Plots(1)

Russell Crowe plays Maximus, a Roman general who leads the troops in conquering Germania for the empire. When an aging Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris) tells Maximus that he'd like him to rule Rome once he's gone, a classic confrontation ensues between the brave and charming soldier--who wants to return home to his wife, son, and farm--and the jealous and conniving Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix), the emperor's only son, who is thirsty for power. Bought as a slave by the profiteering Proximo (Oliver Reed, in his last role), Maximus must kill or be killed in the ring, battling to save not only himself but the future of the very empire that he loves and honors. (official distributor synopsis)

(more)

Videos (1)

Trailer

Reviews (10)

wooozie 

all reviews of this user

English Without exaggeration, the best historical movie ever made. Under Scott's direction, the film has the right pace and keeps growing incredibly over time. The script isn't anything special, a great fall and a subsequent rise, but I just can't help myself. When I factor in Crowe’s brilliant performance, Zimmer's excellent soundtrack as usual, and great visual effects, it goes straight to my list of favorites. ()

Pethushka 

all reviews of this user

English Russell Crowe was most deserving of the role of Maximus. I was proud for him in every scene. You could feel the desire for revenge in his every move. A true historical epic with fantastic music! I have a fond appreciation for lines like... "My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions and loyal servant to the TRUE emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next." ()

Ads

Kaka 

all reviews of this user

EnglishHold the line, stay with me” – Roman general Maximus leads his army into battle, accompanied by Hans Zimmer’s powerful score, which I consider to be one of the best in the history of cinema. Ridley Scott once again serves us a visual feast, at the expense of weaker content. But it must be noted that the content wasn't really that bad, after all, the story also has its historical roots, which makes it closer to the audience. Sometimes the dialogues seemed a bit silly, but I won't dwell on it. The main thing in this well-made film is to enjoy Scott's typical style, the fantastic cinematography, which is incredibly dynamic and detailed, especially in the action scenes, the exceptional editing, and even the sound design deserves praise. ()

gudaulin 

all reviews of this user

English I ignored Gladiator during its premiere and successfully for another 12 years, but during one of its reruns on TV, I couldn't resist and subsequently found out that my contempt for Gladiator should have persisted and my instinct did not disappoint as usual. The film simply has nothing to offer me, because it is a typical summer blockbuster with pompous production design, but it's stupid as hell. The story and dialogue are trivial and I don't hesitate to say idiotic. Of course, Connie Nielsen looks good, both the male stars are very solid actors and they keep the film afloat in parts, but other than that, I can only mention the generous set design, and then I'm out of positives. Even the often-mentioned opening battle didn't impress me much, and I maybe appreciate only the gladiators' fights in the arena. I dare to sacrilegiously declare that recently made movies Centurion and The Eagle, with the absence of movie stars, a fraction of the budget, and incomparably smaller ambitions suited me much better, although I don't consider them to be the pinnacle of cinema and I know they have numerous flaws. Overall impression: 40%. ()

Marigold 

all reviews of this user

English Ridley Scott resurrected a "historic" Hollywood feature film in all its splendor... in all its color, pomp, schematics, pathos, and shallowness. He created a work that appeals to the viewer's eye, but as soon as it resorted to thoughts, I felt like I was at a failed "Roman statehood for beginners" class (no one can convince me that Gladiator is not utter nonsense at its core). When something is "happening," Scott's film works brilliantly, but during the dialogues it slips into typical empty verbal nonsense, and if were not for the way in which the Crowe-Phoenix duo masterfully fulfilled their schemes, very little value would remain in Gladiator. Ridley Scott truly deceived me with his approach. His directing is routine, cold, and perhaps only in battle sequences we can talk about a unique approach (although a shaky handheld camera and "skipping" windows is not the master's invention). What I am missing in this film is some true spirit... people are constantly blabbering on about Rome, but unfortunately it remains a mere dream (a rendered background) for the quality of the film. That's why I prefer the ideas of William Wallace or Captain Nathan Algren. For me, their struggle has a greater charge than revenge for the death of loved ones, which has been played out a thousand times over. Ridley Scott simply played a pompous symphony based on old notes. It is the same as Hans Zimmer's music - it evokes desirable emotions, sounds powerful, heroic... That's what is expected of a big movie after all, isn't it? But I argue that what was expected of the film has already been portrayed better several times, although perhaps not as megalomaniacally. ()

Gallery (107)