--- title: "Gladiator: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/gladiator/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/gladiator" critics_score: 73 critics_reviews: 12 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Gladiator (2000): what the critics said Critics' score 73 from 12 reviews: 9 positive, 1 mixed, 2 negative. Most critics welcome Gladiator as a vigorous revival of the Roman epic, with praise clustering around Ridley Scott’s handling of spectacle and Russell Crowe’s convincing lead performance. The action, production design and scale of ancient Rome give the favourable reviews plenty to admire, while several also single out Joaquin Phoenix. Crowe is the clearest point of agreement, earning credit even from critics who find the film’s storytelling or visual style wanting. The spread is wide, with familiar plotting and thin characterisation treated as forgivable weaknesses by some and serious failings by others. The New York Times finds the violence pandering and the computer-generated spectacle detached, while RogerEbert.com finds the film dreary despite its strong performances. Eye for Film goes further, questioning both the acting and the technical handling of the arena scenes: the spectacle that carries the film for most critics does little for its strongest detractors. ## Radio Times — Adrian Turner Rating 5/5. Hails it as the first genuine Roman epic in decades with a fine script, excellent performances and staggering visuals of ancient Rome. Praises the synthesis of classic epics and Russell Crowe's convincing hero. [Read the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-va0u0r/gladiator/) ## Empire — Simon Braund Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2000. The review hails the film as a thrilling revival of the Hollywood period epic, brought to life by Ridley Scott's majestic vision and visceral set pieces. It singles out Russell Crowe's commanding, rock-solid performance as Maximus for particular praise. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/empire-essay-gladiator-review/) ## Total Film Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 12 May 2000. The review calls Gladiator an awesome achievement and a glorious return to epic filmmaking, with visceral action and mythic storytelling that stands the test of time. It singles out Russell Crowe's brooding, indomitable central performance as the key to its success. [Read the review](https://www.gamesradar.com/gladiator-review/) ## Variety — Todd McCarthy Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 24 April 2000. The review hails the film as a thrilling, visceral return to the Roman epic genre with a compelling revenge story and spectacular action. It singles out Russell Crowe's splendid lead performance, the production design, and the integrity of the storytelling for particular praise. [Read the review](https://variety.com/2000/film/reviews/gladiator-3-1200461595) ## Sight and Sound — Leslie Felperin Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). Praises the film's bloody spectacle mixed with political satire and calls it Ridley Scott's best yet. Singles out the strong performances, especially Russell Crowe and Joaquin Phoenix, and the smart subtext about empire and spectacle. [Read the review](http://old.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/review/374) ## The Guardian Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 12 May 2000. The critic gives a thumbs-up to Ridley Scott's camp but witty Roman empire epic, the first proper stab at the genre for 40 years. It is so entertaining and carried off with such dash and chutzpah that it makes you forgive the odd absurdity, with particular praise for the big Rome set-pieces and the central arena fight-sequence. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2000/may/12/3) ## Time Out — GA Rating 4/5. 29 September 2014. Calls it a bloody good yarn packed with epic pomp, dastardly plots and massed action. Notes the strong cast and impressive sets and pacing while acknowledging it sticks to peplum traditions and clichés. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/gladiator) ## The New Yorker — Anthony Lane Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 1 May 2000. The critic describes the film as insanely watchable and thrilling in its depiction of corruption and brutality, with vivid battle sequences and strong turns by Crowe and Phoenix. He singles out the unsettling power of the violence and the director's visual command for both praise and unease. [Read the review](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2000/05/08/gladiator-movie-review-the-empire-strikes-back) ## Screen Daily Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 20 April 2000. Notes Scott's visual sense and taste for spectacle in reviving the Roman epic. Highlights believable lead performances and the film's success in evoking a dark, frightening period despite being Saturday night entertainment. [Read the review](https://www.screendaily.com/gladiator/402164.article) ## The New York Times — Elvis Mitchell Fi1m's normalised score 45/100 (inferred from the text). 5 May 2000. The review calls the film grandiose and silly but acknowledges Russell Crowe's committed performance as a center amid the glossy, detached style. It criticizes the pandering violence and computer-generated spectacle while noting the director's fey approach. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/05/movies/that-cruel-colosseum.html) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 5 May 2000. The critic finds the film dreary and lacking joy, with muddy visuals and morose characters that fail to entertain despite the epic scope. He singles out the strong performances by Russell Crowe and Connie Nielsen for praise amid the overall disappointment. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/gladiator-2000) ## The AV Club — Keith Phipps 1 May 2000. Praises the visual sense, thrilling action sequences, Crowe's compelling lead, and impressive CGI, noting it satisfies as grand-scale entertainment despite being overdrawn and insubstantial. [Read the review](https://www.avclub.com/gladiator-1798192364) ## The Hollywood Reporter — Kirk Honeycutt 24 April 2000. The critic finds it an impressive spectacle recreating the brutality of the Roman Empire, anchored by Russell Crowe's compelling performance, though emphasizing brawn over brain. [Read the review](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/gladiator-review-2000-movie-1000492/) ## Eye for Film — Angus Wolfe Murray Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 19 January 2001. The critic finds the film daft and lacking honour, criticizing the script and performances while noting the gladiatorial scenes are overly graphic and technically flawed. [Read the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/gladiator-film-review-by-angus-wolfe-murray) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/gladiator.md