To correct you, John, the Colosseum in ancient Rome hosted staged naval battles called naumachia, so while plausible, there were no sharks they did have battles in water.
Denzel Washington’s Machiavellian like performance elevated the film and kept me engaged. He was working on a significantly higher level then his costars. Solid 7.8/10
Actually they did flood the arena and had ship battles. When you visit Rome, they explain that. And they definitely used animals. But sharks I don't know.
Yes we do know..ther were no sharks or any see creatures in it.,also no big boats like they were actually in the see.Also the water was not thst deep as they showed it in a movie.
They probably did when it was first built, but at this time it had been been dug out and rebuilt on stone pillars with a timber floor. Safe to say this would not hold water when the film is set
@@SuperLeoFilmsI see what you did there lol. But yea lol this film doesn't care for historical accuracy to that degree, the twin emperors were nothing like they were in the film
I’m a history professor. The colosseum was able to be flooded to put on shows. They had many uses for the Colosseum including, fighting, plays, concerts. Anything dealing with the performing arts used the colosseum. The baboons were terrible CGI renderings. So, my point being, they really did flood the colosseum to a point where they could have boats floating.
Personally I thought the movie was pretty good, I acc really liked Denzel’s performance, though Mescal, Pascal, Quinn and everyone else have a great performance, yea the plot is very similar to the first one but seeing it through Lucius POV now was a good take and the action and directing was on point imo, 8.5/10
It’s a historical fact that the colosseum used to be flooded for naval battles. Have you been to the colloseum??? Besides that, nothing would’ve beaten the original but this film is the reason why we still visit the cinema today. Hopefully a proper extended cut will be released
@@darkweeknd33 There should not be a difference of opinions when it comes to mediocrity. Perhaps, that's what's wrong with society today. We've accepted mediocrity as the norm. That's why influencers with no discernible talents or skills are having the biggest impact on our society. This is absolutely a bad film. Worst thing about it, it didn't need to be made. It only exists to remind us how great the original still is. Guess what? We didn't need a pale imitation to tell us that. We need only watch the original again.
Sharks in the Coliseum? No, but it was indeed flooded intentionally and they held mock naval battles there. The Romans were the original inventors of waterproof concrete.
@@kh7688 Those fraternal twin brothers I just couldn't see them as villains other than spoiled brats. Washington's Macrinus was the compelling character.
I disagree John, I REALLY liked it! It had its problems, mainly that Paul Mescal is no Russel Crowe, and he got outshined by many of the leads, like Pascal and Denzel. But the awesome stuff in it made up for that. Gladiator is a 9/10, and Gladiator 2 is an 8/10
Agree with you completely. And anything about the Roman empire on the big screen is a big plus for me. We need more colossal epics like this. I want this to succeed, not send the wrong message that everyone dislikes this movie.
I think it’s popular to automatically dislike sequels… of course it’s not as good as the first but it was a dam good movie. It won’t stand the test of time as the first is BUT that was a fun time at the cinema.
The Colessieum was flooded to put on mock naval battles, its in the history books, John. Now the sharks were a little bit much, but I can careless about Historical accuracy and went for a good time at the movies and I got it!
John needs to fact check before judging some things lol! There were definitely naval battles in the coliseum smh..I hope an extended cut comes out..add an extra 25-30 mins to flush out some holes and i think there's a 3 hr epic imo
Just saw gladiator 2 and for me, the second and third act really hit home. The music themes were triumphant and gave me goose bumps as in the first. A very good movie IMO and go see!
FYI in ancient Rome the Colosseum was often used for naval battles. Also, according to Gibbon in his book The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, actually one of my favorite reads, he describes the incredible variety of animals brought there from all over the word. Commodus is said to have killed many ostriches and giraffes as a gladiator. I doubt sharks were used but aquatic life could gave been brought in via water carriers. Now I haven't seen it yet, and realize Ridley Scott often plays fast and loose with historical accuracy. However, the use of naval battles was commonplace. My fear as you described is a dread of feeling the length of this movie. The trailers having given me pause. Anyway, as usual, a very comprehensive review. Thank you, Damon Zex.
This isn’t really correct, the colosseum was not often used for naval battles. The only evidence for naval battles were in the first 10 years of it being open for which after pits were dug to house gladiators and animals.
I love this movie. The third act got a little slow, and the ending scene was lackluster, but I enjoyed the movie. Also, I think Denzel's character was one of the most complicated characters ever. You didn't know where he was coming from l, or where his character was going. A great deception indeed.
It's funny everything you said was wrong. It has some parallels to the original, but it's almost completely different in most ways other than a royal being forced to fight as a gladiator They absolutely did flood the colosseum, no sharks, but Rome never had brothers running the empire as equals. They had East and West, one becoming the orthodox. Denzel made the movie when he showed up. It's one of his better over the top performances like Training Day. I walked away feeling it's getting nominated for an Oscar.
