Gladiator

Here we go again - the director's cut of the film has turned an already perfect film into an incredible, dimensional epic gem! To hell with all those who are picking at historical inaccuracies - it's not about them at all! Gladiator has a different message than a history book! This film is one of my greatest movie theater experiences ever (which the DVD version reminded me of), thanks to the almost holy trinity of Scott - Crowe - Zimmer. (22/05/2010)

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. (03/10/2004)

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. (15/07/2011)

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. (05/04/2016)

A clear disappointment after the first viewing. As a big Scott fan, I was expecting a big return of the Master. Actually, visually it was "Scott" and the music was monumental as well, but the shallowness of the script was unpleasantly surprising and the stupid dialogues made my toes curl. Also, as someone who is somewhat interested in history, it made me laugh a lot. But I’m used to it already. I've accepted the fact that it's an ordinary popcorn movie, visually it's awesome, Joaquin Phoenix is great and so I won't go below four stars. (24/05/2002)