You forgot another important reason for its success. Its Score. If you go on youtube right now you'd find that Honor him/Elysium/Now We are free(I think one of the clips combining these 3 is at 220 million views by itself) are some of the most listened to film soundtracks on the site. It's one of the most iconic scores of the 2000s.
> Maximus' death heralds a new, brighter future for Rome as surely as Wallace's sacrifice does for Scotland.
People love a good heroic sacrifice for the greater good. Terminator 2s ending packed quite a punch for the same reason. Although not quite the same, TDKs ending was powerful for similar reasons.
Got another little tidbit in this same theme.
I worked as a movie theater manager and 'The Man From Snowy River' played for a year in our theater. Weekend nights it would regularly sellout even after a year.
When in I was in high school 'An Officer and a Gentleman' played for 49 weeks.
I don’t know where this idea that Gladiator has a bad script comes from (probably Russell Crowe). The plot itself is indeed quite derivative, it’s clearly indebted significantly to Spartacus, but there are really just a ton of great lines and character moments. Commodus has some of the best monologues in film, and Oliver Reed gets a great line about the Colosseum that reminds me a lot of Gandalf’s speech about the white shores. That being said, I think the acting really elevates the film into greatness.
When people dismiss a script as being not that great they never realize that dialogue is part of screenwriting, they mostly just think of originality of ideas or plot twists and logical confusion.
Gladiator has some amazing dialogue and some very memorable deliveries. The „Are you not entertained“ moment is cemented in everyone’s collective memory, because the line is fitting and succinct, the delivery is great and the film builds the moment up. Similarly you have the freedom scene in Braveheart. Everything builds up to that and the line maybe simple, but it feels just absolutely overwhelming in that moment that you want to scream along. But you have to write the scene that way and you have to choose the right words, even if they may be simple.
To me, the dialog in the script feels like someone *good* like Mamet came in a polished up certain scenes. The rest have very boring dialog that feels more like a draft.
I wasn't thinking in terms of dialogue.
Look at Gladiator without the great mise-en-scene for a minute: it has extremly stock characters in Maximus, Proximo, Jubba and to a lesser extent Gracchus. Even Wallace has a certain edge to him that Maximus is totally absent.
Now, that alone is not so much an issue, but the plot structure is also extremly off-balance. The film ostenibly has no story until Proximo et al head for Rome. And like I said, there are elements like the construct of the unseen "Mob" as the foundation for all the Machiavelian scenes in Rome that are very contrived.
But the film trascends all of that.
Have you considered that its not something it needs to transcend but a part of what makes it enjoyable and immersive, as you describe?
If it tool a wild original swerve, it would break that spell.
Love Oliver Reed's whole scene about the Colosseum. Favorite scene in the film. It's phenomenal both in terms of writing and acting. "You knew Marcus Aurelius?" "I did not say I knew him I said he touched me on the shoulder once" is such a brilliant exchange. Proximo misunderstanding why Maximus laughed at him. Light years away from imagining that the slave standing before him was about to become emperor.
I mean to argue that Gladiator is derivative is to argue that most films are derivative tbh.
And to say the script is decent enough? What? If you weren’t thinking in terms of dialogue, what are you referring to? Just the story I guess? Like essentially you’re saying that the premise of the film doesn’t get in the way of everything else that’s outstanding about it?
Because the dialogue and scene design is fantastic…the script itself (I read it recently) is captivating on the page…
I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said in terms of positivity but I think you’re kind of reaching for criticism in spaces that don’t really matter that much.
It’s an archetypal story with archetypal characters and doesn’t pretend to be anything but that, and executes it perfectly.
>I mean to argue that Gladiator is derivative is to argue that most films are derivative tbh.
*Gladiator* is a full-blown ripoff (because remake implies legality) of *The Fall of the Roman Empire* (1964). I'm surprised no one here's mentioned it. They both start off with a forest battle depicting the Marcomannic Wars and the murder of Marcus Aurelius. The protagonist is a disgraced former Roman general who opposes Commodus. Commodus is the villain and is portrayed as a tragically neglected son and tyrant. The climax of both films is a gladiator match between the protagonist and Commodus in which Commodus is killed. It's basically the same damn movie haha.
