Popular Roman General Maximus Decimus (Russell Crowe) is told by Emperor Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris) that he will become the next Emperor, to prevent the Senate from being overrun by corruption and ambition. Unfortunately, this does not sit well with the Emperor’s son, Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix), who murders his father, seizes the throne, sends soldiers to kill Maximus’ family and attempts to assassinate Maximus himself. Maximus escapes and, reduced to the status of slave, embarks on a new career as gladiator in Rome to get himself closer to Commodus, and exact revenge…
Here’s something big and bombastic to kick off the new millennium. Gladiator bears a striking resemblance to Ben-Hur. Both films are a lengthy and ponderous portrayal of a man dragged down from his high status and using his skills in battle, leadership and resourcefulness to build himself back up again and gain vengeance against those who have done him wrong. There are minor differences, of course. While Charlton Heston became a charioteer, Maximus becomes a gladiator and this film is set about 150 years after the events of Ben-Hur.
But the most refreshing difference is the removal of the overly reverential religious overtones, and the exhausting chastity and self-importance of Ben-Hur. Gladiator re-invented the ancient epic for the 21st century audience, putting a heavier emphasis on violence, brutality and injustice rather than religious piety. It led to lesser-successful blockbusters such as Troy and Kingdom of Heaven, cinematic reinventions of King Arthur and Robin Hood, big-budget TV productions such as Rome and Spartacus, and even today’s TV Titan, Game of Thrones, owes its popularity to the influence of Gladiator.
The film succeeds in combining the magnificence and ruthlessness of the Roman Empire. Stunning landscape shots of Rome, with the Colosseum lovingly brought back to life, are juxtaposed with battle sequences that make slasher movies look like Disney musicals. Oliver Reed (who died during filming from God knows how much alcohol he consumed, and had to be recreated by a computer for some scenes) is excellent as a seemingly heartless gladiator merchant, ostensibly not giving a flying fuck whether his products survive their ordeal, or if they get torn to shreds. The lives of Roman slaves and gladiators is a far-cry from Ben-Hur giving water to Jesus.
But, and this surprised me, Gladiator does still suffer from the slow-moving ponderousness that Ben-Hur suffered from. Thank God it’s about an hour shorter. The pace of the film moves in leaps and troughs. The leaps are the outstanding fight sequences. The troughs are all the bits in between in which either Maximus or Commodus has a conversation with someone that could have easily been trimmed down. Usually it’s with Connie Nielsen as Commodus’ sister Lucilla, whose sole function is to listen while Russell Crowe growls and Joaquin Phoenix throws another strop. Poor Nielsen is given virtually nothing to work with and, as the only speaking female character in a 2.5 hour epic, this is disgraceful.
In fact, most of the characters are pretty one-dimensional. Russell Crowe does well in his career breakthrough, but all he does is grunt, whisper and glower (and he has continued to do this for the last 20 years). Commodus is, again, played well by Phoenix, but doesn’t rise above being a snotty, stroppy pipsqueak. We live in an age where Game of Thrones can deliver not only blood, guts and boobs, but also phenomenal script-writing, characterisation and plot development. And whilst Gladiator started a new trend in 2000, its standard has been noticeably superseded.
Gladiator is gorgeous to look at, has some exciting sequences, and is competently acted. But what was once the ultimate blockbuster is now looking sadly slow, stodgy and outdated.
Highlight
The battle sequences in the Colosseum rival Ben-Hur’s chariot-race scene superbly.
Lowlight
The opening half-hour spends far too long setting a story that is really dead simple.
Mark
4/10
I’m currently watching Game of Thrones for the first time (yes I know I’m late to the party) and it feels quite odd to watch Gladiator alongside the dealings of Cersei, Danaerys and Jehhn Sneeerh. Because frankly, this 2000 movie is not a patch on today’s offerings.
Throughout this project we’ve encountered films that are clearly groundbreaking but haven’t aged well. Films like An American in Paris, On the Waterfront, Tom Jones and The Godfather all brought something new and fresh to the table, be it cinematic musical numbers, gritty realism or just plain smut. But watching them now often feels overlong and overwritten. So it is with Gladiator. It’s clear the debt we owe to this film, as Paul says, but when the things that come after are so much better (see the BBC series Rome, and HBO’s Game of Thrones), why bother to watch this any more?
Let’s be frank. Russell Crowe is not a good actor. We know this from his worse-than-dreadful portrayal of Javert in Les Miserables, but even here the performance feels very paint-by-numbers. It is a sad scene, so he looks sad. It is an angry scene, so he looks angry. There’s no attempt for subtlety or layers. I found myself longing for Lord Varys and Littlefinger to suddenly pop out from behind a pillar and do some Conspiring and Treachery.
No women either really, as Paul says, which is atrocious. In a film that is already an hour too long, how did they not have the idea to cut the thing down and then write in some more interesting characters? Fans of Rome will remember the central characters of Atia and Servilia dominating the masculine scenes with their femininity and cunning plans. This film is crying out for that.
Is there anything worth watching still? I like the fight scene with the tigers but the other scenes feel dull to me, which is quite something considering it’s a lot of people running around stabbing each other which isn’t usually a snoozefest. Joaquin Phoenix has a good go at being an Evil Man and Dumbledore pops up in the first couple of scenes to be a Wise Old King (this was only a couple of years before Richard Harris made his appearance in Harry Potter 1 & 2) but ultimately this film suffers from being aimed at Straight Men.
This means that it is all about the plight of a straight white man, who is set on revenge. It’s the same tired display of masculinity that we were seeing way back in the Godfather era. It’s why the one female character is nothing more than a cipher, acting to motivate the male characters. It’s why all the long dreary conversations about revenge and correct behaviour are in there. It’s why this film probably rates high in Empire’s list of Greatest Movies Ever (generally a mixture of Godfather, war movies and anything starring Orson Welles).
And this is why Game of Thrones is so so much better. Because it retracts from playing to that one audience, and features far more than just white men yapping on about honour. And that turns out to be far, far more entertaining.
Highlight
The one scene with the tigers, and the fact that this paved the way for films and television that would quickly eclipse this. Also Omid Djalili’s cameo. We love Omid.
Lowlight
It’s a sexist, old-fashioned, toxic-masculinity mess of a film that’s easily an hour too long. Not to mention it’s dull.
Mark
2/10
No comments:
Post a Comment