I saw some glowing reviews so I was excited to see it. Unfortunately your review is pretty spot on. No emotion. They didn't need to touch Gladiator. It was amazing as a standalone film.
Funny the same was said about the original. I kind of liked the sequel better because it was more about the Roman politics rather than just one Roman fighting for his revenge. It has much better action and was shot better. The first one has a better lead.
@mania4270 "It was more about the Roman politics". Except that it was a pile of bilge, historically speaking. It is a fantasy with some historical Roman names thrown in. It is about "Roman politics" in the same way that "Game of Thrones" is about "medieval politics", or "Lord of the Rings" is about Anglo Saxon history and politics, (which it is, sort of, with added orcs, elves and hobbits.)
@AndriyValdensius-wi8gw and the first gladiator wasn't? The first gladiator movie was just as fake and fantastical as this new one. Y'all are obvious mad about Denzel Washington, who should be WINNING a beat supporting actor nod from the academy, it was a great performance. Comparing this to game of thrones and lord of the rings which have friggin dragons and elves is stupid. Nobody said this was based on a true story. All I said was it was more about the politics of Rome and how it was falling apart. Idk how you got lord of the rings from that, but like I said, many movies fans like you don't notice those nuances, I was watching focused on how Denzel was gonna use Lucius to take over roam, you went into this trying to hate on it and missed the point.
@mania4270 Gladiator 2 "isn't stupid" because it doesn't have elves or hobbits. It just has giant sharks, giant mutant apes, and a gladiator riding a rhinoceros. So, that's "sensible" ? Nothing stupid there then. Why not have elves, hobbits, and woolly mammoths in the arena. The first Gladiator wasn't particularly historical. Granted. But it was a great movie on every other level.
@AndriyValdensius-wi8gw gladiator 1 got mixed reviews back then with most critics praising the action and the acting from Crowe and Phoenix. It even got a thumbs down from Roger every who felt that it didn't represent roam well, so again, what ever criticism you have towards this can be said about the original. Bro did you just call a wild baboon a mutant ape? Dude you act like they had king kong in the movie, it was actually a reasonably sized baboon/mandrill. Giant sharks? Dude those sharks were maybe less than 10 feet, they weren't big at all. If you wanna say they LOOK fake, sure but to call an average sized bill shark a "giant"? You're full of shit. As for rhinos ......Ridley Scott would have put rhinos in gladiator 1, it's famously known that they cut out the rhino scene in the og gladiator because the effects weren't there yet. As for ppl riding rhinos.....that's not unbelievable because you can ride a rhino at a friggin petting zoo. And maybe the Romans did or didn't ride them, who cares? It's literally just an action movie set in Rome because it looks cool, and that's the same as the first one. I noticed nobody has anything to say about the story that's negative besides vague stuff like "the original was better ". The reason why is because the story is probably better in the sequel. There I SAID IT. I'm more entertained watching Denzel plot, scheme, and slowly conquer roam more than I am watching Joaquin Phoenix have a starring contest with Russell Crowe. I think the original is better paced and has a better score, but overall I may prefer the second one more. If this movie had come out in 04, I'm sure you and everyone would call it a classic.
If you think about all the fight scenes in Gladiator, they all had a purpose beyond just action for action's sake... Germania battle establishes Maximus as a respected and capable leader. Also establishes the entire plot of movie, ie Marcus chooses him as his heir instead of his own son BECAUSE he is admired and honest. "They honor you, Maximus" First slave fight in the province shows us that Max feels he has no reason to live and will not bother fighting but decides at the last moment he must "be remembered as a man" He is chained to Juba and this reveals his character as he once again takes on the role of leader to try to keep his men alive The 10 man solo fight displays his prowess in one on one armed combat which tee's up and makes plausible whats ahead of him later in the film The Rome v Barbarian fight in the Colloseum displays his ability with battle tactics and brings his group of slaves even closer together as his tactics keep them alive. It also serves as the reveal of his true identity. Commodus must kill Maximus but it has to be in a satisfying way, so a one on one battle with a legenadry gladiator gives us another incredible arena fight where they get to showcase tigers (a must see in a film based so heavily in the Colloseum. The final fight between Commudus and Max is possibly the best of the movie as it cements Commudus as a coward and low life but also a tragic figure, who even when wounded, cannot beat the man he always aspired to be and the man his father loved as a son.
First time ive replied to a comment in years, Absolutely spot on, every scene in the first movie had meaning, direction. Something the new one forfeited entirely opting instead for pure spectacle (water fight in the colosseum, cgi rinos). At least the 2nd movie showed us some new armor, i liked the twins gold armor, and pedros breatplate looked pretty badass. Too bad the armor had to adorn hollow characters, which is ironic.
