Gladiator Movie Review

Maximus (Russell Crowe) is a General in the Roman Army. He has just won a big campaign, and wants to go home.

His efforts are thwarted when current Emperor Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris) implores Maximus to stand against his son Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix)...the Emperor heir apparent... whom everyone knows is a bad seed that should never attain power.

Maximus stands against Commodus -- in an attempt to consolidate the power of the Roman Senate ("rule by the people") before Commodus dissolves the Senate, and heads Rome down a dark & dictatorial path of destruction.

Maximus is captured, enslaved, and forced to fight Gladiatorial games in Rome -- all the time maneuvering towards an impassioned revenge against Commodus.

THE GOOD:

Whenever a Ridley Scott (Blade Runner, Alien, Thelma and Louise, etc.) movie comes out, audiences pretty much expect it to contain 4 elements: they expect the film to be visually dazzling, well-assembled (editorially, score, etc.), heavy on conceptual undercurrents (i.e. themes and ideas running beneath the obvious elements of the story), and so loaded with presentation and technique that the "human element" of the story gets buried beneath the weight of the other elements.

Scott's newest film, Gladiator, embodies all of these qualities. It is a perfect example of what makes the director so brilliant, and at the same time such an underachiever. What should have been the riveting and touching story about one good man's barbaric punishment for doing the right thing becomes little more than a "going through the motions" Gladiator story without many fresh angles or spins. Objectively, there's a lot here we've seen before -- although we've never seen it looking this great.

Gladiator has much to offer. Oliver Reed is charismatic as Proximo, a "freed" Gladiator who has devoted his freedom to recruiting and training other Gladiators. Richard Harris is utterly compelling as Marcus Aurelius, the dying Roman Emperor who guilts Maximus into doing the right thing -- thus damning Maximus in the eyes of The Powers That Be, and setting him on a course for destruction. Russell Crowe as Maximus is, well, Russell Crowe -- always carrying with him a funky combination of weight, intensity, and quiet dignity which makes him one of cinema's most engaging on-screen presences. Djimon Hounsou, who played the lead slave in Spielberg's Amistad, again plays a slave (who turns Gladiator) here. He's a striking presence, and an intriguing talent -- but being typecast as high-profile slaves may not be the best career move (although, in fairness, he has had multiple other roles -- but the slave roles seem to be the ones for which he is remembered).

Overall, the film is visually astounding. Cinematography by John Mathieson is generally beyond reproach -- although his editing and/or photography of many action scenes are a tad suspect: many battle sequences are presented in a choppy, slow-mo, swishy style which makes it physically difficult to get completely sucked into the action. But, as a whole, the film is photographically atmospheric, elegant, and filled with nuances which pull your eyes right into the screen. Sometimes, watching Gladiator is like sitting in the middle of a painting -- an interesting analogy given paintings inspired several visual elements of this film.

Score by Hans Zimmer (The Rock) and Lisa Gerrard (The Insider) is a peculiar hybrid of musical styles, ranging from the "Zimmer sound" (the sweeping and melodic action riffs utilized in The Rock) to a more Enya/Titanic-like vocal approach. Generally, this works well in the film, although there are probably too many variations on the same theme (literally).

The film's production design (Arthur Max), etc. are all top-of-the-line. This is an amazing film to behold -- and not too many directors besides Scott could have assembled all these desperate qualities into a technical achievement of this magnitude.

So, with all this kick ass stuff going on, why isn't the movie perfection? The answer, paradoxically, is "Gladiator is a Ridley Scott movie."

THE BAD:

For many people, one defining characteristic of Ridley Scott movies is that the full potential of the projects are often not realized. This has made many people annoyed with the director, because he frequently comes frustratingly close to making "slam dunks" --  but is often perceived to fall short of the basket. Sometimes people say his movies are too "cold," sometimes people say the narrative of the movies are too "sloppy." The "too cold" criticism is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. But as for the latter criticism, here's an example of the way things work in Ridleyland:

We have the original version of Blade Runner (which wasn't entirely Scott's fault), a second cut of Blade Runner (aka the recent "director's cut"), and next year we will have another Scott-supervised BR re-jiggering. There are several versions of Scott's Legend in circulation: an American release with a Tangerine Dream score, a European release featuring different editing and a Jerry Goldsmith score, and a "syndicated" version for TV (something of a bastardized hybrid of both). And, apparently, we may get a "definitive" re-working and restoration of Legend in the near future, re-edited & with the Goldsmith score reinstated.

