My Studios

numbersix_99,
That comment was un-American. Gladiator an "overelaborate excuse for a bit of violence"? Really? So, the 2 hours and forty mins of story developing the role of a warrior and how he's forced into slavery and forced to fight for...(and isn't what USA has always shed blood over?)...freedom. Honestly- and we can argue about this til we're blue in the face - if that's not enough motive to fight, then nothing is. It would have been a mighty boring story ("Kingdom of Heaven") if he didn't fight.
Yeah, I know what "300" was...a piece of (crap). That's my point. The story was so far behind technology it's pathetic (hello Hollywood!). If "300" spent half as much time on story development as it did on making video-game blood, then maybe it would have resonated more.

[quote=numbersix_99]Gladiator, now there's an overpraised film if I've ever seen one. Talk about an overelaborate excuse for a bit of violence.

300 may not have been great, but at least it knew what it was. [/quote]

Hi Frisky,

Good point. It's only a pity I'm not American!

Okay, Gladiator does have more substance, but my problem is that it doesn't have as much substance as its hammy speeches think it has. It's far too long (and no, I'm not an MTV spawn who needs a cut every second, I love the 4-hour version of Lawrence of Arabia), despite the eloquent dialogue I found the characters relatively one-dimensional.

Besides, aren't the characters of 300 doing the exact same, fighting for their freedom?

I don't want to get too political, but the blood that American's have shed (and the blood of Americans shed) over the past few years aren't exactly about fighting for American freedom. Nor do I think are they fighting for the freedom of other nations. But that's a different kettle of fish, as they say.

300 and gladiator are both good movies in doing what they were created for. Violence. Everyone knows we americans love violence. Heck who doesn't. I can't think of one person I know that wouldn't like to see paris hilton or lindsey lohans dad walk up and knock some sense into them. And I mean KNOCK. Cause that wat they need. Anywho. People knew what they were going to get watching 300. Thats what it advertised and thats what it delivered. I agree they could've spent more time on blood effects but i think thats what miller wanted. It had the same blood as sin city just a differend color. As for gladiator. I can't really defend that one completely. But i didn't think it was a bad movie. The violence was definately the best part though.

i agree completly with crazy. 300 and Gladiator were made for violence and they do a damn good job of it personally i thought 300 was a little better than Gladiator.

transformers2 wrote:

i agree completly with crazy. 300 and Gladiator were made for violence and they do a damn good job of it personally i thought 300 was a little better than Gladiator.

I'll bet you in 25 years, when you watch those two movies again, you would get more of out Gladiator than what you would in 300.

In Gladiator, you would get emotions that would overwhelm you because of how much more relevant it is because you would most likely have a family and wife by then.

In 300, you would most likely get an erect penis because of the sex scenes, or if you're gay, the ripped bodies of the 300 Spartans. That's all you would get.

tuan69,
Did you quote Roger Ebert there? 'Cause I thought he commented on the "erect penis" idea in "300".

tuan69 wrote:

transformers2 wrote:

i agree completly with crazy. 300 and Gladiator were made for violence and they do a damn good job of it personally i thought 300 was a little better than Gladiator.

I'll bet you in 25 years, when you watch those two movies again, you would get more of out Gladiator than what you would in 300.

In Gladiator, you would get emotions that would overwhelm you because of how much more relevant it is because you would most likely have a family and wife by then.

In 300, you would most likely get an erect penis because of the sex scenes, or if you're gay, the ripped bodies of the 300 Spartans. That's all you would get.

No, I believe not, because Roger Ebert is still in hospital and never had a chance to watch 300, or at least write a review of it.

I think you've probably been watching too many homo-erotic films.

Maybe it he was just giving a thumb-up

tuhh, spiderman 3

I may be jumping the gun on this one, But Michael Moore's Sicko feels very overhyped to me. So he can sell his movie out in five theatres in NYC. Whoopie-dee-doo. I bet I could pull good number for a cowboy movie if I released it at rodeos too.

When this movie hits the mainstream, especially in the midwest, Moore's bubble will definitely deflate. Oh, it will still make money hand over fist. Don't forget though that it cost nothing to make in comparison to your average film.

I most definitely have to take issue with both Master and Commander and Gladiator being seen as over-rated. If anything they were under-rated as both are great movies that stand the test of time and offer repeat viewing pleasures.

On the other hand, anything by Michael Moore is most certainly over- rated..C'mon, you know just going into the cinema to see a Michael Moore that what you are about to see is going going to be chock-a-block full of speculation, hyperbole, and smoke in mirrored facts. And I'm not being political about this, just analyzing the content. Still it helps to be a media darling...

I got to add Wes Anderson films to this list. I think his films are terrible and he is very overpraised.

Lovely wrote:

On the other hand, anything by Michael Moore is most certainly over- rated..C'mon, you know just going into the cinema to see a Michael Moore that what you are about to see is going going to be chock-a-block full of speculation, hyperbole, and smoke in mirrored facts. And I'm not being political about this, just analyzing the content. Still it helps to be a media darling...

But the ideas and discussions offered up are important. Moore should win the Mr. Fantastic award.

tuan69 wrote:

Lovely wrote:

On the other hand, anything by Michael Moore is most certainly over- rated..C'mon, you know just going into the cinema to see a Michael Moore that what you are about to see is going going to be chock-a-block full of speculation, hyperbole, and smoke in mirrored facts. And I'm not being political about this, just analyzing the content. Still it helps to be a media darling...

But the ideas and discussions offered up are important. Moore should win the Mr. Fantastic award.

Mr Fantastic?

Personally, I just wish his films were a bit more balanced--that's my problem with his stuff. Hell I've been living with the NHS for 10 years in England (I live in London right now) and I can tell ya, it's not all roses and a miracle cure. Far from it. But, like you said, it does need to be discussed. At least someone is doing it...

My Studios

ADVICE & ANALYSIS: