There has been so much discussion of how they would be able to continue the story in Gladiator 2. Djimon Hounsou's character Juba was right there, basically setting up for a sequel in the final scene.
I'm actually happy Juba isn't in this story. The man's been through enough haha, he deserves a happy ending. In my headcanon he finds his way home to his family.
So it's like the star wars sequels.. they wanted to make something with the surviving characters with a familiar story... so we get a young character who is a slightly more boring version of the old main character and the filmmakers have totally nullified the happy ending of the original, so everything the previous characters went through and accomplished was in vain and their life was returned to being the same miserable conflict shortly after the events of the first film... glad we keep doing this to films we love... but at least the movies get filled up with "homages"
Hmmmm. I thought it really showed up Attack of the Clones. If you're going to have a fight in the arena, you need to care about the people and the situation. Gladiator II did that for me.
The difference for me was that this was entertaining, unlike the star wars sequels. We don't get any epic Roman battles on screen outside of the start of this movie, and end of Indiana Jones. Sword and sandal is rare nowadays, maybe after Gladiator 4.5 I'll be tired of it. Denzel Washington alone justifies this But yes what you said is exactly what they did, you're absolutely right. I guess we can't think of other ways to balance recapturing what people liked of an old movie while adding enough new stuff. Then again the other scripts we've seen brought Maximus back so it could've been worse! Always can be worse!
As a huge fan of the first movie and a musician, having watched it well over 200 times. One thing I really adored about the first movie was the score. The music in that film felt almost like a character onto itself. I was quite sad to see and hear that the score in the second movie kinda got buried, you could barely hear it, even during some of the action sequences. Whereas in the first movie, the music is loud, majestic and bombastic. It got your adrenaline going. It was memorable. But the music in the second film is barely audible. That’s one of the only criticisms I have of this second film. I thoroughly enjoyed it. More of Pedro’s character would’ve been good, you could see the inner turmoil his character had. I actually feel he should’ve been the main character. Should’ve had him and Lucius working together to bring down the empire. The way the movie was edited made it feel rushed, I wish more scenes were longer and taken their time similar to the first movie. That way we could’ve gotten to know the new characters a bit better and the audience would’ve felt more emotionally connected. A lot of sequences and scenes felt rushed in the edit. I wished we’d have gotten more story or information as to what actually happened after Maximus died. Like how exactly did these two young twins take power and why wasn’t Rome returned to being a Republic as Marcus Aurelius and Maximus wanted. Denzel stole the show for me. The twins were entertaining and kinda reminded me of Commodus with some of their mannerisms and behaviours. Although some of the CGI wasn’t great, I respect that Ridley tried to make the battle and actions scenes feel a bit more fresh and different to the first movie. I’m going to take a wild guess and say either another movie or a series is on the way, depending how this movie does financially. I’m guessing $650 million WW. I would suspect, as it is Ridley Scott, there will be an extended edition.
It was a bad sign when Hans Zimmer refused to come back because "he didn't want to do sequels anymore" even though he just did one for Dune 2 and will prob do Dune 3.
@@LizardSpork Along that same notion though, I thought Howard Shore doing the Amazon Lord Ot The Rings series was a good sign. And to me that whole thing was trash. I’m sure Zimmer was probably already too busy with Dune, Kung Foo Panda and the F1 movie to have time to do Gladiator 2. The score wasn’t any better or worse with Zimmer not doing it as Harry Gregson Williams is a more than capable composer. What didn’t sit right with me was the music being buried underneath the dialogue and sound design. Whereas in the first movie the music is in the forefront and is almost a character itself. It’s a shame and a missed opportunity to have classic film scoring moments.
Ridley deciding to shoot 'Gladiator 2' on a digital camera for the sake of convenience makes it look like a Netflix streaming movie with that actors-doing-cosplay look 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 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.
This is quite similar to how I view the man. He has made some of my favourite films and he is no doubt a talented director but the man is so inconsistent with the quality of screenwriters he works with. They range from art to pure stupidity.
