Theatrical and extended cut review/comparison

Rating: 10/10 (20 April 2020)

Is Gladiator a straight action movie? Not exactly. It's definitely action-packed, but to call it "just" and action movie would be doing the film a disservice in my opinion. This is not a mindless film, although it it a fairly easy watch. However, I do think it has a good deal of substance- it's a movie that stuck with me, and that's definitely not something that happens with most action movies I watch.
Action films are good "relaxation" movies. It's the genre you watch when you really can't be bothered thinking too much, and just want to switch your mind off a bit and watch stuff blow up and people get hurt. Action movies have a certain cathartic quality, and are often hugely entertaining because they show us things on screen that we hardly ever get to see in our day to day lives. As an action movie, Gladiator succeeds. There's a large number of exciting, fantastically shot and edited arena sequences that really make you feel as though you're there. The fight sequences are visceral and convincing. There's also a large scale battle at the start of the film, which in my opinion is the film's one low point. It's not quite as exciting as it should be, and it's bizarrely shot in jumpy slow motion and with hand-held cameras, a style that is not maintained throughout the film. It kinda feels like Saving Private Ryan's famous opening sequence (a little bit), which is odd. The rest of the movie's fantastic though.
It's not a deep film intellectually- the plot's quite straight-forward, the character's motivations are hardly ever ambiguous, and dialogue scenes never go on for a great deal of time. That being said, the film excels in my eyes because of its deep and engaging emotional core. I really cared for Russel Crowe's character, Maximus, and the moment he is betrayed by Commodus- a complete scumbag masterfully played by Joaquin Phoenix- I was absolutely 100% rooting for him to get his revenge and bring his rival to justice.
Yeah, it's basically a revenge tale, but I think it really succeeds because Russel Crowe does such a fantastic job at making his character incredibly likeable, and Phoenix does such a good job at playing an utterly despicable villain. And sometimes, that's all you need in order to be utterly invested in a film, even a fairly long one (2.5 hours) like Gladiator. Of course, the movie has more going for it- a good screenplay, some memorable side characters, a fantastic score (Hans Zimmer at his best), some stunning cinematography, and great pacing too- there's hardly a dull moment in the entire movie. Plus the ending is amazing; absolutely perfect for the movie.
So, if it's not clear already, I'd say go ahead and watch this movie. Don't be put off by any expectations you might have towards it- it's honestly probably better than you think it's going to be. Make sure you watch the theatrical cut though, rather than the extended edition. The former goes for 155 minutes, while the latter goes for 171 minutes. Trust me, you really feel those extra 16 minutes in the extended cut.
Some DVDs and blu-rays try to pass the extended cut off as the "Director's Cut," presumably because director Ridley Scott has somewhat of a reputation for having movies where the director's cut is generally seen as better than the theatrical cut- see Kingdom of Heaven (which I haven't seen yet), and Blade Runner. I knew something wasn't quite right when I watched Ridley Scott's one minute "introduction" to the so-called director's cut of the film. From memory, the very first thing he said was something along the lines of "this is not my director's cut," stated that it was rather an "extended cut," and then I think he even mentioned, or maybe implied, that he himself preferred the theatrical cut. Then someone must have glared at him off-camera, because I think he then begrudgingly said something about how the extended cut still made some interesting changes, before reiterating once again that this was NOT his "director's cut," and not his preferred version.
Well, that's just great, I remembered thinking to myself. I watched the extended cut anyway, even if Ridley Scott's words had dampened my expectations considerably. It was interesting, to an extent, to compare it to the original (and significantly better) theatrical cut. Basically, I'd estimate that about 14 of the 16 new minutes purely focus on Phoenix's character, which oddly almost creates the impression that the movie is just as much about him as it is about Maximus. We see (or at least it feels as though we see) just as much Commodus as we do Maximus, and this takes the spotlight off the hero, whose journey we're supposed to be focused on, and shifts a bunch of the focus to Commodus, who we already hate enough just going by his scenes in the theatrical cut. His new scenes in the extended cut don't really give much new insight into his character- they just show him being a horrible person
We already knew he was a horrible person though. A massively horrible one.
So if you can help it, track down the theatrical cut for Gladiator rather than the extended cut. Best option might be to get the Blu-ray actually; it comes with both versions on the same disc (plus the picture quality is exceptional). That way, you can watch the theatrical cut first, and then if you really feel like it, you can check out the extended cut, but you'll likely be a little let down by it.
Just a heads-up there.
Because I care.
Really, the two cuts of Gladiator just go to show how much of a difference trimming a few scenes can make to a movie, and how just 16 extra minutes can kind of change the balance of an already extremely well-crafted story. The extended cut sort of kills the pacing a couple of times throughout the film, and awkwardly gives Commodus more scenes than he needs, but it's honestly still a very good movie. It's just that the theatrical cut is substantially better.
Absolutely give this movie a watch- it gets my highest recommendation (if that means anything to anyone).