Rate that Movie: Gladiator

Tools    





Movie Forums Extra
Moments of thrill, but overall falls short. Not a standout.



It's not the best thing ever made, but the hate it gets is silly. It's a perfectly cromulent film.



I really liked it. In spite of the above criticisms, as a one-time Latin student, I also think they got a lot of it right. Most of what was in the plot was not just plausible, but somewhat matched by events that happened in that time. If I had some criticism, it might be that Joaquin Phoenix underplayed the emperor Commodus. The actual character really was a loony rage-aholic, and fought in the arena in rigged contests that always resulted in him killing his opponent. He was an embarrassment to the empire since fighting in the arena was only fit for prisoners and outcasts, who might gain some fame and freedom if they fought well in an exciting contest. Like today's football games, people wanted action and excitement. Commodus' ending, however, was far less dramatic, as he was strangled in his bathtub by a slave. He would have been better portrayed by the infamous Jay Robinson (Demetrius and the Gladiator), but the look, the culture and most of what happened in the movie make a good case for "historic fiction".

The theme of the world and war weary soldier wanting to get back to home, family and farm is a common one throughout Roman literature and the opening battle with the "barbarians" is definitely one of the best ancient world battle scenes ever done. It graphically shows how the Roman approach to war (weapons, discipline and organization) allowed them to conquer barbarian skirmishers. Marcus Aurelius (the elder emperor in the beginning) was indeed sick and dispirited from war and when he died the beginning of the end for the greatness of the Empire started its long slide. Marcus just wanted to go back to his other career as a philosopher and writer.

It's one of my favorite Roman movies.



10/10 one of the best movies ever made: perfectly executed historical fiction, the kind of movie that requires blockbuster-budget to work and thus is the best investment of this kind of budget (instead of that bland and vapid superhero stuff).

My theory is for why movie critics and cinephiles like to say they don't like it because this movie is accessible, which means people with not very refined and experienced tastes can understand it, so movie critics have to say they hate it to feel superior to the average.



10/10 one of the best movies ever made: perfectly executed historical fiction, the kind of movie that requires blockbuster-budget to work and thus is the best investment of this kind of budget (instead of that bland and vapid superhero stuff).

My theory is for why movie critics and cinephiles like to say they don't like it because this movie is accessible, which means people with not very refined and experienced tastes can understand it, so movie critics have to say they hate it to feel superior to the average.
Agreed. I recall reading accounts of some of those ancient times and a lot of it was really basic human stuff like warriors who sick of blood and death, wanted to go back to their families and tend their sheep in that horrifying, violent time. The so-called Pax Romana was a couple centuries when the core of the empire was at peace, but getting there was hard won and after Marcus, it all started to fall apart. The stories of that time often were simple basic stories, which fit quite well with the movie version.

Part of what has long troubled Roman movie stories is the 2 millennia of Christian disapproval where we characterize an entire period and place based on Bible stories and the things that happened in that part of history. That misses the fact that for centuries, the Roman world was the best thing going in the West. Once it was gone, various better or worse leaders spent the next thousand years trying to figure out how to revive it.




My theory is for why movie critics and cinephiles like to say they don't like it because this movie is accessible, which means people with not very refined and experienced tastes can understand it, so movie critics have to say they hate it to feel superior to the average.

So does this theory still apply to the hundreds if not thousands of other very accessible movies that critics drool over? That fill the majority of year end best of lists. That are the bulk of the most critically revered films of all time.


Or does it only apply to Gladiator?



Ralphie says it's the best freakin' movie evah!




I think my rating was a 6 or 7 and am surprised to see all the 9s and 10s. While this appears to be a career defining moment for Russell Crow I think that me seeing 300 first overshadows this ancient epic as I was wowwed with the visual effects and pure manliness. I should rewatch this with a different frame of mind and maybe I will see what everyone says I missed.