Gladiator

It isn't often I give a third chance to a movie I initially didn't like. Gladiator, Ridley Scott's 2000 Oscar-winning Best Picture, underwhelmed me upon its initial release, and I gave it a C-. I watched it a year or so later on DVD, and was once again unimpressed. But since I've been immersing myself in ancient Rome and gladiator films, I figured I'd look at it again, and lo and behold, I found it entertaining. Bombastic, but entertaining.

Perhaps, oddly enough, it was because I saw the extended edition, which adds 17 minutes to the director's cut. You wouldn't think a bad movie would be made better by adding to it, or maybe it's just because I was in a better mood. Also, counter-intuitively, now that I know more of the history and understand how historically inaccurate the film is, it didn't lessen my enjoyment.

The story is set in the second century A.D. Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris), the emperor, is leading a campaign against the Goths of Germany. His general, a Spaniard named Maximus (Russell Crowe) defeats the Germans. Marcus, dying, wishes to restore Rome to the Republic, and wants Maximus to succeed him, bypassing his dissolute son, Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix). When Commodus is told, he doesn't take it well, and kills his old man (not true--Marcus Aurelius died of plague, and had no intention of restoring the Republic or bypassing Commodus). Commodus orders Maximus to be executed, but he escapes, only to be captured and sold into slavery (after finding out his family was slaughtered). He is trained as a gladiator by Proximo (Oliver Reed, doing nice work in his last role), and swears he will get revenge on Commodus.

Gladiator is a lot of fun, and it's an impressive production. The photography by John Mathieson and editing by Pietro Scalia are top notch, particularly during battle and gladiator scenes. The film flirts with, but does not break into high camp, especially with Phoenix's performance. Crowe, who won the Oscar for Best Actor (he most likely won because the Academy didn't want to give Tom Hanks a third Oscar for Cast Away) is above average in a role that mostly calls on acting with his forehead.

Where Gladiator fails is that it announces itself as an epic but falls short. It's a movie full of hot air. There are too many scenes of clouds and lightning, of tricky shots and a director who is constantly looking at the audience for their approval.

Now, as to the history. There's an entire page on Wikipedia devoted to the accuracy or not of the movie, and no movie is completely historically accurate (I learned today from a college student who has spent time in Rwanda how inaccurate Hotel Rwanda was). Gladiator is especially inaccurate, but mostly in fact rather than tone. In addition to the mistakes listed on Wikipedia, there are others. For one thing, Proximo, according to correct Latin, would be called Proximus. The costumes, as mentioned on Wikipedia, though they won an Oscar for Janty Yates, are historically problematic. For one thing, no gladiator would be sent out, as Crowe is, with only a sword, without a helmet, shield, or arm and leg guards. Gladiator fights were not always to the death, and someone fighting with no protection wouldn't have much chance.

Also, a gladiator would never fight another man and animals at the same time, as Crowe does. Of course, this can be explained by Commodus trying to stack the deck against him. Speaking of Commodus, he was a burly, curly-haired blond man who fought often in the arena, not a sniveling coward, but he was murdered in his bathtub several years into his reign.

But, like I said, even knowing more about ancient Rome than I did when I first watched Gladiator, I enjoyed it more this time. But I enjoyed it as a popcorn movie, not as an Oscar-winning Best Picture. Better than Traffic? Puh-leeze!