Set in 180 AD, Gladiator stars Russell Crowe as Roman General Maximus, a war hero who curries the favor of Emperor Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris). Aurelius is concerned that the heir to the throne, Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix), will taint the system and cause great hardship for Rome. Commodus is not only corrupt, but he has incestuous feelings for his sister as well. Aurelius urges Maximus to restore honor to Rome by bringing down Commodus. When the future ruler gets wind of this plan, he forces Maximus into slavery after killing the man's family. Aurelius is also killed, paving the way for Commodus to ascend.

Russell Crowe fights to the death in Gladiator

Maximus later becomes a gladiator, participating in a series of the brutal fighting events Romans were noted for enjoying. He is given a good piece of advice: "Win the crowd and you'll win your life." Perhaps more than his own life, he just wants to kill Commodus. Wearing a mask to protect his identity from the new Emperor, Maximus battles other gladiators in one bloody battle after another. Eventually he steps out from behind the mask for a grand showdown that is destined to change Rome forever.

Gladiator was directed by Ridley Scott (Alien, Thelma & Louise), who seems to be trying to recapture the kind of Ben-Hur style epic we rarely see anymore. The film is grand in scale and long in length (2 1/2 hours). There are elaborate recreations of Roman coliseums as well as a dazzling computer-generated tiger that tries to attack Maximus during an event (at least, I hope it was computer-generated). Clearly, a great deal of money was spent on sets, costumes, and effects - all of which give the film a strong period feel.

However, as impressive as the scope is, the plot of Gladiator is both dull and familiar. Part of the problem is that the character of Maximus has no complexity. He's a one-note hero, a generic good guy on a noble mission. Crowe does a lot of contemptible sneering at the bad guys, but doesn't have enough material to shape a 3-dimensional persona. You never doubt that Maximus will triumph because he's clearly set up to; he lacks the even the slightest sense of depth, so there's no reason for him to be in the movie except to triumph. I wish the screenplay had made him more rounded so that we could actually become invested in his fate.

Another problem is that, while the action scenes are good, the rest of the picture is painfully slow. I'm talking "Masterpiece Theatre" slow. Characters talk in cliches or give laborious soliloquies. I believe that it's hard to write or perform characters from Roman times because it was so far back in history; the primary source material for writers or actors feels like it comes only from other films. If Gladiator often seems like a bunch of people playing dress-up, that may be why. I found my attention wandering so much simply because nothing on the screen (action aside) seemed real. The actors look lost - trapped in silly costumes, reciting stilted dialogue.

I have a hunch that Gladiator wants to be the next Braveheart, the period epic that obtains a loyal legion of fans and goes on to win a handful of Oscars. The difference is that Braveheart was more strongly conceived; it knew what it was about and what it wanted to say. Gladiator, meanwhile, serves up some amazing bits of action, but begs you to take it seriously the rest of the time. A film that's truly about something doesn't need to beg.

( out of four)

Gladiator is rated R for intense, graphic combat. The running time is 2 hours and 30 minutes.