First impressions: the magnificent Gladiator II | FilmZone.cz

After more than 20 years, Ridley Scott returned to one of his most famous works to “finish” the narrative of the Roman dream, which began boldly and dramatically with Marcus Aurelius and then apparently died with Maximus in the center of the famous Colosseum. THEN Gladiator II However, these dreams are coming back in full force and we will now tell you what we think about it. I recommend lowering your expectations.

As Cival sees it:

It’s a good movie! And a very worthy follow-up to the Oscar-winning classic. Even more dignified than I would have expected at the time of filming. I am glad to return to Gladiator for two reasons: First, it makes sense to me from the framework of the plot, and secondly, I can see again the benchmark of the historical epic of Hollywood, as only Ridley Scott can and cut his team. . And the result feels not only like a big cinematic statement, but also like a hit where every dollar can be seen.

The amazing budget and the work of the costume designers, architects, make-up artists and scenery can be spoiled, and you can walk through an amazing scene that fits the big screen and the sound of the accident, as if it’s the ultimate gladiator fight for your ears. The actors are excellent, Denzel Washington is in “I’m really enjoying this filming of Training Day 2 in old settings” mode and is in the running for another Oscar, and the whole thing is more more than trying to match Gladiator’s original form. Yes, it is not so simple and it does not end with iconic moments, but at the same time, the pace is much more lively and the tedious schemes of the elders are not boring this time, because the pace is much more height . Sometimes maybe too much, but… Number two is just a bit behind number one, which is generally a pleasant find.

As Mr. Hunger:

Epic? No debates. Fun? More or less. Ridley Scott is closer to ninety than eighty, and it seems to me that he is already filming so that he does not push himself too hard. The Second Gladiator is definitely not a bad movie, and I wasn’t bored for two and a quarter hours, but I expected more. Practically in every way. The action scenes are documentary, but not very imaginative. The spectacular opening battle, the fights with animals and other gladiators or the naval battles in the Colosseum offer strong craftsmanship, but unfortunately also few ideas and often lower energy. On the other hand, the second Gladiator bets more on politics and that several important characters have their own agenda and the relationships between them are very complicated.

But Scott can’t sell this very well. All of the heroes’ motives seem rather erratic, as do the sudden changes in their relationships. And of course even in the status of the main character, who turns from a god of zero fighting everywhere to a superstar gladiator, without being clear how this happened. And the same goes for everyone else. Gladiator II often works like House of Cards or let’s call it Game of Thrones, which you don’t watch on TV, but watch reruns on YouTube. The result is a film that was very emotionally draining for me and doesn’t offer any iconic scene or moment worth remembering on its own. It is not a “flag” like Napoleon, but to the first part and the best of Scott’s filming, this narrative, but unfortunately a superficial view, cannot engage emotionally, in his all ways. You should definitely see it, but don’t expect another classic.

How it looks to_From:

The sequel to Gladiator is an order of magnitude more epic and also more popcorn than its predecessor, and indeed than Ridley’s last two historical films. With ship battles, digital animals, a straight pair of cartoon villains and twice the cast (where was the normal male muscle like in the first one? Does everyone need oily, skinny buns to to make it macho enough?) but naturally it also comes off as very intellectual as well as a poorer story that tries to repeat formula number one as much as possible, and at the same time adding several other motifs so that it feels at the end. overpaid and unfocused.

Potentially strong themes are opened and closed without much thought, characters change beliefs and alliances like on a treadmill, and everything feels as deep as a plate of pizza. Furthermore, and this probably surprised me the most, the second Gladiator is completely out of character. Aside from a possible Connie Nielsen, everyone here is either overrated (Emperors, Denzel), underserved (Pascal), or definitively prove that they are slobbery acting logs completely unfit for major roles (Mescal).

It feels tight, but in the end, thanks to Scott’s amazing design, soundtrack and battle scenes, it’s better than his Napoleon, which I really liked. But it certainly did not fall short of what was expected of a sequel to a worthy legacy, to which I returned with vigor every time I read the first one. Here’s how I play the opening (with great subtitles), the flooded Coliseum and then maybe the ending, but unfortunately the rest doesn’t reach my impression of the original Gladiator even after the sandals his dust.

As Krauset sees it:

a roman dream. the American dream Both are partly fiction, but with the American one you can at least imagine what it represents. Gladiator II often refers to the “Roman dream”, but hardly bothers to explain what it means to the characters. That vagueness wouldn’t matter if this dream wasn’t the main motivation for several characters.

Gladiator II is often referred to as the golden age. Characters from the time of the Republic or the philosopher on the throne of Marcus Aurelius, the film itself from the time of the first Gladiator. And as the length increases, it feels like another legacy sequel that doesn’t have much to say and that not only musically refers to the past.

Gladiator does not have a broad philosophy, despite the words from Marcus Aurelius, and he does not give any idea of what freedom is in his concept. From a certain point on, Lucia is driven by nostalgia rather than revenge, and his political program could be called Make Roma Great Again. This time I was also struck by Scott’s tendency to give a contemporary mind to historical periods (which works very well in Kingdom of Heaven, for example), but in Gladiator I couldn’t believe that the characters get power in the ways they get it, or imagine the way they think, which made me again pull out of immersion (it’s a problem especially in the third last).

So, after the excellent The Last Duel and the rather entertaining Napoleon, Gladiator II is for me the most interesting member of Scott’s recent historical triptych. Nevertheless, it offers a juicy Denzel and a very lively opening battle. And I’m still grateful to Ridley for all the new historical scenes in a time when Hollywood doesn’t want to make them anymore.