Post by Doomsday on Nov 17, 2024 20:24:01 GMT -5
Gladiator II
Be warned for minor spoilers await
You would think that Gladiator II, a sequel to one of the defining sword and sandals films of our generation, would be 100% up my alley. Can you think of a better movie that would scream 'Doomsday?' Having been raised on the likes of Braveheart, Lawrence of Arabia, and yes, the first Gladiator, I was always enamored with recreating time periods past and seeing the tremendous scale brought to life. Even today I'm happy to see those kinds of films and series so long as they're at least somewhat well made. On the other hand, Gladiator II was not exactly a movie I expected to ever be made. The first one was a very self-contained movie, almost all the leads were killed off by the end, and there is so much more Roman history that can be mined there's no need to relegate it just to gladiator movies. Heck, my dream project would be if HBO got some sense and decided to produce a third season of Rome. There's really no reason not to, there's so much history they can explore. So when a now-86 year old Ridley Scott announced he was making a sequel it made me scratch my head. Again, the question for this sequel, like any sequel these days, is 'Is this a movie we need?'
There's a lot to talk about regarding Gladiator II, the sequel to the Best Picture winning film from almost a quarter century ago. My thought throughout the movie was how this is maybe the best example of what people are really souring to in movies; years-too-late sequels that don't really improve on the original, it tells an unnecessary story and uses CGI to backfill its shortcomings. It does have its strengths but those strengths are obvious; it's technically well made, it has some good acting, it's got plenty of action, if you like history then this will fit the bill. This is all evident in the trailer and unfortunately there is little in the actual movie to surprise you and make you go 'wow, I didn't expect that' Instead, the story just retreads a lot of old ground that Gladiator already established and retools it for a 2024 audience. The main structure of the movie is that 'the essence of Rome is threatened and we need the Republic to help restore it.' Basically, the exact theme of the original. There are constant references to Maximus, Marcus Aurelius, how Rome is being threatened and it's a hairs breath away from falling into chaos. What have the Romans been doing the past 20 years other than letting Maximus down? The movie starts with another battle, this time with the naval siege of Numidia by Roman forces led by Acacius (Pedro Pascal). Among the Numidian villagers is the kid from the first movie, a now grown Lucius Verus (Paul Mescal), who's been living outside of Rome for basically his entire life. During the battle his wife is killed (shocking!), he's captured and, you guessed it, he becomes a gladiator. He's sold to Macrinus (Denzel Washington), who's basically Oliver Reed's Proximo character from the first one only this time the old slave trader has much more sinister, grandiose plans for his role in Roman politics. Over time, it's revealed that this captured gladiator Lucius is Roman royalty, he helps bring a voice back to the people and attempts to restore order among a fractured Roman Empire.
As much as I wanted to enjoy Gladiator II even with my tempered, middle-aged expectations, there were things that were hard to ignore and didn't allow me to really immerse myself in it. The most glaring thing is that this is a pretty poorly paced movie with not a lot of time to really let the story breathe. In the first Gladiator there's the similar opening battle but that's followed by 20-30 minutes of character introductions, Maximus speaking with Marcus Aurelius, meeting with Lucilla, it's where we see Commodus and learn that he's unloved by his Emperor father. It's where we learn that Aurelius sees Maximus as his true son and basically all of the drama and stakes are laid out. I use this long sequence to demonstrate how vital that storytelling can be and that there are no scenes like this in Gladiator II, it just seems to rush from one set piece to the next with as little development as possible, only giving what's absolutely needed. Once Lucius is captured it feels like he's thrown into the arena in just a few minutes which brings me to my next point; they really got carried away with the cartoonishness of the action. If you recall, the first gladiator fight in the original film is in a desolate desert arena with dirty, disheveled fighters. The same occurs in Gladiator II (again hitting all the same beats) only this time the new gladiators are fighting a horde of CG baboons that are howling and trying to tear at their throats. Okay then. The trailer also gives away a fight against a CG rhinoceros and a big naval battle in the Coliseum complete with hungry CG sharks. It all sounds cool I guess but like I said, it feels more like Gladiator fan fiction. And to answer the question, does Paul Mescal match up to Russell Crowe? No, he certainly does not and unfortunately this movie really could have used the presence of someone who could carry a movie of this magnitude. Not to say that he's a bad actor but him taking this role invites obvious comparisons. Russell Crowe became an A-list household name overnight after the success of Gladiator and Mescal's performance doesn't have the same heft. His character also isn't terribly