Personally I'm into history podcasts here, something to entertain me while I'm driving/cooking/tasking/etc. Dan Carlin's Hardcore History series is the best in the business, a history enthusiast rather than an actual historian but a former radio broadcaster so highly entertaining. He has 3 series on Rome: Death Throes of the Republic, Punic Nightmare, and The Celtic Holocaust. For the more comprehensive series from an actual historian, Mike Duncan set the standard with his The History of Rome series which starts from the city of Rome's inception to the fall of the Western Roman Empire. A little dry and boring at the start but he quickly gets better as the series moves along.
The reason it stood out to me and I commented on the 'bad history' take by Scott on the 'return Rome to a Republic' is that Rome has been a topic of interest for scholars and enthusiasts for centuries... and I don't think I've ever come across someone ponder 'hey what if the Roman Empire went back to being a Republic'. The primary topics of interest tend to be the collapse of the Republic and transition into Empire, and then later the full collapse of the Empire.
Personally I'm into history podcasts here, something to entertain me while I'm driving/cooking/tasking/etc. Dan Carlin's Hardcore History series is the best in the business, a history enthusiast rather than an actual historian but a former radio broadcaster so highly entertaining. He has 3 series on Rome: Death Throes of the Republic, Punic Nightmare, and The Celtic Holocaust. For the more comprehensive series from an actual historian, Mike Duncan set the standard with his The History of Rome series which starts from the city of Rome's inception to the fall of the Western Roman Empire. A little dry and boring at the start but he quickly gets better as the series moves along.
The reason it stood out to me and I commented on the 'bad history' take by Scott on the 'return Rome to a Republic' is that Rome has been a topic of interest for scholars and enthusiasts for centuries... and I don't think I've ever come across someone ponder 'hey what if the Roman Empire went back to being a Republic'. The primary topics of interest tend to be the collapse of the Republic and transition into Empire, and then later the full collapse of the Empire.
I only caught The Celtic Holocaust for his content on Rome but I can confirm that was it fantastic. His King of Kings was also great and worth checking out for those interested.
If this had nothing to do with the original it would work fine as a campy action movie with a dumb plot. Maybe even better than fine. But as a sequel to the original it's pretty weak with strange yo-yoing tension, poor pacing, underdeveloped characters, and a contrived overall plot. I looked at reviews after leaving the theater and Entertainment Weekly calling the script "fiercely intelligent" made me laugh out loud. Maybe fiercely intelligent if that critic has only ever seen the Fast & Furious and Transformers movies.
Mescal is a good actor but he felt out of place in the role and he didn't really make me feel much considering he's supposed to be the Maximus esque hero. Probably didn't help that his back story combined with eventually going on more or less the same journey as Maximus felt super contrived.
I need to bitch about one more thing but Lucius was basically a retread of everything that frustrated me about Jyn Erso. Unwilling and jaded hero who has a complete character 180 just from having a single conversation. I mean really? All it took was Acassius telling Lucius that he loved his mother and father and would die for them and he's all about saving Rome? His thirst for vengeance just instantly evaporates in less than a minute?
. Denzel isn't trying to win an Oscar here, he's just having fun with the role but that did result in some super goofy and out of place line deliveries: "this is politicssssssss-uh" made my eyes roll into the back of my head. Pedro Pascal was solid in his role but nothing close to his performance in Game of Thrones or even The Last of Us.
The twin emperors were pretty unique and memorable in the way the McPoyles from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia are memorable. Joseph Quinn played his emperor like a theater kid on cocaine which I could've hated but I found it amusing enough to enjoy it.
As a standalone action movie, it's a pretty fun one for the most part. The last twenty minutes or so drag but I can't say the action wasn't fun to watch. But even with it being years on years since I saw the original, it's hard not to be frustrated at how widely the sequel misses the mark given how many times the original is referenced. In general, I don't think Ridley Scott is swinging for the fences anymore. Between this and Napoleon it's two technically impressive but overall lackluster films.
Actually now that I think about it there was some rough CGI with the baboons and sharks which, come the f*** on, sharks? How the f*** do you expect anyone with even basic knowledge of the technology they had back then to believe that they managed to transport some 20 sharks to the Colliseum?
Actually now that I think about it there was some rough CGI with the baboons and sharks which, come the f*** on, sharks? How the f*** do you expect anyone with even basic knowledge of the technology they had back then to believe that they managed to transport some 20 sharks to the Colliseum?
I was also caught up on the fact that it was supposed to be a Persians vs Greeks mock battle and the Persians had bows but the Greeks didn't have shields?
Just an overall example of the degradation in quality from Scott. It's meant to mimic the 'historic recreation battle' from Gladiator, but with far less substance and far more suspension of disbelief spectacle.
I was also caught up on the fact that it was supposed to be a Persians vs Greeks mock battle and the Persians had bows but the Greeks didn't have shields?
Just an overall example of the degradation in quality from Scott. It's meant to mimic the 'historic recreation battle' from Gladiator, but with far less substance and far more suspension of disbelief spectacle.
