jwpicton

"Gladiator" was never Gladiator I, it was "Gladiator" based on, or rather a contemporary adaptation of 1964 film "Fall of the Roman Empire".

Now, "Fall" was more of a Henry III /Shakespeareanesque people in rooms talking with a couple of fantastic "Big" scenes type of film, typical of 1960s, nothing like the metal and flesh high in tech combat scenes of Gladiator (and by that I mean Gladiator I). But "Gladiator" (not Gladiator II) is a fresh, fantastic and extremely well produced film in its own right. It stands alone as one of the great historical epics alongside Ben Hur, Spartacus et al.

Which brings me to this film. I'm going to dive straight in: lead actor: awful, zero gravitas, poor speach and poor voice projection... It's as though an extra was given the role by mistake. He sounds like he's had a rough weekend and is ordering egg and chips for brekkie before starting work on a Monday morning. That's all I've got to say about whoever he is.

I've got a hunch that this whole thing was a massive money spinning exercise designed (and timed) to get people of my generation (or there abouts) having seen G1, to think oh wow! This is going to be great! And make it a day out with the kids, not only to get them fired up about it and spend a lot of money, but inadvertently indoctrinate them into thinking crap film is good film.

It's yet another example of a SEVERE lack of original thinking in Hollywood and endless rehashing of past projects.

Plot: vaguely differs from the first but steels scene after scene from G1, which for someone like myself having seen G1 a few times, is not only frustrating but just plain boring....and EXTREMELY disappointing.

Historical accuracy: you can have a look on Wikipedia, they are more or less in the right year for the so called twin emperors but apparently they never actually ruled as a pair although one was assassinated but unlikely not physically by the other. The surviving brother went on to rule for 6 years after the death / assassination of his brother so blatant inaccuracies there.

For me some of the costumes, hair colour, helmet plumage colour are completely out of place or at least overdone. Again it's something to pursue through the Internet if you want to check.

Cinematography and general production: This is Ridley Scott, isn't it? Or is it. People age, and when they age they have less energy. I dont give a monkeys about this ridiculous thinking that it's just psychological. When you're well into your 80s...you are OLD. Hollywood have just popped a big name in there to legitimise the project and add a crowd puller factor to what is really not a very good film at all.

Denzel Washington: WT actual F are you doing in this pile of s... Rouge budget: Lots of people seem to have a little rouge on their cheeks.... WTF is that all about?

Ending: overdone, long and drawn out. Some tragedy, which is not unexpected for this genre. But little or no real intrigue during the film to give the ending any depth or meaning. Just another big fight.... battle.... killing....... thing. Final speeches (sticks finger down throat).

Then copy of the original with same / similar music confirms the whole thing is a cop out and a failure.

Some films, even though maybe not that great, are still worth a watch, for fun or whatever... But not this one. This film does not need to be seen, it is a complete waste of space. If you're in the mood for this genre, whether or not you've seen G1, you may as well just watch that.

Basically the first 4 episodes are good, then 1 ok, then the rest terrible.

I get the feeling that the writers had a good idea, it was accepted but they didn't ACTUALLY say how the story was going to pan out.... So we are left with the quality of the last 4 episodes descending alongside the descending fortunes of the main protagonists. Netflix has also done that annoying thing where you sometimes can't hear what people are saying, even if you have the volume at a decent level. Most of the series is ok volume wise, but let's be honest, saying that the volume is ok isn't saying much, is it?

Ok, Netflix has also done that thing where the core attributes of some of the characters suddenly change to suit messy changes to the narrative. This series is nowhere near "The Great" but just for comparitive purposes, the core attributes of the characters in The Great are consistent throughout. Far superior script writing.

Another thing that bothers me about this series is the use of modern music (20th/21st century). It's completely out of place alongside the traditional sounding music they use, and creates a feel which is inconsistent. It makes you do a double take to check you're still watching the same series.

The last few episodes use far too much sexual innuendo - not that I mind that, wink - but it's a cheap and unnecessary use of it, perhaps a failed attempt to try and fill the void that is left in the story of The Decameron as it grinds on through the last 3 episodes towards a disappointing end.

Are we supposed to put up with this garbage for a certain number of episodes before it starts performing?

It's so awful it's difficult to pinpoint what is so bad, but I'll try.

Having different things go on, different narratives the relationship between which may only be revealed as a series unfolds is fine, great, and can actually work really well.

But not in this series.

Frankly it's embarrassing for Elijah Wood to be cast in such garbage.

All the ridiculous violence and killing is completely out of place.

This is supposed to be a story set in the world as we know it, but with some really strange stuff going on. Fine.

But in the world as we know it, this amount of absurd violence would not go unseen or unchecked by the authorities.

I'm not saying that they have to be 100% real life - it's fiction - so if course there's loads of room for artistic licence.

But the sheer stupidity and fragmented nature of the happenings is just poor production, whatever the genre might be. Just because the description says something about "supernatural" does not give the creators of this garbage licence to produce poorly rendered supercrap (and pass it off under the guise of "oh it's all supernatural").

A final note on all the ridiculous "10" ratings..... How many productions are truly a 10? Surely 10 should be reserved for those films and series which are deserving of it. Although what's great for someone is not necessarily going to float someone else's boat, I'll give you an example; Friends was a seminal series, something amazing that holds a place in millions (possibly billions) of people's hearts.

But not mine, I liked it, watched a few episodes. But it never really floated my boat. However if it was rated 10, I would completely understand and not have a problem with that because it is a truly Hall of Fame level series. I'm more of a Seinfeld guy anyway (which I would give a 10+1 to any day). But my point is that the ratings for this (and so much other garbage) are completely misleading. Probably just stoners or shillers hittin that "10" button cos it just feels so good, and probably makes them feel important 🤣... What a waste of time and money.