Gladiator 2

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122874084#Comment_122874084

I agree. Braveheart is basically a fantasy film but it's filthy, grim and almost nobody wears armour, it being a luxury item.

There is no world-building here though. It's just an imitation of the original and nothing more.

Thelonious Monk

Just back. Thought it was class and the first one might be my favourite film ever. A bit drawn out but was enthralled. Denzel and the twins were great. I want Gladiator 3!

Kermit.de.frog

Critical Drinker says Denzel has a New York accent throughout. Made me giggle.

Thelonious Monk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122876718#Comment_122876718

Some of them have British accents too, mental. But no Denzels accent is fine it sounds kind of toned down and doesn't really seem to matter.

Dogsdodogsstuff

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122871896#Comment_122871896

I think there’s a couple of ways of rating a movie, for me it can come down to the experience itself when watching it and the quality of the movie. Quite often for me I can really enjoy a sub standard movie if I am in good form; maybe with my friends/family and I’m receptive to just getting on the ride the movie is gonna take me on.

Quality movies with real meat can sometimes take a second viewing for me to really appreciate them fully. Or sometimes they click immediately.

Going to Gladiator 2, with mates, it was more about meeting my mates then anything, but being able to goto a movie that we all enjoyed was a bonus. Movies like this are made for them moments. I wish all movies were made for the love of the sport but that’s just not realistic. And there is room for popcorn movies, even if their originals are quality. The problem can be that some people are rigidly comitted to the originals.

I do wonder why some people bother going to see these movies. You know when a new alien movie (I’ve enjoyed them for what they were) it’s going to stray from the original, so why goto see it when you don’t even want it made in the first place? I don’t know , other then money, why Gladiator 2 was made, I’d probably imagine it could of just as easily been so Scott could get something else he wants made made (like Reeves with superman 4). So I’ve no sympathy for anybody benchmarking it to original.

Hyperbollix

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122877213#Comment_122877213

It's practically a beat for beat re-run of the original. It lifts scenes and dialogue from the original. It references the original many times throughout. It's literally called Gladiator 2. And benchmarking it to the original isn't fair game?

Let's be honest. Old, lazy, once great film director with a reputation for visuals and world building, now has the ability to throw the kitchen sink at the CGI on a setting where he was previously hampered by budget and technology constraints. Quality of script, casting etc etc now largely irrelevant, as 20 years of superhero franchise domination have shown us.

This is what's going on here. Nothing more.

Thelonious Monk

I loved the opening credits and animation

howdydoo83

Kermode said it was completed in 51 days. No wonder he's churning so many out atm

Decuc500

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122877821#Comment_122877821

He's 86! His work ethic is incredible. Hope he has a couple more in him.

Dogsdodogsstuff

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122877674#Comment_122877674

I never said it’s not fair game to compare it to the original , I said it’s setting yourself up for major disappointment by doing that. Was it realistic to expect the sequel to be anywhere near the same quality as the first ? Is it reasonable to compare movies made decades apart and expect similar level of quality?

I know if I watched Gladiator now, after watching the sequel , I’d see extremely different levels of quality. But I knew that before going to see the sequel so it didn’t bother me. Star Wars is a great example of how technology has completely ruined the originals charm. Rogue one and Andhor, probably the closest thing I’ve seen to really complimenting an original with modern technology , while capturing the grittiness. But that’s really the expection. (Some may say Blade runner but the new one wasn’t anywhere near as gritty).

You can have high standards and compare whatever movies to whatever you want, most things are fair game if you want to delve deep enough. But I’m simply pointing out that an awful lot of people seem to act either surprised (that sequels don’t hold up to original quality) or literally go to these movies simply to confirm what they originally thought (this movie doesn’t need to be made).

I could have told you in advance , the movie will prob be a rehash of the first , the script won’t be as good and the lead character will struggle to match Crowe. You’ve seen Ridley’s recent movies and yet you still went to this in spite of how you hate what he’s doing.

I just don’t get why people goto movies they know they probably won’t like and get upset when it does exactly what they thought it it was going to do. The problem isn’t “old crazy director” , it’s people who still goto his movies and then spend time complaining about how the movie actually met their expectations by not being something they enjoyed…

Hyperbollix

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122877993#Comment_122877993

In answer to your first two questions, yes and yes. Why can't it be more than a cheap imitation of the original. It's being made by the same director, with an astronomical budget behind him. Why couldn't he attempt more than a lazy remake.

