Thumbs up!

Rating: 5/10 (26 May 2000)

Rating: ***1/2 out of ****
WARNING: SOME THINGS HERE CAN BE CONSIDERED SPOILERS
I like art-house films. I really do. OK, some of them are really dull and boring, but can you complain of Almodovar's and BuÃ±uel's pictures, or the Kielowski trilogy of colors? I can't. I also like very much films that stay in the middle- are not simply artistic or simply entertaining: "Magnolia" (last year's best, by the way), "American Beauty", "2001". But for every "That Obscure Object of Desire" there's a "Gladiator". Not that "Gladiator" is empty (it talks about honor, courage, revenge), but its aim is to entertain audiences. So what? Let's have fun with it!
As every $100+ million budget movie, "Gladiator" is visually stunning and perfectly done and executed. The visuals are so great, vibrating and realistic that we feel we are in the ancient Rome of emperors and gladiators. After so many boring and dull films ("1492"- a joy to our eyes but empty as a hollow piece of wood- and "G.I. Jane"- that I, personally, felt ashamed to watch), Ridley Scott comes back with all his strength. It may be a little early, but he deserves a best director nomination at next year's Oscar. The way he recreates battle scenes and fight sequences in the Coliseum is amazing, almost unbelievable. My biggest disappointment with Luc Besson's "The Messenger" was the way he directed the battle scenes. It was the same thing of seeing a tomato being cut in slices, with Milla Jovovich yelling in the background. In "Gladiator" it's just the opposite. There's a battle scene in Germania. Only one, but it's so real, bitter, the best since "Saving Private Ryan". Thumbs up for you, Mr. Scott! Resurrect the old Rome is not for everyone, nor resurrect the epic genre, which was dead since... I don't know, for a long time. Believe it or not, "Gladiator" can be put on the same level of "Spartacus" or "Ben-Hur". May the epic genre stay with us and go on like this!
One of the greatest merits of "Gladiator" (and also where its flaws are) is its screenplay. The film has 2 hours and a half, but I didn't feel it that long. I'm not against long picture (see "Magnolia"), but entertaining films can't be boring. Well, there are slow moments in the film here and there- and that's the only visible flaw I can see. But, taking this, the screenplay is a joy. The characters have a good development, their lines are well written and the situations are emotional and intriguing. The cast just helps to keep our interest. Joaquin Phoenix and Connie Nielsen, who I think would be real problems for me, give solid performances. He is Commodus, son of the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris), who kills the own father to get the throne. Summarizing, the villain. Phoenix is surprising and sometimes haunting. Nielsen is pretty and strong as Lucilla, Commodus' sister and object of his incestuous desire. But Russell Crowe is the big star here. He is Maximus, a general of Marcus Aurelius' troop. The emperor is old and weak, and promises him the throne. Knowing this, Commodus kills his father and orders his soldiers to kill Maximus and his family. He escapes, but his wife and son die. He becomes a slave, but starts to show his talent of fighting. He is sent to Rome as a gladiator, looking for revenge against Commodus. Everything will be solved in the final scenes, which reminded me "Hamlet" for some reason- and will make some people cry. But let's talk about Crowe. After terrific performances in "L.A. Confidential" and "The Insider", he can receive his second Oscar nod with justice. He builds Maximus as a brave, strong, but also heartfelt man. Thumbs up for him too!
Talking about 'thumbs-up', everything in "Gladiator" deserves this. It's not an unforgettable masterpiece, but I won't be angry if it becomes a classic. It delivers solid entertainment and has a strong dramatic side. What else do we need?