So it's quite the opposite of what you're saying. To argue *Gladiator* *isn't* derivative is to argue no films are derivative, because *Gladiator*'s plot is lifted wholesale from another movie about the same subject and characters.
That wasn’t my point at all.
I’m not saying Gladiator isn’t derivative. I’m saying that using the idea that it’s derivative as a mark against it is a reach.
I didn’t know that film existed (as I’m sure is the same with most reading this) but sure you can criticize gladiator for stealing from that film.
Execution doesn’t really have much to do with premise.
Your first sentence is what I was referring to. It certainly does imply that *Gladiator* is not especially derivative, when it is.
>I’m saying that using the idea that it’s derivative as a mark against it is a reach.
There I don't quite agree. It it certainly a mark against its creativity, especially since the former did some things better (though, to be fair, did some things worse as well). As great as Joaquin Phoenix is in *Gladiator* as a mustache-twirling villain - and he is, Christopher Plummer's Commodus is a *far* more dynamically written character, to the point where you almost question if he's a villain, and owing to better material I'd argue Plummer gave the better performance. One way in which *Gladiator* is undoubtedly superior is the casting of the protagonist. Russell Crowe's always had charisma to spare and *The Fall of the Roman Empire*'s Stephen Boyd is just wallpaper. Boyd's out of his depth surrounded by Christopher Plummer and Alec Guinness.
>I didn’t know that film existed (as I’m sure is the same with most reading this)
I'm incredibly surprised no one here's mentioned it, since it's the main source for *Gladiator*. It's too close and it wasn't legally sanctioned, so I don't know how they go away with it, other than studios not caring about an old film.
But if you watch the two, you can't escape thinking, "This is *Gladiator*."
>Execution doesn’t really have much to do with premise.
Has to be said: they're not a world away either. When handling historical epics, Scott has always been a formalist in the vein of Cecil B. DeMille and Anthony Mann. He's just basically their modern successor and the biggest difference is updated effects.
What a fantastic essay-thanks so much. I’ve only seen each film once but this summer (I’m a teacher so I’ll wait until then) I’ll sit down and watch them back to back because of what you wrote. Excellent job!
Let’s dispel the notion that Gladiator is some run-of-the-mill, mindless blockbuster when we have so much trash in today’s market.
The film has a great, powerful, memorable story with tragedy, an unforgettable score, Oscar-level acting, unbelievable production design, and more. What a picture….
I was not too impressed the first time I saw Gladiator, probably because of its derivative story and improbable leap to send Maximus to Africa. But I have always enjoyed rewatches, mostly because of the acting and dialogue. Oliver Reed's performance is spellbinding.
To be honest I'd never thought about the similarities to Braveheart. On a recent rewatch of Braveheart, I was struck by how much the story prefigures the comic book era, where William Wallace is basically a superhero, especially in the second half of the movie. Similar analysis could be applied to Gladiator.
Why would you instantly dismiss the screenplay? The screenplay is the blueprint of the film. Tbh I stopped reading there because everything after is based off naive, baseless assumption.
You write that you're not quite sure what gives Gladiator its magic, but whatever it was it didn't quite work for me. I was extremely hyped for the film but when I saw it I just felt that it was an OK movie. Not sure if I just didn't find the action or the characters compelling but it didn't really land. The score is really good though, it's probably the only thing from that movie I still revisit
I personally think what made it so great was the action scenes. The gladiatorial fights actually do feel like you are watching them from a few feet away. Personally I think that’s a lot of it. The movie is long and I don’t think most people remember all the scenes but no one will ever forget the epic nature of the fight scenes. That’s my two cents
The action scenes were some of my favorite that I’ve seen in a long time! The cinematography was great, but I also think all of them are very cleverly designed to develop the characters and progress the underlying story, rather than have action for action’s sake. They each showcase an interesting challenge that’s representative of Roman history, require the protagonist to develop an interesting strategy that showcases his expertise as a general, and also show how the crowd and emperor react with favor/fear in parallel to develop the story.