Did anyone notice how *well fed* most of the actors in this movie looked. Besides the poor acting, the main character’s modern era gym +nutrition body really annoyed me 😂
In the long list of things wrong with Gladiator 2, that's probably quite low. But since you bring it up, it's a historical error. These modern movies show gladiators with gym perfect ripped torsos. Historical research shows that gladiators in the arena tended to be quite chubby, if not fat. There was a good reason for it. A sword cut into subcutaneous fat is a relatively minor injury that can heal relatively quickly, assuming it doesn't get infected. A cut into or across muscle is much more serious and takes longer to heal, IF it heals. Although gladiators DID die in the arena, most gladiator fights were more like fencing bouts, often only to first blood and no more. Trained gladiators were expensive, for a start. They were a big investment on the part of their owners or trainers. They really didn't want their best gladiators slaughtered over one show in an arena. People WERE put to death in Roman arenas, of course, but they were usually criminals condemned for one reason or other. Trained gladiators were too valuable to be lightly squandered.
Ridley deciding to shoot 'Gladiator 2' on a digital camera for the sake of convenience gives it that actors-doing-cosplay look like a Netflix streaming release compared to the gorgeous cinematic visual quality of kodak and eastman 35mm used for the first one where it actually looks like a professional studio movie from the big 5. The other letdown is that you don't really end up caring about any of the characters so you're not that emotionally engaged in the story unfortunately. Crowe actually looks like a regal war veteran / Roman general rather than a guy you would see down at your local gym and his performance manages to provoke you emotionally. The first 2 minute entrance alone into the colosseum before Maximus instructs the gladiators to all stick together just for sheer thrill-factor, soundtrack, tension building, visual quality..etc is far better than the entirety of Gladiator 2 (5.5). Ridley is great when he has a good script to work with (The Last Duel / The Martian) but his directorial style can't elevate a lacklustre script in the same way that someone like Spielberg can.
@StimParavane Agreed, shot on the same Kodak and Eastman 35mm as 'Gladiator' and 'Troy' were, it looks a billion dollars and the director's cut really enriches the experience.
Great point about shooting digitally! God I hate that glassy lifeless look, and like you said, it makes period pieces feel phony and cheap. There's a reason people are gushing over how impressive "The Brutalist" looks (made under 10 million!), shooting on film makes all the difference in the world
@@johndoderino2609 Agreed 100%, it just gives 'The Brutalist' so much more cinematic production value in looking like a bonefide movie, same for 'Anora' and 'Strange Darling' from this year and 'Oppenheimer' and 'Asteroid City' from last year. While watching them, you're reminded of why every new movie that came out felt like an event when shooting on 35 was the norm.
@@thetalentofwhenever I hear someone mention "shot on film", they sound like the video store guy from the Simpsons. Nobody cares about it something is shot on film or digitally. Avatar 2 looks better than every movie and it's shot on camera. I also disagree with this movie feeling lifeless, nah, it had much better shots than the og gladiator. The original gladiator had so much shaky cam that you could barely see the fights. Y'all need to take off the rose tinted glasses. I love the og gladiator, but let's not act like it's this untouchable masterpiece of filmmaking.
i remember the first time watching gladiator when it came out on dvd and we had family over. i was about 11, i watched with my parents, grandparents, uncles, aunties, teenage siblings and younger sibling. everyone loved it and was totally invested. there are very very few films you can say satisfy an audience of that age range, young to old and both sexes.
"Drunk and not paying attention" probably aren't the prerequisites for viewing Ridley Scott was looking for, but I'm sure going to tell my friends what they should do before they see "Glad II"- thanks for the tip, Maggie!
“Ridiculous and tired.” That’s the general state of event films these days. I think there’s something more subtle transpiring as well. WE’RE changing. Our perception, the way we receive and interpret narrative art. The way our minds have been altered by modern media.
CONGRATS ON 700 videos!!!! We love you Maggie! ❤ Thank you for always challenging us with your thoughtful and gnarly reviews. You've been doing this longer than anyone and it has not gone unnoticed!!!! P.S Denzel was fantastic 👏🏻
i've seen a few of his films and he's a very good actor. but this 'hero' role didn't work for him. i think he didn't rise to it, but he wasn't helped by a crap script and story where you never felt invested in his character.
I agree saw it thursday night here in the UK Paul Mescal and Pedro Pascal's acting was terrible,poor direction and script to blame.The continueing fall of Ridley.
What I want to know is why was everything old dilapidated and crumbling away? It was over 1800 years ago but it wasn't 1800 years ago for them at the time. There would have been lots of colourful paint work, mosaics, the finest silks and plush rugs. At least in the palace area or whatever. If this was set in 582 or something then maybe it'd have looked in that state. Even in the prison area they would have had nice shiny iron bars not rusted ones, they would have replaced those. They probably would have put a nice *coat of varnish* on the wood of the door. Those wrist bracelet things as well, they never wore them. Actors wore them in the 1960's to cover up marks left by wristwatches. Everyone's got smart phones now wristwatches aren't so common. Even then you can just touch anything like that up in editing with a computer.
I love your consistency. After 15 years, your ‘Watchmen’ book is still on the exact same shelf, in the exact same position. Honest review of ‘Gladiator II’’. Can I assume you will be reviewing ‘Wicked #1’.
Just came out of the theatre for this one and while I was entertained, I can't disagree with your thoughts. I was intrigued by the prospect of a warrior unconnected to Rome who'd rise through the ranks to kill a Roman general under Denzel's tutelage rather than Maximus' clear cut revenge on Commodus, and contrast the first film by showing how this warrior isn't Maximus but still manages to find his own way. But then they had to make Hano Lucius, Maximus' son and the heir apparent. They couldn't sell the ideas they set up. For example, Lucius is not a leader of men, but he manages to convince the other gladiators to fight for him. There were some cool set-pieces and the action was visceral, but it lacked the fire - as you so clearly pointed out. Thanks for reviewing this, anyway. I actually waited to watch this film before hearing your thoughts, so at least I had that to look forward to!
