Movies: Gladiator 2

[Unholy Diver]

Action sequences are wild and crazy and fun to watch of the big screen. Denzell steals the show which borrows slavishly from the original in terms of basic plot dynamics. Worth watching for the outrageous bits, but it's not going to come close to having the shelf life of the original.

Is it a standalone story? Will it be worth watching / make sense, if I missed the first one?

 

[Jovavic]

I think this will end up losing the studio money, the amount of marketing I've seen has been insane

 

[DaaaaB's]

Is it a standalone story? Will it be worth watching / make sense, if I missed the first one?

You'd probably be better off just watching the first one instead of this one. You seriously haven't seen Gladiator?

 

[John Price]

the original gladiator was an exceptional movie. hard to believe this one will be as good. and yeah the marketing is crazy they were advertising it throughout football yesterday

 

[Unholy Diver]

You'd probably be better off just watching the first one instead of this one. You seriously haven't seen Gladiator?

No I haven't, and likely won't, I prefer to see the big epic movies in a theater, and the trailers for the new one have me thinking about it

 

[Bocephus86]

No I haven't, and likely won't, I prefer to see the big epic movies in a theater, and the trailers for the new one have me thinking about it

The first Gladiator stands up incredibly well. It's worth a watch. I still get goose bumps 2 or 3 different times, and I've probably seen it 20 times.

 

[Osprey]

I've heard it likened to The Force Awakens: a soft remake masquerading as a sequel that's inferior to the original in every way, but possibly still entertaining as spectacle if you don't compare them.

 

[RandV]

I've heard it likened to The Force Awakens: a soft remake masquerading as a sequel that's inferior to the original in every way, but possibly still entertaining as spectacle if you don't compare them.

I saw it last night and think that's fair. I'd say where Gladiator was a historically adjacent journey, Gladiator II was a complete historical fabrication and a sprint. The story in the sequel is more complicated but not for the better as they just have to rush the pace a lot more and not flesh things out. For example the other gladiators on the team were basically just recurring background characters, and he went from slave to champion in just a couple of days. Also while I was not nearly as well versed in Roman history when Gladiator came out, as I learned about it (The History of Rome podcast by Mike Duncan) when I came to the part I was able to put into context when the movie was set. So now that I am knowledgeable in Roman history, the complete lack of authenticity bugged me a lot more here.

I haven't seen Gladiator in a long time but it's a memorable classic. Gladiator II was entertaining but not something you really remember after watching it. And one thing that bugs me that's common in today's movie was the soundtrack, which was completely forgettable here except for the parts where the dropped in something from the original. On the positive side of things, Denzel Washington was great and really stole the show.

 

[I am not exposed]

No I haven't, and likely won't, I prefer to see the big epic movies in a theater, and the trailers for the new one have me thinking about it

Get a big TV instead. Then you can watch these movies once they are not at the cinema anymore.

 

[hotcabbagesoup]

Get a big TV instead. Then you can watch these movies once they are not at the cinema anymore.

And you can take bathroom breaks without missing any action!

 

[Unholy Diver]

Get a big TV instead. Then you can watch these movies once they are not at the cinema anymore.

Yeah I've had a big to giant tv for 15-20 years now, I still don't care

 

[I am not exposed]

And you can take bathroom breaks without missing any action!

And not hear other people eat popcorn! And put subtitles on!

I'm not surprised the cinema is dying. Especially when a lot of films appear on streaming services a month or two after they have been released.

 

[Kurtz]

What was up with those ridiculous monkeys?

I'd echo that this was an entertaining movie but pales in comparison to the original. Mescal didn't really do it for me, was a lightweight compared to Crowe.

If anyone is a fan of original Frasier, you might recognize the overactor from one of the episodes...overacting here.

Also a fun cameo from The Hound.

Oh and imo Gaeta and Caracalla's story in real life was more interesting than what they came up with onscreen.

 

[Osprey]

 

[johnjm22]

I saw it last night.

I was thoroughly entertained by the spectacle of it on a massive IMAX screen. It has wonderful costumes, sets and props.

It has plenty of flaws, but they didn't really bother me. I don't have the same reverence for the original as others do, so maybe that's why.

The main character is a bit of a Gary Stu.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

i just seen the trailer for this and it felt like they told the entire story in the trailer alone lol

I'll watch this but likely going to wait till it comes to streaming services, once I heard the same line from the first movie it kinda felt corny.

I got hope from the above post that it's atleast entertaining

 

[Incubajerks]

I thought this sequel would be a piece of shit, but f***, sharks, monkeys, people reading the newspaper, stuff that makes your eyes bleed. f*** I forgot, the gravestone inscriptions in English lol.

 

[PK Cronin]

5/10. Are you not entertained? Not really. I'll preface that this review was significantly impacted by two jabronis next to me who talked the entire movie and kept checking their phones.

There's a lot of flash with very little substance. I thought the CGI was poor and almost completely unnecessary. The entire movie rushes through any interesting character development to get to the next sequence where they can reference the first movie. There are character turns that don't make much sense at all and almost all of the characters are uninteresting so you're not pulling for any of them. Connie Nielsen put in the best performance, followed by Denzel (who wasn't particularly good, not bad, but it's a far cry from Training Day). Pedro Pascal could've been anyone and it wouldn't have made a difference, and Paul Mescal was unimpressive.

If you're going to see it I'd recommend waiting until it hits a streaming service. The lack of queer giraffes was noticeable.

 

[johnjm22]

If you're going to see it I'd recommend waiting until it hits a streaming service. The lack of queer giraffes was noticeable.

I think in order to enjoy this movie, you need two things:

1) A big IMAX screen.
2) Low expectations.

I don't think I would have enjoyed this movie outside of the theater.

 

[beowulf]

I've heard it likened to The Force Awakens: a soft remake masquerading as a sequel that's inferior to the original in every way, but possibly still entertaining as spectacle if you don't compare them.

Nope, it is its own story that uses the first one well, we even have scenes from the first in it. I liked it, not as much as the original, but they did a good job of making this work and as someone else mentioned Denzel really was great.

 

[PK Cronin]

I think in order to enjoy this movie, you need two things:

1) A big IMAX screen.
2) Low expectations.

I don't think I would have enjoyed this movie outside of the theater.

I didn't enjoy the movie in theaters so I don't think the screen made that much of a difference.

The more I think about the more I dislike it. So much wasted potential.