I grew up in the heyday of the sword-and-sandal spectaculars; I was ten years old when THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE was released. That film bombed at the box office and brought down a studio, and the genre died.
It wasn't until GLADIATOR hit the screens that the old-fashioned historical epic was revived. The story is set at the same time as FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE and features some of the same historical characters. The basic plot, however, is quite different, and of course film technology has changed.
FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE featured ruinously expensive sets; GLADIATOR was able to recreate ancient Rome with computer generated visuals. There's a certain stiffness to CGI that you don't see in the older films, but it still produces a level of detail that would otherwise be impossible. The Colosseum comes to vivid life, and the production design creates a decadent look reminiscent of FELLINI SATYRICON.
The story is fairly simple; one might call it WALKING TALL, Roman style. The wise emperor Marcus Aurelius intends to name the general Maximus as his successor, but his son Commodus has other ideas. Maximus narrowly escapes assassination, but returns home to find his family murdered by Commodus, now Emperor.
The film works because Russell Crowe's performance makes you believe in his character. Maximus is a generic hero, but Crowe breathes life into him and brings out dimensions that aren't in the script. A lesser actor could have made this a very dull film indeed.
Supporting performances by the priceless Derek Jacobi, Oliver Reed, and Djimon Honsou round out the excellent cast.
Where the film falters is in Joaquin Phoenix's characterization of the Emperor Commodus. He is not lethal, threatening, or even interestingly unbalanced. He is a crybaby, a wimp who pouts and sniffles in every scene. FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE suffers from a terrible performance by Stephen Boyd in the lead role; GLADIATOR has the opposite problem: a dull, whiny villain. The problem is more the script than the actor, but Phoenix is unable to find an interesting dimension and ultimately is only annoying. It's easy to believe Maximus can swat him aside like a fly.
As a result, the last twenty minutes or so are anticlimactic. The final sequence is effective, however, and again imbues the heroic Maximus with a believably human dimension.
It's unfortunate that the success of GLADIATOR didn't lead to a revival of the genre. TROY did not do great box office in 2004, and that may have made the Hollywood execs skittish again. Too bad. GLADIATOR was a welcome respite from endless summer sequels and costumed superhero films, and it's a worthy successor to the classics like EL CID and SPARTACUS.
It wasn't until GLADIATOR hit the screens that the old-fashioned historical epic was revived. The story is set at the same time as FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE and features some of the same historical characters. The basic plot, however, is quite different, and of course film technology has changed.
FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE featured ruinously expensive sets; GLADIATOR was able to recreate ancient Rome with computer generated visuals. There's a certain stiffness to CGI that you don't see in the older films, but it still produces a level of detail that would otherwise be impossible. The Colosseum comes to vivid life, and the production design creates a decadent look reminiscent of FELLINI SATYRICON.
The story is fairly simple; one might call it WALKING TALL, Roman style. The wise emperor Marcus Aurelius intends to name the general Maximus as his successor, but his son Commodus has other ideas. Maximus narrowly escapes assassination, but returns home to find his family murdered by Commodus, now Emperor.
The film works because Russell Crowe's performance makes you believe in his character. Maximus is a generic hero, but Crowe breathes life into him and brings out dimensions that aren't in the script. A lesser actor could have made this a very dull film indeed.
Supporting performances by the priceless Derek Jacobi, Oliver Reed, and Djimon Honsou round out the excellent cast.
Where the film falters is in Joaquin Phoenix's characterization of the Emperor Commodus. He is not lethal, threatening, or even interestingly unbalanced. He is a crybaby, a wimp who pouts and sniffles in every scene. FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE suffers from a terrible performance by Stephen Boyd in the lead role; GLADIATOR has the opposite problem: a dull, whiny villain. The problem is more the script than the actor, but Phoenix is unable to find an interesting dimension and ultimately is only annoying. It's easy to believe Maximus can swat him aside like a fly.
As a result, the last twenty minutes or so are anticlimactic. The final sequence is effective, however, and again imbues the heroic Maximus with a believably human dimension.
It's unfortunate that the success of GLADIATOR didn't lead to a revival of the genre. TROY did not do great box office in 2004, and that may have made the Hollywood execs skittish again. Too bad. GLADIATOR was a welcome respite from endless summer sequels and costumed superhero films, and it's a worthy successor to the classics like EL CID and SPARTACUS.