अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंAfter his home is conquered by the tyrannical emperors who now lead Rome, Lucius is forced to enter the Colosseum and must look to his past to find strength to return the glory of Rome to it... सभी पढ़ेंAfter his home is conquered by the tyrannical emperors who now lead Rome, Lucius is forced to enter the Colosseum and must look to his past to find strength to return the glory of Rome to its people.After his home is conquered by the tyrannical emperors who now lead Rome, Lucius is forced to enter the Colosseum and must look to his past to find strength to return the glory of Rome to its people.
- 1 ऑस्कर के लिए नामांकित
- 9 जीत और कुल 110 नामांकन
सारांश
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.
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
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.
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.
I approached this movie truly trying to give it a fair change on its own by not holding and comparing it too much to its original, But this movie just pulls of a force awakens and has 80% just recycled nostalgia bait its impossible to not compare them.
It recycles quotes,plot, narratives, even very same camera shots.
And yeah,alas, the first did absolutely everything, every single aspect better to much better and most definitely story/drama character wise.
Even though tis definitely not the worst movie ever,far from.
But this movie kind of symbolize the state of current Hollywood and how much it has declined over the last few decades.
The fact so many people praising it confirms a bitter reality. Story and plot just don't matter or at least much less then it used to, people are pleased and satisfied as long they see pretty pictures and are not bored!
This movie definitely looks glorious and expensive and had a big grandeur(although some CGI looked comically fake), but it fails to have a coherent driven plot.
In the first movie every scene absolutely mattered, even during battles, characters spoke by their actions and where very consistent in how the character was portrayed,who where gratefully fleshed out
This script ( from the same writer as that abominable napoleon movie) things feel random and forced.
Also Battles feeling quite meh, nothing feels deserved or earned..
pity, as acting was well though ,all where good to great acting performances wich makes it even more of a pity the story was so weak.
It recycles quotes,plot, narratives, even very same camera shots.
And yeah,alas, the first did absolutely everything, every single aspect better to much better and most definitely story/drama character wise.
Even though tis definitely not the worst movie ever,far from.
But this movie kind of symbolize the state of current Hollywood and how much it has declined over the last few decades.
The fact so many people praising it confirms a bitter reality. Story and plot just don't matter or at least much less then it used to, people are pleased and satisfied as long they see pretty pictures and are not bored!
This movie definitely looks glorious and expensive and had a big grandeur(although some CGI looked comically fake), but it fails to have a coherent driven plot.
In the first movie every scene absolutely mattered, even during battles, characters spoke by their actions and where very consistent in how the character was portrayed,who where gratefully fleshed out
This script ( from the same writer as that abominable napoleon movie) things feel random and forced.
Also Battles feeling quite meh, nothing feels deserved or earned..
pity, as acting was well though ,all where good to great acting performances wich makes it even more of a pity the story was so weak.
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...
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाIn an interview with Simon Mayo, Sir Ridley Scott said that he sold the Swarg ka pradesh (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.
- गूफ़Naval 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.
- इसके अलावा अन्य वर्जनA 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.
- कनेक्शनEdited into Gladiator II: Deleted Scenes (2025)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is Gladiator II?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
- Is this film historically accurate?
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- आधिकारिक साइटें
- भाषाएं
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Gladiator II
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $25,00,00,000(अनुमानित)
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $17,24,38,016
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $5,50,34,715
- 24 नव॰ 2024
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $46,21,80,717
- चलने की अवधि2 घंटे 28 मिनट
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 2.39 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें