ग्लैडियेटर 2

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.

The movie has some strongpoints: Denzel's and Quinn's performances, the way the City looks and some of the battles in the Colosseum. Like all Ridley Scott's movies after KoH, the last good one, it adresses an audience who is only there for the nachos and the thrills and knows nothing about history, warfare or common sense.

To be fair, Ridley really can direct huge movies that look good. But the writing, the ending...Scarpa really should find a hobby.

Being such a fan of Gladiator I wanted so much for this one to be decent that I concentrated on the strong points and until the last 30 minutes hit this was a decent effort. The ending is nevertheless an utter mess, it's senseless and unpleasant, an overthetop insult to common sense.

The producer's money would have been better spent elsewhere. Mine too.

The incredibly bad: the monkeys, Caracalla's character, Macrinus 's fate after a good buildup, the sharks, attacking a city's walls by sea with siege towers, the way the roman legion looks, the Praetorians, the last speech, the uninspired use of the score... A word about Paul Mescal: he doesn't shine but really, how could he, with such writing. I think his performance was strong, I felt the emotions, he does good in the arena....really not his fault.

Ridley, you have fooled me for the last time.

The sad thing is: the ending in this one makes Napoleon seem ok 😔

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.

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...

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.