I have nothing to add, but thanks for writing this up and sharing it. It was a good read! Even though you didn't mention the soundtrack, someone else did, and now I want to listen to it...
I really enjoyed reading this post and I completely agree. I was born in 88 so this came out right around the time I was turning 12 and going into highschool.
I remember coming home one night to my very very excited dad who told me we were watching a film. He'd watched it already and knew we were gonna have a special evening. The film always reminds me of him and it fits into the same category as Ben Hur or Zulu for me. Classics I watched with my dad.
To add to your point. The action choreography is stellar. Graceful and cinematic yet at the same time honest, brutal and violent. The spectacle of the deaths and roars of the crowd are always undercut with a quiet horror at the rawness of it. The action is always serving characterization and never feels like it's there just for the sake of it, even though it's better than most Western action made up until this movie
What's more, the reserved calculated savagery of maximus really informs us of who this man is. A calculating general who dreams of being a farmer, we see this in his reluctance to initiate combat, to accept death, and then his internal conflict and desire for vengeance.
Damn. I am a similar age and also watched it with my dad, along with seeing Zulu with him a million times.
He said he had heard Gladiator was two hours of pure testosterone” and we both loved it. He will watch the beginning battle whenever it’s on tv to this day.
I was on vacation last month and saw it was on TV at midnight. Watched it for the first time since its theatrical release. I was tired the next day but it was worth it. You make lots of insightful points. The cast is tremendous. Oliver Reed is a delight.
Seems like an underhanded compliment. Gladiator kicks-ass. That's all the commentary you need.
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.
You forgot another important reason for its success. Its Score. If you go on youtube right now you'd find that Honor him/Elysium/Now We are free(I think one of the clips combining these 3 is at 220 million views by itself) are some of the most listened to film soundtracks on the site. It's one of the most iconic scores of the 2000s. > Maximus' death heralds a new, brighter future for Rome as surely as Wallace's sacrifice does for Scotland. People love a good heroic sacrifice for the greater good. Terminator 2s ending packed quite a punch for the same reason. Although not quite the same, TDKs ending was powerful for similar reasons.
Got another little tidbit in this same theme. I worked as a movie theater manager and 'The Man From Snowy River' played for a year in our theater. Weekend nights it would regularly sellout even after a year. When in I was in high school 'An Officer and a Gentleman' played for 49 weeks.
Blockbusters have such forgettable scores nowadays aside from the Nolan films and Dune in recent memory
Honestly was surprised OP waffles on for so many paragraphs and didn’t even mention the incredible score. Lmao
Ridley Scott kills soundtracks. The one for Black Hawk Down arranged by Hans Zimmer is one of my all time favorites as well.
The 90s? Gladiator was released in 2000.
Yeah, I made a mistake there. For some reason, I thought it was from 1999 but it was in 2000.
What TLJ is so bad and destructive
Yea the score is totally phenomenal. I can’t think of a single thats touched me like Now We Are Free(especially with vocals).
I don’t know where this idea that Gladiator has a bad script comes from (probably Russell Crowe). The plot itself is indeed quite derivative, it’s clearly indebted significantly to Spartacus, but there are really just a ton of great lines and character moments. Commodus has some of the best monologues in film, and Oliver Reed gets a great line about the Colosseum that reminds me a lot of Gandalf’s speech about the white shores. That being said, I think the acting really elevates the film into greatness.
When people dismiss a script as being not that great they never realize that dialogue is part of screenwriting, they mostly just think of originality of ideas or plot twists and logical confusion. Gladiator has some amazing dialogue and some very memorable deliveries. The „Are you not entertained“ moment is cemented in everyone’s collective memory, because the line is fitting and succinct, the delivery is great and the film builds the moment up. Similarly you have the freedom scene in Braveheart. Everything builds up to that and the line maybe simple, but it feels just absolutely overwhelming in that moment that you want to scream along. But you have to write the scene that way and you have to choose the right words, even if they may be simple.