Talk about be negative......I do not agree with anything you say. Paul was good. Not Russel but he did good. It is Craazy you say Denzel was no performing A game. Fot that characther he played. He did the best, which was GREAT. The lazy explaination you did start of the review, that is a copy for first movie is just lazy. Many similarites but it was a sequel that continued the idea from the first. But the must funny part that you say it could have been shorter? my biggest problem was the last third was rushed. It is a solid 8 of 10 ....i thought first one was 11 out of 10. I knew you would, be the negative that you only can be. Doing it just to just to "stand out"....
It’s a good movie, I think it’s partly because its predecessor was great and iconic now so it’s a tough thing to be compared to. I think it was pretty good though, much better than I thought it was going to be imo.
I would see it a bit more positive: It's an unnecessary film that turned out very good. I think it's also kinda hypocritical to say something like "it could have been better" about a movie that no one wanted to see in the first place. Because excitement only came after the cast announcement.
The movie is dumb, unimaginative and makes rome look like a plastic, superficial parody of how it actually looked and felt. If youre making a movie set in ancient rome or anywhere from history actually do some research. It was very vivid and strange compared to now, Ridley doesnt give a fuck, aside from the shitty writing he completely bastardises European history for stuff he thinks looks cool, he should retire and let more talented, younger directors who are inspired take the opportunity.
Gladiator II had 30 minutes of trailers and commercials before a 2 1/2 hour movie. That is ridiculous! My son and I were appalled when we looked at our watch.
There were major delays on the train today. By the time I got the theater I was resigned to the fact that I had missed the first part of the movie. You can imagine my surprise when I arrived close to 30 minutes late and the movie hadn't even started yet! I agree - the length of pre-movie trailers these days has become flat out ridiculous. Today it saved my butt but still, something has to change because it's become offensive to audiences to have to sit through literally 30 minutes of commercials before a movie.
SPOILERS Lot of Bad. Monkeys Sharks Denzel Wife death Mom death Marcus Acacius death Not enough music or emotional scenes. Not enough Empereur scenes Overall a 7/10 because it is a sequel and throwbacks to the first one. Which is a 10/10
Just got back from seeing it. I really enjoyed the film. Denzel is great in this film. Is it similar to the original? Yes. Do I care? No. I admit, the shark tank scene was ridiculous. But I didn’t care. 😂😂😂😂. The only thing missing due to continuity was lasers on their heads 😂😂😂😂.
There's a show on peacock called "Those Who Are About To Die" and they filled a coliseum with water and crocodiles. I thought to myself "I've never heard of them doing this". Then when I saw the Gladiator trailer I thought "ok maybe that was a thing after all".
I mostly agree with you John, except for Denzel Washington. I loved him! The entire film I kept wondering what his angle was and what he was trying to achieve, and Denzel did such a wonderful job being ambiguous but you know he was ambitious, but was he Paul's friend or foe, did he support the Emperors, I could not get a read on him and I love how Denzel just kept me guessing and surprising me. Otherwise, like you said, it was a good film
@@justinrodgers6568I agree I don’t get all the praise for him here. He was okay but didn’t fit the film imo. I just saw Denzel the whole time not his character
I think they should have had that epic battle between the Praetorian Guards and Acaceus's legions at the end. Because in real life, it would have taken more than a heartwarming speech to get them to back down. Luicus would of had to buy them off.
Gladiator is one of my favorite movies and I was super curious about what would happen in Gladiator II. I never felt like I connected to any of the new characters the way I did in the first one and couldn’t get any type of emotions going as it never allowed time for it. The rabid dog monkeys lost me and sharks were laughable. I so wanted it to be better. In a nutshell it fell flat for me.
Denzel was having SO MUCH fun here. He just owned every second of screentime he had. I also thought Joseph Quinn was quite fun as well, but very underused. I noticed that they retconned Lucius’s age. In the first movie, it was said that he and Maximus’s son were both about the same age (around 8 years old or so). But in this film Macrinus says that he was 12 during the events of the first film. Maybe a way to make him Maximus’s sob without turning Maximus into a guy who cheated on his wife (which would make ZERO sense) perhaps?
This was total hot garbage. I think critics are so starved for somewhat decent content that even crappy reboots get accolades. The praise given to Alien Romulus was similarly undeserved.
I'm gonna flip what John said about Pedro Pascal. I was underwhelmed by what I saw in the trailer... I got goosebumps with what I saw in the cinema. Some of the 'epic moments' felt off because I don't think the music elevated the material as much as it did for the first film. I understand John's point about Denzel. His character, not performance, fell in the mould of a homme fatale. Very light. Shadowy. Which probably is the reason why Washington doesn't shine as much as I expected him to.
They absolutely did fill the colosseum with water and recreated naval battles - and if they did that, then whose to say they didn’t put sharks into the colosseum - they had boats, they had nets… the Roman riding a rhino was more unrealistic than that tbf… but the cgi sharks didn’t look good unfortunately
There is evidence that they brought in crocodiles and hippos. I’m sure it was deep enough it’s not too far of a stretch plus it’s a movie it is fantasy no matter what.
I didn't really like it, to me I felt like there was things missing, like they cut a big chunk out of the movie . I never felt like there was a solid villain , even the twin brothers were just annoying to me.
The movie was ok, first is much much better of course. it felt they rushed the plot near the third act to get to the ending quicker. None of the cast really stood out to me, and I actually forgot Pedro Pascal was in this. Was this movie needed? No, but it’s a better sequel than another sequel that wasn’t needed either, in Joker 2.
As soon as I seen the cgi monkeys… that looked so fake… I was so turned off by the film… part one was a masterpiece… I fell asleep just seeing all the cgi mess
So, it’s well known that the battles in the coliseum with Sea Water happened at least twice. And also, they did raise and transport sharks. Despite these sharks not being likely in these games, it’s known they had Hippoes and Crocodiles. So that? Accurate, more than most sections of the film
They had small sharks in the sea, but you need a water vehicle to transport sharks…which absolutely didn’t happen. They also had no concept of “sharks” they just knew them as another fish, that happened to be small sharks. Was there even a hippo in the movie? Rhino riding was absolutely never a thing though
The main reason Gladiator II bothers me is because it kinda ruins the magic of the first one by forcing Lucius to be Maximus' bastard son. This wasn't necessary but more importantly it paints a different picture of Maximus that is not consistent with the man we all grew to respect. Here are a couple reasons why Lucius being the bastard son of Maximus does not work. When Maximus prays to his ancestors, he is always holding two figurines who clearly represent his wife and only son. He says "blessed father watch over my wife and son (singular) with a ready sword..." If Lucius was also his son, he would have said "my wife and sons" (plural) and he would be holding a 3rd figurine to represent Lucius. In order for the honorable Maximus to have gotten Lucilla pregnant with Lucius, he would've had to have slept with Lucilla while she was married to Lucius Verus and potentially while he (Maximus) was also married. At the very least, this means that the honorable Maximus disrespected the co-ruling emperor of Rome. This goes against the values and principles that Maximus stands for. In every conversation he and Lucilla have regarding their sons, they are always spoken of as belonging to them separately. When Maximus refers to Lucius, it's always "your son" and when Lucilla speaks of Lucius it's always "my son". This is not the language of parents who share a child. In a conversation with Lucilla in the first movie, Maximus says "I heard of your husband's death, I mourned him". This means Maximus respected her husband. How the hell does that line even work if he was shagging her behind his back? Next, in his conversation with his friend Juba about seeing their families in the afterlife, Maximus says this "You see, my wife and my son are already waiting for me." Does this sound like a man who has another son? Nope, Maximus has one goal. Avenge the death of his family and see them again in the afterlife. He does not mention Lucius, or pray for him, or try to stay alive to see him. The only reason Lucius is remotely important to him is because he cares for Lucilla. By killing Commodus, Maximus avenges the death of his family, saves Rome from the corrupt emperor, and unburdens Lucilla from fear of her son being killed. So, Ridley Scott's devotion to historical inaccuracy extends to his own stories, haha.
I completely disagree with you on Denzel. He’s completely in the zone and he took it to another level. He is great when he is quiet and glancing and observing. You can sense the machinations working behind his eyes.
I think the revenge plot brought the film down because a) it felt repetitive to the original and b) it ended up being not that important anyway. I think they should have entirely focused on the lost heir aspect of the story. Overall, good film that could have been a lot better if they did a few things differently.
Paul Mescal was a big problem for me in this film. You're told he's 'angry and a good leader' but I just never felt it whilst watching the movie. He felt so.... meh. Also Pedro Pascal should have been the lead, his character was the most interesting imo.
Gladiator II should not have been made. I didn’t care about any of the characters. Watch both Gladiator films and you will see a perfect example in the difference in quality of how movies used to be made and how they are made now. Gladiator won best picture and Gladiator II is “a movie that came out in 2024” as John so accurately put it.
I disagree with the length opinion. I feel some ideas, and some scenes needed more air to breathe. I wanted some scenes to wait, just to feel the weight. And I didn’t like the cinematography. Didn’t have the texture of the original, pictures felt too clean
I don't mind the inaccuracies. Eg : Flooding of the colleseum. But this feels like its missing the emotional soul of the original. Even the music is forgettable. The main actor doesn't have the same gravitas as Russell Crowe. He doesnt even feel like an heir of Russel Crowe, but rather of Gérard Butler. Nevertheless it's not a bad movie, but just a serviceable one
The plot didn’t really make a lot of sense, it was never stated how the twin emperors came to power at all, like I had no emotional connection with the main character he didn’t really command the screen, and it was a missed opportunity for them to have the movie end with romes downfall.
I thought gladiator 2 was excellent.. my favorite movie of the year .. was it better than the original? No but it was damn good .. and my god the opening battle sequence was just amazing. FYI wicked was not a good movie lol
Gladiator 1 Incredible music Incredible story line Amazing actors all at the top of there game in this... and maxium emotion and on the edge of your seat......wonderful film and one of the great movies for the ages..... Gladiator 2 Watched it for 20 minutes turned it off..... Predictable, cheaper story line of the first.... cgi animal bollocks everywhere... zero emotion and just does'nt grip you at all...... should of been left alone!!! QUICKLY FORGOTTEN... moving on
Gladiator 2 is one of the best movies I’ve seen that came out after 2019. That said, the bar is pretty low. What was missing in this movie is what’s missing in 99% of movies nowadays, and that’s heart.
@ You just named the 1% of cinema that came out that was actually well made as if trying to prove a point about the vast majority of slop that’s come out of Hollywood in the last 5 years. Dune is the *very* rare exception, not the norm, and even then it isn’t exempt from some of the same problems that plague every Hollywood release nowadays.
To correct you, John, the Colosseum in ancient Rome hosted staged naval battles called naumachia, so while plausible, there were no sharks they did have battles in water.
Was looking for this comment.
You’ve been watching that history expert that reviewed the Gladiator 2 trailer haven’t you 😝
Denzel Washington’s Machiavellian like performance elevated the film and kept me engaged. He was working on a significantly higher level then his costars. Solid 7.8/10
The Romans did flood the arena multiple times. The sharks were just Ridley Scott paying homage to Spielberg 😂
I have to disagree about Denzel. I thought he was having fun in this role.
Actually they did flood the arena and had ship battles. When you visit Rome, they explain that. And they definitely used animals. But sharks I don't know.
I was looking for this comment because I knew this too
Yes we do know..ther were no sharks or any see creatures in it.,also no big boats like they were actually in the see.Also the water was not thst deep as they showed it in a movie.
They actually did sea battles in the Coliseum. They pumped sea water in into the stadium via canals and aqueducts.
They probably did when it was first built, but at this time it had been been dug out and rebuilt on stone pillars with a timber floor. Safe to say this would not hold water when the film is set
@@SuperLeoFilmsI see what you did there lol. But yea lol this film doesn't care for historical accuracy to that degree, the twin emperors were nothing like they were in the film
I’m a history professor. The colosseum was able to be flooded to put on shows. They had many uses for the Colosseum including, fighting, plays, concerts. Anything dealing with the performing arts used the colosseum. The baboons were terrible CGI renderings. So, my point being, they really did flood the colosseum to a point where they could have boats floating.
Though there was no sharks the Romans did flood the Colosseum for reenactment naval battles
I don't know if there were sharks in the coliseum historically, but they did fill it with water and use animals in the arena.
I really enjoyed gladiator ll. Wasn’t that hyped going into it but was happily surprised. Solid sequel!
The movie is terrible
Personally I thought the movie was pretty good, I acc really liked Denzel’s performance, though Mescal, Pascal, Quinn and everyone else have a great performance, yea the plot is very similar to the first one but seeing it through Lucius POV now was a good take and the action and directing was on point imo, 8.5/10
I'm glad I could count on the comment section to correct John on them flooding the colosseum Yall don't let shit slide😂😂💯💯
It’s a historical fact that the colosseum used to be flooded for naval battles. Have you been to the colloseum??? Besides that, nothing would’ve beaten the original but this film is the reason why we still visit the cinema today. Hopefully a proper extended cut will be released
It's disputed if that ever took place, it was only ever mentioned once in sources.
I thought the cgi was ok, but the movie was really good, especially compared to the other crap that's came out lately outside of Dune
Gladiator II is a good film. But the original is better.
of course it is, no one expected it to be better
@@James-w4b2q Exactly, what are these people on about? Going gaga over a truly mediocre film.
@James-w4b2q do you not know what opinions are???
@@darkweeknd33 There should not be a difference of opinions when it comes to mediocrity. Perhaps, that's what's wrong with society today. We've accepted mediocrity as the norm. That's why influencers with no discernible talents or skills are having the biggest impact on our society. This is absolutely a bad film. Worst thing about it, it didn't need to be made. It only exists to remind us how great the original still is. Guess what? We didn't need a pale imitation to tell us that. We need only watch the original again.
@@kh7688 no
The jury may be put about sharks but filling the coliseum with water and using called down ships is something that was done
Sharks in the Coliseum? No, but it was indeed flooded intentionally and they held mock naval battles there. The Romans were the original inventors of waterproof concrete.
Water was used in the coliseum, maybe not sharks but the first gladiator wasn’t 100% real either
Saw it today and it's Denzel's story and his methods to get his revenge is quite impressive.
@@Brook11223 😂 😂 😂
@@kh7688 Those fraternal twin brothers I just couldn't see them as villains other than spoiled brats. Washington's Macrinus was the compelling character.
Gotta disagree about Denzel, I thought he was great.
I thought the few times Joseph Quinn was on screen he was incredible. clear stand out for me.
The Romans did fill the coliseum up with water though, actually
I disagree John, I REALLY liked it! It had its problems, mainly that Paul Mescal is no Russel Crowe, and he got outshined by many of the leads, like Pascal and Denzel. But the awesome stuff in it made up for that. Gladiator is a 9/10, and Gladiator 2 is an 8/10
Agree with you completely. And anything about the Roman empire on the big screen is a big plus for me. We need more colossal epics like this. I want this to succeed, not send the wrong message that everyone dislikes this movie.
Glad to hear pedro shined! Thats all i care about. Maybe it has to do with experience; and denz have alot more experience than mescal.
I think it’s popular to automatically dislike sequels… of course it’s not as good as the first but it was a dam good movie. It won’t stand the test of time as the first is BUT that was a fun time at the cinema.
The Colessieum was flooded to put on mock naval battles, its in the history books, John. Now the sharks were a little bit much, but I can careless about Historical accuracy and went for a good time at the movies and I got it!
Denzel was the best actor in the entire movie. I know everyone has said this, but it's true. Incredible.
John needs to fact check before judging some things lol! There were definitely naval battles in the coliseum smh..I hope an extended cut comes out..add an extra 25-30 mins to flush out some holes and i think there's a 3 hr epic imo
Gladiator 2 is a damn good movie.
😂😂😂
Just saw gladiator 2 and for me, the second and third act really hit home. The music themes were triumphant and gave me goose bumps as in the first. A very good movie IMO and go see!
The Romans DID fill the Colosseum with water though
They did use to fill the colosseum with water to reenact naval battles.
I think his issue was with the sharks not the water
FYI in ancient Rome the Colosseum was often used for naval battles. Also, according to Gibbon in his book The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, actually one of my favorite reads, he describes the incredible variety of animals brought there from all over the word. Commodus is said to have killed many ostriches and giraffes as a gladiator. I doubt sharks were used but aquatic life could gave been brought in via water carriers. Now I haven't seen it yet, and realize Ridley Scott often plays fast and loose with historical accuracy. However, the use of naval battles was commonplace. My fear as you described is a dread of feeling the length of this movie. The trailers having given me pause. Anyway, as usual, a very comprehensive review. Thank you, Damon Zex.
This isn’t really correct, the colosseum was not often used for naval battles. The only evidence for naval battles were in the first 10 years of it being open for which after pits were dug to house gladiators and animals.
The original actor who played Lucius could've made this movie much better, because you know, consistency!
I was entertained. Perfect popcorn film
Love this film. It’s epic and thought the characters were fantastic. Especially Denzel and Paul!
I love this movie. The third act got a little slow, and the ending scene was lackluster, but I enjoyed the movie. Also, I think Denzel's character was one of the most complicated characters ever. You didn't know where he was coming from l, or where his character was going. A great deception indeed.
It's funny everything you said was wrong.
It has some parallels to the original, but it's almost completely different in most ways other than a royal being forced to fight as a gladiator
They absolutely did flood the colosseum, no sharks, but Rome never had brothers running the empire as equals. They had East and West, one becoming the orthodox.
Denzel made the movie when he showed up. It's one of his better over the top performances like Training Day.
I walked away feeling it's getting nominated for an Oscar.
Thank you!
@@ArmedandDangerous918 Some storylines sure but it veers in a very different direction my friend.
I said the same thing. Mescal was miscast. Glad I'm not alone. I felt like I was taking crazy pills when reading other reviews.
Maybe it's becsuse of script,but he always looked just angry.Even his smile looked creepy.
Talk about be negative......I do not agree with anything you say. Paul was good. Not Russel but he did good. It is Craazy you say Denzel was no performing A game. Fot that characther he played. He did the best, which was GREAT. The lazy explaination you did start of the review, that is a copy for first movie is just lazy. Many similarites but it was a sequel that continued the idea from the first. But the must funny part that you say it could have been shorter? my biggest problem was the last third was rushed. It is a solid 8 of 10 ....i thought first one was 11 out of 10. I knew you would, be the negative that you only can be. Doing it just to just to "stand out"....
Disagree with you wholeheartedly this feels more like a casual response than a well informed movie goer
John I love you but your film takes have been PIPING HOT this year. I LOVED Gladiator II, I thought it was a worth and epic sequel to a great movie
I don’t know what the hell he’s talking about, But Gladiator II is a good movie.