My son and I enjoyed the movie. Was it as good as the original? No way. But I didn’t expect it to be. Opening was cool, with the ships, and Washington’s character was intriguing. For a rainy Saturday afternoon feature, you could do worse.
I had no idea of a Gladiator sequel penned by Nick Cave, I'm very curious. Also you feeling on the first film is identical to mine, so i think ill trust your takeaways. I only get to see my family a couple times a year and we always go to the cinema. Thanks for saving me wasting one of my rare outtings on this.
Hi- Are you open to reviewing the 2000 film release of Dinner Rush? It’s set in an Italian restaurant and starring the late Danny Aielo, Sandra Bernhardt and John Corbett.
I saw this kovie early and I thought it was good. Great visuals, decent story, some great acting by Denzel Washington, though I did not really care about Lucius Not as good as the original, but a solid 7/10 Edit: I rewateched the first film and sat on this, 5.5/10
That film was done very very well. The pacing felt rush but was slowed down thro the 2nd act the narrative is still there from the first one which is obviously why he wants to make a third one it’s gonna be a legacy story.. I don’t know about everyone else and these viewers.. a very well crafted film.
Honestly I felt Denzel Washington carried Gladiator 2, his Machiavellian-like performance elevated the film and kept me engaged. He was operating on a whole another level then his co-stars!
I agree that the 1st Gladiator was epic back in the day, It's a solid film, but not much Depth to it... not much to keep someone Coming back to it Was not expecting Gladiator 2 to be good, with Scott's more recent Films . This is just wasting Opportunity for New / Younger Directors at this point... I would appreciate Ridley stepping aside and giving a Director in their 30s/40s a chance on his next Project.
No, what Ridley Scott IS, is a walking caricature of what he once was. He's so far past a good time to retire its beginning to retroactively ensucken his past works.
“Hose him down” - denzel, hoses didnt exist in rome. Did no one pick up that he said that? Gladiator 2 ended were the first left off, with extra steps. Lucious is emperor. At the end.
Early in the film there's a continuity error that was unacceptable. Lucis bites the baboon and his mouth is covered in blood. Cut to next scene he barely has any blood on him and none around his mouth at all. And they end the scene like this too. I caught too many of these for my first time watching it.
You are definitely the best movie reviewer on UA-cam. I have zero desire to see this completely unnecessary cash grab, but here you are, sorting out yet another Ridley Scott bomb. The dedication to talking about film in incisive and intelligent language is very refreshing. Ridley should just stop. He likes to work fast, but that speed isn’t helping him. His number of flat out bad movies is embarrassing. I was amazed how someone so obviously talented could churn out crap like Hannibal. But that was just the tip of the crap iceberg. It’s depressing when I think that probably his best movie in the last twenty years was the extended cut of Kingdom of Heaven or American Gangster.
I was laughing like crazy in the theater, Denzel put up more of a fight and challenge on the main guy than Rhinos, Roided monkeys, and actual gladiators 😂
Love hearing your takes! Sorry you didn't enjoy it! I'm a fan of the original, so I'll check it out regardless! Great critique! Stay awesome Maggie! 💪🔥📷🖼️
A movie I always liked but haven’t seen in a while, so who knows how I feel about it now, is Fall of the Roman Empire from the 60s. It encapsulates this kind of world and feel a lot better for me than the first Gladiator.
I genuinely felt to see this then I read about the Palestinian actress who was cancelled from the movie, her plotline completely removed with zero explanation from studio or Ridley Scott. Not hard to figure out, and not hard not to give my money to this
I understand why you don’t like this movie. But I loved it. I loved the characters and of course the artistic elements that one takes for granted from Ridley Scott I’ll admit the story has contrived elements and hits the same beats of the first movie. But I like what it tried to do which was showing another side to some one who you think is a bad guy but is decent. And you think Denzel is a good guy but we see he’s playing every one. I liked its themes of political deception and as a fantasy film it’s a nice story of a little guy fighting to restore justice for a free and just Rome hit the right spot for me. I’m opening my self of to trolls and I don’t want to get too political but In light of the current election witch upsets me this was the fantasy I needed to be in. I also like the fact that there is a big nutty studio movie in an arrow where we had more diversity on the big screen. I probably wouldn’t like this movie. But we’re at risk of losing cinema to comic book movies. I like the sincerity of emotions I like movies that make me feel things and it’s really not hard. Also every Ridley Scott film these days is a gem he’s and Gorge Miller are the last directors to understand the cinematic language of Kurosawa. Mabey I’m dumb because I also like Joker: Folie à Deux
I went to watch it with my dad an brother, and it was a fun experience. It certainly entertained us, but yeah i can agree with almost everything you have said. This movie is pointless. Too much noise but zero substance or at least class as the first one. Too much is happening but to little is actually developed.
