Well, I think Troy and the like are jsut as good as Gladiator, and the only reason it did so well was the epic feeling it gave. It was the first film in a while to be so epic, so big, and use the genre. I think people are a little tired of the genre right now.

Keep in mind that other films came out too that somewhat gave that feel (aka LOTR).

Another issue is that Troy and Alexander concentrated on history. and we all know how pissy we all get when people mess with history

The only thing I can think of is that Gladiator was the first sword and sandal flick to come out in more than 20 years (please dont include Conan was a sword sandal flick).Actually like Neowolf mentioned, Gladiator owes its success to Braveheart that brought the blood and gore into sword slashing flicks and the large scale battle scenes. The reason why Gladiator wasnt called so much a Braveheart rip off is because well I think its because duplicating roman costuming and armor is more expensive than the medieval ones and that its been awhile (first time to most people) that they saw any sword and sandal flicks. The difference why Gladiator was superior to Troy and Alexander was at least we care fo0r the protanganist and that hes fighting for a good cause. Who was there really to cheer for Troy? Both sides are fighting a stupid war and Achilles seems to arrogant for audience to care for. Same with Alexander and that movie seems uninspired. I did like the Alexander movie but I still view him as a dictator. Maximus seemed like the perfect hero since he was sold into slavery and using the notriety to defy the Roman emperor. Its what makes a good story and the same rule was applied to Braveheart where William Wallace was defying the english king to win the Scots their freedom.

I love both Gladiator and Braveheart. Both are in the A+ bracket for me. A better topic would be why Braveheart didnt do as well as Gladiator

I agree with loyal that Gladiator is one great movie, underrated generally because it can be written off as a guy's action flick by some. To me Ridley Scott is one of the greatest modern directors. Sure not all of his movies are great, but every few years he hits one out of the park: Alien, Blade Runner and Gladiator all were very influential to other movies, probably 3 of the top 10 most influential movies of the last 25 years. This guy has created so many memorable movie moments and a handful of great films, I predict he will later be looked back on as one of the top 5 directors of his era.

As to why Stone and Peterson failed: not enough attention to the script. They see the flourish and style in Scott's movies and think that is all there is, but Scott pays a lot of attention to the screenwriting part of it. Stone and Peterson freely lifted from other movies (especially LOTR) but Scott often tries to create new styles (not always successfully, but at least he tries), instead of just ripping off cliches from his peers. I got the sense that Scott respected the genre and tried to make the best of it, while Peterson and Stone thought they were slumming and above it all.

An interesting thing about Scott is that he started in advertising, and I saw some of his ads back then, they were really good. One was a perfume ad (Chanel if I recall right) that was just a guy diving into a pool and surfacing at the other end next to a sunbathing woman, that was it. He's not the only director to come from advertising but even in his advertising days he was known for his style and creativity.

Scott is a natural talent at creating a telling image, a moment where the story seems to halt and you get this great meaningful image. Examples in Gladiator are when Crowe sees the little bird at the beginning, where the man on fire is bearing down on him in the battle, where his son is watching the riding men approach, where he is entering the arena for the last time. There are many more. Stone and Peterson are solid directors, but just don't have that level of visual flair.

Ofcourse. Though I haven't seen Alexander, i did wtch troy and i thought it was great, as long as I forgot this was not some warped history being presented to me. Asa an original screenplay, a movie such as that would have worked better.

And anotehr thing Archie just said and to add to it. Alexander and Troy, fromt he day their trailers were released, seem to concentrate more on wanting to be at an epic scale that they lost touch of the actual contents. The stories were compromised while Gladiator in the end told no more than the story of 2 men.

Though I haven't seen Alexander, it seems from what everyone has been telling me about it is that the concentration on the subject matter was very stupid. The whole thing about homosexuality ... i really didn't care but i don't understand why his Alexander's sexuality was of prime importance in the film ... hell its the story of his general life ... and the things that effected it. Alexander's biggest achievement was his conquests and I doubt his sexuality played a big part into it .... then look at Gladiator .. almost every scene seemed to play a purpose .. from the beginning to the end of it.

Gladiator is great because of the performances of Joaquin Phoenix and Oliver Reed. They are awesome. Djimon Hounsou is excellent, as well.

Troy had a horrible score and the pacing was awful. Wolfgang Peterson could not have made a worse film. How many times did we have to see the funeral ritual? We get it already! Two coins for Death to carry you across the River Styx. Yeah, we get it. The only thing I'm going to remember about this film is when Achilles and Hector are about square off, someone in the theatre did the showdown theme from The Good, the Bad & the Ugly. It was hilarious and broke up the oppressive mood in the theatre. Finally, consider this ... Orlando Bloom shirtless and covered in oil.

