Gladiator (2000)

*** out of ****

Year: 2000. Starring Russell Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix, Connie Nielsen, Oliver Reed, Derek Jacobi, Djimon Hounsou, Richard Harris, David Schofield, John Shrapnel. Written by David H. Franzoni, John Logan, and William Nicholson. Directed by Ridley Scott. Rated R.

"Gladiator" is silly, overblown, and shallow. Perfect. It's highly flawed, with many glaring defects immediately visible. Lovely. It represents the worst kind of Hollywood excess, great sums of money thrown at something ultimately pointless. Yee-haw! At the risk of having my "serious film critic" certification revoked, I'm also going to have to say that "Gladiator" is fun. It kicks ass. It totally rules, dude. This movie forced itself on me; it made me have fun in spite of myself. That's not supposed to happen -- I'm supposed to be a serious, studious, jaded film critic! I did not think that "Gladiator" was the greatest movie ever, but I suspect many critics are having the same reaction I did (and some to a much greater extent): "Gladiator" is greater than the sum of its parts. It turns critics into hypocrites. Cool, huh?

This is the story of Maximus (Russell Crowe), top general in the Roman Army and favorite of the current, aging emperor (Richard Harris). After a major victory, the emperor calls Maximus in and tells him that he, and not the emperor's cowardly son Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix), will be named heir to the throne. Maximus is stunned by this news, but he requests to return to his family once his military duties are over. The emperor begs him to think about the offer before making a decision, and Maximus agrees. Unfortunately, he never gets to make that decision, because Commodus kills his father upon hearing the news, and by making it look like a natural death, is able to claim innocence. Since no one else knew about the late emperor's offer, the throne goes to Commodus, and the new emperor's first decision is to order death upon Maximus and his family. Maximus manages to escape his execution and is sold into slavery, eventually ending up in the hands of Proximo (Oliver Reed), a trainer of gladiators. Maximus vows to get his revenge by fighting his way to Rome and killing the emperor, but he must stay alive long enough to do so.

"Gladiator" can easily be nit-picked to death. There are a lot of little things wrong with it. The dialogue, for example, is usually functional and unassuming, but the odd unintentional knee-slapper does sneak in. (The early "emotional" scene between Commodus and his father elicited a few chuckles from the audience, though I don't think it was supposed to.) Sometimes the heroism gets a little overblown: Does everyone need to react in overblown emotional fashion to everything? And the characters mostly remain shallow archetypes; there's not a whole lot of development here. Maximus is a good, honest man with a short fuse, while Commodus is a slimy, cowardly snake who calculates behind closed doors. The screenwriters make a few lame attempts at developing these two, but their attempts generally fall flat. A family for Maximus? Great, but we never really get to know them. Commodus shows signs of an incestuous relationship with his sister Lucilla (Connie Nielsen)? That wasn't necessary; we already know he's a bad guy.

But despite all these problems, "Gladiator" still manages to be an enjoyable ride, and I think part of the reason is Crowe. He has easy charisma, which is instantly perceivable to the audience as soon as he steps in front of the camera. We *want* to root for him. Crowe has that elusive Mel Gibson quality: He's attractive to both men and women (for sometimes different -- and sometimes similar -- reasons), he has a voice that can make even the most banal lines sound sincere, and the more he gets beaten and bloodied, the more we love him. Even when the script gets preposterous, Crowe keeps it grounded in humanity with his naturally honest performance, bringing his character more sympathy than the script afforded him. If the early audience reaction to "Gladiator" is any indication, Crowe could have a long and prosperous career ahead of him.

Ridley Scott directs the film with some efficiency; his only real missteps are some befuddling decisions he makes on how to film transitions. Shots of clouds moving rapidly across the sky look great -- but they belong in another movie. Most of "Gladiator" is grimy, earthy, and grounded. This means that when Scott tries for an ethereal feel between scenes, it's jarring. But that's okay; the battle sequences deliver the goods. Desiring to create whirling dervishes of action, Scott does away with long establishing shots here; you get a quick set-up detailing who's fighting who, and then the camera starts spinning. Some may find this disorienting, and I can't really blame them: Sometimes it is hard to tell what's going on. But that's pretty much the point. Real gladiator battles probably weren't carefully choreographed dances. They were ugly, brutal, and short. Scott's accomplishment is in finding split-second pauses in the chaos to center on one beautiful image, suggesting everything that has gone on before it, before moving on to the next bit of jumbled action. You get a shot of a gladiator raising his spear, some whirling movement, and then a shot of an impaled foe. Put the pieces together.

It's hard to figure out what makes "Gladiator" so darn fun to watch. It's not particularly original; the story and events have largely been stolen from "Spartacus" and "Braveheart." The acting, while good (I particularly liked the supporting turns from Oliver Reed and Derek Jacobi, as a sympathetic senator), doesn't really stand out. The battle scenes are exhilarating, but nothing new. The political intrigue does provide some points of interest, especially in the comparisons of the gladiator games to modern spectacles, professional wrestling in particular. For example, the central conflict could parallel any number of recent WWF storylines, with Maximus the popular anti-hero and Commodus the reviled heel who cannot defeat the hero without first winning over the crowd. Scott even seems to be making a point here about the whole spectacle: Marx's famous quote about religion being the "opiate of the masses" fairly describes Scott's attitude towards spectator sports. Commodus uses the games to keep the people complacent while he seizes power for himself. At one point, Maximus screams to the bloodthirsty crowd, "Are you entertained?!" Is Scott suggesting the audience question their own responses to his bloody battle scenes? Perhaps.

But even the political intrigue and contemporary references aren't the real focus of the film; "Gladiator" is plot-driven, not theme-driven. And that brings up the same question: What makes "Gladiator" good? Considering that no one single part of it really stands out, it ought to come off as a fairly mediocre film. But for some reason, it doesn't, and I think I know why: "Gladiator" is an *epic*, in every sense of the word, making liberal use of modern technology to produce a movie in the Old Hollywood style. Sure, it's no "Spartacus." It's not even "Braveheart." But all the right elements are here: A hero who falls, only to rise again. A villain who thinks he has the upper hand, only to have his one mistake come back to bite him. Romance, politics, action -- what more could you ask for? "Gladiator" isn't groundbreaking, but it's good old-fashioned entertainment.

-reviewed by Shay Casey

For more reviews, go to http://www.geocities.com/sycasey/movies.html