This movie haunts me since ive seen it, it was ugly, badly filmed, I dont Like the actors, and worst of All its got an insulting and incident related screenplay. Its a turd, and it stinks.
Not a fan of his newer stuff. I find it self important and cliche. I know hes a big time director but id find it interesting if he did a smaller, more personal film. As for the bigger budget, which hes known for, i Wish he could do something like blade runner again, which feels like a big budget art house film.
Loved the first movie. Not a huge fan of anything Ridley Scott done in a very long while. Some movies has been okay. Maybe decent. Nothing compared to his Top 5. "Napoleon" was perhaps the worst movie I've seen at a cinema. "House of Gucci" was clearly better than Napoleon but still very varied in quality and way too long. "Alien: Covenant" was not only the worst Alien-movie but one of the worst movies I've ever seen. "The Martian" was totally decent. "Exodus: Gods and Kings" was also amongst the worst movies I've seen. "The Counselor" was decent. Not great by any means but still better than some mentioned here. Looking at Ridley Scotts discography it is very uneven. You can't expect everything to be a hit. It's fine if a movie or two is rather bad but as a overall catalog Ridley Scott is not one of the greats.
You're the first person I heard that says Gladiator 2 doesn't resonate as well as you were a kid, most people say the opposite, cause of the emotional story that you can understand better as an adult.
The twin Emperors look like Monty Python caricatures.
I saw some glowing reviews so I was excited to see it. Unfortunately your review is pretty spot on. No emotion. They didn't need to touch Gladiator. It was amazing as a standalone film.
Funny the same was said about the original. I kind of liked the sequel better because it was more about the Roman politics rather than just one Roman fighting for his revenge. It has much better action and was shot better. The first one has a better lead.
@mania4270
"It was more about the Roman politics".
Except that it was a pile of bilge, historically speaking. It is a fantasy with some historical Roman names thrown in. It is about "Roman politics" in the same way that "Game of Thrones" is about "medieval politics", or "Lord of the Rings" is about Anglo Saxon history and politics, (which it is, sort of, with added orcs, elves and hobbits.)
@AndriyValdensius-wi8gw and the first gladiator wasn't? The first gladiator movie was just as fake and fantastical as this new one. Y'all are obvious mad about Denzel Washington, who should be WINNING a beat supporting actor nod from the academy, it was a great performance.
Comparing this to game of thrones and lord of the rings which have friggin dragons and elves is stupid. Nobody said this was based on a true story. All I said was it was more about the politics of Rome and how it was falling apart. Idk how you got lord of the rings from that, but like I said, many movies fans like you don't notice those nuances, I was watching focused on how Denzel was gonna use Lucius to take over roam, you went into this trying to hate on it and missed the point.
@mania4270
Gladiator 2 "isn't stupid" because it doesn't have elves or hobbits. It just has giant sharks, giant mutant apes, and a gladiator riding a rhinoceros. So, that's "sensible" ? Nothing stupid there then. Why not have elves, hobbits, and woolly mammoths in the arena. The first Gladiator wasn't particularly historical. Granted. But it was a great movie on every other level.
@AndriyValdensius-wi8gw gladiator 1 got mixed reviews back then with most critics praising the action and the acting from Crowe and Phoenix. It even got a thumbs down from Roger every who felt that it didn't represent roam well, so again, what ever criticism you have towards this can be said about the original.
Bro did you just call a wild baboon a mutant ape? Dude you act like they had king kong in the movie, it was actually a reasonably sized baboon/mandrill.
Giant sharks? Dude those sharks were maybe less than 10 feet, they weren't big at all. If you wanna say they LOOK fake, sure but to call an average sized bill shark a "giant"? You're full of shit.
As for rhinos ......Ridley Scott would have put rhinos in gladiator 1, it's famously known that they cut out the rhino scene in the og gladiator because the effects weren't there yet. As for ppl riding rhinos.....that's not unbelievable because you can ride a rhino at a friggin petting zoo. And maybe the Romans did or didn't ride them, who cares? It's literally just an action movie set in Rome because it looks cool, and that's the same as the first one.
I noticed nobody has anything to say about the story that's negative besides vague stuff like "the original was better ". The reason why is because the story is probably better in the sequel. There I SAID IT. I'm more entertained watching Denzel plot, scheme, and slowly conquer roam more than I am watching Joaquin Phoenix have a starring contest with Russell Crowe. I think the original is better paced and has a better score, but overall I may prefer the second one more. If this movie had come out in 04, I'm sure you and everyone would call it a classic.
Rewatched the Extended Cut last night. The first film holds up well in my opinion (even though I rewatched the extended cut). Excellent.
I heard the extended cut sucks lol and he doesn’t really add any difference to the original release I can be wrong though
I think it’s better. Add great scenes that expand on the politics and Comodus as a character. Theatrical cut I’d say is leaner.
The difference is not as big as with kingdom of heaven. The DC makes kingdom a masterpiece
@@Dartagnan88 So I hear. I have to watch the Director’s Cut.
@@freedom_rock18 Extended cut is awful.
Even the fact that it was named "Gladiator 2" felt so uninspiring. I guess that defines the movie essence.
So was Godfather 2, Paddington 2, Toy Story 2 and Spider-Man 2 and a lot consider them better than the first.
