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 it... Read allAfter 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.
- Nominated for 1 Oscar
- 9 wins & 110 nominations total
Summary
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.
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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.
The film offers a thrilling experience, the narrative and character development could have been more robust. At times, the storyline feels rushed, and some character arcs lack the depth that made the original "Gladiator" so compelling. This leads to an overall experience that, in my opinion, does not quite reach the heights of the original.
Additionally, Denzel Washington's portrayal is noteworthy, but his American accent felt somewhat out of place within the context of the film. It occasionally detracted from the immersion, making it harder to connect with his character fully.
To sum it up, "Gladiator II" is an entertaining blockbuster that delivers on visual spectacle and excitement. While it struggles with certain aspects of storytelling and character depth, it still manages to provide an enjoyable cinematic experience for fans of the genre.
Additionally, Denzel Washington's portrayal is noteworthy, but his American accent felt somewhat out of place within the context of the film. It occasionally detracted from the immersion, making it harder to connect with his character fully.
To sum it up, "Gladiator II" is an entertaining blockbuster that delivers on visual spectacle and excitement. While it struggles with certain aspects of storytelling and character depth, it still manages to provide an enjoyable cinematic experience for fans of the genre.
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!'
Did you know
- TriviaIn an interview with Simon Mayo, Sir Ridley Scott said that he sold the Kingdom of Heaven (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.
- GoofsNaval 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.
- Alternate versionsA 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.
- ConnectionsEdited into Gladiator II: Deleted Scenes (2025)
- How long is Gladiator II?Powered by Alexa
- Is this film historically accurate?
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $250,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $172,438,016
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $55,034,715
- Nov 24, 2024
- Gross worldwide
- $462,180,717
- Runtime2 hours 28 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.39 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content