I didn't go to it and won't be. No way would I reward rubbish like this with a ticket sale. I've seen and read enough coverage of it from sources I respect to know what a pile o' shíte this is.

I also knew what this would be very early on………. how? Because it's 2024 and this was always going to be just another Ridley Scott exercise in self indulgence.

You don't seem to be disagreeing with me here on many points. You accept it's a nostalgic cash grab that leans heavily on the original to attract an audience that fondly remembers that film and you accept it's pisspoor in comparison. Your point seems to be "This is standard rubbish sequel fare, you can't expect it to be any better. Why bitch about it?" I don't get that attitude. If this steaming pile of turd was to flop, then it would be a signal to not make more of the same. Or maybe make a better quality version of it. By going along, paying your €10 - €15 and saying "Fcuk it, I liked the CGI sharks, that'll do" then you are giving them the green light to make Gladiator 3. Which will probably be in the pipe line. This debate then goes beyond these films and Ridley Scott and expands out into the phenomenon of endless, crappy sequels cashing in on a brand name. Which has been the bane of cinema for nearly 20 years now.

Dogsdodogsstuff

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122878670#Comment_122878670

We actually do agree on a fair bit.

My attitude is that if you have a problem with a sequel being made in the first place, expect it to be bad and don’t like the director, why bother going to see it? And what can you really contribute to an individual movie thread after it’s being released and people are discussing its content when you aren’t gonna watch it?

At least you haven’t gone to the movie. People complain long before a movie is even made , for months, then goto see the movie and then complain when it’s as dissapointing (for them) as they expected. That’s the kind of weird attitude I don’t get.

Of course there’s nothing to stop better movies being made, but in reality how often are sequels good? Especially ones decade apart. If people actually had realistic expectations , they might avoid cash grabs or movies they don’t think will be any good and maybe the standard will improve. I suppose I’m a realist and I know what I’m getting going to sequels in particular.

I thought this might be, at best, 6/10 and I think it was about that. Not all movies have to be 8/10, sometimes a cinema experience can be just about getting what you can from a movie. I’m no movie snob but I’m also not somebody who doesn’t enjoy quality movies. Like the less snarky movie reviewers, I tend to look to see what I can enjoy in a movie , as opposed to focusing on what I didn’t enjoy. I feel blessed that I can do that because more often then not I’ve been able to enjoy the experience.

My unlimited cinema ticket is great. Whether I goto a crappy squeal or a quality original, I’m supporting the cinemas that I hope will still be around when my children are older with their kids as it’s a wonderful hobby you can do on our own or with others . I sometimes go to a movie I think might be a 5/10 if I just want to get out of the house. Sometimes it’s terrible and sometimes I enjoy the experience cause I expected sh*t and got something that wasn’t entirely sh*t.

Watched the godfather with my eldest son last week. I’d been telling him about for ages. They just don’t make movies as good as that. Even the extras were excellent , the grittiness, the feel of it. Even the likes of goodfellas is a notch down from it. Brandos nuanced acting was unreal.

So maybe my secret is that I adjust my expectations, depending on what’s a reasonable probability of a franchise or sequel movie matching up to its predecessor in any meaningful way and just want to be entertained.

Full_Circle_81

I'm not running to the defense of this movie, most of the criticisms being labelled at are sadly true. But it's worth remembering that the original was an absolute disaster of a production and Crowe was extremely unhappy with the script, changing bits with Ridley throughout till he was happy with it. He even mocked lines that remained in the movie, saying they only worked cause he made them work. He may be rather big-headed, but I think without his presence in the original, it might not have been the runaway success that it was.

Getting back to the sequel, it all felt a little pointless. It diminished the promise of the first movie by quickly resetting things via the opening crawl (very much like The Force Awakens in that way). Instead of progressing the story of the first, it mostly just repeated it (shamelessly in a lot of ways). Without spoiling the plot, I felt like it retconned things from the first movie so they could shoehorn in Mescals character.