Picturing Ryan George’s future pitch meeting where “Gladiators” is a brief contender
One thing in defense of the title. I was about to sound off in agreement about the “2,” but checked and found it is titled with a “II”
I feel that way about this comment.
@@Mixolydio "Gladiatorer!"
If you think about all the fight scenes in Gladiator, they all had a purpose beyond just action for action's sake...
Germania battle establishes Maximus as a respected and capable leader. Also establishes the entire plot of movie, ie Marcus chooses him as his heir instead of his own son BECAUSE he is admired and honest. "They honor you, Maximus"
First slave fight in the province shows us that Max feels he has no reason to live and will not bother fighting but decides at the last moment he must "be remembered as a man" He is chained to Juba and this reveals his character as he once again takes on the role of leader to try to keep his men alive
The 10 man solo fight displays his prowess in one on one armed combat which tee's up and makes plausible whats ahead of him later in the film
The Rome v Barbarian fight in the Colloseum displays his ability with battle tactics and brings his group of slaves even closer together as his tactics keep them alive. It also serves as the reveal of his true identity.
Commodus must kill Maximus but it has to be in a satisfying way, so a one on one battle with a legenadry gladiator gives us another incredible arena fight where they get to showcase tigers (a must see in a film based so heavily in the Colloseum.
The final fight between Commudus and Max is possibly the best of the movie as it cements Commudus as a coward and low life but also a tragic figure, who even when wounded, cannot beat the man he always aspired to be and the man his father loved as a son.
First time ive replied to a comment in years,
Absolutely spot on, every scene in the first movie had meaning, direction. Something the new one forfeited entirely opting instead for pure spectacle (water fight in the colosseum, cgi rinos).
At least the 2nd movie showed us some new armor, i liked the twins gold armor, and pedros breatplate looked pretty badass. Too bad the armor had to adorn hollow characters, which is ironic.
Gladiator truly didn’t really need a sequel, and just like Indiana Jones also should’ve ended after The Last Crusade (3)
And Star Wars should have ended with return of the Jedi.
Did anyone notice how *well fed* most of the actors in this movie looked. Besides the poor acting, the main character’s modern era gym +nutrition body really annoyed me 😂
In the long list of things wrong with Gladiator 2, that's probably quite low. But since you bring it up, it's a historical error. These modern movies show gladiators with gym perfect ripped torsos. Historical research shows that gladiators in the arena tended to be quite chubby, if not fat. There was a good reason for it. A sword cut into subcutaneous fat is a relatively minor injury that can heal relatively quickly, assuming it doesn't get infected. A cut into or across muscle is much more serious and takes longer to heal, IF it heals. Although gladiators DID die in the arena, most gladiator fights were more like fencing bouts, often only to first blood and no more. Trained gladiators were expensive, for a start. They were a big investment on the part of their owners or trainers. They really didn't want their best gladiators slaughtered over one show in an arena. People WERE put to death in Roman arenas, of course, but they were usually criminals condemned for one reason or other. Trained gladiators were too valuable to be lightly squandered.
Gladiators were def well fed and kept in shape for battles maybe not six pack but they probably weren't underweight or weak thats for sure
Ridley deciding to shoot 'Gladiator 2' on a digital camera for the sake of convenience gives it that actors-doing-cosplay look like a Netflix streaming release compared to the gorgeous cinematic visual quality of kodak and eastman 35mm used for the first one where it actually looks like a professional studio movie from the big 5. The other letdown is that you don't really end up caring about any of the characters so you're not that emotionally engaged in the story unfortunately. Crowe actually looks like a regal war veteran / Roman general rather than a guy you would see down at your local gym and his performance manages to provoke you emotionally. The first 2 minute entrance alone into the colosseum before Maximus instructs the gladiators to all stick together just for sheer thrill-factor, soundtrack, tension building, visual quality..etc is far better than the entirety of Gladiator 2 (5.5). Ridley is great when he has a good script to work with (The Last Duel / The Martian) but his directorial style can't elevate a lacklustre script in the same way that someone like Spielberg can.
Kingdom of Heaven (Directors cut) is superb.
@StimParavane Agreed, shot on the same Kodak and Eastman 35mm as 'Gladiator' and 'Troy' were, it looks a billion dollars and the director's cut really enriches the experience.
Great point about shooting digitally! God I hate that glassy lifeless look, and like you said, it makes period pieces feel phony and cheap. There's a reason people are gushing over how impressive "The Brutalist" looks (made under 10 million!), shooting on film makes all the difference in the world
@@johndoderino2609 Agreed 100%, it just gives 'The Brutalist' so much more cinematic production value in looking like a bonefide movie, same for 'Anora' and 'Strange Darling' from this year and 'Oppenheimer' and 'Asteroid City' from last year. While watching them, you're reminded of why every new movie that came out felt like an event when shooting on 35 was the norm.
@@thetalentofwhenever I hear someone mention "shot on film", they sound like the video store guy from the Simpsons. Nobody cares about it something is shot on film or digitally. Avatar 2 looks better than every movie and it's shot on camera.