He's been hyping this movie a few months ago now he's like Wicked is better
It’s a good movie, I think it’s partly because its predecessor was great and iconic now so it’s a tough thing to be compared to. I think it was pretty good though, much better than I thought it was going to be imo.
Just watched it it’s 🔥🔥🔥my boy John is trippin lol
@@amirdennis3057 I watched Wicked today, the last 30 mins I was feeling tired and went to sleep
He literally said it's good....
Gladiator 2 is a movie that should been released in 2010 or after the first one
I would see it a bit more positive: It's an unnecessary film that turned out very good.
I think it's also kinda hypocritical to say something like "it could have been better" about a movie that no one wanted to see in the first place. Because excitement only came after the cast announcement.
The movie is dumb, unimaginative and makes rome look like a plastic, superficial parody of how it actually looked and felt. If youre making a movie set in ancient rome or anywhere from history actually do some research. It was very vivid and strange compared to now, Ridley doesnt give a fuck, aside from the shitty writing he completely bastardises European history for stuff he thinks looks cool, he should retire and let more talented, younger directors who are inspired take the opportunity.
Couldn't agree more!
Gladiator II had 30 minutes of trailers and commercials before a 2 1/2 hour movie. That is ridiculous! My son and I were appalled when we looked at our watch.
There were major delays on the train today. By the time I got the theater I was resigned to the fact that I had missed the first part of the movie. You can imagine my surprise when I arrived close to 30 minutes late and the movie hadn't even started yet!
I agree - the length of pre-movie trailers these days has become flat out ridiculous. Today it saved my butt but still, something has to change because it's become offensive to audiences to have to sit through literally 30 minutes of commercials before a movie.
On the bright side you got your money worth
SPOILERS
Lot of Bad.
Monkeys
Sharks
Denzel
Wife death
Mom death
Marcus Acacius death
Not enough music or emotional scenes.
Not enough Empereur scenes
Overall a 7/10 because it is a sequel and throwbacks to the first one. Which is a 10/10
I enjoyed it a lot loved the ending the characters and all.
i agree
Just got back from seeing it. I really enjoyed the film. Denzel is great in this film. Is it similar to the original? Yes. Do I care? No. I admit, the shark tank scene was ridiculous. But I didn’t care. 😂😂😂😂. The only thing missing due to continuity was lasers on their heads 😂😂😂😂.
Maybe I’m crazy, but I honestly really loved it.
So did I, I thought it was badass
I like both movies. They are different and can't really be compared. Gladiator 2 has better action scenes, Gladiator 1 has more heart.
Very similar plot so understandably to compare
Maybe not shark battles, but they did flood the stadium for mock naval battles.
Yes was going to say this. They used to reenact the battle of actium for example
There's a show on peacock called "Those Who Are About To Die" and they filled a coliseum with water and crocodiles. I thought to myself "I've never heard of them doing this". Then when I saw the Gladiator trailer I thought "ok maybe that was a thing after all".
I mostly agree with you John, except for Denzel Washington. I loved him! The entire film I kept wondering what his angle was and what he was trying to achieve, and Denzel did such a wonderful job being ambiguous but you know he was ambitious, but was he Paul's friend or foe, did he support the Emperors, I could not get a read on him and I love how Denzel just kept me guessing and surprising me. Otherwise, like you said, it was a good film
Same
Did we watch the same movie? Paul Mescal was excellent as Lucius, and this is Denzel's best performance in years.
Hose him down?? Denzel was such a poor cast choice
@justinrodgers6568 Nah
@@justinrodgers6568I agree I don’t get all the praise for him here. He was okay but didn’t fit the film imo. I just saw Denzel the whole time not his character
Paul mescal was dry and boring and denzel was okay
@@johnnyoldenjr. Nah
I think the writing was lacking but Denzel's performance saved the movie. The cinematography was not better than that of Troy.
I think they should have had that epic battle between the Praetorian Guards and Acaceus's legions at the end. Because in real life, it would have taken more than a heartwarming speech to get them to back down. Luicus would of had to buy them off.
Gladiator 2 came out here in Australia last week. Weird that we got it earlier than America 🤔
i saw gladiator ll as well! i loved the costume design
Gladiator is one of my favorite movies and I was super curious about what would happen in Gladiator II. I never felt like I connected to any of the new characters the way I did in the first one and couldn’t get any type of emotions going as it never allowed time for it. The rabid dog monkeys lost me and sharks were laughable. I so wanted it to be better. In a nutshell it fell flat for me.
Actually John they did do that the Romans filled the Colosseum with water to kind of reenact Naval battles
I saw it gave it a 7 Denzel Washington and the twins were the best part of the movie for me
They should have had the Twins more in the film
totally disagree about paul mescal (he did well)
not his best role by far
aftersun and normal people are his best imo
but still solid
I agree. it wasn’t Denzel’s A game. However the dialogue limited him. The cast did a good job with what they had.
