IronParrot
05-06-2000, 05:27 PM
My review, originally posted at <a href=http://pub4.ezboard.com/bnicktheshadow>my board</a>:
PROS
First and foremost, the look of the film. The art design, the sets, the costumes, the photography - all these are done on the grandiose scale that is necessary to make an epic an epic. And in Gladiator, they are wonderful. It is arguably one of the most visually spectacular films of all time. For two and a half hours out of my life, I was in Ancient Rome. From a cinematographic standpoint, this is beyond The Messenger, beyond Three Kings, beyond Braveheart. It's almost on the level of Saving Private Ryan in terms of art design and direction in capturing the essence of the time period, if not its equal.
Secondly, the sound of the film. The sound editing is magnificent. Every arrow that is fired, every clash of swords, every clang of shields has a stunning kind of impact. This is the kind of film that you want to see in a theatre with the best digital sound system around. You want to hear this film in its full stereophonic glory. Adding to that is the musical score, which is easily the best ever to come from Hans Zimmer. The fights are augmented in adrenaline by drum-heavy fanfare, and emotional moments are exemplified through the usage of a lyrical theme that years from now, people can identify and say, "That's the theme from Gladiator."
Then there's the tremendous, towering performance from Russell Crowe as Maximus. Crowe would easily own this movie and overshadow everything if the film in itself was not created in such magnificence and sheer grandeur. He is powerful in this film, and personally, an even more convincing hero of the Roman times than Charleton Heston or Kirk Douglas ever were - and that is saying a lot. Furthermore, he is well balanced by the rest of the cast, which surprisingly does not look inferior in comparison. Joaquin Phoenix is stunningly evil as Commodus, who historically was a figure more despised than Julius Caesar. Richard Harris is great as Marcus Aurelius, though I still hold that his most memorable performance of late was as English Bob in Unforgiven. I could go on and on about the rest of the cast, which was basically without flaw, but my comments would begin to get repetitive.
The screenplay is strong. This is a film which I will have to watch over and over again so I learn the lines flawlessly, so I do not accidentally misquote some of the greatest lines. Also, the story is an exemplary blend of fact and fiction. Here you have a factual setting, with factual characters, but the main character himself and the plot in general are fictitious - and it's blended so well that one does not even need to care about historical accuracy anymore.
The ending, while it certainly doesn't pull a Braveheart, and is likely the most historically inaccurate part of the film (not like I care - see above), moved me. It was a satisfying closure to a truly epic film.
Also, the length and pacing of the film is fitting, I found. Some people are going to complain that this film is too long, but I would have to disagree. When the length is quantified, Gladiator is actually a little short for a film of its scale, sitting at only 150 minutes to Braveheart's 180 and Spartacus' 200; but the pacing is not so fast that it seems short, and by the end of it all it is really the perfect length.
CONS
There are two clichéd moments: a) someone passing by hears the enemy's secret plan and runs off to tell the hero, and b) the hero is pressured by the crowd to make the killing blow to one of his foes, but predictably doesn't do so (no real spoiler there). These two stand out as the two somewhat overdone, but necessary plot elements.
There are also few shots that look a little cheesy, all of which are surrealist, "dream" shots much like what Luc Besson did in The Messenger.
Besides these two concerns, I really don't have any peeves about this film at all.
OVERALL
Gladiator is an example of how films should be made nowadays and aren't. Only once every two or three years do we get a gem like this - aside from this film, the past decade has only seen Braveheart and Saving Private Ryan in terms of truly spectacular period pieces of such immense scale and grandeur. This film is definitely worth a viewing, if not more - I for one know that I will be seeing this film in theatres many, many times.
From a personal standpoint, I can safely say for the time being that this has become one of my favorite films ever, but I'll have to let it settle for a bit before I can make a clear, definite judgment. Also, I will have to see Braveheart yet again to see how these two films match up, because I cannot confidently take a definite stance on that comparison just yet.
"Those two giraffes you sold me, they won't mate. All they do is walk around and eat, but not mate. You sold me queer giraffes."
