Gladiator 2

I wish someone had told me just how awful this film was before I went to see it.

It's to bad films what the original is to good films. No real explanation necessary for how anyone got to where they were, they just existed.

Changing the setup of the Colosseum to include massive pools with sharks and whatnot. Paper thin plot and character development.

It's actually like they went into each scene without a script and got the actors to say and do whatever as it won't matter we'll just cobble something together that hopefully has a modicum of continuity.

Awful stuff.

Decuc500

Very enjoyable stuff and well worth making the effort to see in the cinema. Ridley Scott seems to deliver these epic movies effortlessly. The world building is so impressive and it has the story to support it.

Okay it's essentially a remake of the first film but who cares when it's this good.

Stephen_Maturin

Just wrote out a review several paragraphs long and accidentally deleted it so f it I’m going to sleep

General summary, it was crap

speedboatchase

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122859454#Comment_122859454

Weirdly enough, the first film didn't have a completed script when they were shooting but had a far better structure.

ancapailldorcha

I saw it last night and it wasn't nearly as bad as I was expecting.

It did annoy me a bit in the beginning that the Numidians were calling their home by the Roman Imperialists' name and there were a few other historical inaccuracies that were irksome but that soon passed.

It is essentially a template of the original and the connection to Maximus (It's revealed in the trailer so not a spoiler) adds very little, if anything. I haven't seen the original in some time so I didn't mind too much. I thought Denzel was brilliant and it was nice to see an Irishman in the lead role.

It's best enjoyed if you're not too bothered about the original or haven't seen it in a while. It's incredible to see hordes of well-kitted out Roman legionnaries on the big screen. It's just a tragic that it's for something so unambitious and safe as this.

Ultimately, I think Hollywood will be determined to take the wrong lesson from this. If it succeeds, it'll be a signal to stick to tried and tested formulas. If it flops, it'll mean that historical epics are not worth making.

There was so much more to explore with the characters. Every time you think there is going to be actual development it's shunned. Some of the sets looked like they could be pushed over despite some others being admittedly absolutely great looking.

The characters all just seemed to exist. Like fair enough you have the twin emperors but how did they get there? What circumstances got them to power and how do they keep it despite being absolute leches on the city? Just because they're entertaining baddies seemingly. Not much mention or too much of a hint of any rivalry between them until it became important to moving the plot. Why do we care? We cared about what happened to Commodus. These guys are cartoons.

It all seemed to be about the destination rather than the journey. Lucius is in Namibia and they spend maybe 2 minutes on that backstory at the start and 2 minutes fleshing it out during the film. His actual motivations are unclear and why do we care about him? He just exists to be involved in some (sometimes janky CGI based) set pieces. Where did he train to become so strong? What hardship did he go through?

There are great characters somewhere in Pascal and Washington's roles and Pascal comes the closest to realising them without getting into the ridiculous like Washington did. But again, do we really have an emotional connection to their fates? We again don't see too much on how they got there so why do we care about their fate? It's like Scott had a war against obvious exposition in the film until the moment it was obviously clubbed over your head.

The final few scenes were like something you would see as a recap before another film it's so fast based and void of any emotion that the audience can get on board with.

Eclectic Econometrics

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122856097#Comment_122856097

This is not an argument to say that Hollywood is dying, but I will say that this has been the worst year for cinema in my life, outside of covid (this is, of course, subjective).

What all the garbage movies I watched had in common were they were hyped to oblivion: The Substance, Blink Twice, Twisters, Longlegs Etc. Do you remember "Barbenheimer"? They hit a social media marketing sweet spot with the promotion of those movies and the playbook has been rolled out consistently since.

I don't want every movie to change my life, it just has to burn 2 hours of time. But as a comparison, action, sequel etc. T2 felt like a film that drew a line in the sand. Do you remember the last time you walked out of a cinema and felt that the medium had been changed?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122860902#Comment_122860902

Re your last paragraph -

Someone else mentioned Russell Crowe can carry a movie by himself, I like Crowe but his latest movies haven't been great. That said, "Master and Commander 2" would be an absolute tap in for the studios to make. The other historical epic which has never been done justice is the story of Shackleton.

