Spartacus or Gladiator?

Caligula lolz. I like sexy Helen Mirren, but I cannot see how you're comparing them.

I voted for Spartacus. Some of it's a little goofy, sure, but some of it is also totally epic. No real signs of Kubrick's style unfortunately, but it does the job nicely without it. Gladiator's worthless IMO. I hate watching it. It just depresses the crap out of me when I watch it. It feels ugly and meaningless. I'd sooner eat my own vomit out of a dog dish then watch that again.

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

They're both Roman flicks. Caligula is at least laughably bad. Spartacus just bores me.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

__________________

I totally agree with you... I didn't cry at the "I am Spartacus" scene but i did hold my breath at the scene where Russell Crowe introduces himself to Commodous.

I like characters who don't talk to much unneccessary stuff - speak only when they need more like Spartans of ancient Greece.

Spartacus was good until the - end of the rebellion in Capua. Less talk more action - and let the facial expressions speak for his emotions...

I can't explain this in english very well..

I am Spartacus.

Not a huge fan of Gladiator.

I love Stanley Kubrick, but I'm not at all a fan of Spartacus, except for the "I am Spartacus" scene.

I love Ridley Scott but I'm not at all a fan of Gladiator, except for the "are you not entertained" scene.

But I went with Gladiator in honor of Miss Vicky.

__________________
"I want a film I watch to express either the joy of making cinema or the anguish of making cinema" -Francois Truffaut

I liked Spartacus because it had a plot. I never did understand why the caesar-to-be had it in for the general who helped win his victory against the barbarians. All I got from it is general becomes with no training and decides to remain alive until he can kill caesar.

The general musta been Marine Sgt. R. Lee Ermey in a former life to have turned a bunch of slaves and felons into a disciplined fighting unit so quickly. Especially since gladiators and the Roman Army used totally different styles of fighting. Roman Army relied on close formations of overlapping shields through which they stabbed not at the enemy in front of them but the one in front of their neighbor (on the right, as I recall) because it can be done between the shields without breaking the shield wall. The biggest defeats the Roman Legions ever suffered from the barbarians was when they were attacked in a small area that didn't allow them to form their battle lines. The barbarians--and Spartacus with his trained gladiators--had the advantage when they forced the Legionaires to fight one-on-one. (Learned that on TV on those history channel programs where they redo ancient battles and compare ancient weapons and tactics.)

Sorry to disappoint you, Pike, but I've never studied much about the Roman empire. Not my cuppa tea.

spartacus ftw

I voted for Gladiator I love the way it looks, I love the music, I love Oliver Reed's performance, and I love the following line:


I've never had much patience for Spartacus though. Maybe it needs to grow on me as I get older, or maybe I need to be in the right frame of mind to watch it.

Or maybe I just like Gladiator more

[EDIT]

Wow, I didn't realise the poll was so close, looks like I've tipped it in favour of Gladiator (for the time being anyway).

__________________
"When I was younger, I always wanted to be somebody. Now that I'm older, I realise I should've been more specific."

Not a huge fan of Gladiator but it was exhilarating enough to revive a long-dead genre, whereas Spartacus was lumbering enough to be part of the reason the genre died in the first place.

It seemed to me that this was pretty well explained.

I would definitely go with the Gladiator it is far better than Spartacus.....

Looks like I've evened it out :P

__________________
You cannot have it both ways. A dancer who relies upon the doubtful comforts of human love can never be a great dancer. Never. (The Red Shoes, 1948)

Gladiator!

Not particulary keen on either, but I'd rather watch Gladiator again.

Spartacus. I don't feel particularly crazy about either, but Spartacus is a solid epic film, whereas Gladiator is hollow and overrated. Even if Spartacus is Kubrick's second weakest film.

__________________
"George, this is a little too much for me. Escaped convicts, fugitive sex... I've got a cockfight to focus on."

Both have their own good and bad points by modern standards.


Spartacus has the epic feel of the typical 1900s movie, big cast, big budget (for the time), yet filmed with a single bush and 3 extras, and brilliant yet historically inaccurate writing.

Gladiator has the mahoosive budget by comparison, huge names, and a story that, though it's completely inaccurate, it still works with the audience and encapsulates the imagination.


Personally, I'd give both of them an equal 90%.

EDIT: It's like trying to compare the England Football Team of 1966 to the England Football Team of modern day... all circumstances need to be taken into account, researched and studied.

__________________

What huge names? Ridley Scott maybe? And?

Russell Crowe and Joaquin Phoenix - though already established actors - were, at least as far as I can see, not "huge" by any means before Gladiator's release. Gladiator is what them huge.

Gladiator.
I found Spartacus as boring.

Gladiator, by far.

Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis ruin Spartacas for me. Neither are convicing (or very good) actors. Also, I do not consider Spartacas to be an "official" Kubrick film, as he came in late as a hired gun and did not develop it, and after agreeing to direct it was restrained from making the film the way he wanted to.

__________________
Have you ever held a lion in your arms? I have. He smelled funky.