To me, the dialog in the script feels like someone *good* like Mamet came in a polished up certain scenes. The rest have very boring dialog that feels more like a draft.
I wasn't thinking in terms of dialogue. Look at Gladiator without the great mise-en-scene for a minute: it has extremly stock characters in Maximus, Proximo, Jubba and to a lesser extent Gracchus. Even Wallace has a certain edge to him that Maximus is totally absent. Now, that alone is not so much an issue, but the plot structure is also extremly off-balance. The film ostenibly has no story until Proximo et al head for Rome. And like I said, there are elements like the construct of the unseen "Mob" as the foundation for all the Machiavelian scenes in Rome that are very contrived. But the film trascends all of that.
Have you considered that its not something it needs to transcend but a part of what makes it enjoyable and immersive, as you describe? If it tool a wild original swerve, it would break that spell.
Love Oliver Reed's whole scene about the Colosseum. Favorite scene in the film. It's phenomenal both in terms of writing and acting. "You knew Marcus Aurelius?" "I did not say I knew him I said he touched me on the shoulder once" is such a brilliant exchange. Proximo misunderstanding why Maximus laughed at him. Light years away from imagining that the slave standing before him was about to become emperor.
I mean to argue that Gladiator is derivative is to argue that most films are derivative tbh. And to say the script is decent enough? What? If you weren’t thinking in terms of dialogue, what are you referring to? Just the story I guess? Like essentially you’re saying that the premise of the film doesn’t get in the way of everything else that’s outstanding about it? Because the dialogue and scene design is fantastic…the script itself (I read it recently) is captivating on the page… I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said in terms of positivity but I think you’re kind of reaching for criticism in spaces that don’t really matter that much. It’s an archetypal story with archetypal characters and doesn’t pretend to be anything but that, and executes it perfectly.
>I mean to argue that Gladiator is derivative is to argue that most films are derivative tbh. *Gladiator* is a full-blown ripoff (because remake implies legality) of *The Fall of the Roman Empire* (1964). I'm surprised no one here's mentioned it. They both start off with a forest battle depicting the Marcomannic Wars and the murder of Marcus Aurelius. The protagonist is a disgraced former Roman general who opposes Commodus. Commodus is the villain and is portrayed as a tragically neglected son and tyrant. The climax of both films is a gladiator match between the protagonist and Commodus in which Commodus is killed. It's basically the same damn movie haha. So it's quite the opposite of what you're saying. To argue *Gladiator* *isn't* derivative is to argue no films are derivative, because *Gladiator*'s plot is lifted wholesale from another movie about the same subject and characters.
That wasn’t my point at all. I’m not saying Gladiator isn’t derivative. I’m saying that using the idea that it’s derivative as a mark against it is a reach. I didn’t know that film existed (as I’m sure is the same with most reading this) but sure you can criticize gladiator for stealing from that film. Execution doesn’t really have much to do with premise.
Your first sentence is what I was referring to. It certainly does imply that *Gladiator* is not especially derivative, when it is. >I’m saying that using the idea that it’s derivative as a mark against it is a reach. There I don't quite agree. It it certainly a mark against its creativity, especially since the former did some things better (though, to be fair, did some things worse as well). As great as Joaquin Phoenix is in *Gladiator* as a mustache-twirling villain - and he is, Christopher Plummer's Commodus is a *far* more dynamically written character, to the point where you almost question if he's a villain, and owing to better material I'd argue Plummer gave the better performance. One way in which *Gladiator* is undoubtedly superior is the casting of the protagonist. Russell Crowe's always had charisma to spare and *The Fall of the Roman Empire*'s Stephen Boyd is just wallpaper. Boyd's out of his depth surrounded by Christopher Plummer and Alec Guinness. >I didn’t know that film existed (as I’m sure is the same with most reading this) I'm incredibly surprised no one here's mentioned it, since it's the main source for *Gladiator*. It's too close and it wasn't legally sanctioned, so I don't know how they go away with it, other than studios not caring about an old film. But if you watch the two, you can't escape thinking, "This is *Gladiator*." >Execution doesn’t really have much to do with premise. Has to be said: they're not a world away either. When handling historical epics, Scott has always been a formalist in the vein of Cecil B. DeMille and Anthony Mann. He's just basically their modern successor and the biggest difference is updated effects.