I think people exaggerate TREMENDOUSLY talking about this film as the worst of all time, just when we got thinga like Joker 2 a month ago, o can't believe it. It's an OK movie, but because the first one is in a pedestal then this is said to be shit. It's an entertaining time, take or leave it, certainly not a masterpiece, but you have not watched enough movies if you call this one of the worst of all time.
I haven't been online enough to see that people are saying this is the worst film. That's incredibly wild to hear. This film really is just fine and also incredibly entertaining
I don’t need to watch this to know it’s not the worst of all time, but I also just don’t need to watch this, why would I? The idea is stupid from the get go.
@badassdanthepowerman6438 yeah, you don't have to watch it, that's actually fine, my problem is how some big portion who watched it are acting as it the movie ruins the world or something 🤣
00:01 Introduction to Gladiator II and its budget challenges. 00:34 Discussion on budget claims and insider notes. 01:05 International box office performance and US release timeline. 01:27 Brief recap of Gladiator I’s storyline and tone. 02:00 Introduction of the twin Roman emperors and their peculiarities. 02:27 Pedro Pascal's role as the Roman general and his mission. 02:53 Paul Mescal’s character background and family tragedy. 03:18 Path from slave to gladiator and meeting Denzel Washington’s character. 03:45 Mention of Russell Crowe’s intended return and abandoned concepts. 04:12 Discussion on Paul Mescal’s portrayal compared to Russell Crowe. 04:41 Observations on Mescal’s character’s lack of compelling traits. 05:10 Side commentary on the hosts’ personal dynamics. 06:06 Remarks on Mescal’s adaptation to the Roman setting. 06:34 Returning characters and nostalgic connections to the first film. 07:05 Call for the return of Djimon Hounsou and role replacements. 07:31 Praise for Pedro Pascal’s nuanced performance. 08:01 Pascal’s moral conflict as a Roman general. 08:36 Denzel Washington’s portrayal as a power broker and former slave. 09:07 Praise for Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger as antagonistic brothers. 09:44 Critique of the film’s pacing and final antagonist reveal. 10:40 Speculation on a failed return to the Roman Republic concept. 11:35 Overview of unique battles, including a baboon fight. 12:33 Analysis of action sequences and their impact. 13:32 Commentary on the flooded Coliseum fight scene. 14:26 Critique of underdeveloped female characters and overused tropes. 15:52 Comparison with action sequences in "Napoleon." 16:49 Rumors about Maximus’ character being compromised in earlier drafts. 17:46 Speculation on potential future plot twists. 18:46 Recognition of Timothy McInnerny’s performance as a gambling senator. 19:43 Notable moments of tension and resolution. 20:40 Ending critique and reflections on Rome’s portrayal. 21:16 Closing thoughts on final character arcs. 22:21 Mention of extras and background performances. 23:19 Audience reactions during the premiere. 24:12 Final notes on costumes and visual aesthetics. ( Sponsored by netflixbyproxy.com )
Don't know about the Denzel character but they could have had him be the doctor that mescal befriends in the film. Would have given that character more weight.
Saw it yesterday, thought it was pretty awful. If you imagine an almost exact remake of Gladiator, but where every single element is worse, you’ve got Gladiator 2.
Ridley Scott did also recently announce that a Director's Cut is probably going to happen. Not surprising given how the original had one too which greatly improved it. Apparently this will be over three and a half hours if the reports are accurate. I'd be interested in seeing how it builds on this.
Before watching the video, here are my thoughts: *minor spoilers* The good: the twin emperors, gladiatorial naval combat, a really great quote that was attributed to Cicero (though I can't find evidence of it), the pet monkey who got to be co-caesar for a day 🐒 The bad: garbage rehashed script that failed to justify the existence of the movie, dumb callbacks, bad acting even from the returning cast, bad casting (except Pedro and the emperors), unmemorable musical score I rewatched the original last week and I still fucking love that movie. Seeing the new one really made me wish Ridley Scott would have just made another sword & sandal movie without any connection to Gladiator 😕 Now to watch and see what they agree with me on
I have no nostalgia on the first movie. The movie actually NEEDED a sequel or more at the end of the first. There's one massive question that remains after Maximus dies. What is the future of Rome? Did he have any impact on it's direction or does he die for nothing? What happens to Rome? It's an underlying plot point that drives the story forward and is abruptly stopped once Maximus dies. This sequel covers ALL OF IT. So, as someone who saw the first movie for the first time just this week. I found it needed. And the sequel hits on loose ends of the first as well as Maximus's legacy and impact.