But you can make a pigs ear of anything. I have sat through the whole of some shockingly bad movies in my time, I lasted around 40 minutes into Napoleon.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122861168#Comment_122861168

It doesn't matter whether or not you like them though. All that matters is the bottom line. If Hollywood was in real trouble, we'd see a big change in its output. I'm surprised to hear someone call The Substance a garbage film Like, you moan about a poor output and then you run down a film that was properly original and different. Can't have it both ways.

Napoleon was a cinematic abortion though. One of the worst pieces of crap I've ever seen.

Eclectic Econometrics

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122861191#Comment_122861191

As I said

This is not an argument to say that Hollywood is dying

and

this is, of course, subjective

We agree on Napoleon at least! LMFAO.

SheepsClothing

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122861021#Comment_122861021

This is the best encapsulation I've seen of what's wrong with the film. There's bits and pieces that I can imagine being part of a very good film, but all the connective tissue and careful storytelling needed to get there are missing.

Its like that because the film so closely follows the story beats of the first film, it was just assumed that the audience didn't require any of the necessary context which informs the characters behavior.

In the original we see Maximus working together with his fellow gladiators to survive the fighting pits. It is because of this that we then completely buy into him as the leader of these men. By contrast, we only ever see Lucius do battle in the pits alone, but then seemingly out of nowhere he's giving motivational speeches to the gladiators prior to battle, despite us being given no reason to believe that he would be looked at as this person.

howdydoo83

I wasn't a fan of the first so had low expectations for this. However I was very entertained. If I look at it, none of the performances were great, maybe Pedro being the standout. However I enjoyed it for some blockbuster Hollywood fare. Although I didn't like the CGI. But loads of fights and pointless sharks. Great fun altogether.

El Duda

Gladiator II – 4.5/10

Just because you’re making a sequel to an iconic Roman epic doesn’t mean the end results won’t be cheap. I wish I could say that it goes for the Home Alone 2 approach, but it’s not even that good. It’s Home Alone 3.

It’s the exact same story template with a few specifics tweaked. After a promising start the script quickly becomes dull and predictable. They try to cram too much in, so the action scenes get no build up. I knew that having sharks in a Colosseum was going to be daft, but I was up for it. Like many other things, they rush through it, so it leaves no lasting impression. For some reason they animated the Baboons to move like looney tunes. It had none of the weight that the first movie carried and it ran out of steam long before the final act.

It feels like they went out of their way to ensure that everything looked as out of place as possible. Paul Mescal’s face just looks too ‘clean’ to be in ancient Rome. Denzel Washington has a lot of fun but doesn’t suit period epics. Then they go to f*cking George Dawes for the scores. At this point you just have to surrender and embrace it for the farce that it is. I must admit, The Emperor twins doing their Statler and Waldorf routine was a lot of fun.

There’s a lot of “f*ck it, we’ll fix it in post” bits of editing and ADR that stood out to me. At one point the camera pans across to reveal a cute little staffy type dog panting in a cage HUGE SCARY GROWLING SOUNDS

But the thing I found most distracting was the sheer number of swings and blows in the combat scenes that just didn’t connect. You can forgive these sorts of films for having a few, but I spotted so many that weren’t even close to connecting. For a film that looks great in so many areas, it’s hard to get past the fact that everything feels like it was done on the fly. Late career Ridley Scott has some serious quality control issues.

Hyperbollix

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122859740#Comment_122859740

This is exactly the kind of cinema goer that Ridley Scott and Hollywood studios are banking on. Literally banking on.

Decuc500

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122869568#Comment_122869568

What does that mean? I liked the movie. Have you some kind of a problem with that?

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122869646#Comment_122869646

Personally, I'm curious about two things. The story is almost identical to the original so, while "effortless" applies, it applies in a very different sense to what I think you meant. Also, I saw no indication of world building of any kind. Heck, the Numidians are using the Roman term "Africa Nova" for some stupid reason and they're almost all white. Pretty shoddy work if you ask me.

Decuc500

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122869670#Comment_122869670

Effortless in the sense that pretty much all of Ridley Scott's movies are like beautifully formed worlds that suck you into them. His talent is he's a story teller who paints beautiful pictures. And as I'm a huge fan of his work, to me his name on any film is reason to see it in the cinema.

As for historical accuracy? I couldn't care less.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122869749#Comment_122869749

So, you couldn't care less about historical accuracy but you praise his worldbuilding? You've contradicted yourself.