I also disagree with this movie feeling lifeless, nah, it had much better shots than the og gladiator. The original gladiator had so much shaky cam that you could barely see the fights. Y'all need to take off the rose tinted glasses. I love the og gladiator, but let's not act like it's this untouchable masterpiece of filmmaking.
This honest review will invoke the wrath of Stuckman...we will all be "stuckmanized." Such is the price of integrity.
i remember the first time watching gladiator when it came out on dvd and we had family over. i was about 11, i watched with my parents, grandparents, uncles, aunties, teenage siblings and younger sibling. everyone loved it and was totally invested. there are very very few films you can say satisfy an audience of that age range, young to old and both sexes.
It's such a classic
"Drunk and not paying attention" probably aren't the prerequisites for viewing Ridley Scott was looking for, but I'm sure going to tell my friends what they should do before they see "Glad II"- thanks for the tip, Maggie!
It didn't need a sequel yet I still went out to watched it. Enjoyed Denzels character especially his actions towards the end.
It was basically Lorenzo Harris in a tunic. I enjoyed it .
I thought it would have been better without that character. 🤔🤷♂️
@@KentAndrewLang1967he's the best part of the film. He's a character who's well acted and doesn't do something really dumb like everyone else
Why did he ride his horse out to the army? And then not say anything and just have a fight? I was confused.
I view Denzel’s Brooklyn accent as an especially interesting choice for a Roman character.
*WERE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!* 🏛️
No 🗡️ 🛡️
MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS! MAXIMUS!
Absolutely not
SPANIARD! SPANIARD!
You can’t handle the truth!
Oh sorry thought we were posting eye-rolling catchphrases from flicks used way too often.
"It's like a soda left out on the counter all day" - ha, fabulous
I'd rather watch ants drag a potato chip up the street than to ever see this again. A waste of time, brain waves and eye moisture.
Dang, fam. Lol. Scathing.
Agreed. I left when he was revealed to be the son of
Digital waves
Felt the same way. If I wasnt with my father I'd have even debated on walking out.
Damn, what a metaphore! I'm now worthy.
“Ridiculous and tired.”
That’s the general state of event films these days. I think there’s something more subtle transpiring as well. WE’RE changing. Our perception, the way we receive and interpret narrative art. The way our minds have been altered by modern media.
Or 'getting old' as they say.
Was thinking the same thing. Almost 25 years have past since the original. The world and society is very different today.
Finally ! I have been on the lookout for your review .
.... And yet again our takes concur. It was à "paint by number" job which needed not undertaking in the first place. Pointless venture.
CONGRATS ON 700 videos!!!!
We love you Maggie! ❤ Thank you for always challenging us with your thoughtful and gnarly reviews. You've been doing this longer than anyone and it has not gone unnoticed!!!!
P.S Denzel was fantastic 👏🏻
The most underrated movie review youtuber, she is just consistent all around and isn't afraid to have hottakes
"Marcus Aurelius had a dream that was Rome, Proximo. This is not it. This is NOT it....."
Paul Mescal has the charisma of a cinder block
i've seen a few of his films and he's a very good actor. but this 'hero' role didn't work for him. i think he didn't rise to it, but he wasn't helped by a crap script and story where you never felt invested in his character.
I agree saw it thursday night here in the UK Paul Mescal and Pedro Pascal's acting was terrible,poor direction and script to blame.The continueing fall of Ridley.
@@scatmancrothers He's good when he's good.. If that makes sense. He was appalling in Normal People for example
Paul Mescal is a very charismatic and nice seeming person...
He was out of depth in this. He's not a leading man.
What I want to know is why was everything old dilapidated and crumbling away? It was over 1800 years ago but it wasn't 1800 years ago for them at the time. There would have been lots of colourful paint work, mosaics, the finest silks and plush rugs. At least in the palace area or whatever. If this was set in 582 or something then maybe it'd have looked in that state. Even in the prison area they would have had nice shiny iron bars not rusted ones, they would have replaced those. They probably would have put a nice *coat of varnish* on the wood of the door.
Those wrist bracelet things as well, they never wore them. Actors wore them in the 1960's to cover up marks left by wristwatches. Everyone's got smart phones now wristwatches aren't so common. Even then you can just touch anything like that up in editing with a computer.
IGN: Denzel brings the exaggerated swagger of a 60 year old black man 11/10
More like Gamespot
I love your consistency. After 15 years, your ‘Watchmen’ book is still on the exact same shelf, in the exact same position. Honest review of ‘Gladiator II’’. Can I assume you will be reviewing ‘Wicked #1’.
I really enjoyed number 2. I’m Irish, but I didn’t think Paul Mescal was the right person. Denzel Washington was the key man
If you ask me, it should have been called 'Lucius: A Gladiator Story'.
Guys, go see The Wild Robot instead:) That's a moving, visually gorgeous and well-made film from beginning to end:)
Saw it twice. Might go a third time it's that good. What is that w geese and tearjerking films?!!! (Flying house?)
Just came out of the theatre for this one and while I was entertained, I can't disagree with your thoughts. I was intrigued by the prospect of a warrior unconnected to Rome who'd rise through the ranks to kill a Roman general under Denzel's tutelage rather than Maximus' clear cut revenge on Commodus, and contrast the first film by showing how this warrior isn't Maximus but still manages to find his own way. But then they had to make Hano Lucius, Maximus' son and the heir apparent. They couldn't sell the ideas they set up. For example, Lucius is not a leader of men, but he manages to convince the other gladiators to fight for him. There were some cool set-pieces and the action was visceral, but it lacked the fire - as you so clearly pointed out.