I’m kinda bummed that this is basically just a soft remake… Ridley could have taken this world in a totally new direction but instead just played it safe. And unfortunately Paul Mescal doesn’t have the screen presence of Crowe
This is what Grok had to say about May Calamawy's role: May Calamawy, who was cast for a role in "Gladiator II," had her scenes significantly reduced or largely cut from the final film. Here's what the public discourse and reports suggest about this situation: Initial Expectations: Calamawy was announced to be part of the cast in May 2023, with expectations that she would play a significant role. Reports indicated that director Ridley Scott conducted a thorough search for this role, emphasizing its importance to the storyline. Final Cut Reality: Contrary to initial announcements, Calamawy's role in the released film is minimal, with her appearing only in brief, background shots without any dialogue. She was expected to be a major character, possibly even the female lead, but instead, her presence was reduced to that of an extra. Public and Social Media Reaction: Fans and observers on social media have expressed disappointment and confusion over her diminished role, with some speculating that her Palestinian heritage and support for Palestine might have influenced the decision. However, there's also a perspective that this could be due to creative decisions like editing for time or storyline adjustments.
never watched the first one fully outside of random youtube clips, thought the film was great, my brother n dad both loved the first one, said this one was pretty decent no where near the first
I'm with Jason. It was okay. The fights felt kinda "eh" and hollow. And it does follow the plot of the first one wayyy to much. Its a messy narrative and kinda wacky plot. Its also edited weird in my opinion.
Well, let's see, Hollywood hasn't been run by artists turned business people who want the industry to flourish. It's being run by people who have business degrees and got a C in high school English because they couldn't understand "The Iliad". Not too mention that budgets for movies are VERY loosey goosey due to the nature of having to get a thing made, usually, in a massive time crunch. Let's add that to the fact that Corporations and Wall Street and MBAs have had some history with laundering, embezzlement, and just straight up stealing............ I'm saying that the people up top are destroying the industry for their wallets and they don't care about literally anything other than money.
The movie isn't great, but Paul Mescal is a beautiful baby boy and laughed off the sausage fingered King of England at the premiere so give him 12 Oscars please
@@Tazza19931I mean, his family are directly responsible for oppression across the globe. Particularly for Paul’s country too. And just so you’re aware, Paul mescal was personally alive during British soldiers slaughtering Irish civilians. The fighting ended in 1998. The VAST majority of Brits were alive and well during Irish oppression. Anyone over the age of 25. Remember that. Because the people of India. Pakistan. Ireland. Afghanistan. Palestine. Ukraine. Etc etc all remember it. Just because Ireland is an economic powerhouse now, doesn’t mean they forgot.
@Yan-tz9pn His family, or him? I used the word "personally" in my comment, in that I'm asking what Charles himself has done. If he himself has personally committed atrocities, then absolutely he should be judged for that, but I've never seen the sense in hating someone based on the actions of their ancestors / relatives. It's like when you see some folks hate on modern-day Brits because of Britain's colonial history. That also doesn't make sense, either.
