Is Gladiator a good movie

[Admiral Yi]

Timmy would have voted for all the Transformer movies. 

[Sheilbh]

For the whole 20th century movies like that could win. The population as a whole would respect the Oscars a lot more if that was still true.

There should be a minimum number of tickets sold for a movie to qualify for the Oscars. At least a million, maybe two. No art house flicks that only fifty thousand people have seen.

When has a film like that ever won Best Picture

What movie from 2000 should have won then?

Gladiator – Douglas Wick, David Franzoni, and Branko Lustig, producersdouble-dagger
        Chocolat – David Brown, Kit Golden, and Leslie Holleran, producers
        Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon – Bill Kong, Hsu Li-kong, and Ang Lee, producers
        Erin Brockovich – Danny DeVito, Michael Shamberg, and Stacey Sher, producers
        Traffic – Marshall Herskovitz, Edward Zwick, and Laura Bickford, producers

Off that list I'd put Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Traffic higher.

But looking at the nominees in other categories I'd robably go for O Brother, Where Art Thou? or Requiem for a Dream (which had a huge impact on me as a teenager ). I'd also throw in Amores Perros, Shadow of the Vampire and Wonder Boys as very good films in that year

I'd be happy to watch more or less any of them if they were on TV - same for Gladiator.

[Barrister]

As to Gladiator - the question is "Is Gladiator a good movie".

The answer is absolutely.  Great enjoyable action movie.

Thinking back I can't believe it won Best Picture, but if my wife said "Hey do you want to watch Gladiator tonight" I'd surely say yes.

What movie from 2000 should have won then?

Easy.  Oh Brother, Where Art Though?

Though of the nominated movies probably Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (though I haven't seen that in nearly 20 years).

Edit: dammit! Ninja'd by Sheilbh.  I needed to google to make sure they were out in the same year.

[Tamas]

I am glad you guys are developing rose tinted glasses, thinking the Oscars were like Cannes except not liking breasts. But no. Gladiator was an excellent Hollywood movie even if a laughable story and historicity and it was right to win the Oscar that year for that very reason.

[Duque de Bragança]

Gladiator was a 60s Italian swords and sandals b-movie on a Hollywood blockbuster budget. It's an enjoyable enough movie but it's not exactly Citizen Kane or Battleship Potemkin.

Not really, Hollywood also had sword and sandals before on a blockbuster budget:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire_(film)

Same period, starting with Marcomanni wars and Commodus reign.

Gladiator is pretty good, as far as blockbusters go, take or leave a few anachronisms. 

[Duque de Bragança]

300 is a lot better than Gladiator.

For both unintended and intended homoeroticism, that's for sure.

[Duque de Bragança]

Cinema went over the top into CGI with the gods angle. Clash of the titans still sends a shudder up my spine.
Whats wrong with seemingly down to earth adventures with supernatural elements.

Are you talking about the Harryhausen FX film? If not, you should. The CGI remake is awful.

[Duque de Bragança]

Null vote - I've never watched it, not even a 30 second clip.

Watch it for [spoiler]stirrups[/spoiler] and [spoiler]some alternative theory about the foundation of Rome, namely its régime.[/spoiler]

[Duque de Bragança]

Yes, it's a good movie.  My main complaints are related to historical accuracy, and primarily around Commodus: the real-life Commodus's personality/behavior was more like that of a modern WWE wrestler and it would have been hilarious to see that recreated faithfully in the movie, so I am not sure why they cast Joaquin Phoenix in the role.  That said, the Commodus he played in the movie was still interesting in its own right and his performance was fantastic.  I don't like it when Hollywood screenwriters dealing with historical topics change history for no logical reason that I can think of, especially when the real story is interesting like it is here.

Right on, the historically recorded death of Commodus was way crazier than the one shown in the film.

[Syt]

Gladiator was a 60s Italian swords and sandals b-movie on a Hollywood blockbuster budget. It's an enjoyable enough movie but it's not exactly Citizen Kane or Battleship Potemkin.

Not really, Hollywood also had sword and sandals before on a blockbuster budget:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire_(film)

I don't recall making the argument that this was the first time Hollywood did that.

[grumbler]

Gladiator was a 60s Italian swords and sandals b-movie on a Hollywood blockbuster budget. It's an enjoyable enough movie but it's not exactly Citizen Kane or Battleship Potemkin.

Not really, Hollywood also had sword and sandals before on a blockbuster budget:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire_(film)

I don't recall making the argument that this was the first time Hollywood did that.

The 1964 film wasn't a sword-n-sandals film at all.  Just look at the cast.  Technically, Gladiator isn't Sword-n-sandals, either, since it was a blockbuster, not an imitation of a blockbuster.  But, with its much less star-dominated cast, it's much more so than was The Fall...

[viper37]

A cartoonishly evil villain is rarely great for a serious movie. And this villain is sexually deviant, so we can tell he's extra evil.

That's about 1/2 of the Roman Emperors, I guess.

[11B4V]

The poll is stupid