A Roman version of Ben-Hur, Gladiator succeeds on only slightly more levels than it fails.
What on earth are you talking about? Are you sure you were watching the same movie? As a matter of fact, one of the reasons I love this movie is because of the Russel Crowe x-factor. He carrys much of the weight of the film on his shoulders, providing a riveting performance that adds soul to the movie- if you're going to critisize anything the last thing to pick at in the film is crowe's performance, which by the way is more than simply "good". If that's not an oscar deserving performance I don't know what is. For many people who don't rate the movie highly this is what saves it from being rubbish. Sorry, but I comepletely disagree with that strange review of yours.
Don't worry though, you're not the only one. But unfortunately you are no better than those other idiots out there who for some reason think arguably the best movie of 2000 fails on a dramatic level as a complete film. So you're excused.
May 1 - 03:50 AM
2.5 out of 4 is POSITIVE, RT!
May 19 - 12:39 PM
It is amusing that Oscar Guy gives this film a negative review when it won The Academy Award for Best Picture. I believe that it is a revenge tale in a Roman setting, nothing more, nothing less.
Apr 10 - 04:23 AM