Denzel was having SO MUCH fun here. He just owned every second of screentime he had.
I also thought Joseph Quinn was quite fun as well, but very underused.
I noticed that they retconned Lucius’s age. In the first movie, it was said that he and Maximus’s son were both about the same age (around 8 years old or so). But in this film Macrinus says that he was 12 during the events of the first film. Maybe a way to make him Maximus’s sob without turning Maximus into a guy who cheated on his wife (which would make ZERO sense) perhaps?
Well someone has it wrong then, here in the uk iv watched shows with experts saying they did fill the arenas with water…
Pretty much in agreement. Liked it. But couldve been GREAT. The script just wasnt there
It’s Wild Ridley Scott let Denzel do an American accent the entire time
pedro also has an american accent whats ur point
I've seen the movie, and I definitely enjoyed watching it. Denzel, in his Training Day mood ,wicked!!!!
😂😂😂 yall need to stop
Gladiator 2 a solid 7/10
Denzel was chewing the scenes he was in...100% not phoned in. Don't know what film mr campea was watching tbh lol
Denzel was entertaining but that doesn’t mean it was a good performance for him.
This was total hot garbage. I think critics are so starved for somewhat decent content that even crappy reboots get accolades. The praise given to Alien Romulus was similarly undeserved.
Life lesson: don't use your subjective opinion for what everyone elses opinion should be. You will be a better person I promise
I'm gonna flip what John said about Pedro Pascal. I was underwhelmed by what I saw in the trailer... I got goosebumps with what I saw in the cinema.
Some of the 'epic moments' felt off because I don't think the music elevated the material as much as it did for the first film.
I understand John's point about Denzel. His character, not performance, fell in the mould of a homme fatale. Very light. Shadowy. Which probably is the reason why Washington doesn't shine as much as I expected him to.
The sequel tries to juggle a bit more than the first one in terms of characters. The first film felt more straightforward.
Gladiator 2 was just entertaining, Gladiator 1 was wordclass art- a masterpiece
They absolutely did fill the colosseum with water and recreated naval battles - and if they did that, then whose to say they didn’t put sharks into the colosseum - they had boats, they had nets… the Roman riding a rhino was more unrealistic than that tbf… but the cgi sharks didn’t look good unfortunately
There was no sharks and the water was not that deep to put any see creatures in it.
There is evidence that they brought in crocodiles and hippos. I’m sure it was deep enough it’s not too far of a stretch plus it’s a movie it is fantasy no matter what.
I didn't really like it, to me I felt like there was things missing, like they cut a big chunk out of the movie . I never felt like there was a solid villain , even the twin brothers were just annoying to me.
The movie was ok, first is much much better of course. it felt they rushed the plot near the third act to get to the ending quicker. None of the cast really stood out to me, and I actually forgot Pedro Pascal was in this.
Was this movie needed? No, but it’s a better sequel than another sequel that wasn’t needed either, in Joker 2.
I really enjoyed the actors who played the evil brothers, best part of the movie in my opinion.
As soon as I seen the cgi monkeys… that looked so fake… I was so turned off by the film… part one was a masterpiece… I fell asleep just seeing all the cgi mess
So, it’s well known that the battles in the coliseum with Sea Water happened at least twice. And also, they did raise and transport sharks.
Despite these sharks not being likely in these games, it’s known they had Hippoes and Crocodiles. So that? Accurate, more than most sections of the film
They had small sharks in the sea, but you need a water vehicle to transport sharks…which absolutely didn’t happen. They also had no concept of “sharks” they just knew them as another fish, that happened to be small sharks.
Was there even a hippo in the movie? Rhino riding was absolutely never a thing though
The main reason Gladiator II bothers me is because it kinda ruins the magic of the first one by forcing Lucius to be Maximus' bastard son.
This wasn't necessary but more importantly it paints a different picture of Maximus that is not consistent with the man we all grew to respect.
Here are a couple reasons why Lucius being the bastard son of Maximus does not work.
When Maximus prays to his ancestors, he is always holding two figurines who clearly represent his wife and only son.
He says "blessed father watch over my wife and son (singular) with a ready sword..." If Lucius was also his son, he would have said "my wife and sons" (plural) and he would be holding a 3rd figurine to represent Lucius.
In order for the honorable Maximus to have gotten Lucilla pregnant with Lucius, he would've had to have slept with Lucilla while she was married to Lucius Verus and potentially while he (Maximus) was also married. At the very least, this means that the honorable Maximus disrespected the co-ruling emperor of Rome. This goes against the values and principles that Maximus stands for.
In every conversation he and Lucilla have regarding their sons, they are always spoken of as belonging to them separately. When Maximus refers to Lucius, it's always "your son" and when Lucilla speaks of Lucius it's always "my son". This is not the language of parents who share a child.