- Proximo, played by the late Oliver Reed
PROS
First and foremost, the look of the film. The art design, the sets, the costumes, the photography - all these are done on the grandiose scale that is necessary to make an epic an epic. And in Gladiator, they are wonderful. It is arguably one of the most visually spectacular films of all time. For two and a half hours out of my life, I was in Ancient Rome. From a cinematographic standpoint, this is beyond The Messenger, beyond Three Kings, beyond Braveheart. It's almost on the level of Saving Private Ryan in terms of art design and direction in capturing the essence of the time period, if not its equal.
Secondly, the sound of the film. The sound editing is magnificent. Every arrow that is fired, every clash of swords, every clang of shields has a stunning kind of impact. This is the kind of film that you want to see in a theatre with the best digital sound system around. You want to hear this film in its full stereophonic glory. Adding to that is the musical score, which is easily the best ever to come from Hans Zimmer. The fights are augmented in adrenaline by drum-heavy fanfare, and emotional moments are exemplified through the usage of a lyrical theme that years from now, people can identify and say, "That's the theme from Gladiator."
Then there's the tremendous, towering performance from Russell Crowe as Maximus. Crowe would easily own this movie and overshadow everything if the film in itself was not created in such magnificence and sheer grandeur. He is powerful in this film, and personally, an even more convincing hero of the Roman times than Charleton Heston or Kirk Douglas ever were - and that is saying a lot. Furthermore, he is well balanced by the rest of the cast, which surprisingly does not look inferior in comparison. Joaquin Phoenix is stunningly evil as Commodus, who historically was a figure more despised than Julius Caesar. Richard Harris is great as Marcus Aurelius, though I still hold that his most memorable performance of late was as English Bob in Unforgiven. I could go on and on about the rest of the cast, which was basically without flaw, but my comments would begin to get repetitive.
The screenplay is strong. This is a film which I will have to watch over and over again so I learn the lines flawlessly, so I do not accidentally misquote some of the greatest lines. Also, the story is an exemplary blend of fact and fiction. Here you have a factual setting, with factual characters, but the main character himself and the plot in general are fictitious - and it's blended so well that one does not even need to care about historical accuracy anymore.
The ending, while it certainly doesn't pull a Braveheart, and is likely the most historically inaccurate part of the film (not like I care - see above), moved me. It was a satisfying closure to a truly epic film.
Also, the length and pacing of the film is fitting, I found. Some people are going to complain that this film is too long, but I would have to disagree. When the length is quantified, Gladiator is actually a little short for a film of its scale, sitting at only 150 minutes to Braveheart's 180 and Spartacus' 200; but the pacing is not so fast that it seems short, and by the end of it all it is really the perfect length.
CONS
There are two clichéd moments: a) someone passing by hears the enemy's secret plan and runs off to tell the hero, and b) the hero is pressured by the crowd to make the killing blow to one of his foes, but predictably doesn't do so (no real spoiler there). These two stand out as the two somewhat overdone, but necessary plot elements.
There are also few shots that look a little cheesy, all of which are surrealist, "dream" shots much like what Luc Besson did in The Messenger.
Besides these two concerns, I really don't have any peeves about this film at all.
OVERALL
Gladiator is an example of how films should be made nowadays and aren't. Only once every two or three years do we get a gem like this - aside from this film, the past decade has only seen Braveheart and Saving Private Ryan in terms of truly spectacular period pieces of such immense scale and grandeur. This film is definitely worth a viewing, if not more - I for one know that I will be seeing this film in theatres many, many times.
From a personal standpoint, I can safely say for the time being that this has become one of my favorite films ever, but I'll have to let it settle for a bit before I can make a clear, definite judgment. Also, I will have to see Braveheart yet again to see how these two films match up, because I cannot confidently take a definite stance on that comparison just yet.
"Those two giraffes you sold me, they won't mate. All they do is walk around and eat, but not mate. You sold me queer giraffes."
- Proximo, played by the late Oliver Reed