*** (out of ****)
Starring Russell Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix, Connie Nielsen, Oliver Reed, Sir Derek Jacobi, and Sir Richard Harris.
Directed by Ridley Scott & written by David Franzoni, John Logan, and William Nicholson.
2000 R
Most Over-Rated Movie 2000
Ridley Scott’s “Gladiator” is a big dumb adventure movie trying to disguise itself as an epic. I don’t know if that makes me like it more or less. Any given John Woo action picture has about the depth of a puddle and we know during moments of operatic melodrama that we aren’t supposed to be taking him too seriously. “Gladiator,” with its simplistic tale of revenge, could have carried itself like that, but instead it behaves like it’s supposed to be more, like we’re supposed to find some profundity where there is none. With its Roman setting, “Gladiator” might beg comparisons to Stanley Kubrick’s “Spartacus” from 1960 and Julie Taymor’s more recent “Titus,” one of my favorite movies of 1999. But at its core, “Gladiator” is more “Matrix” than “Spartacus:” it is a beautiful world created for people to fight in.
To be certain, “Gladiator” is a very entertaining adventure. It tells the story of Maximus (Russell Crowe), a Roman general who was the favorite of one emperor and then betrayed by the next. The new emperor, Commodus, fearing that Maximus has grown too powerful, has Maximus’ family murdered and leaves Maximus for dead, but Maximus escapes and is eventually enslaved and turned into a gladiator. He may not like his new profession, but he hatches a plan to become the best gladiator of all so that one day he can fight in the Coliseum, where he might confront and kill Commodus. Once in the Coliseum, Commodus discovers Maximus before he has a chance to enact his revenge, but cannot have him killed because of the flimsy plot contrivance that the people adore their champion of the arena too much. Too much to have him executed without reason, it seems, but not enough to have his freedom restored.
The movie stalls once Commodus finds out about Maximus, or rather enters a loop, as Commodus stalks around his palace muttering about what he’s going to throw into the arena to kill Maximus, followed by Maximus in the arena killing whatever the emperor has thrown at him, and then the process repeats. Between Maximus’ hacking people and tigers to pieces are filler scenes usually consisting of powerful Romans rambling about ruling the empire by ruling the ignorant masses of Rome (among them are Sir Derek Jacobi of “I Claudius,” who probably just brought some old togas from his closet). There’s a vague suggestion that modern sports serve a similar function of placating the great unwashed, but “Gladiator” backs any stab at prescience without sincerity, since we are expected to be thrilled by the life-and-death struggles of Maximus in exactly the same way as the Roman mobs. The real purpose of these scenes is to create the illusion of depth and put breathers between the fight sequences.
Somewhat more interesting is the relationship among Commodus, Commodus’ sister, and Maximus. At one time, all three deeply cared for one another, but now Commodus’ powerlust has strengthened his sister’s attraction for Maximus and his own incestuous desires for her. A different movie could have made more of these relationships, but “Gladiator” is too attached to its plot to give us more than a few hints concerning its people, and we’re left with Maximus moping about while Commodus’ sister tries to convince him to believe in himself so he can rise up against the emperor for the good of Rome. There are solid performances by Russell Crowe, who tempers his unbeatable warrior with patches of vulnerability, and Joaquin Phoenix, who is not a good emperor but who elicits sympathy because he only wants to be loved, and grates his back teeth to no end in this pursuit.
But the crux of “Gladiator” is action and high production values, not character and certainly not historical accuracy (Commodus’ twelve year reign is ended about ten-and-a-half years early). I enjoyed the adventure. I was thrilled by Maximus fighting soldiers, horsemen, chariots, and tigers, sometimes alone and sometimes in a group of fellow gladiators. The choreography and Ridley Scott’s direction of these sequences is exciting, and full of giant squibs of flying blood and bone-crunching sound effects, as well as different shutter speeds on his oft-shaken cameras. The entire film is set in exotic locations, both genuine and recreated, and bathed in rich cinematography, in which primary colors and deep shadows are brought out, a hallmark of the recent films of Scott. The other pseudo-epic qualities of “Gladiator” include an intriguing, if overactive, musical score by Hans Zimmer and Lisa Gerrard, in which wailing Middle Eastern voices glide atop Wagnerian brass and bubbling synthesizers.
Some viewers might be offended by “Gladiator’s” attempts at grandeur, considering how low-brow the movie actually is, but I enjoyed the rich visuals, the swordplay, and the energy of it all. I admire Ridley Scott’s assembly of colors and the logistics of his armies, and “Gladiator” is nothing less than a great example of the slick craftsmanship of seasoned professionals. For these reasons I give it a half-star more than it probably deserves. “Gladiator” would have been more fun if it hadn’t taken itself so damned seriously; it certainly lacks the sense of mischief that makes “Titus” the superior Roman adventure. A more cynical critic might assert that “Gladiator” is an epic for people who love dumb movies: they can watch it and feel proud that what they’re seeing is “deep” and still get to see an explosion or two. But I’m not so cynical.
Copyright 2002 Friday Saturday Night.