History or entertainment?

Rating: 3/10 (27 February 2004)

Either you want to make a movie which is true to the facts (as we know them) or you just want to make a big screen spectacle, not bothering too much about the details. This movie is neither. Considering all the "realistic" scenes and scenery, it wants to be a depiction of true historical facts, but it is not! So for people who know a little bit about Roman history it is hard to take the story very seriously, but, on the other hand, because the makers seem to take it very seriously, it is hard to watch it as simple entertainment.
To name only a few examples. Which Roman general would ever leave his troops in the middle of a (political) conflict? His army is his power basis. Of course, had Maximus done the most sensible thing and called his army for help, then Commodus would have been wiped out and the movie would have been over within 15 minutes. But no, Maximus runs, away from his army.
Second example. In the end, when Maximus returns to Rome as a famous gladiator, he is recognized by people who remember him as general Maximus. Remember, when he became a gladiator, it wasn't as general Maximus, but as an anonymous. Is he released....? No, but only because the story dictates that we should wait for the climax, not for any logical reason.
The coincidence that Maximus, fleeing from Germany to Spain on foot, which would have taken a few months at least, finds his house still smoking is just too much.
So maybe the old Hollywood epic historical movies didn't look so realistic (actors were clean and had white teeth), but Errol Flynn and Douglas Fairbanks were so much more fun to look at, because they didn't take it all too seriously.