Thanks for reviewing this, anyway. I actually waited to watch this film before hearing your thoughts, so at least I had that to look forward to!
are you entertained??
@@tritonyeahThat's why I'm here!
My son and I enjoyed the movie. Was it as good as the original? No way. But I didn’t expect it to be. Opening was cool, with the ships, and Washington’s character was intriguing. For a rainy Saturday afternoon feature, you could do worse.
It’s truly one of the movies of all time. Easily one of the movies I watched this year
I could tell without even seeing it that this movie was a piece of dried cat shit on a popsicle stick.
Have you reviewed The Last Duel? Id really love to know your take on it.
I had no idea of a Gladiator sequel penned by Nick Cave, I'm very curious. Also you feeling on the first film is identical to mine, so i think ill trust your takeaways. I only get to see my family a couple times a year and we always go to the cinema. Thanks for saving me wasting one of my rare outtings on this.
Appreciate honest reviews, all the “big” reviewers praising all this crap
I would’ve watched the version written by Nick Cave over the one they ended up with (which is available to read online)
Hi-
Are you open to reviewing the 2000 film release of Dinner Rush? It’s set in an Italian restaurant and starring the late Danny Aielo, Sandra Bernhardt and John Corbett.
I saw this kovie early and I thought it was good. Great visuals, decent story, some great acting by Denzel Washington, though I did not really care about Lucius
Not as good as the original, but a solid 7/10
Edit: I rewateched the first film and sat on this, 5.5/10
Wow that's way way way to high
@@jmurdock8303I found it enjoyable, the visuals did carry that score though
I'm not at all surprised by your honest opinion on this movie, thank you.
That film was done very very well. The pacing felt rush but was slowed down thro the 2nd act the narrative is still there from the first one which is obviously why he wants to make a third one it’s gonna be a legacy story.. I don’t know about everyone else and these viewers.. a very well crafted film.
Honestly I felt Denzel Washington carried Gladiator 2, his Machiavellian-like performance elevated the film and kept me engaged. He was operating on a whole another level then his co-stars!
Would you do a review on Ben-Hur (1959)?
I agree that the 1st Gladiator was epic back in the day,
It's a solid film, but not much Depth to it... not much to keep someone Coming back to it
Was not expecting Gladiator 2 to be good, with Scott's more recent Films .
This is just wasting Opportunity for New / Younger Directors at this point...
I would appreciate Ridley stepping aside and giving a Director in their 30s/40s a chance on his next Project.
No, what Ridley Scott IS, is a walking caricature of what he once was. He's so far past a good time to retire its beginning to retroactively ensucken his past works.
I wish I knew your exercise and diet routine. You have done such a great job looking the same for years and years.
Being an intj helps. Maybe look into how they keep healthy. They r more cerebral food for thought oriented
@@Maderlololohio Pardon my ignorance, what is a intj?
Have you caught Last Duel? Didnt see a review or hear anything here. Would recommend to keep respect on sir Ridely's name.
lol at Jaden Smith
Another example of why most movies should remain as stand alones.
It is rare when sequels and prequels complement or add value to the original movie.
Gladiator 2 also made me feel nostalgic for the original film despite not having seen it.
Hi Maggie, will you review the Penguin??
I value your opinions. Thanks.
I couldn't agree more. You hit the nail on the head.
Ridley Scott hasn't turned out a good movie in a long long time.
“Hose him down” - denzel, hoses didnt exist in rome. Did no one pick up that he said that?
Gladiator 2 ended were the first left off, with extra steps.
Lucious is emperor. At the end.
Any plans to see Wicked?
Appreciate the honesty
We are entertained by your review
Early in the film there's a continuity error that was unacceptable. Lucis bites the baboon and his mouth is covered in blood. Cut to next scene he barely has any blood on him and none around his mouth at all. And they end the scene like this too. I caught too many of these for my first time watching it.
need a double feature review of Vox Lux and The Brutalist🖤
I don’t go to the cinema anymore but I have bluray collection of excellent old films …
How did Jayden Smith get involved??
Maximus going John Wick in hell would be more entertaining.
You know it’s bad when the main protagonist is being compared to Jaden Smith. OUCH
Thank you for not giving us a review based purely off emotion.
Uma Thurman vibes. Also rewatched Gladiator many times. G2 will be a rewatch but not as heartily as G.
Would of loved to have seen Cave`s version mate. Love his script for The Proposition.
You are definitely the best movie reviewer on UA-cam. I have zero desire to see this completely unnecessary cash grab, but here you are, sorting out yet another Ridley Scott bomb. The dedication to talking about film in incisive and intelligent language is very refreshing.
Ridley should just stop. He likes to work fast, but that speed isn’t helping him. His number of flat out bad movies is embarrassing. I was amazed how someone so obviously talented could churn out crap like Hannibal. But that was just the tip of the crap iceberg. It’s depressing when I think that probably his best movie in the last twenty years was the extended cut of Kingdom of Heaven or American Gangster.