Alexander? Please, don't go there.

My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, Commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions, loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.

...is primarily why Gladiator is so good.

Actually, in all seriousness, while it may not have been Russell Crowe's best performance (The Insider) and while it is not Ridley Scott's best film, there is a lot going for Gladiator.

1. It is coohesive, it is a good story.
2. The script is spectacular.
3. Everyone in it... Crowe, Pheonix, and the others give phenominal performances.
4. The battle scenes and the gladitorial scenes are expertly shot, and the cinematography is top notch.

5. None of the sets looked cheap and all of the CGI worked.

People tend to forget, but Gladiator was a big risk at the time, and while the studio may have thought they could get some Oscars, releasing it in the beginning of summer shows that they more aimed to make it a blockbuster. And like Lord of the Rings, it really paid off for them.

It was a risk because the film is exceptionally gory and a serious film without any comedy. It is grim and it is dark.

Gladiator, even though it is fiction, also feels more "real" than Troy (or what I know about Alexander... I haven't seen it). Gladiator is a lot more like Titanic in that way, a story based on a real event, that is so aligned with history that it really could have taken place during the time that it was placed only it didn't.

Troy's biggest problem (as a film, not counting the dodgy adaptation) is that it was a mess. Mess is the best word I can think of. It could not focus on a particular character long enough to make that character interesting. It toyed with Pitt and Bana... maybe it SHOULD have centered on Bloom's character... someone who could drive the picture from start to finish and deliver those important emotional highlights.

Instead, it just played itself out like a History Channel restaged documentary, with great special effects.

I also don't think the movie going audience is attuned to seeing Greek images. Roman ones are much easier to identify and identify with for the western audience (IMO).[/i]

andaroo, I agree with you on your first line. The dialogues were amazing and so were their delivery. That one line on its own was one of the single most powerful peices of dialogue ever! Add that up with others like "At my signal, unleash hell" was just a blast.

I searched the faces of the gods for ways to please you, to make you proud. One kind word, one full hug while you pressed me to your chest and held me tight, would've been like the sun on my heart for a thousand years. What is in me that you hate so much?

...classic.

I love how Pheonix can say a line like "searched the faces of the gods" and not make it sound so cheesy.

true that.

Gladiator was brilliant because it was the first film ever to experience that period's fighting, living and life.

Never before had anyone seen people getting cut to bits, well, they did in Spartacus etc, but it was so fake.

Gladiator also did well because of the following reasons:

1. Oliver Reed's last film.

2. Ridley Scott, always delivers quality films.

3. First Sword and Sandal film for AGES!

4. It was a good story, a bit cliche, but the fact that it was set in ROman times, the cliched story didnt matter.

5. The one word/short title. I dont care what anyone says, but one word
titles have more of a chance of grossing more, as they would obviously be more memorable. Think of the classics/high grossers, what ones do you think of: Titanic, Ben-Hur, Spartacus, Star Wars, Spiderman, E.T., Shrek 2, Rocky, Jaws, Grease, Bambi, Sound..Music - they all have short titles or are one word.

Gladiator is a decnt film IMO,not great.As i said before,the first sword flick that was ultra realistic violent that i had seen was Braveheart,Gladiator is a disney film when compared to braveheart.
And spartacus is a masterpiece.The best acting in gladiator was by Phoenix,he was really good and is one of the best villains ever in a sword and sandals film,he out acted russle crowe.

Eh?

Alexander

Troy

Catwoman

....Gigli.

Braveheart had very little appeal to women. It was also overly talky, some friends of mine who normally like action films said they just got sick of the endless yakking and diplomacy in the middle of Braveheart. And then there's the gore, which attracts some people but puts off others. Gladiator had gore but not so much.

Gladiator had a strong intelligent female character as a main player.

I think the name "Gladiator" did help it but in a less obvious way: it sounds from the name like it will just be 2 hours of people gladiating but that aspect of the movie was really only about 1/3 of it. Mostly the movie was about the fate of the Roman empire and the fate of four people. So it ends up seeming much more deep than one would expect if you go into it blind knowing little about it.

Not every film with a short title is oign to do well, what i was implying was that the mix of the first sword and sandel film in years and a short title made it be a success.

And every thoery has exceptions