Directed by:
Ridley ScottCinematography:
John MathiesonCast:
Russell Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix, Connie Nielsen, Oliver Reed, Richard Harris, Derek Jacobi, Djimon Hounsou, David Schofield, John Shrapnel, Tomas Arana (more)VOD (6)
Plots(1)
Forced into slavery by the corrupt, incestuous heir to the throne, Roman general Maximus (Russell Crowe) becomes a gladiator. His prowess in the arena will eventually lead him to Rome, the Colosseum and a vengeful showdown with the new emperor. An Academy Award winning masterpiece, Gladiator is epic movie story-telling brought thrillingly into the 21st century by master director Ridley Scott. (Universal Pictures UK)
(more)Videos (1)
Reviews (10)
A narratively and emotionally artistic spectacle that cleverly adapts the classic needs of historical cinema to the insatiable Hollywood mainstream, whose greatest asset, the overblown and expensive audiovisuals, is so phenomenal that it almost overshadows its great weakness, namely the script. I don’t give a shit about historical accuracy, but with more viewings I'm mostly annoyed by the superficial, half-baked message, served on a disproportionately stretched plot. I love this film, and the coliseum scenes are iconic, but Scott was more of a craftsman over the details than a builder of riveting heroic destinies, which was sorely needed.
()
I ignored Gladiator during its premiere and successfully for another 12 years, but during one of its reruns on TV, I couldn't resist and subsequently found out that my contempt for Gladiator should have persisted and my instinct did not disappoint as usual. The film simply has nothing to offer me, because it is a typical summer blockbuster with pompous production design, but it's stupid as hell. The story and dialogue are trivial and I don't hesitate to say idiotic. Of course, Connie Nielsen looks good, both the male stars are very solid actors and they keep the film afloat in parts, but other than that, I can only mention the generous set design, and then I'm out of positives. Even the often-mentioned opening battle didn't impress me much, and I maybe appreciate only the gladiators' fights in the arena. I dare to sacrilegiously declare that recently made movies Centurion and The Eagle, with the absence of movie stars, a fraction of the budget, and incomparably smaller ambitions suited me much better, although I don't consider them to be the pinnacle of cinema and I know they have numerous flaws. Overall impression: 40%.
()
Without exaggeration, the best historical movie ever made. Under Scott's direction, the film has the right pace and keeps growing incredibly over time. The script isn't anything special, a great fall and a subsequent rise, but I just can't help myself. When I factor in Crowe’s brilliant performance, Zimmer's excellent soundtrack as usual, and great visual effects, it goes straight to my list of favorites.
()
Ridley Scott resurrected a "historic" Hollywood feature film in all its splendor... in all its color, pomp, schematics, pathos, and shallowness. He created a work that appeals to the viewer's eye, but as soon as it resorted to thoughts, I felt like I was at a failed "Roman statehood for beginners" class (no one can convince me that Gladiator is not utter nonsense at its core). When something is "happening," Scott's film works brilliantly, but during the dialogues it slips into typical empty verbal nonsense, and if were not for the way in which the Crowe-Phoenix duo masterfully fulfilled their schemes, very little value would remain in Gladiator. Ridley Scott truly deceived me with his approach. His directing is routine, cold, and perhaps only in battle sequences we can talk about a unique approach (although a shaky handheld camera and "skipping" windows is not the master's invention). What I am missing in this film is some true spirit... people are constantly blabbering on about Rome, but unfortunately it remains a mere dream (a rendered background) for the quality of the film. That's why I prefer the ideas of William Wallace or Captain Nathan Algren. For me, their struggle has a greater charge than revenge for the death of loved ones, which has been played out a thousand times over. Ridley Scott simply played a pompous symphony based on old notes. It is the same as Hans Zimmer's music - it evokes desirable emotions, sounds powerful, heroic... That's what is expected of a big movie after all, isn't it? But I argue that what was expected of the film has already been portrayed better several times, although perhaps not as megalomaniacally.
()
I used to hate this movie because I didn't like Scott or Crowe. I still don't like Scott much nowadays, but I love Russell Crowe because he's just a great actor. And even though I would like to rate the movie even higher, I can't because it simply contains elements that bother me. Like the unnecessary pathos. Even so, it's still a spectacular show.
()
Ads