Lucius and the emperors are not “connected”.
Because of this, the movie seems unconnected.
I was laughing like crazy in the theater, Denzel put up more of a fight and challenge on the main guy than Rhinos, Roided monkeys, and actual gladiators 😂
Love hearing your takes! Sorry you didn't enjoy it! I'm a fan of the original, so I'll check it out regardless! Great critique! Stay awesome Maggie! 💪🔥📷🖼️
It's terrible
Ridley scotts next film is going to be called the dog stars and i hope he goes back to his old routes.
A movie I always liked but haven’t seen in a while, so who knows how I feel about it now, is Fall of the Roman Empire from the 60s. It encapsulates this kind of world and feel a lot better for me than the first Gladiator.
Really excellent review. Subscribed.
I genuinely felt to see this then I read about the Palestinian actress who was cancelled from the movie, her plotline completely removed with zero explanation from studio or Ridley Scott. Not hard to figure out, and not hard not to give my money to this
I think Paul is one of the best actors alive today. Him and Denzel were great.
Some films should be left to stand alone.
Oof! Paul Mescal as Jaden Smih is the rhetorical translation of the twin sword decapitation finisher! You go too far, Empress Lens!
I wonder what the hell happened to the guy who gave us Alien and Blade Runner that he can only make mediocre movies this last decades.
The Martian was pretty good
Same as a great young band who finds success. They're not hungry anymore. It has no meaning, it's just a job now.
Ridley scott are one of those directors who carried by someone
@@quiredskywalker4422 Like George Lucas?
Brainrot I'm guessing
I saw the poster in the theater, pointed at it and said "that is going to suck".
I enjoy your reviews
I was interested in a customized print but never heard back from you
Gladiator 2, Electric Boogaloo
Nice to see that the Critical Drinker and you agree.
Apparently the first Gladiator film was written as it was filmed.
I understand why you don’t like this movie. But I loved it. I loved the characters and of course the artistic elements that one takes for granted from Ridley Scott
I’ll admit the story has contrived elements and hits the same beats of the first movie. But I like what it tried to do which was showing another side to some one who you think is a bad guy but is decent. And you think Denzel is a good guy but we see he’s playing every one. I liked its themes of political deception and as a fantasy film it’s a nice story of a little guy fighting to restore justice for a free and just Rome hit the right spot for me. I’m opening my self of to trolls and I don’t want to get too political but In light of the current election witch upsets me this was the fantasy I needed to be in. I also like the fact that there is a big nutty studio movie in an arrow where we had more diversity on the big screen. I probably wouldn’t like this movie. But we’re at risk of losing cinema to comic book movies. I like the sincerity of emotions I like movies that make me feel things and it’s really not hard. Also every Ridley Scott film these days is a gem he’s and Gorge Miller are the last directors to understand the cinematic language of Kurosawa. Mabey I’m dumb because I also like
Joker: Folie à Deux
There were so many interesting things about this movie you didn't even mention. Wow
You make good points.😅
I hate to say this because it is lunacy, but i think deep focus lens, probably also dislikes Kingdom of Heaven director's cut
I went to watch it with my dad an brother, and it was a fun experience. It certainly entertained us, but yeah i can agree with almost everything you have said. This movie is pointless. Too much noise but zero substance or at least class as the first one. Too much is happening but to little is actually developed.
Would love to get a review for Mass (2021)
This movie haunts me since ive seen it, it was ugly, badly filmed, I dont Like the actors, and worst of All its got an insulting and incident related screenplay.
Its a turd, and it stinks.
Even without watching the original, I was able to predict how the sequel would be. 😆
next unnecessary sequel nobody asked for: Titanic 2: Jack's ressurrection.
Not a fan of his newer stuff. I find it self important and cliche. I know hes a big time director but id find it interesting if he did a smaller, more personal film. As for the bigger budget, which hes known for, i Wish he could do something like blade runner again, which feels like a big budget art house film.
Meh, I was entertained. Still interesting POV
No Clark. No Zimmer. No thanks
“…obviously he’s kind of an old man…” I would say obviously he IS but that’s just me lol
Or just watch Kubrick's "Spartacus" again.
Loved the first movie. Not a huge fan of anything Ridley Scott done in a very long while. Some movies has been okay. Maybe decent. Nothing compared to his Top 5.
"Napoleon" was perhaps the worst movie I've seen at a cinema.
"House of Gucci" was clearly better than Napoleon but still very varied in quality and way too long.
"Alien: Covenant" was not only the worst Alien-movie but one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
"The Martian" was totally decent.
"Exodus: Gods and Kings" was also amongst the worst movies I've seen.
"The Counselor" was decent. Not great by any means but still better than some mentioned here.
Looking at Ridley Scotts discography it is very uneven. You can't expect everything to be a hit. It's fine if a movie or two is rather bad but as a overall catalog Ridley Scott is not one of the greats.
You're the first person I heard that says Gladiator 2 doesn't resonate as well as you were a kid, most people say the opposite, cause of the emotional story that you can understand better as an adult.
The best part of this film is the algorithm sent you to me ❤😂
I really like your reviews Aubrey Plaza