Il gladiatore II

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!'

The biggest problem with this movie is that it's essentially a soft reboot. If you've seen the first one, you'll quickly realize that you're watching something you've already seen. And once something becomes a repetition of something great, it's almost impossible to recapture that same level of greatness. Mescal, Washington, and the rest of the cast do their best, but this movie relies heavily on nostalgia. For the most part, it repeats the structure of the original story and follows all the clichés typical of sword-and-sandal films: the plot, the betrayal, the arena fights-you name it. The irony is that people who haven't seen the first one will probably enjoy this movie far more than those who remember the original.

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.

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.

If ever a film did not need a follow-up, it's Gladiator. Some films are simply not meant to have sequels, and this is definitely one of them.

It's not bad, but it's not good either. The overriding question is simply: why? Why was this made? Is the creative magic in Hollywood now completely dead? Should we brace ourselves for Titanic 3 or Halloween: Junior High? Modern filmmaking just doesn't feel free-flowing or exciting right now.

I quite enjoyed Denzel Washington's gloriously over-the-top performance - it was actually rather fun. Sir Derek Jacobi was also excellent, albeit briefly.

There are two major flaws. Firstly, it tries far too hard to compete with its vastly superior predecessor. Everything attempted here was done better the first time around. Secondly, Paul Mescal simply isn't right for the role. He lacks gravitas and screen presence - Russell Crowe was superior in every conceivable way.

And the sharks... what can you even say about those sharks? Proof that this feels like a made-up story. The original Gladiator felt like a tale pulled from history; this feels like something dreamt 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 people in the screening. Wicked was packed.

5/10.