interesting or even that pertinent to the story. A lot of the time I thought 'what's he supposed to be doing right now?' Things are happening around him but we cut back to his cell without knowing what he's supposed to do next. Right before a final confrontation at the end he gives the standard pep talk to the army. No joke, his opening line is 'You all expect me to talk and I don't know what to say.' That sums up his entire character arc, as if the movie doesn't quite know what his angle should be. Instead, the movie is primarily carried by Denzel. His performance is flamboyant, just over the top enough to help the movie float and he more or less steals the show. In fact if someone else had been cast I would have probably put this movie in the 'fail' column rather than 'pass,' that's how much hinges on his presence and performance
I can’t say it’s a disappointment because this movie was never really on my radar, but Gladiator II still could’ve been done much better even with the lofty expectations of being compared to its predecessor. All of the superficial things that made the first one cool aren’t done nearly as well and all of the story points that made the first one work don’t exist. It's not a bad movie per se and there are things to enjoy but again it's a decades-too-late sequel that fails to justify its own existence and even with all the action and too-fast pacing I still found myself checking my watch a few times.
None of you remember this but on the old Coming Soon! website one of the chief reviewers was a guy named The Soothsayer. He used to end all reviews with 'So says the Soothsayer' which is where I ripped my line from whenever I do longer write-ups. I remember his Gladiator review ended with 'It might sound like I'm exaggerating but it's been a long time since I've seen anything this good.' While I certainly can't say the same about Gladiator II, thread is in honor of you, Soothsayer.
B- so says Doomsday, this ain't no award winner and there are certainly other movies that are more worth your time during awards season
I did however stay for a Q&A with the producers and main cast. No Ridley Scott though, I guess he couldn't be bothered to drag his old ass out of bed.
Be warned for minor spoilers await
You would think that Gladiator II, a sequel to one of the defining sword and sandals films of our generation, would be 100% up my alley. Can you think of a better movie that would scream 'Doomsday?' Having been raised on the likes of Braveheart, Lawrence of Arabia, and yes, the first Gladiator, I was always enamored with recreating time periods past and seeing the tremendous scale brought to life. Even today I'm happy to see those kinds of films and series so long as they're at least somewhat well made. On the other hand, Gladiator II was not exactly a movie I expected to ever be made. The first one was a very self-contained movie, almost all the leads were killed off by the end, and there is so much more Roman history that can be mined there's no need to relegate it just to gladiator movies. Heck, my dream project would be if HBO got some sense and decided to produce a third season of Rome. There's really no reason not to, there's so much history they can explore. So when a now-86 year old Ridley Scott announced he was making a sequel it made me scratch my head. Again, the question for this sequel, like any sequel these days, is 'Is this a movie we need?'
There's a lot to talk about regarding Gladiator II, the sequel to the Best Picture winning film from almost a quarter century ago. My thought throughout the movie was how this is maybe the best example of what people are really souring to in movies; years-too-late sequels that don't really improve on the original, it tells an unnecessary story and uses CGI to backfill its shortcomings. It does have its strengths but those strengths are obvious; it's technically well made, it has some good acting, it's got plenty of action, if you like history then this will fit the bill. This is all evident in the trailer and unfortunately there is little in the actual movie to surprise you and make you go 'wow, I didn't expect that' Instead, the story just retreads a lot of old ground that Gladiator already established and retools it for a 2024 audience. The main structure of the movie is that 'the essence of Rome is threatened and we need the Republic to help restore it.' Basically, the exact theme of the original. There are constant references to Maximus, Marcus Aurelius, how Rome is being threatened and it's a hairs breath away from falling into chaos. What have the Romans been doing the past 20 years other than letting Maximus down? The movie starts with another battle, this time with the naval siege of Numidia by Roman forces led by Acacius (Pedro Pascal). Among the Numidian villagers is the kid from the first movie, a now grown Lucius Verus (Paul Mescal), who's been living outside of Rome for basically his entire life. During the battle his wife is killed (shocking!), he's captured and, you guessed it, he becomes a gladiator. He's sold to Macrinus (Denzel Washington), who's basically Oliver Reed's Proximo character from the first one only this time the old slave trader has much more sinister, grandiose plans for his role in Roman politics. Over time, it's revealed that this captured gladiator Lucius is Roman royalty, he helps bring a voice back to the people and attempts to restore order among a fractured Roman Empire.
