A movie that will not be remembered 20 years from now as a great film

Rating: 6/10 (10 July 2001)

I love good action films, the kind that entertain and enthrall, and every once in a while leave a viewer in awe. I love gladiator movies. Since childhood, I have been a fan of swordfighting and swashbuckling melodramas, as most young boys are. There is nothing wrong with the fun in them, because every once in while a great one like "Spartacus" and "Braveheart" comes along, a truly epic film that not only pierces the eye, but the imagination as well. Those films were not just spectacle, but had real heart in them. They contained stories that worked with enough good writing and direction to move beyond just a popcorn flick. The film "Gladiator" did not. I know people love this film, that even many critics called it a wonderful success. In that light, I tried hard to like it. I sat down twice in the theater and once at home to give it an honest look, but sadly, a new revelation never came. At best, it is just an action flick, and since I love these types of movies so much, that label saddens me all the more.
Here is my argument. Many claim that the action scenes were the best they had seen. I thought those claims were simply caught up in the flashy technique that was used, but not the resulting experience. Director Ridley Scott used quick cuts and blurry hand-held camera work to film the fighting scenes, copying much of the same style that Spielberg introduced in "Saving Private Ryan"'s opening sequence. It places the viewer almost inside the battle with the same kind of confusion that a soldier might feel. All fine and dandy in a modern battle that uses guns and explosives, weapons that require little skill to use or watch on screen, but in mid-evil warfare, I would like to actually see and understand the fighting with swords that takes a focused camera to capture. It can be done. "Braveheart" gave scenes just as strong in action, and much more understandable. those scenes were enthralling, and are still the standard in my opinion. Sadly, every action scene in this movie was much the same: blurry, quick cutting, not easy to understand, and therefore not easy to enjoy. I wanted to scream at the screen "Just let me watch the fighting!!!" This movie was not trying to make some great statement about war or its time, like the Spielberg film, and therefore did not need to go all artistic for not reason at the moment the crowd is supposed to sit back and enjoy the ride. Since the action let me down so much, it was now the job of the plot to pull me along.
There were many things that worked in this film concerning the plot. The actors were very good, particularly Richard Harris in the beginning as Caesar. Many scenes worked by themselves, but did not really add up to a complete picture. Often I felt like the characters were acting a particular way not because the story had given them any real motivation to, but because the plot required it for the moment. When Maximus was needed to be mad, or noble, or depressed, or vengeful, or hopeful, or hopeless, he simply was. The man was a rollercoaster of emotion in this film, but his reason for being such was not consistantly shown. A plot cannot drive the characters, it must be driven by them and what they would actually do if they existed. While it was all handled well by Russel Crowe, a fine actor, it made me feel manipulated as the viewer.
Overall, it was a popcorn flick, a movie to entertain, but to challenge, and certainly not to win an Academy Award, the worst presented in years. The special effects were very noticable, made so to appear "wowing", but they detracted from the reality instead of enhancing it. I do not understand why people think "Gladiator" is greater than it is, a movie that will not be remembered 20 years from now as a great film, unlike other films that were nominated right along side of it.