If the plot is what I hear it is wow…. I won’t spoil it but that really is ugh.. a choice. I’m not gonna cry cancel it or whatever and still want to see it but the balls on the writers I guess is pretty crazy. I’m seeing in reviews that regardless it’s still a mess of a movie too. I’ll probably still go see it this weekend though if I stay in town. I mean it’s Ridley. Not sure how much longer this guy will be able to make movies so enjoy him while he’s still capable.
Yeah I had to go see it just to not have to sit around and stare at my family that’s in town so we had something to do. Kind of wish we just stayed home and played cards or something. That was pretty bad. Don’t know how Ridley Scott allowed that hot garbage to come out with his name on it.
They were trying too hard to give homage and tie back to the first one. But Russel’s Crow’s acting is what really made that movie great. The main character was very forgettable and Denzel’s role seemed very contrived.
Haven't watched it yet, but I find a lot of sequels try to fit the same 'mold' of the originals because it's a proven path to success. What the studio execs don't realize is that, as you said, there are nuanced things like acting performances and good scripts. They don't have to be the same. When I saw that Denzel was in this movie I wondered if they were going to shoehorn a character in for him.
To the movie’s credit in the second half it does try to carve out a different path and ask a different question than the first movie in terms of the central point (fascism bad. Democracy is a dream but worth fighting for). This film does still have the central theme around facism being bad, and does still have a hopefully ending for “the people”/Rome but along the way it asks some more nuanced questions about Rome/republics and whether they really are worth saving or not. That might sound like a spoiler but it really shouldn’t be. The trailer spoils major plot points that in the movie are supposed to be big left turns so spoiling that this movie is asking questions about empires like Rome and obviously the United States currently shouldn’t be a big shocker. Ridley Scott is pretty on the nose with his films typically and doesn’t try too hard to just let you sit back and be “entertained” with spectacle. Denzel’s character though … yeah it’s just… a lot. Really contrived and not subtle at all. In the final act he does things that made us laugh out loud and not in a good way. And out of nowhere because the story needs him to be something else he apparently just gets superpowered out of nowhere. It’s pretty funny. Yeah… it’s a mess but it is entertaining I guess.
It’s a replica of the first gladiator without almost all the things that made that movie great. It’s probably worth watching at least once but I can’t imagine when I’d watch it again on purpose.
I would not waste time or money on this movie. I would give it a 4/10 at best. The movie action was mediocre, plot was predictable and unoriginal. Character development fell flat, did not care who lived or died. acting was solid for the most part other than the main character who seemed like he was out his depth in all scenes that required pulling of heart strings.
Maybe if kidnapped and sat in a chair facing the TV with "Gladiator 2" rented and your eyelids stapled to your forehead? That's the only way? Yeah, I had wanted to see this movie, but since most of the reactions or reviews don't exactly get my nuts bubbling, I'll wait until I can rent it for 6 bucks on Amazon Prime. Ridley Scott amazes that he can still direct these films at age 86 but it seems he's lost his touch overall. "Napoleon" could have been great and wasn't. But, hey, we still have "Alien," "Blade Runner," "The Martian," the original "Gladiator", "Thelma and Louise," et al, amiright?