@@Tazza19931 you didn’t read my comment did you? 2 points. 1) if you inherit the glory of your father you must also inherit the sins. Brits LOVE to go on about the glory of the British empire but NEVER acknowledge the atrocities. 2) modern day Brit, including the king, were alive and well during Irish oppression. Charles was in his 50s whilst it was happening. And he did nothing. He happily profited off British soldiers murdering Irish civilians.. as did all of the UK. Even to this day, the British still support the British soldiers and label the Irish terrorists, for defending their own country?? I’ll give you some examples. If my father went into your house and beat you up and threw you out the house. Then my family moved in. My father died and you came up to the door and I said ‘I’m sorry for what happened last week, but nobody alive today personally beat you up. You should move on and stop living in the past’, that’s how ridiculous it is to tell people that. It was 20 years ago.. part of Ireland is still occupied to this day!.. Google 12th of July/orange parades. British people dress up in bowler hats, march through Irish streets waving flags/banners and beating war drums, where they then burn a massive bonfire covered with Irish flags and dummies of Irish icons (politicians, heroes etc).. imagine if Pakistanis did this in London, the Brits would go to war lol
@Yan-tz9pn I read your comment, I just don't agree with it. I don't believe that someone should be demonised for the sins of their ancestors. That's pretty nonsensical to me. It always makes me laugh, for example, when Brits are even judged for atrocities they weren't alive to see. It's stupid but it happens. I'm not saying people should forget what happened, but I don't agree with blaming most Brits either. Also, I've never personally come across a Brit who loves going on about the British Empire. I don't doubt there are some, mainly in the older age groups, but I feel like you are generalising a little too harshly. Plenty of Brits acknowledge the atrocities committed, including me, both in Ireland and on other shores.
Dont understand why they called it Gladiator II. People saw RIGHT THROUGH that marketing gimmick and it forces the movie to live up to a predecessor that it never can. They couldve just made another unrelated gladiator film set in Rome. I think audiences by and large enjoy Sword and Sandals films so theres no need to bastardize Gladiators legacy. You can just use any number of separate storylines/characters set in ancient Rome
If Riddley Scott actually stuck more to the real history of Geta and Caracalla, opening with the death of their father and focusing rather on a new gladiator character with no connection to Maximus it would have been a better movie. Read the room Ridley. Roman history has gotten this insane revival in the last 4 years. He could have played on that by giving us somethjng at least even half accurate. Open the film with the campaigns in Scottland and the death of Septimus severus who famously said to his sons "Be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, scorn all others"....that could set the tone of the Roman empire and why Caracalla was seen as a tryant. Admist the back drop of a debased currency, higher taxes and the destruction of Alexandria who famously mocked Caracalla for killkn Geta....we can see the declining world of the Roman empire as its approacing the crises of the 3rd century. Amidst this all would be the gladiatory games and the pratorian prefect Macrinus plot to kille Caracalla.
I rewatched Gladiator before seeing this in cinemas to go in without rose tinted glasses. It doesn't really compare to the quality of the first one. Without considering the first one and treating it on its own, it's ok, but has a lot of weaknesses. Action is average, CGI is wonky in a lot of places, doesn't seem to have an outstanding image quality (don't really know what to call it, take Dune part 2 as my golden standard), lacks gravitas both in story and characters. The characters in particular seem to be just there... Denzel's villain motivations are never really explored, just implied. Lucius is very static, the emperors are, again, just there... I don't even think performances really shined, and it's a shame because it has a good cast. But overall it is entertaining if you take it as a serviceable action/history flick, so it's not impossible to enjoy it. Don't think I'll rewatch
I think Gladiator II is better than the first one in most respects, except cinematography I guess, and the performance of the lead actor. Paul Mescal was amazing in this but he's no Russell Crowe in 2000. The constant callbacks to the original were pretty tedious, but it didn't ruin the film for me at all. The actual plot I really enjoyed, Denzel absolutely made this film for me, his plotting and scheming, orchestrating the throne for himself was so much more compelling than whatever Joaquin was doing in the first movie. The contrast of Maximus following his revenge to the end while Lucius decided against it was really interesting to me. Maximus felt he had nothing left and died in the pursuit of revenge, inadvertently leading Rome into 16 years of misery. Meanwhile, Lucius decides not to take his revenge, and fills the shoes he was supposed to. Idk I found that to be a pretty nice thematic connection between the movies. People go to these movies for the action and I thought the fights in this movie were awesome. Real scrappy and dirty, it felt like a nasty brawl more than trained soldiers fighting. Yeah it's not perfect, maybe down to low expectations but this movie really impressed me
@alexknollys9009 think I justified my reasoning pretty well, if you'd like to explain why I'm wrong I'd happily listen Also, not that being a filmmaker means you immediately have good taste, but having made short films and studied film and film analysis in college, I do have some basis for my decisions
I will say, although i understand that lucius is supposed to be a different person from his parents, there was that 'everyone is beautiful but nobody is horny' issue going on in this film where there was just no sexual tension or chemistry anywhere, which came in spades in the first film. The first film had maximus making a joke about having sex with his late wife and there are women in streets trying to get with him, and the chemistry between him and lucilla was off the charts when they were simply looking into each others eyes. And i guess i'd also include the incest which is as repugnant as it is compelling. I saw there was a possible gay thing going on with the twins and their harems but, they spent most of the film being 'crazy' and nothing else.
