Review of Gladiator (2000) by Rickj.g. — 16 May 2003

When I saw first saw this movie three years ago, I remember a couple who were heroin addicts in the building I was living in at the time were enthralled with this movie, and saw it on multiple occasions.

I have to wonder if the millions of other people in the U.S. who joined me in throwing away $187 million at the box office, and walked away liking this movie, weren't on heroin as well. I can't understand why this movie turned out to be as popular as it did.

It looks terrible (I believe it was digitally recorded and it really shows). Its action scenes are a poorly shot. It takes far too many liberties with the history of the era. Finally, what an epic sit this bore of a movie was.

My rear end deserved a big thumbs up from the Coliseum crowd for enduring two-and-a-half hours of schlock like this. I gave this movie a second try to see if I had missed something the first time around and I disliked it even more.

I couldn't wait for it to get over the second time. An even worse pick for Best Picture than Titanic. At least the makers of Titanic produced a movie with crisp, clear images and brilliant special effects.