The Russell Crowe movie Roger Ebert called “‘Rocky’ on downers”
It seems impossible for a filmmaker to make a movie about Ancient Rome without turning it into a huge epic. From Stanley Kubrick’s Spartacus, with its runtime of over three hours, to the almost four-hour-long Ben-Hur, audiences seem to love grandiose movies about such a different yet revolutionary time period.
Ridley Scott, known for helming movies like Alien and Blade Runner, tried his hand at making an Ancient Rome epic in 2000, resulting in the highly successful blockbuster Gladiator. It starred Russell Crowe as Maximus Decimus Meridius, who wants to enact his revenge on the murderous Commodus, played by Joaquin Phoenix. Alongside them are supporting characters such as Connie Nielsen’s Lucilla, Commodus’ sister, and Oliver Reed as Antonius Proximo, who acts as a mentor for Maximus.
The movie was one of the year’s highest-grossing releases, with audiences flocking to cinemas across the world to see Crowe’s character rise to become a successful gladiator after becoming a slave. Not only did it receive commercial success, but it was also critically heralded, scooping up many prestigious awards in the process.
Yet, there was one critic who wasn’t so keen on Gladiator – Roger Ebert. As one of America’s most well-known film critics, writing with an accessible and humorous style, Ebert had the power to influence a movie’s box-office sales with his widely read reviews. However, with Gladiator, it seemed as though no one noticed his less-than-impressed review of the film – it ended up being the second most popular movie of the year after Mission: Impossible 2.
Ebert gave the movie two stars out of four, beginning his review by stating, “A foolish choice in art direction casts a pall over Ridley Scott’s Gladiator that no swordplay can cut through.” His initial qualms with the art direction of his film cast a shadow over Ebert’s impressions of the film, describing the visuals as “muddy, fuzzy and indistinct.” He also highlighted the “shabby” special effects that make the Colosseum look “like a model from a computer game”.
The critic wasn’t particularly keen on the characters either, calling them “bitter, vengeful, [and] depressed.” He added, “Gladiator lacks joy. It employs depression as a substitute for personality and believes that if the characters are bitter and morose enough, we won’t notice how dull they are.” This wasn’t the general sentiment of many other critics’ reviews, with many praising the cast for depicting complex characters – Crowe even won ‘Best Actor’ at the Academy Awards.
To be fair, Ebert thought Crowe’s performance was pretty good; he was more critical of Phoenix, calling his portrayal of Commodus “passable,” adding, “a quirkier actor could have had more fun in the role.” Overall, Ebert thought Scott’s attempt at a Roman epic paled in comparison to movies like Kubrick’s 1960 film, calling Gladiator “Spartacus Lite.” For Ebert, “the storyline is Rocky on downers”, a movie he was much more fond of, awarding it four stars upon its release in 1976.
Ebert was only slightly more impressed by Scott’s next attempt, Hannibal, giving it half-a-star more than Gladiator, although his opening sentence called it a “carnival geek show.” It wasn’t until 2002’s Black Hawk Down, which he awarded four stars, that Scott seemed back in Ebert’s favour.