The thing with the Gladiators is that Crowe's is the most interesting character in Gladiator, and Mescal's is the least interesting in Gladiator 2. Not because Mescal is poor, his character is simply written that way. It's an odd choice.
I'm very disappointed that Russell Crowe's Gladiator didn't come back to life after 3 days and fight the other dude who did the same thing. I think Gladiator 2: Who's Jesus Now was the original title.
00:04 Yapping starts
25:32 Yapping ends
Liked
Lol
All heroes don't wear capes.
@@LUNITUNZBackupare you saying that no heroes wear capes?
@@ofangelsanarchists2386 That's what I heard
There has been so much discussion of how they would be able to continue the story in Gladiator 2. Djimon Hounsou's character Juba was right there, basically setting up for a sequel in the final scene.
Itz true... I would've Loved that.
That would have been a great idea.
If Oliver Reed hadn't have died, I would have loved to see a movie about Proximo and Juba travelling across Italy getting into wacky adventures.
I'm actually happy Juba isn't in this story. The man's been through enough haha, he deserves a happy ending. In my headcanon he finds his way home to his family.
@obscureentertainment8303 a 70 year old man and a slave who hated him? Great team 😂
So it's like the star wars sequels.. they wanted to make something with the surviving characters with a familiar story... so we get a young character who is a slightly more boring version of the old main character and the filmmakers have totally nullified the happy ending of the original, so everything the previous characters went through and accomplished was in vain and their life was returned to being the same miserable conflict shortly after the events of the first film... glad we keep doing this to films we love... but at least the movies get filled up with "homages"
Hmmmm. I thought it really showed up Attack of the Clones. If you're going to have a fight in the arena, you need to care about the people and the situation. Gladiator II did that for me.
The difference for me was that this was entertaining, unlike the star wars sequels. We don't get any epic Roman battles on screen outside of the start of this movie, and end of Indiana Jones. Sword and sandal is rare nowadays, maybe after Gladiator 4.5 I'll be tired of it. Denzel Washington alone justifies this
But yes what you said is exactly what they did, you're absolutely right. I guess we can't think of other ways to balance recapturing what people liked of an old movie while adding enough new stuff. Then again the other scripts we've seen brought Maximus back so it could've been worse! Always can be worse!
@@Tymbuswhat does Attack of the Clones have to do with anything lol
Gladiator is already a rip off of star wars
So when Marcus made that speech at the end to turn Rome into a republic, no one listened?😅😂
Exactly! Just like in reality, politicians and leader take what they want regardless of what the people want!
*Spoiler Alert*
The Roman Empire doesn't have a happy ending
Probably the most realistic part of the film then
Marcus? You mean Lucius? Or "Hanno"?
"Marcus" was his gradfather, Marcus Aurelius. Aka, Richard Harris from the first movie. (Aka, Dumbledore)
Russel crowe was accused of cannibalism last week in Europe, Paul Mescal was asked for comment, and he said he was gladiator
I strongly disapprove of this joke.
Correction: he said "I was glad he ate her, too."
Good concept. But unfortunately too many hurdles to get to that punchline.
@@connormcmurphy4276can you please improve it?
I’ve got a test tomorrow
@@connormcmurphy4276 hater
James is so old he was at the Gladiator 2 games!! I gottem!
James is so old he was at the Gladiator 1 games!!
@@judeconnor-macintyre9874wow, you gottem even more
Glad2ator
2 glad 2 ator
GladIIator.