Performance wise, I quite enjoyed Denzels in this high camp style, but got whiplash from the speed at which his character arc played out. His energy was matched quite well by the twins. I also enjoyed both Pedro and Connie (who looked amazing after all these years). The weak link for me was our Paul. I feel like he was rather miscast in the role. He lacked the leading man magnatism of Crowe and his more muted style felt at odds with everyone else's OTT performance.

I also found the whole ending a bit cringe and unsatisfying.

TinyMuffin

I saw it last night.
I give it 2.5 potatoes out of 5.

flasher0030

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122880937#Comment_122880937

I was reading your post, and I was thinking was it me that actually wrote it. I have the exact same sentiment. I generally look up reviews of what I am going to watch - without getting too much info that will ruin the upcoming experience. I have a very good idea of what I am getting myself into. If it's an "arty" type movie that is well received in general by movie critics, but not so much by the general public, I have a feeling that it could be a slow movie but good acting, nice background touches etc. i.e. it's not going to be like another Die Hard. And if it turns out I am bored of it,. then it's on me. I don't feel the need to chastise the movie cause it did nothing for me.

There is a fair amount of movie snobbery around - not cool to enjoy movies that are blockbuster in nature - explosions, CGI etc. And that's often from people who haven't even seen the film, but because it's a certain type of genre, they will criticize it anyway. I'm generally easy going for most films. There are some times I may be disappointed after watching a movie, but I just move on. I try to take the good from each film, and enjoy it as best I can.

From reading the comments here, I had presumed that it was a complete flop, and useless. But I looked up general reviews of what opinions are, and the online reviews are very favourable

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gladiator_ii

p to the e

"Are you not entertained?". A little bit but I wouldn't write home about it. There was a lot wrong with this film and a few bits that went right. Some battle scenes really got the heart pumping but it's almost like there was too many so you hit battle fatigue by the end. There was also no reason to shoe horn in so much animal CGI when they could have been replaced with mere men or just scrapped altogether and save a few million.

I feel Mescal is trying his best with the crappy script but I fear he may not have the chops for leading man status of a mega blockbuster. I hope I'm wrong. I mean, his big monologue at the end between the two armies just gave me the end of Rocky 4 vibes. "…WE ALL CAN CHANGE".

The only character that I was in any way invested in was Pedro Pascal's but I feel like they under utilised him. As for Washington, I feel his script notes consisted of "do Training Day but in ancient Rome". If there's Oscar buzz about his performance then it must be coming from himself.

The main problem that I had with this film was that it just couldn't help referencing the first one at every hand's turn. Even the opening few minutes was a "Previously on…". Perhaps if they tried harder to make it more stand alone then it could have been better but I feel like Scott is just beyond caring anymore.

A generous 6/10

roshje

I went to see it today I quite enjoyed it. I suppose some people do and some people don't. C'est la vie.

BuffaloTengo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122878670#Comment_122878670

all your negative comments and you have not even seen the film…..outrageous

brick tamland

I thought it was good. Not a patch on 1st one obviously but worth a trip to the cinema. Its one to see on big screen

One thing though, I thought that despite it being a long enough movie the ending felt rushed.

Hyperbollix

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122881417#Comment_122881417

I think it's hard to overstate how important Crowe was to the original. He took on the role of a producer as well as acting the lead. In many cases he took things that were very American and cringey in the original script and made them more relatable or grounded them in his character. I think he really did stop Scott running away with himself on many occasions.

McGrath5

Saw this last night, I didn't have high expectations but boy it was bad, like really bad. Not sure if it was the cinema I was in (Omniplex Rathmines) but some of the darker scenes appeared to be slightly out of focus.

The battle scenes at the beginning I thought were well done and the colosseum fights but were over too fast IMO.

The script and acting in parts are as other people have pointed out, a very B movie feel. It was easily 30 minutes too long, I could sense people in the cinema getting uneasy and wanted it to end.

Ridley Scott needs to call it a day, G2 along with Napoleon are just terrible films and I'm done with any of his future output.

buried

What made the original half decent was the inclusion of Richard Harris and Oliver Reed. Their legendary status and lineage added weight to the whole thing. Thank god this wasn't another one of Scotts sci-fi rehashes, he probably would have CGI'd/ AI'd their dead characters back into this if he got half the chance.