As much as I wanted to enjoy Gladiator II even with my tempered, middle-aged expectations, there were things that were hard to ignore and didn't allow me to really immerse myself in it. The most glaring thing is that this is a pretty poorly paced movie with not a lot of time to really let the story breathe. In the first Gladiator there's the similar opening battle but that's followed by 20-30 minutes of character introductions, Maximus speaking with Marcus Aurelius, meeting with Lucilla, it's where we see Commodus and learn that he's unloved by his Emperor father. It's where we learn that Aurelius sees Maximus as his true son and basically all of the drama and stakes are laid out. I use this long sequence to demonstrate how vital that storytelling can be and that there are no scenes like this in Gladiator II, it just seems to rush from one set piece to the next with as little development as possible, only giving what's absolutely needed. Once Lucius is captured it feels like he's thrown into the arena in just a few minutes which brings me to my next point; they really got carried away with the cartoonishness of the action. If you recall, the first gladiator fight in the original film is in a desolate desert arena with dirty, disheveled fighters. The same occurs in Gladiator II (again hitting all the same beats) only this time the new gladiators are fighting a horde of CG baboons that are howling and trying to tear at their throats. Okay then. The trailer also gives away a fight against a CG rhinoceros and a big naval battle in the Coliseum complete with hungry CG sharks. It all sounds cool I guess but like I said, it feels more like Gladiator fan fiction. And to answer the question, does Paul Mescal match up to Russell Crowe? No, he certainly does not and unfortunately this movie really could have used the presence of someone who could carry a movie of this magnitude. Not to say that he's a bad actor but him taking this role invites obvious comparisons. Russell Crowe became an A-list household name overnight after the success of Gladiator and Mescal's performance doesn't have the same heft. His character also isn't terribly interesting or even that pertinent to the story. A lot of the time I thought 'what's he supposed to be doing right now?' Things are happening around him but we cut back to his cell without knowing what he's supposed to do next. Right before a final confrontation at the end he gives the standard pep talk to the army. No joke, his opening line is 'You all expect me to talk and I don't know what to say.' That sums up his entire character arc, as if the movie doesn't quite know what his angle should be. Instead, the movie is primarily carried by Denzel. His performance is flamboyant, just over the top enough to help the movie float and he more or less steals the show. In fact if someone else had been cast I would have probably put this movie in the 'fail' column rather than 'pass,' that's how much hinges on his presence and performance
I can’t say it’s a disappointment because this movie was never really on my radar, but Gladiator II still could’ve been done much better even with the lofty expectations of being compared to its predecessor. All of the superficial things that made the first one cool aren’t done nearly as well and all of the story points that made the first one work don’t exist. It's not a bad movie per se and there are things to enjoy but again it's a decades-too-late sequel that fails to justify its own existence and even with all the action and too-fast pacing I still found myself checking my watch a few times.
None of you remember this but on the old Coming Soon! website one of the chief reviewers was a guy named The Soothsayer. He used to end all reviews with 'So says the Soothsayer' which is where I ripped my line from whenever I do longer write-ups. I remember his Gladiator review ended with 'It might sound like I'm exaggerating but it's been a long time since I've seen anything this good.' While I certainly can't say the same about Gladiator II, thread is in honor of you, Soothsayer.
B- so says Doomsday, this ain't no award winner and there are certainly other movies that are more worth your time during awards season
I did however stay for a Q&A with the producers and main cast. No Ridley Scott though, I guess he couldn't be bothered to drag his old ass out of bed.