🔥👍🏽
@@ExtremeMadnessX🤣🤣🤣
@@Jason_Kanggladiator the revengeance, electric boogaloo 😂🔥👍🏽
The Gladfather Pt. 2
Hell yeah. 🩵🩵🩵
More like GF 3
As a huge fan of the first movie and a musician, having watched it well over 200 times. One thing I really adored about the first movie was the score. The music in that film felt almost like a character onto itself. I was quite sad to see and hear that the score in the second movie kinda got buried, you could barely hear it, even during some of the action sequences. Whereas in the first movie, the music is loud, majestic and bombastic. It got your adrenaline going. It was memorable. But the music in the second film is barely audible.
That’s one of the only criticisms I have of this second film. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
More of Pedro’s character would’ve been good, you could see the inner turmoil his character had. I actually feel he should’ve been the main character. Should’ve had him and Lucius working together to bring down the empire.
The way the movie was edited made it feel rushed, I wish more scenes were longer and taken their time similar to the first movie. That way we could’ve gotten to know the new characters a bit better and the audience would’ve felt more emotionally connected. A lot of sequences and scenes felt rushed in the edit. I wished we’d have gotten more story or information as to what actually happened after Maximus died. Like how exactly did these two young twins take power and why wasn’t Rome returned to being a Republic as Marcus Aurelius and Maximus wanted.
Denzel stole the show for me. The twins were entertaining and kinda reminded me of Commodus with some of their mannerisms and behaviours. Although some of the CGI wasn’t great, I respect that Ridley tried to make the battle and actions scenes feel a bit more fresh and different to the first movie.
I’m going to take a wild guess and say either another movie or a series is on the way, depending how this movie does financially. I’m guessing $650 million WW. I would suspect, as it is Ridley Scott, there will be an extended edition.
U explained this perfectly! It felt rushed & I don’t remember the music at all….I got a cool coliseum popcorn tin 😂
It was a bad sign when Hans Zimmer refused to come back because "he didn't want to do sequels anymore" even though he just did one for Dune 2 and will prob do Dune 3.
@@LizardSpork Along that same notion though, I thought Howard Shore doing the Amazon Lord Ot The Rings series was a good sign. And to me that whole thing was trash.
I’m sure Zimmer was probably already too busy with Dune, Kung Foo Panda and the F1 movie to have time to do Gladiator 2. The score wasn’t any better or worse with Zimmer not doing it as Harry Gregson Williams is a more than capable composer. What didn’t sit right with me was the music being buried underneath the dialogue and sound design. Whereas in the first movie the music is in the forefront and is almost a character itself. It’s a shame and a missed opportunity to have classic film scoring moments.
Oh boy! I hope the next one takes place in space!!!
Gladthreeator
With a robot alien being retired by a bladerunner?
@@frankhumbugLost, like tears from orbit, it's the only way to be retired.
@@JeremiahEcks777brooo...what?
@@NnullX I was responding to a robot Alien being hunted by a Blade Runner.
I'm too early to read funny comments
Too bad. I never am. 😂😂😂
That means it's up to you to write them.
Blue harvest etc
Rodney etc
It hurts, right?
I wonder how often you write this comment
Gladiator II needed a few more than the 100 or so callbacks it used to Gladiator to remind everybody that its a sequel.
Paul: I thought this was GLADIATOR
Pedro: Me TOO
#FavoriteMovieLines
Blue Harvestor
Blue harvester 3: harvested forever
Ridley deciding to shoot 'Gladiator 2' on a digital camera for the sake of convenience makes it look like a Netflix streaming movie with that actors-doing-cosplay look 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 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.
Well said
Certainly the strobe effect digital editing on the fights made them less impactful rather than more
This is quite similar to how I view the man. He has made some of my favourite films and he is no doubt a talented director but the man is so inconsistent with the quality of screenwriters he works with. They range from art to pure stupidity.
it's the same screenwriter as Napoleon, which was an objectively terrible movie
Clicked so fast!
All hail emperor corn of coblin
hail corn of coblin
that gladius is visibly flat on the cutting edge
Ya like a solid inch thick edge. Thats pretty funny.
