Did Gladiator really deserve the best picture Oscar?

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/may/05/gladitor-ridley-scott-russell-crowe-best-picture-oscar

Twenty years later, perhaps it’s time to take Gladiator back to its original framing, not as the spoiler to Steven Soderbergh’s unlikely coronation as a Hollywood director – his Erin Brockovich and Traffic were best picture nominees, and he won best director for the latter – but as a classed-up underdog sports movie, like a middle-period Rocky sequel in sandals and tunics. The palace intrigue that follows the death of the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius may give the film a certain amount of sophistication, as do the performances by Russell Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix and Connie Nielsen, who all make excellent and multi-layered contributions. Yet this is essentially about an undersized warrior gutting his way to a title bout – all else seems like window-dressing by comparison.

The competitive arc of Gladiator is Rocky III leading into Rocky IV. It’s about our hero first belting his way through a colorful array of opponents – barrel-chested goons, armor-plated archers on chariots, man-eating tigers emerging from the arena floor – before finally battling the villain on hostile turf and turning the home crowd to his favor, against the will of a brutal authoritarian government. Again, this is not a mark against the film, because it’s mostly rousing on these terms, boosted by a Roman succession plot that plays one man’s epic revenge quest to the highest of stakes. But the argument that the film is any deeper than the red-meat savagery it delivers doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. It’s a terrific summer movie, and one of the new century’s least deserving best picture winners.