Revisit - Gladiator (2000)

iamwhatiseem

Diamond Member
Aug 19, 2010
42,404
26,884
2,605
On a hill
Last time I watched this movie was probably around 2010, I originally saw it in the theaters in 2000.
I had forgotten how good it is. Nearly a perfect movie for it's genre. And launched Russel Crowe's career to super stardom.
Extremely well done, scripted and acted. There are very few flaws for what the movie is supposed to be.
It is not intended to be historically accurate. All of the characters in the movie are fictional.
It is just a good movie.
And well worth another look.
 
Last time I watched this movie was probably around 2010, I originally saw it in the theaters in 2000.
I had forgotten how good it is. Nearly a perfect movie for it's genre. And launched Russel Crowe's career to super stardom.
Extremely well done, scripted and acted. There are very few flaws for what the movie is supposed to be.
It is not intended to be historically accurate. All of the characters in the movie are fictional.
It is just a good movie.
And well worth another look.
It's a great movie if you are ignorant of Roman History.

If you know Roman history, you realize it's kind of awful, especially the ending where they all decide to restore the Republic.

Um, no, actually, after Commodus died (Strangled in his bathtub, not fighting with a gladiator) Rome underwent a series of military dictators and chaos for nearly a century.
 
It's a great movie if you are ignorant of Roman History.

If you know Roman history, you realize it's kind of awful, especially the ending where they all decide to restore the Republic.

Um, no, actually, after Commodus died (Strangled in his bathtub, not fighting with a gladiator) Rome underwent a series of military dictators and chaos for nearly a century.
That’s why out Founders made this nation a Republic- if you can keep it
 
Last time I watched this movie was probably around 2010, I originally saw it in the theaters in 2000.
I had forgotten how good it is. Nearly a perfect movie for it's genre. And launched Russel Crowe's career to super stardom.
Extremely well done, scripted and acted. There are very few flaws for what the movie is supposed to be.
It is not intended to be historically accurate. All of the characters in the movie are fictional.
It is just a good movie.
And well worth another look.
Just as a side note, there was no Spain, back when Rome was in power, so the lead character was not Spanish.
 
They made it a Republic for white men who owned property.. which wasn't a very large slice of the population.
Given the epoch, they acted consistently with what was current discourse yet radically departing from contemporary governing. They deserve much pore credit than negative critiquing. Of course, it is impossible for us to imagine how they could have left women so far afield, let alone various minorities.
 
As with so many "westerns", "Gladiator" it is a phantasmagorical representation similar to history.
 
Odd that we quickly became the most powerful and prosperous nation on the planet in very short order
Only because all the other empires exhausted themselves.

So we had an 80 year period of dominance before the Chinese became the world's dominant economy. Which is fine, because China was the world's dominant economy before 1820.
 
Given the epoch, they acted consistently with what was current discourse yet radically departing from contemporary governing. They deserve much pore credit than negative critiquing. Of course, it is impossible for us to imagine how they could have left women so far afield, let alone various minorities.

Most of the world realized slavery was wrong by 1800. We fought to keep it for another 65 years.
 
As with so many "westerns", "Gladiator" it is a phantasmagorical representation similar to history.
I said that in the OP
I literally said it was not meant to be historically accurate in any way other than there was Rome, and there were gladiators.
It is a movie that is supposed to entertain. And that is it.
And that is perfectly okay.
Unlike many post 2000s movies that are done in a period that are supposed to based on actual events - that are laughably way off.
 
I said that in the OP
I literally said it was not meant to be historically accurate in any way other than there was Rome, and there were gladiators.
It is a movie that is supposed to entertain. And that is it.
And that is perfectly okay.
Unlike many post 2000s movies that are done in a period that are supposed to based on actual events - that are laughably way off.
The post was agreeing with yours and refuting the negativity of some others.
 
Only because all the other empires exhausted themselves.

So we had an 80 year period of dominance before the Chinese became the world's dominant economy. Which is fine, because China was the world's dominant economy before 1820.
Your social credit score is booming!
 
Most of the world realized slavery was wrong by 1800. We fought to keep it for another 65 years.
And it is still used in your precious China, and Africa.

DURRRRRR
 
Last time I watched this movie was probably around 2010, I originally saw it in the theaters in 2000.
I had forgotten how good it is. Nearly a perfect movie for it's genre. And launched Russel Crowe's career to super stardom.
Extremely well done, scripted and acted. There are very few flaws for what the movie is supposed to be.
It is not intended to be historically accurate. All of the characters in the movie are fictional.
It is just a good movie.
And well worth another look.
I remember watching the movie when it came out and thinking it was entertaining. I can't say I really have watched much of it since then. As others have said it wasn't historically that accurate, but movies usually aren't.
 

Forum List

Back
Top