I read that as GLaDOS at first lol
Dammit they got me with the rage bait.
Rage bait > rage 'bate
I think people exaggerate TREMENDOUSLY talking about this film as the worst of all time, just when we got thinga like Joker 2 a month ago, o can't believe it. It's an OK movie, but because the first one is in a pedestal then this is said to be shit. It's an entertaining time, take or leave it, certainly not a masterpiece, but you have not watched enough movies if you call this one of the worst of all time.
👆
yeh without having the nostalgia of seeing the first one, thought the movie was pretty great
I haven't been online enough to see that people are saying this is the worst film. That's incredibly wild to hear. This film really is just fine and also incredibly entertaining
I don’t need to watch this to know it’s not the worst of all time, but I also just don’t need to watch this, why would I? The idea is stupid from the get go.
@badassdanthepowerman6438 yeah, you don't have to watch it, that's actually fine, my problem is how some big portion who watched it are acting as it the movie ruins the world or something 🤣
00:01 Introduction to Gladiator II and its budget challenges.
00:34 Discussion on budget claims and insider notes.
01:05 International box office performance and US release timeline.
01:27 Brief recap of Gladiator I’s storyline and tone.
02:00 Introduction of the twin Roman emperors and their peculiarities.
02:27 Pedro Pascal's role as the Roman general and his mission.
02:53 Paul Mescal’s character background and family tragedy.
03:18 Path from slave to gladiator and meeting Denzel Washington’s character.
03:45 Mention of Russell Crowe’s intended return and abandoned concepts.
04:12 Discussion on Paul Mescal’s portrayal compared to Russell Crowe.
04:41 Observations on Mescal’s character’s lack of compelling traits.
05:10 Side commentary on the hosts’ personal dynamics.
06:06 Remarks on Mescal’s adaptation to the Roman setting.
06:34 Returning characters and nostalgic connections to the first film.
07:05 Call for the return of Djimon Hounsou and role replacements.
07:31 Praise for Pedro Pascal’s nuanced performance.
08:01 Pascal’s moral conflict as a Roman general.
08:36 Denzel Washington’s portrayal as a power broker and former slave.
09:07 Praise for Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger as antagonistic brothers.
09:44 Critique of the film’s pacing and final antagonist reveal.
10:40 Speculation on a failed return to the Roman Republic concept.
11:35 Overview of unique battles, including a baboon fight.
12:33 Analysis of action sequences and their impact.
13:32 Commentary on the flooded Coliseum fight scene.
14:26 Critique of underdeveloped female characters and overused tropes.
15:52 Comparison with action sequences in "Napoleon."
16:49 Rumors about Maximus’ character being compromised in earlier drafts.
17:46 Speculation on potential future plot twists.
18:46 Recognition of Timothy McInnerny’s performance as a gambling senator.
19:43 Notable moments of tension and resolution.
20:40 Ending critique and reflections on Rome’s portrayal.
21:16 Closing thoughts on final character arcs.
22:21 Mention of extras and background performances.
23:19 Audience reactions during the premiere.
24:12 Final notes on costumes and visual aesthetics.
( Sponsored by netflixbyproxy.com )
"Sponsoring" your own site that's just a one page article about netflix and vpns. Strange
@@Finchspielbergit’s a chatbot
The Scott Free bird animation was designed by Gianluigi Toccafondo.
It's a shame they forgot about Djimon Honou's character. Could have brought him in instead of Denzel (not that i have an issue with Denzel)
I havent seen gladiator 2, but they could also have both
Don't know about the Denzel character but they could have had him be the doctor that mescal befriends in the film. Would have given that character more weight.
Or he could of had his happy ending and been living a happy life with a family! Fanboys are pathetic!
Saw it yesterday, thought it was pretty awful. If you imagine an almost exact remake of Gladiator, but where every single element is worse, you’ve got Gladiator 2.
This is precisely what Gladiator 2 is.
I expected as much
most accurate review ever, wtf was that pile of shit
Concur. How do you cut and paste original but use human faeces for the glue?
