Gladiator
Overall Rating: ★★★ ½
Pop Culture Footprint: Strong. You can see its influence on the epic stories that followed, especially on television.
Rewatchability: 3 out of 5 — The action scenes are still standouts, but not much else.
Makes You Think: Slimly — It’s hard not to draw thematic parallels between the Roman Empire and today’s American culture, but did you see that woman get split in half?!
Conversation Starter: Mainly ranking the most gruesome kills.
Holds Up: Yes. Surprisingly modern and still very entertaining.
Where I’d Place It: I’m a bit surprised it made the list. Better remembered for its impact than for the actual quality of its story.
★ ★★ 1/2
#92 – Gladiator (2000)
From The New York Times: The 100 Best Movies of the 21st Century
Directed by Ridley Scott
I was eighteen when Gladiator was released, and I was ALL about it.
Growing up in East Texas in a Southern Baptist church, I remember congregations flocking to this type of swords-and-sandals epic despite the gory violence it portrayed. It arrived on the heels of late ’90s culture that celebrated a certain kind of male dominance while degrading women. Think Woodstock ’99, The Howard Stern Show or The Jerry Springer Show. That culture unknowingly collided with a conservative outlook that celebrated the “man of the house” moniker and framed sacrifice as heroism.
I loved Gladiator’s simple approach, and like the rabid crowds in the Colosseum, I ate up this epic tale and its rad fight scenes unlike anything I had seen before. “Are you not entertained?!” is still shouted today, but the irony of that line was completely lost on my testosterone-fueled youth.
It took me a while to shed years of wrongful teachings that I allowed to be preached to me on a daily basis, so my outlook on what should be celebrated today is practically the opposite of the Trump-era misogyny we’re living through now.
This was a movie I loved when it came out, and almost every guy I went to college with owned it on DVD. It had been a really long time since I’d seen it, so I was curious whether Gladiator still held up and, most importantly, whether it rightfully deserved the Best Picture Oscar it won, along with four other Academy Awards.
Helmed by esteemed director Ridley Scott, Gladiator follows celebrated Roman general Maximus (Russell Crowe), who, after a heralded victory in battle, finds himself thrown into slavery due to the pettiness and jealousy of Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix), who sees Maximus as a threat to his birthright to the emperor’s throne.
As Maximus quickly rises through the ranks of gladiator lore, he uses his platform, skills and masterful art of letting sand fall through his fingers to exact revenge on Commodus for murdering his family.
Also, debates about the democratic process ensue.
More than 25 years later, it’s amazing how relevant Gladiator still feels. It’s trying to be a warning about the dangers of dictatorship, but I feel like some of our current political leaders watched this movie and took the wrong lessons from it, much like I did in my youth. Commodus brings the gladiator games to the people to gain their favor. UFC fights on the White House lawn, anyone? The greed of those in power certainly rings true today.
It’s also quite fun to see Phoenix fully live in this corrupt emperor mode. At the time, he was still an unfamiliar face to many, and although this is far from his best work, you can see why he became such a Hollywood star despite being such an unconventional one. His Best Supporting Actor nomination was totally deserved.
I was shocked by how modern Gladiator still feels. The special effects hold up really well, and I never thought the movie looked particularly dated. You have one of our best directors behind the camera, a filmmaker who gave us classics like Blade Runner and Alien, so it’s no surprise this story is in good hands.
Though I’ve never been a fan of the step-printed slow motion Scott uses throughout the action scenes, the film is a lot of fun to look at. Scott fills the frame with massive crowds, detailed sets and production design that makes the scale of this world easy to buy into.
I have to admit, the gladiator battles are both memorable and still invigorating. Scott does a great job building anticipation, and it’s hard not to see the impact these uber-violent scenes had on later epics and historical action stories like Game of Thrones.
These are the scenes most people remember, but for a movie that runs about two and a half hours, there is a lot of filler for a story that ultimately isn’t that deep. The dialogue scenes aren’t boring, but they certainly aren’t enthralling, especially on a repeat watch. They build the characters, particularly Commodus, whom you absolutely despise by the end, but there simply isn’t a lot beneath the surface of the story.
If someone watched Gladiator today with no prior knowledge and you told them it won Best Picture, I think they’d be pretty shocked. It’s an entertaining movie for sure, but Best Picture worthy? I think not.
Though, to be fair, it didn’t exactly have the toughest competition.
I’ve also always been a fan of Russell Crowe, and he is perfectly cast here. He’s an ideal stand-in for an epic hero: relatable, handsome and oozing strength. But he won Best Actor for this? He’s certainly done much better work.
Gladiator is a pure epic blockbuster, and much like Ben-Hur was in its day, Gladiator was undoubtedly one of the most talked-about movies of 2000. You can put your brain in autopilot mode and settle in for the spectacle.
Memorable? For sure. But watching it at home this time, I found it surprisingly difficult not to get distracted by everything else going on around me. There just isn’t much to be gained from a repeat viewing.