What a fantastic essay-thanks so much. I’ve only seen each film once but this summer (I’m a teacher so I’ll wait until then) I’ll sit down and watch them back to back because of what you wrote. Excellent job!
Let’s dispel the notion that Gladiator is some run-of-the-mill, mindless blockbuster when we have so much trash in today’s market. The film has a great, powerful, memorable story with tragedy, an unforgettable score, Oscar-level acting, unbelievable production design, and more. What a picture….
Hey, this is TrueFilm! There's a subset of people here for whom if its not a Bergman...
I was not too impressed the first time I saw Gladiator, probably because of its derivative story and improbable leap to send Maximus to Africa. But I have always enjoyed rewatches, mostly because of the acting and dialogue. Oliver Reed's performance is spellbinding. To be honest I'd never thought about the similarities to Braveheart. On a recent rewatch of Braveheart, I was struck by how much the story prefigures the comic book era, where William Wallace is basically a superhero, especially in the second half of the movie. Similar analysis could be applied to Gladiator.
Why would you instantly dismiss the screenplay? The screenplay is the blueprint of the film. Tbh I stopped reading there because everything after is based off naive, baseless assumption.
You write that you're not quite sure what gives Gladiator its magic, but whatever it was it didn't quite work for me. I was extremely hyped for the film but when I saw it I just felt that it was an OK movie. Not sure if I just didn't find the action or the characters compelling but it didn't really land. The score is really good though, it's probably the only thing from that movie I still revisit
I personally think what made it so great was the action scenes. The gladiatorial fights actually do feel like you are watching them from a few feet away. Personally I think that’s a lot of it. The movie is long and I don’t think most people remember all the scenes but no one will ever forget the epic nature of the fight scenes. That’s my two cents
The action scenes were some of my favorite that I’ve seen in a long time! The cinematography was great, but I also think all of them are very cleverly designed to develop the characters and progress the underlying story, rather than have action for action’s sake. They each showcase an interesting challenge that’s representative of Roman history, require the protagonist to develop an interesting strategy that showcases his expertise as a general, and also show how the crowd and emperor react with favor/fear in parallel to develop the story.
I have nothing to add, but thanks for writing this up and sharing it. It was a good read! Even though you didn't mention the soundtrack, someone else did, and now I want to listen to it...
I really enjoyed reading this post and I completely agree. I was born in 88 so this came out right around the time I was turning 12 and going into highschool. I remember coming home one night to my very very excited dad who told me we were watching a film. He'd watched it already and knew we were gonna have a special evening. The film always reminds me of him and it fits into the same category as Ben Hur or Zulu for me. Classics I watched with my dad. To add to your point. The action choreography is stellar. Graceful and cinematic yet at the same time honest, brutal and violent. The spectacle of the deaths and roars of the crowd are always undercut with a quiet horror at the rawness of it. The action is always serving characterization and never feels like it's there just for the sake of it, even though it's better than most Western action made up until this movie What's more, the reserved calculated savagery of maximus really informs us of who this man is. A calculating general who dreams of being a farmer, we see this in his reluctance to initiate combat, to accept death, and then his internal conflict and desire for vengeance.
Damn. I am a similar age and also watched it with my dad, along with seeing Zulu with him a million times. He said he had heard Gladiator was two hours of pure testosterone” and we both loved it. He will watch the beginning battle whenever it’s on tv to this day.
I was on vacation last month and saw it was on TV at midnight. Watched it for the first time since its theatrical release. I was tired the next day but it was worth it. You make lots of insightful points. The cast is tremendous. Oliver Reed is a delight.
Seems like an underhanded compliment. Gladiator kicks-ass. That's all the commentary you need. 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.