In a conversation with Lucilla in the first movie, Maximus says "I heard of your husband's death, I mourned him". This means Maximus respected her husband. How the hell does that line even work if he was shagging her behind his back?
Next, in his conversation with his friend Juba about seeing their families in the afterlife, Maximus says this "You see, my wife and my son are already waiting for me." Does this sound like a man who has another son? Nope, Maximus has one goal. Avenge the death of his family and see them again in the afterlife. He does not mention Lucius, or pray for him, or try to stay alive to see him. The only reason Lucius is remotely important to him is because he cares for Lucilla. By killing Commodus, Maximus avenges the death of his family, saves Rome from the corrupt emperor, and unburdens Lucilla from fear of her son being killed. So, Ridley Scott's devotion to historical inaccuracy extends to his own stories, haha.
Thank you!! Finally someone speaks about this bs that was forced on us. There was ZERO evidence that pointed Lucius as Maximus son in the first movie.
I completely disagree with you on Denzel. He’s completely in the zone and he took it to another level. He is great when he is quiet and glancing and observing. You can sense the machinations working behind his eyes.
Knew it was going to be bad but yeah glicked is not happening
I think the revenge plot brought the film down because a) it felt repetitive to the original and b) it ended up being not that important anyway. I think they should have entirely focused on the lost heir aspect of the story. Overall, good film that could have been a lot better if they did a few things differently.
It was a very good film and worthy sequel. It did not try to use nostalgia or greatest hits to tell the story. It stands on its on.
Paul Mescal was a big problem for me in this film. You're told he's 'angry and a good leader' but I just never felt it whilst watching the movie. He felt so.... meh.
Also Pedro Pascal should have been the lead, his character was the most interesting imo.
Paul Mescal i thought was good and like him in the lead role. However the story didn't work as well
Gladiator II should not have been made. I didn’t care about any of the characters. Watch both Gladiator films and you will see a perfect example in the difference in quality of how movies used to be made and how they are made now. Gladiator won best picture and Gladiator II is “a movie that came out in 2024” as John so accurately put it.
I disagree with the length opinion. I feel some ideas, and some scenes needed more air to breathe. I wanted some scenes to wait, just to feel the weight. And I didn’t like the cinematography. Didn’t have the texture of the original, pictures felt too clean
I don't mind the inaccuracies. Eg : Flooding of the colleseum. But this feels like its missing the emotional soul of the original. Even the music is forgettable. The main actor doesn't have the same gravitas as Russell Crowe. He doesnt even feel like an heir of Russel Crowe, but rather of Gérard Butler. Nevertheless it's not a bad movie, but just a serviceable one
Good lord a lot of you saying this is a decent film shows how far standards have dropped. I was not entertained
The plot didn’t really make a lot of sense, it was never stated how the twin emperors came to power at all, like I had no emotional connection with the main character he didn’t really command the screen, and it was a missed opportunity for them to have the movie end with romes downfall.
And since when was Lucius Maximus son? Lol
Thought Paul Mescal was... arguably.... the best part of the film. Denzel was solid and the character backstory
loved gladiator 2
Not dude it was trash stop it
@chrisperez7710 you do know John says movies are subjective, seems u don't know that... boo hoo
I thought gladiator 2 was excellent.. my favorite movie of the year .. was it better than the original? No but it was damn good .. and my god the opening battle sequence was just amazing. FYI wicked was not a good movie lol
Disagree, Denzel was loving this role. He was great.
He looked like he was having fun and not taking the role seriously..
Gladiator 1
Incredible music
Incredible story line
Amazing actors all at the top of there game in this... and maxium emotion and on the edge of your seat......wonderful film and one of the great movies for the ages.....
Gladiator 2
Watched it for 20 minutes turned it off.....
Predictable, cheaper story line of the first.... cgi animal bollocks everywhere... zero emotion and just does'nt grip you at all...... should of been left alone!!! QUICKLY FORGOTTEN... moving on
Gladiator 2 is one of the best movies I’ve seen that came out after 2019. That said, the bar is pretty low. What was missing in this movie is what’s missing in 99% of movies nowadays, and that’s heart.
You think that about Dune too?That there wasn't any heart in it?
@ You just named the 1% of cinema that came out that was actually well made as if trying to prove a point about the vast majority of slop that’s come out of Hollywood in the last 5 years. Dune is the *very* rare exception, not the norm, and even then it isn’t exempt from some of the same problems that plague every Hollywood release nowadays.
Why would Wicked have no business being great? It's based on an incredible stage show and directed by a quietly brilliant director
Arcane just sumed up and you are not even talking about it. why?
As a fan of Spartacus and the first one I hope it's good, not having high hopes...
I watched it. I think it was a pretty good film. 4/5
With all due disrespect, you shouldn't be allowed to watch films. If this is a 4/5 film for you.
@kh7688 here have a picture of yourself -> 🤡