Loafing Oaf

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122898811#Comment_122898811

I thought Denzel brought some of that heft to G2, maybe didn't quite feel such a natural for the part…

buried

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122898869#Comment_122898869

Yeah, I suppose that's what they thought too, the producers of this thing. Washington would be the de-facto old timer to add some lineage in todays world, but for all of his brilliant performances, they don't even amount to the likes of what Harris and Reed were involved with. Especially Reed, some of his works were some of the most groundbreaking things mainstream western cinema ever created, the likes of 'The Devils' etc

Hyperbollix

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122898811#Comment_122898811

Definitely, although I think even the inclusion of those two in this sequel would've struggled to lift this film out of the gutter. I watched the original the other night, paying particular attention to Harris and Reed and their arcs. Yes, they are brilliant in the scenes they have, but an awful lot of it is down to the material they were working with.

Harris was playing a Roman emperor but the real meat of it was the fact the drama centered around the father/son relationship and the problem of choosing another heir who wasn't his blood. Identifying Maximus as a decent and honest man, traits his own son did not have. That is something that translates across all cultures, genders and languages.

Oliver Reed was very much at home and perfectly cast as the ageing brawler who lost his comfortable livelihood in Rome. The death of Marcus Aurelius changes his fortunes and he gets to return to the arena with his gladiators. He portrays a cold, cutthroat businessman throughout most of the film, someone who is only out to make money and any cost. In the end, he risks his new found wealth and his life by freeing Maximus who will then march on Rome with his army and kill Commodus, the man who makes him rich, but also the man who killed the emperor who gave him his freedom.

There is really nothing of that quality of writing in the sequel.

stemplard

What a failure of a wannabe by blockbuster. Part 1 was much much better.

Sad Professor

https://www.indiewire.com/news/general-news/gladiator-ii-dp-john-mathieson-ridley-scotts-lazy-process-1235071055/

I have been saying this about Scott's use of multiple cameras for years.

weadick

Saw it last night. Deliberately avoided any reviews as I didn't want to spoil it. Gladiator is one of my favourite ever films. Wish I didn't bother. Absolute rubbish. I'm trying to think of things I liked about it and literally can't think of any. In the pantheon of bad sequels it has to be up there with some of the worst. Ridley Scott has totally lost the plot.

Hyperbollix

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122909232#Comment_122909232

I was recommended a great 10 min Youtube video recently which went into how Gladiator became an Oscar worthy film instead of the forgettable blood soaked action flick it was destined to be. Famously they had almost no script to begin. This didn't bother Scott, who just wanted to plough on and get filming.

Russell Crowe in particular had a shítfit and threatened to walk away unless certain assurances could be made. This led to them to hire John Logan and William Nicholson, who basically dreamed up the whole afterlife thread which runs through the film and the idea that Maximus is not looking for pure revenge, but just to return to his family.

It's very evident that no such efforts were made for the sequel.

Homelander

I didn't have overly high expectations for this even though I hadn't read this thread in advance which is maybe a bit too "doomsday" in its outlook - it's not an outright terrible film.

The main problem is that it's called Gladiator 2 and inevitably has enormous shoes to fill, and it does that poorly enough. Had it been a different movie called "Barbarian" with some minor script changes, for example, it would've been a reasonably OK bit of historical entertainment.

The performances are generally fine across the board, but the script is really lacking - you really find yourself not caring much about anyone, or even feeling remotely motivated to care - even a normally superbly charismatic actor like Pedro Pascal can't make it happen here.

It just lumbers from set piece to set piece with weak connective tissue, and stuff just constantly seems to happen to advance the plot rather than actually feeling earned or gratifying. A stark difference to the original movie.

Overall though - watchable, entertaining, forgettable. I'd compare it quite closely to something like Those About to Die on Amazon Prime - another very flawed but highly entertaining piece of historical fluff. If you enjoyed that, I'd say you'd find enough to enjoy in Gladiator 2 to make it worthwhile. If you felt the other way, I'd say that'd reflect how you'd feel about this just the same.

I'd give it a 5.5/10, reasonably entertaining and visually quite nice but falls way short of the original in all the ways that made that movie such a classic. It's badly copied homework, has the important bits but no idea how to show how to get there.