Gladiator (2000)

Starring Russell Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix, Connie Nielsen, Oliver Reed, Richard Harris.
Directed by Ridley Scott.
Written by David Franzoni, John Logan, and William Nicholson.
Produced by David Franzoni, Branko Lustig, and Douglas Wick.
Distributed by DreamWorks SKG.
155 minutes.

LVJeff's Rating: 7/10

Well-Made Epic with Some Glaring Weaknesses

Gladiator had a lot going for it. It essentially took the job of single-handedly reviving an old and tired concept: the so-called sword-and-sandal epic, which seemed to disappear after the '60's. And why not give that task a decent shot? It always had the potential to thrill and create a lot of entertaining melodrama. Armed with the latest computer-effects, director Ridley Scott got the chance to re-create the coliseum games in a way no director from the '50's and '60's could have dreamed of. He also got himself a truly charismatic presence in the form of lead actor Russell Crowe. Therefore, it is somewhat disappointing that the movie resorts to some obvious dramatic cliches, while also presenting itself with a strange moral quandary that it couldn't write itself out of. It could have been something grandly worth rooting for, but instead its end effect is one of being highly entertaining in several segments, and then not much more.

This movie presents quite a contrast in its good and bad features. The first thing on the plus side has to be the incredible staging of the battles, from the beginning battle between two armies at a forest border, to the gladitorial combat featuring the skill of the main character Maximus (Crowe). The army battle rivals the grand battlescapes of Braveheart and Saving Private Ryan in its sheer, uncompromising brutality. The squeamish need not be present for an excitingly directed showcase of merciless war, with arrows, swords, and hatchets as weapons. Equally exciting, if not more so because there are clear heroes to root for, are the gladiator games in which Maximus participates. As many other reviewers have noted, the fights are presented in a raucous manner resembling the flair and dramatics of professional wrestling. Once they've got your blood pumped-up, you're ready to see blood as Maximus unerringly goes to work against his unfortunate opponents. No one can beat him; even when he takes part in a battle re-creation in the coliseum, in which he and his friends are supposed to lose and actually be killed in the show, he doesn't back down and uses his honed-in leadership abilities to guide his team to violent victory. Special effects are used for a fight with tigers as opponents, a spectacle that would have been nearly impossible to pull off convincingly decades ago and is wonderfully thrilling here. And the audience cheers and cheers, just like the bloodthirsty audience in the movie itself.

The casting is also on the money, with Crowe at his best as Maximus when he is cutting down his enemies. Oliver Reed turns in his last performance as Proximo, the gladiator trainer. Richard Harris does a turn as the emperor Marcus Aurelius. Connie Nielsen and Joaquin Phoenix match their roles well as the royal sister and brother. And Djimon Hounsou is Juba, Maximus's friend and therefore someone else to root for. All of the actors fit right into this New-styled Roman epic.

And all of this would've made for an extremely marvelous picture were it not for the fact that it falls victim to a worn storyline. From the storyline alone, I could call this movie "Braveheart 2." It uses devices similar to those used in Braveheart, albeit not as effectively; that is, they are used more obviously. It starts by using one of my least favorite ones: creating audience sympathy for the hero by unnecessarily killing off his loved one(s). This then leads to the hero's dual goals of rising against the tyrant, whose rule is in some way responsible for the hero's loss, and of trying to be reunited with the dead loved one(s) after the vengeance has been wrought. I don't really like the ambiguity this creates; that is, a hero is stirred into just and heroic action only in the face of horrific loss. This happened in Braveheart, and it happens again here. Naturally, then, the hero will have to die at the end of the movie so that he can get his wish in the afterlife. In the middle, the hero becomes a symbolic and literal leader in the fight against the tyrant. He has a female ally on the inside, and his arch-enemy is made out to be despicable, deserving of little or no sympathy. In the case of Gladiator, this is put into extreme effect with the role of the annoying Commodus.

Commodus, played by Joaquin Phoenix, is a particular peeve for me. Phoenix plays him the way he should be played, so I don't blame him, but this character is the most worthless of villains. He defines the word "sniveling." He is evil enough to commit patricide, could never be a match against the hero in a fair fight, and has societally unacceptable sexual desires. The writers went overboard to make a character the audience would just have absolutely no way to form any sort of mental alliance with. Bad enough he kills his dad, he wants to sleep with his sister too. He's whiny and abusive. He's just someone to hate, not someone to give the hero a worthy challenge. What's the fun in that? Where's a real villain, one that inspires fear and demands maybe a little respect? In a movie like this, such a villain is required; instead, we are given a crybaby who can't disappear from the movie soon enough.

And then there's the rather contradictory nature of the movie's theme. It is obviously loathesome that our hero is forced to fight for his life in the arena. He is morally opposed to such a form of spectacle, as was his late true liege, Emperor Marcus Aurelius. He fights with ferocity, but only because he can and because he must. In fact, these horrific fights were re-instigated by Commodus, and surely part of Maximus's goal in defeating Commodus would be to put an end to these things. And yet, what is it about the movie that so viscerally makes us look forward to watching it? That's right. It's the fights. It's not even a guilty pleasure; the fights are staged brilliantly, and they are meant to be enjoyed. And when it's not rousing the audience, the good guys in the movie talk about how wrong it is. This is kind of confusing. I don't think it really ruins the movie, but it doesn't sit quite well when you think about it either.

That said, Gladiator truly is well-produced. They had the right tools, equipment, and actors to create something really special, but went with a rather pedestrian script. The script further shows weakness by dragging in the end, when there are no more exciting fights to watch. And it's really too bad the weaknesses of the movie do bog it down the way they do. In a way, it's almost like Titanic in that the production was incredible, but the story was hackneyed. Perhaps it was a bid, as it surely was in Titanic, to give the story a universal appeal -- a tried-and-true, audience approved formula. Maybe that was the goal all along: to give 'em an old story and present it in a way worthy of being one of the first movies released at the turn of the century.

©Jeffrey Chen, Feb. 15, 2001

Home | Feedback welcome