Años después de presenciar la muerte del héroe Máximo a manos de su tío, Lucio se ve forzado a entrar en el Coliseo tras ser testigo de la conquista de su hogar por parte de los tiránicos em... Leer todoAños después de presenciar la muerte del héroe Máximo a manos de su tío, Lucio se ve forzado a entrar en el Coliseo tras ser testigo de la conquista de su hogar por parte de los tiránicos emperadores que dirigen Roma con puño de hierro.Años después de presenciar la muerte del héroe Máximo a manos de su tío, Lucio se ve forzado a entrar en el Coliseo tras ser testigo de la conquista de su hogar por parte de los tiránicos emperadores que dirigen Roma con puño de hierro.
- Dirección
- Guión
- Reparto principal
- Nominado para 1 premio Óscar
- 9 premios y 110 nominaciones en total
Resumen
Reviewers say 'Gladiator II' impresses with visuals and performances, especially Denzel Washington and Pedro Pascal, but falls short in emotional depth and originality. The grand scale, action sequences, and themes of power and redemption are praised, yet the script is criticized for predictability and underdeveloped characters. Paul Mescal's performance is deemed lacking compared to Russell Crowe's, and the film's reliance on CGI and historical inaccuracies is noted.
Reseñas destacadas
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.
How to describe this? It's like a shallow, diluted, Netflix version of Gladiator. I didn't go into this expecting it to be the original, or even have the same style of the original. I'd already heard it was more visual entertainment than an epic story. Even taking that into consideration I still felt very disappointed. It felt like a tele novella at certain points, with cringy dialogue and weak cinematography. It felt rushed throughout, skipping from scene to scene, death to death. The speeches fell flat. There were cheesy one liners. There were no moments of stillness, of emotion and feeling. You weren't attached to any of the characters, none of them had any gravitas. I can't say if it's due to the acting or poor writing. What more is there to say. It just felt like a money grab.
There seems to be a trend these days when making follow ups to beloved classics that you need to add more. More characters! More action! But that doesn't always equal better. It's almost like filmmakers these days think we're stupid and want more of everything but all this does is sacrifice quality.
What made the original such a classic was the relatively simple plot, a protagonist you cared about and action that felt earned and impactful.
This one is so overstuffed it feels rushed. The plot feels like a lazy retread of the first but I didn't care about any of the characters. Paul Mescal was so wooden it sounded like he was reading his lines. If this is how he acts, I really don't see what all the fuss is about with him. Am I missing something.
The action, while visually impressive, lacked impact. Some studio exec probably thought 'hmm there was only 1 exotic animal in the first film, we can do better! Let's add way more!'
What made the original such a classic was the relatively simple plot, a protagonist you cared about and action that felt earned and impactful.
This one is so overstuffed it feels rushed. The plot feels like a lazy retread of the first but I didn't care about any of the characters. Paul Mescal was so wooden it sounded like he was reading his lines. If this is how he acts, I really don't see what all the fuss is about with him. Am I missing something.
The action, while visually impressive, lacked impact. Some studio exec probably thought 'hmm there was only 1 exotic animal in the first film, we can do better! Let's add way more!'
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...
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...
If ever a film did not need a follow up, it's Gladiator, some films are just not meant to have sequels, Gladiator is definitely one of those.
Not bad, but not good either, the main question I have, is why, why was this made, is the creative magic at Hollywood now dead, can we soon expect Titanic 3, or Halloween Junior High, film making just doesn't feel free flowing or exciting right now.
I quite liked Denzel Washington's over the top performance, it was quite fun, Sir Derek Jacobi was great for the time he was on screen.
There are two big flaw however, one it's trying to hard to compete with its superior predecessor, everything done here, was done better in the original and secondly, Paul Mescal just wasn't right for the role, he just didn't have the presence of gravitas, Crowe was totally superior in every which way.
The sharks, what can you say about those sharks, proof that this felt like a made up story, the original felt like a tale from history, this felt like it was conjured up during a drunken Saturday night.
It's worth seeing, just don't expect too much. I went on a Saturday night in Cardiff, and there were six of us in the screen, Wicked was packed.
5/10.
Not bad, but not good either, the main question I have, is why, why was this made, is the creative magic at Hollywood now dead, can we soon expect Titanic 3, or Halloween Junior High, film making just doesn't feel free flowing or exciting right now.
I quite liked Denzel Washington's over the top performance, it was quite fun, Sir Derek Jacobi was great for the time he was on screen.
There are two big flaw however, one it's trying to hard to compete with its superior predecessor, everything done here, was done better in the original and secondly, Paul Mescal just wasn't right for the role, he just didn't have the presence of gravitas, Crowe was totally superior in every which way.
The sharks, what can you say about those sharks, proof that this felt like a made up story, the original felt like a tale from history, this felt like it was conjured up during a drunken Saturday night.
It's worth seeing, just don't expect too much. I went on a Saturday night in Cardiff, and there were six of us in the screen, Wicked was packed.
5/10.
¿Sabías que...?
- CuriosidadesIn an interview with Simon Mayo, Sir Ridley Scott said that he sold the El reino de los cielos (2005) set to the Moroccan government for $10 because it was cheaper than dismantling it. He then had to hire it from the same government for use in this movie.
- PifiasNaval battles were only staged in the first year after the Colosseum was built. After the construction of the Hypogeum it was no longer possible to flood the arena.
- Versiones alternativasA cut M-rated version was released in cinemas in Australia. At least 3 scenes were trimmed: Cut No. 1 - Lucius (Paul Mescal) beheads his opponent at the first Roman games. The beginning of the scene was trimmed to remove the swords connecting with the head. It cuts into the shot midway to show the stump and a bit of blood spray. Cut No. 2 - Macrinus (Denzel Washington) slashing at the neck of Emperor Geta (Joseph Quinn). The initial long shot of the neck cutting and blood spray is missing. The following close-up shot is zoomed to the left to remove the continued neck slashing and blood spray on the right. Cut No. 3 - Macrinus puts a spike into the ear of Emperor Caracalla (Fred Hechinger). The red blood flowing from his ear is now green/yellow. Despite these cuts, the edited version was later reclassified as MA15+. The initial M rating was given by the studio itself, whereas the MA15+ rating was given by the Australian classification board. It is currently unknown if the uncut version will be released on Australian home video.
- ConexionesEdited into Gladiator II: Deleted Scenes (2025)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y añadir a tu lista para recibir recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Gladiator II?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- 250.000.000 US$ (estimación)
- Recaudación en Estados Unidos y Canadá
- 172.438.016 US$
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- 55.034.715 US$
- 24 nov 2024
- Recaudación en todo el mundo
- 462.180.717 US$
- Duración2 horas 28 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugerir un cambio o añadir el contenido que falta