The man's recent output is both desperate and abysmal. Those Alien films were tedious drivel while Napoleon was a disaster on every level (save financial, presumably). I liked The Last Duel but everything he's made in the past 10-20 years is completely forgettable. Hard to believe that the same man gave us Alien, Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, and Blade Runner.

Decuc500

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122869762#Comment_122869762

Correct, I couldn't care less about historical accuracy in a film like this. When I say 'world building' I mean that the cinematography and sets are so beautifully realised that they draw you in completely. I don't mean it in the same sense you do. Maybe I'm using the phrase incorrectly.

I also happen to like those recent Scott films you mentioned, particularly Napoleon which I think is very underrated.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122869831#Comment_122869831

It's for entertainment, not education so accuracy isn't so much the issue as glaring stupidity that breaks the immersion. Really small things that could have been easily fixed weren't.

This is basically Scott's version of Thor: Love and Thunder IMO. Fine popcorn stuff and nothing more.

2smiggy

simple question, is it worth a trip to the cinema ? Recently seen Twisters, another 'remake' but find these types of films entertaining

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122870150#Comment_122870150

It's about on par with "Twisters". Be warned, it's very similar to its predecessor but without its heart or quality.

speedboatchase

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122870150#Comment_122870150

If you temper your expectations and go in expecting epic blockbuster production values and a great Denzel performance, you'll be grand.

griffin100

It was grand, better than expected. Despite its length character and plot development were very thin.

I thought the two lads playing the emperors were enjoyable, Denzel was a hairs breath away from starting to chew the scenery, and Meascal was a bit wooden. Everyone else was a bit meh.

Hyperbollix

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122869646#Comment_122869646

Course not, people can like whatever they want….

My only problem is that the more bums on seats that sub standard, half baked dross like this manages to attract, then that's a signal to studios to keep making unoriginal, cynical, nostalgia fueled cash grabs at the expense of the next Gladiator ie a film with some real artistry and impact.

Basq

I enjoyed it more than most sequels this year - including Twisters, Venom 3 and Beetlejuice 2 to be fair.

Decuc500

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122871002#Comment_122871002

Right, sounds like you're criticising any Marvel movie tbh.

You described me earlier as the type of cinema goer Hollywood is banking on to enable a film like Gladiator 2 to exist (a bad thing according to you). I don't appreciate that comment at all.

I'm the guy who is a member of the IFI and a season ticket holder at the Dublin Film Festival so I support good quality cinema . I only go to blockbuster films when it's people like Ridley Scott, George Miller or Christopher McQuarrie at the helm and I know the film is going to be good. You have me mistaken with the guy who goes to see any old cheap green screen crap that Hollywood studios release all the time and make millions out of. I'm not even in the demographic that props up that industry!

And if you expect any big studio blockbuster in 2024 to catch lightning in a bottle like Gladiator did in 2000 you're going to be disappointed.

howdydoo83

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122871646#Comment_122871646

How dare you enjoy this film! However Napoleon was his worst. I enjoyed Prometheus too.

BuffaloTengo

bit perplexed by all the negative reviews on this film. I really enjoyed it. If you want negatives (some people just love to focus on the negatives) some of the animal cgi is ropey (those baboons) and at 2 1/2 hours it runs out of steam. But for me the positives far outweigh the negatives. Performances, action, recreation of Rome. And surprisingly gorey.

Arghus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122869762#Comment_122869762

It doesn't necessarily have to be contradictory that a film can be chock full of historical inaccuracies and still work as an example of good world building.

Hyperbollix

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122871646#Comment_122871646

I think we have two different criteria for what constitutes a 'good' blockbuster film. You believe a technically accomplished, well made and visually impressive film made by a big name director is enough to warrant your time and money. Grand, but it wouldn't be my cup of tea.

I believe it's eminently possible to cast this type of film properly, write an interesting plot/script, hire good writers to make the thing make narrative sense, give it depth and make it work organically in the setting/time period. I don't mean historical accuracy, that wasn't even in the first film, but make it plausible.

This is all still happening with TV drama, where budgets are smaller, there is a need to lean on the writing quality. The problem with big time Hollywood now is, they've gotten lazy because there is no longer a correlation between quality output and ticket sales. CGI has turned these films into digital theme park rides where pisspoor writing is tacked on to fill the space between eye candy setpieces. Gladiator 2 is another example of that malaise.