Granted, not all of these issues are exclusively Scott's "fault" --  there are certainly political and studio machinations influencing the end product of several Scott projects. But the above list does suggest that "no matter who is blame." Scott projects sometimes tend to be unrefined or not finished to the filmmaker's liking when initially released -- hence the need for revisiting the titles further down the line. And, for my money, Gladiator will be no exception.

Gladiator suffers from being too long. I am not one of these people who thinks "long movies are bad movies." However, I very much champion the notion that if you're going to have a movie which is heading toward three hours, long you'd better fill it with some pretty interesting stuff.

Gladiator is filled with a labyrinth of sub-plots and momentary asides, many of which do not directly impact the story as a whole.

An example: we have poor Maximus in Rome, being made to fight as a Gladiator. We have established he wants his revenge against Commodus -- who put him there. We have established Commodus is a bad, bad boy who needs to be Deep Sixed. We have established Commodus is a sleaze ball leach of a weasel who wants to hump his own sister, and is eyeing her little boy for desert. This is a good-set-up, says a lot about both the villain and the times in which the movie is set, and gives Maximus even more reason to roll his head. That's ALL we need to know in order to make Gladiator's plot work properly.

So, why does the film dwell on these factors endlessly? Doing so does nothing to forward the thrust of the story we're there to see the story of Maximus, whom we have followed throughout the movie. Commodus' antics are good background material, interesting peripheral information, and good "color" for the concept -- but it's not enough to prop-up the later half of the film, which relies rather heavily on the exploration of these elements.

Along similar lines, the film under utilizes the Roman Senate -- on whose solvency the entire plotline rests. We rarely see the Senate in action, and get no sense of why these people are so important -- and why Marcus expects Maximus to put his life on the line for these people. We are told the Senate is important -- but when we have the opportunity to see them doing what they do (and how they impact society around them) why should simply being told, in passing, suffice? If Scott & Co. wanted to spend time focusing on issues which were not Maximus-centric, they could at least have focused on issues which directly pertained to the film's overriding plot & theme: the dangers of dictatorship, and the need to have representation by many people (i.e. the Roman Senate) instead of just one.

After all, trying to address those issues is what put Maximus in his jam to begin with. The movie wastes endless sequences trying to convince us Commodous should be flushed -- but spends little time making an argument in favor of what our hero is actually fighting for.

Ironically, such changes would have been very easy for Gladiator to accommodate. While waiting for a screening of I Dreamed of Africa the other day, I spoke with my friend Harry Knowles -- who grilled me about my thoughts regarding Gladiator. I voiced pretty much the same concerns discussed in this review. Harry actually hosted an early screening of this film back in February (CLICK HERE to read more about his screening), and offered some interesting perspective on how the movie now differs from the earlier version he screened.

To my horror, Harry indicated earlier versions of the film addressed many of the issues I have raised herein. For example, it seems that previous edits of the movie offered significantly more material regarding the Senate, and handled Sleazy Emperor Leach Boy in a much more impactful and deft manner.

But all of this was dropped (or re-worked) for this "final cut." By the time Harry and I finished our discussion, I concluded the problems with Gladiator came down to one simple factor: the filmmakers had the material on-hand to make a better film, but they chose which material to incorporate into the film rather poorly. Accordingly, Gladiator pays the price for a few critical, post-production missteps -- missteps which simply didn't need to happen.

Consummate Ridley Scott: a promising premise, about issues much bigger than just the logline, filled with human stories which get buried beneath technical considerations and narrative misjudgments. Gladiator has many, many wonderful elements running throughout it -- style, look, performances, elegance, and a "throwback" appeal which keeps reminding us we just don't see too many movies like this anymore.

Nonetheless, it is a film which is not as good as it should be and, obviously, could easily be. This is the age of "Special Edition" mania. Star Wars movies have been worked and re-worked. The Exorcist was just spitshined. 1978's Superman is getting a facelift. As indicated above, Scott's own Blade Runner is going into the shop next year for significant tinkering. Perhaps The Powers That Be on Gladiator should revisit some of their decisions & set about dropping (and reinstating) existing footage which pays more attention to the story the movie is trying to tell -- to the story the movie requires to be as good as it can possibly be. Then, maybe, Gladiator could be raised to the classic level it very much deserves to attain.

THE UGLY:

None.

3.5 out of 5 Stars, 7/10 Score