I didn't even hear what battle they were mimicking. The sound in my theater wasn't the best. But it wouldn't surprise me if the Ancient Romans took creative liberties in something like a battle recreation, but I wouldn't credit Scott for having researched that if true.
Small history rant but its kind of cute how in both Gladiator movies (from what I recall) Ridley Scott sets a goal for the leads to 'make Rome a Republic again' and 'return it to the people'. That's a very modern mindset, with a completely poor understanding of Roman History.
Now you can't just view 'Rome' as a monolithic entity, as it existed in some form or another for almost 2000 years. The distinction in regards to Scott here though is that the Roman Republic was a city state modelled after the Greeks, that following the Punic wars came to control most of the Mediterranean. But it was not setup to rule a large empire, and the Senate wasn't really 'for the people' but rather a 99% hereditary group of wealthy elites called the Patrician class that sent armies abroad conquering for self enrichment, and eventually violently resisted badly needed reforms for both the people of Rome and it's subjects. It took a Julius Caesar seizing dictatorial powers to start getting things done 'for the common good'. And under the rule of Emperor's, while there were lots of ups and downs, this was the period when it became less about 'Rome' and more about a long standing unified 'Roman Empire' that could exist without actually controlling the city of Rome itself.
At the time of Gladiator 1 with Marcus Aurelius, this was the end of a period known as the five great emperors that lasted 100 years and was the absolute peak of the Roman Empire. The idea of returning Rome to a Republic here is absurd. It occurred in large part because the prior emperor died without an heir, so they could keep selecting the best man for the job. That streak ended because Aurelius had his son Commodus who was a disaster and would eventually be strangled to death by his wrestling coach in the bath.
If this had nothing to do with the original it would work fine as a campy action movie with a dumb plot. Maybe even better than fine. But as a sequel to the original it's pretty weak with strange yo-yoing tension, poor pacing, underdeveloped characters, and a contrived overall plot. I looked at reviews after leaving the theater and Entertainment Weekly calling the script "fiercely intelligent" made me laugh out loud. Maybe fiercely intelligent if that critic has only ever seen the Fast & Furious and Transformers movies.
Mescal is a good actor but he felt out of place in the role and he didn't really make me feel much considering he's supposed to be the Maximus esque hero. Probably didn't help that his back story combined with eventually going on more or less the same journey as Maximus felt super contrived.
I need to bitch about one more thing but Lucius was basically a retread of everything that frustrated me about Jyn Erso. Unwilling and jaded hero who has a complete character 180 just from having a single conversation. I mean really? All it took was Acassius telling Lucius that he loved his mother and father and would die for them and he's all about saving Rome? His thirst for vengeance just instantly evaporates in less than a minute?
. Denzel isn't trying to win an Oscar here, he's just having fun with the role but that did result in some super goofy and out of place line deliveries: "this is politicssssssss-uh" made my eyes roll into the back of my head. Pedro Pascal was solid in his role but nothing close to his performance in Game of Thrones or even The Last of Us.
The twin emperors were pretty unique and memorable in the way the McPoyles from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia are memorable. Joseph Quinn played his emperor like a theater kid on cocaine which I could've hated but I found it amusing enough to enjoy it.
As a standalone action movie, it's a pretty fun one for the most part. The last twenty minutes or so drag but I can't say the action wasn't fun to watch. But even with it being years on years since I saw the original, it's hard not to be frustrated at how widely the sequel misses the mark given how many times the original is referenced. In general, I don't think Ridley Scott is swinging for the fences anymore. Between this and Napoleon it's two technically impressive but overall lackluster films.
Actually now that I think about it there was some rough CGI with the baboons and sharks which, come the f*** on, sharks? How the f*** do you expect anyone with even basic knowledge of the technology they had back then to believe that they managed to transport some 20 sharks to the Colliseum?
Did the sharks have “freakin’ laser beams attached to their heads” too?
I doubt I’ll catch this one after what I’ve been reading. The first one ended beautifully and is still one of the better action dramas ever. There was no story that had to be told after the first movie so I’m not surprised this one isn’t all that great.
“Gladiator II”—Ridley Scott’s action epic starring Paul Mescal, Denzel Washington and Pedro Pascal—is coming soon to digital streaming. Find out when you can watch it at home.
www.forbes.com
Dec 24th is the date.
I saw it today and was entertained. It has a lot of flaws, but the original had them, too, IMO. I re-watched that last night to refresh myself and had the same criticisms that I had 24 years ago: its story is derivative, the pacing is rushed, the editing is choppy, the CGI isn't always convincing and the main character isn't that developed or likable. That said, I enjoyed it a little more this time in spite of that because I knew what to expect. Gladiator II has all of the same issues, but since I also expected them, they didn't bother me too much and I just focused on enjoying the spectacle and rare opportunity to see ancient Rome on the big screen. I actually enjoyed it about the same as my re-watch of the original, though not knowing what was going to happen probably helped. As someone who doesn't revere the original, I feel that it lived up to it relatively well and that the two make for an entertaining double feature, if nothing else.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
collider.com
www.forbes.com
