Gladiator, 2000

I base this opinion on a few things. One, it was a physical role. The character itself was a purely physical character that portrayed most of it's role through fighting. The dialog was mostly garbage, recycled fighting dialog that was just given a few extra tweaks due to the period of the piece. I watched a featurette on the film and Crowe went on to explain how physically demanding the role was. I'm sure the physically demanding role that Hanks played in Cast Away was just as demanding.

I like Russell Crowe. He was good in Romper Stomper. He was incredible in L.A. Confidential. He was fantastic in Virtuosity, The Quick and the Dead, No Way Back, The Insider... even Mystery, Alaska. I think he's got an incredible presence on screen. So don't get me wrong when I say he didn't deserve the Oscar. To be honest, the Oscar's are crap anyway. I'll say that after Gladiator, I'll see anything Crowe is in, which I think is praise enough. Awards are for showboaters. I would prefer to have people come up to me and say they loved my work then get an award that only means my movie grossed a lot of money.

Ridley Scott. The name is legendary. Alien, Blade Runner... in the 1970's and 1980's, you couldn't get better than those two sci-fi epics. He gave us Legend, Black Rain, Thelma & Louise, 1492... (I won't mention those other two films, White something and G.I. Boobies)... along with one of the best commercials in the 1980's, for Macintosh. His recent Hannibal was a gamble that I think paid off in spades. He's got a movie coming out in 2001 called Black Hawk Down with Tom Sizemore finally getting top billing.

His an innovator... specifically his early work. His work post Legend has told us, time and again, that he can tell a story. That he can get his actors and actresses to give their characters the performances they deserve... and this was his only shot at Best Director. I personally don't think he'll get another one, and it's sad... even though I don't believe in the Oscars... I'm sure it's important to him. It seemed that way this year... though I'm glad they gave it to Soderbergh.

Joaquin Phoenix was great. He's got a wonderful innocence about him in his acting... and he came off as weak and pathetic in this film, which was perfect. He portrayed the role of Commodus perfectly. I've enjoyed watching him act as far back as Space Camp (when he was called Leaf Phoenix), Russkies, Parenthood... and his later roles that were as fun, but more serious... Clay Pigeons, 8MM, To Die For... all in all, a well rounded actor. He's got two new releases coming out, Buffalo Soldier directed by Gregor Jordan with a great cast, Ed Harris, Scott Glenn, Anna Paquin, and Elizabeth McGovern. The second is It's All About Love, directed by Thomas Vinterberg, both films by veritable newcomers. We shall see.

Connie Nielsen was ok. I found that her performance was pushed into the background by the two leading males. Her on screen presence was known, but not as forceful as it could have been. I'm a fan of her other work, which I thought was much more powerful than her role in Gladiator, specifically her role in Rushmore. Her other work stands out, kind of. The Devil's Advocate, which I thought was a horrendous movie... Permanent Midnight, Soldier and Mission to Mars, which I enjoyed. She's got two other films coming out for this year. One Hour Photo with Robin Williams and The Hunted by William Friedkin, with Mike White, Tommy Lee Jones and Benicion Del Toro. That should be a very interesting film.

There are no other actors in Gladiator that stand out... that should be mentioned, except Djimon Hounsou, who got his Hollywood mainstream break in Amistad. I thought he was a good companion to Crowe on the screen, quite, understated that his character was. But unfortunately, in a script like this, there isn't much they can do with a black character. He was a slave. He's not going to be philosophical, he's not going to be the hero... he's going to be the guy who sticks up for his friend. Not much dialog there. Not much alone on-screen time, either. But I'll mention him because what he did do, he did well.

The story itself is taken from a number of different places. I've heard, more than once, that this film was basically Braveheart, except in the Roman Empire. Now, lets be realistic here. First off, though still with it's fiction, Braveheart was based on a real life man. Sure, in Braveheart his wife is killed. Sure, there's fighting in Braveheart, with armies and battles and all that good stuff. There's the other woman. But that's it. If you think about it, what Battle film doesn't have these elements, or similar elements? I mean, to be more honest, Braveheart is a better film. For my money, hands down, it's better. But they are two different films. Did one take from the others examples? Well, I'm sure that Scott and Crowe and John Mathieson (DP) took a look at how Gibson shot his battle scenes... I'm sure they looked at a lot of films. I think we can leave it at that... they aren't all that similar.

You can download the script here, written by David Franzoni (who was one of the producers of Gladiator and the writer of Jumpin' Jack Flash and Amistad), John Logan (Bats, RKO 281, Any Given Sunday, soon to be released Time Machine and the new Star Trek X) and William Nicholson (Nell, First Knight)... this is one group that, well, I don't know how they ever got together. They have the most eclectic backgrounds, completely different from one another. It's possible they worked well off one another... the story is layered and structured thus, that I think it's a pretty simple story. There might have been some decent research in the film, but the basic plot line is pretty standard, and the dialog is not that incredible... certainly not award winning material.

I am a huge fan of John Mathieson. I think his cinematography work is incredible, and I loved his work in Hannibal, which I thought was some of the most brilliant work I've ever seen. He's working with Iain Softley on a film with Kevin Spacey and Jeff Bridges, two of my favorite actors, called K-Pax. That should really be an interesting film, the plot sounds great.

Arthur Max and Keith Pain did an incredible job with the films production design and art direction. I would expect nothing less from a Ridley Scott film, who's used such geniuses as Giger and Syd Mead for his other brilliant films.

The DVD itself is a must own. It's a 2-disc set with a great audio commentary and two fantastic featurette's on the film, along with a number of other goodies. I dig this movie a lot for it's production, photography and action. I think they acting is good... I just dig Crowe, he'll always be Bud White to me.

J.P.

go to top of page