Gladiator II

I just watched the movie in a theater. It is full of entertainment battles ( although a little too much spectacularly blood ), the story line it's in the same path as the first ( you are not amazed cause you practically know what is going to happen ) with some changes here and there. Not the depth of the first one, you don't get the emotion of the firts one. The music it's not on the same level, Zimmer is a master and Gregson-Williams didn't catch that cloud. Mescal did his best (he's not Russell Crowe), and Denzel did what Denzel does, giving his character a whole other dimension. It's not bad, but you're not going feel the same way you felt after you watched The Gladiator back in 2000.

My main issue with this film is the total lack of gravitas from Paul Mescal. Russel Crow commanded respect, on screen his presence was immense and it was easy to believe he was a leader of men. Paul Mescal just doesn't have it. He tried to hard in his talisman speeches, but they had to be carried by the music instead of his command of the screen. Even his physical presence is underwhelming, he looked like a boy pretending to be a man. The emperors also lacked a sense of real danger and tyranny. Every time there was a flash back to the original I was reminded of how poor this film was in comparison. If you were hoping for a performance anywhere close to Russel Crowe or a Mel Gibson in Braveheart you will be sorely disappointed. Without the charisma and emotional gravitas of the leading man everything else fails to deliver. Paul Mascals character was very empty, he seemed like the generic man, nothing at all to distinguish him. This movie is a textbook example of how casting will make or break a movie.

Visuals are stunning, sets and costumes look reach and amazing. Pedro Pascal is great in every scene, he's really selling all the emotions with such subtlety and minimalim. And that's about it what I've found good here.

Main actor is one of the huge problems, he always looks pale, like he is not really acting and has no real emotions. He was supposed to grab our hearts from scene one, however it somehow didn't happen. Film lacks some more time at the begining for the audiance to meet and fall in love with him, so that his motivations are more believeble and his story be more emotionally relatable.

Another huge issue is the story that goes everywhere, plot of Denzel Washington's character is just bizzare and bloated, diallogues are shallow in general...

I expected worse, but anyhow this movie left me feel numb...

The film offers a thrilling experience, the narrative and character development could have been more robust. At times, the storyline feels rushed, and some character arcs lack the depth that made the original "Gladiator" so compelling. This leads to an overall experience that, in my opinion, does not quite reach the heights of the original.

Additionally, Denzel Washington's portrayal is noteworthy, but his American accent felt somewhat out of place within the context of the film. It occasionally detracted from the immersion, making it harder to connect with his character fully.

To sum it up, "Gladiator II" is an entertaining blockbuster that delivers on visual spectacle and excitement. While it struggles with certain aspects of storytelling and character depth, it still manages to provide an enjoyable cinematic experience for fans of the genre.

Everyone has seen Denzel Washington praising fellow actors Pedro Pascal and Paul Mescal for their acting - but the reality is there is nothing special - they are actors that acted - their performance did not elevate the film to the glory of the original.

Storyline wise the film is a joke - the plot twists are illogical and only work because the characters are forced to change - the first half of the film concentrates on a man's desire for vengence which is overturned by a single line of dialogue.

Hollywood is failing - it clearly looks to have been influenced by accountants and MBA muppets that somehow believe the more twists a film contains the more $$ it attracts.

Side note: if Rome was so great - why was it always falling apart.