Após ter seu lar conquistado pelos imperadores tirânicos que agora comandam Roma, Lucius é forçado a entrar no Coliseu e deve olhar para o seu passado para encontrar força para devolver a gl... Ler tudoApós ter seu lar conquistado pelos imperadores tirânicos que agora comandam Roma, Lucius é forçado a entrar no Coliseu e deve olhar para o seu passado para encontrar força para devolver a glória de Roma ao seu povo.Após ter seu lar conquistado pelos imperadores tirânicos que agora comandam Roma, Lucius é forçado a entrar no Coliseu e deve olhar para o seu passado para encontrar força para devolver a glória de Roma ao seu povo.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
- Indicado a 1 Oscar
- 9 vitórias e 110 indicações no total
Resumo
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.
Avaliações em destaque
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 $$ it attracts.
Side note: if Rome was so great - why was it always falling apart.
Storyline wise the film is a joke - the plot twists are illogical and only work because the characters are forced to change - the first half of the film concentrates on a man's desire for vengence which is overturned by a single line of dialogue.
Hollywood is failing - it clearly looks to have been influenced by accountants and MBA muppets that somehow believe the more twists a film contains the more $$ 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 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.
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.
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!'
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesIn an interview with Simon Mayo, Sir Ridley Scott said that he sold the Cruzada (2005) set to the Moroccan government for $10 because it was cheaper than dismantling it. He then had to hire it from the same government for use in this movie.
- Erros de gravaçãoNaval battles were only staged in the first year after the Colosseum was built. After the construction of the Hypogeum it was no longer possible to flood the arena.
- Versões alternativasA cut M-rated version was released in cinemas in Australia. At least 3 scenes were trimmed: Cut No. 1 - Lucius (Paul Mescal) beheads his opponent at the first Roman games. The beginning of the scene was trimmed to remove the swords connecting with the head. It cuts into the shot midway to show the stump and a bit of blood spray. Cut No. 2 - Macrinus (Denzel Washington) slashing at the neck of Emperor Geta (Joseph Quinn). The initial long shot of the neck cutting and blood spray is missing. The following close-up shot is zoomed to the left to remove the continued neck slashing and blood spray on the right. Cut No. 3 - Macrinus puts a spike into the ear of Emperor Caracalla (Fred Hechinger). The red blood flowing from his ear is now green/yellow. Despite these cuts, the edited version was later reclassified as MA15+. The initial M rating was given by the studio itself, whereas the MA15+ rating was given by the Australian classification board. It is currently unknown if the uncut version will be released on Australian home video.
- ConexõesEdited into Gladiator II: Deleted Scenes (2025)
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is Gladiator II?Fornecido pela Alexa
- Is this film historically accurate?
Detalhes
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- US$ 250.000.000 (estimativa)
- Faturamento bruto nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 172.438.016
- Fim de semana de estreia nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 55.034.715
- 24 de nov. de 2024
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 462.180.717
- Tempo de duração2 horas 28 minutos
- Cor
- Mixagem de som
- Proporção
- 2.39 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente