Ben Hur's justly famed chariot race. Crowe comes off best here, though only just - his whole performance carries the film. With a presence you can't fail to be pulled in by, Crowe scythes through armies and gladiators alike, becoming a firm crowd favourite along the way.
As with Spartacus, the events here are based on real Roman history. The two Marcus Aurelius and Commodus were previously portrayed by Alec Guinness and Christopher Plummer respectively, in The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964).
One final note. Rest in piece Ollie. A comeback would have been welcome judging by the performance he gave here.