is "300" better or worse then gladiator,whats your reason?

Answer 1

Well 300 is a good film, but Gladiator was a GREAT one. Gladiator's story was richer, deeper and spanned a greater world, had richer characters etc... and going into 300 you know how it ends - so it's got a disadvantage right there.

Not to say 300 isn't worth seeing, it is. A good movie, visually well done, well told, acted and entertaining. But Gladiator is superior.

I'd say there's room in your viewing life for both...

Answer 2

Gladiator is definitely better in the sense that it had a much deeper plot and a "more" accurate (only more, but not completely accurate) depiction of the era where the events of the film are taking place.

However, although Gladiator provides a top performance when compared to "300", its technique remains to be more old school then evolutionary. The major plus of 300, is that it has surpassed both "Troy" and "Gladiator" in depicting very graphic action sequences.

By "graphic", I do not mean the massive amount of gory blood spilling everywhere, but rather the visual details and the use of slow-motion at critical times to give the viewer a better feel of the force and skill required by the warriors for every fighting move they make. The progress of Visual effects from the 2000's Gladiator has also played a huge role in providing "300" with the next step in the technique of filming action sequences, and picking up where "Gladiator", "The Matrix" have left off.

Thus, plot, acting and historical accuracy-wise, "Gladiator" remains a better package, but when you compare both movies from the technique perspective, "300" wins.

Hope that was helpful. Regards,

Answer 3

Gladiator. The story, plot, and characters are all deeper than in 300. As the previous post says.

Gladiator does make you feel like you are at that time and place (despite the historical inaccuracies), whereas 300 didn't make me feel as if i was anywhere else but in a comic book, what with all the cgi and airbrushed looking characters and backgrounds.

Those are some reasons, among others. Another being that I actually cared for the characters in Gladiator. Not so in 300.

Answer 4

It all depends on what your looking for. To me, I'd much rather have Gladiator than 300 because there's a bigger sense of risk and things being at stake. While 300 has more violence, Gladiator makes more effective use of it. Also, the plot and characters in 300 are "basic" at best and apart from the visual thrill-ride there isn't much separating 300 from your terrible Troy/Alexander-esque movie.

But luckily the visuals are strong enough to support at least one viewing in theaters. 300 is the perfect movie to see in this dead month of March but it will likely be forgotten in a few years due to its weak story and really unlikeable characters. Gladiator will always be better.

Answer 5

300 was an exciting movie, but I would be inclined to watch Gladiator more often. The historical inaccuracies in 300 led me to not enjoy it as much as Gladiator, which was no textbook either. 300 leads the audience to believe that Sparta was free and democratic, but in fact, one reason for their militarism was to keep their semi-slave force (helots) in check. Read the book "Gates of Fire" by Steven Pressfield. It is much better than the movie 300.

Answer 6

300 because it has a better storyline, more fight scenes, and even a queen gets in on the killing action.
gladiator is like watching a barney episode and comparing it to the 300.

Answer 7

The Gladiator kept it relatively real...The 300 and it's "monsters" is too out there.

Answer 8

300 is a good movie

Answer 9

No, the story in Gladiator is a lot lot lot better and so is the music and acting

Answer 10

300 was better. the message is even better than the Gore.

it was the starting point for a democracy!!