@@olivercoulter260 Very colourful analogy, but I agree with you.
Movie is average fun but people are trying hard to love it it due to Ridley and the talented cast.
Let Maso speak James! His opinions must be heard! #FreeMaso
guys take a look at this engagement!
I thought the movie was really lacking.
Gladia2r
Next comes Gladthreetor
I enjoyed the single dead pixel on the background flag immediately to the right of the logo
Ridley Scott did also recently announce that a Director's Cut is probably going to happen.
Not surprising given how the original had one too which greatly improved it.
Apparently this will be over three and a half hours if the reports are accurate.
I'd be interested in seeing how it builds on this.
This movie definitely took a lot of inspiration from the Creed/Rocky dynamic.
Before watching the video, here are my thoughts:
*minor spoilers*
The good:
the twin emperors, gladiatorial naval combat, a really great quote that was attributed to Cicero (though I can't find evidence of it), the pet monkey who got to be co-caesar for a day 🐒
The bad:
garbage rehashed script that failed to justify the existence of the movie, dumb callbacks, bad acting even from the returning cast, bad casting (except Pedro and the emperors), unmemorable musical score
I rewatched the original last week and I still fucking love that movie. Seeing the new one really made me wish Ridley Scott would have just made another sword & sandal movie without any connection to Gladiator 😕
Now to watch and see what they agree with me on
What a work of art that thumbnail is
Yeah we didn't need another dead wife. They could have just separated them and then at the end he gets to see her again.
I have no nostalgia on the first movie. The movie actually NEEDED a sequel or more at the end of the first. There's one massive question that remains after Maximus dies. What is the future of Rome? Did he have any impact on it's direction or does he die for nothing? What happens to Rome? It's an underlying plot point that drives the story forward and is abruptly stopped once Maximus dies. This sequel covers ALL OF IT. So, as someone who saw the first movie for the first time just this week. I found it needed. And the sequel hits on loose ends of the first as well as Maximus's legacy and impact.
pedro pascal being paul mescals step dad feels like it was specifically written for a certain corner of h*rny twitter, a corner i frequent
Enjoy. Meow!
“what if we took Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Javier Bardem and made them brothers?”
I respect that. You Do you bro. 🗿👍🏽
When i saw the title card in the cinema i couldnt wait to hear james and mason say glad2ator
Pedro Pascal and Denzel shined in this movie… Maximus got a lot of love but Acacius should have got more shine in the end
I just wana say I love this thumbnail 😂
Gotta do a Savage Reviews episode guessing the streaming originals
I’m kinda bummed that this is basically just a soft remake… Ridley could have taken this world in a totally new direction but instead just played it safe. And unfortunately Paul Mescal doesn’t have the screen presence of Crowe
Did you guys pickup Denzel’s character saying “hose him down” to Paul’s character?
Hoses did not exist…
Well, another kind of hosing was done back then perhaps 😏
Three cheers for citizen dondas
spoilers start at 14:42
This is what Grok had to say about May Calamawy's role: May Calamawy, who was cast for a role in "Gladiator II," had her scenes significantly reduced or largely cut from the final film. Here's what the public discourse and reports suggest about this situation:
Initial Expectations:
Calamawy was announced to be part of the cast in May 2023, with expectations that she would play a significant role. Reports indicated that director Ridley Scott conducted a thorough search for this role, emphasizing its importance to the storyline.
Final Cut Reality:
Contrary to initial announcements, Calamawy's role in the released film is minimal, with her appearing only in brief, background shots without any dialogue. She was expected to be a major character, possibly even the female lead, but instead, her presence was reduced to that of an extra.
Public and Social Media Reaction:
Fans and observers on social media have expressed disappointment and confusion over her diminished role, with some speculating that her Palestinian heritage and support for Palestine might have influenced the decision. However, there's also a perspective that this could be due to creative decisions like editing for time or storyline adjustments.
God I hope she's doing okay. I hope the studio had at least some decorum to tell her she was being cut
who cares what a chatbot has to say
Gladiator II truly is a caravan of garbage.
You missed that Peter Mensah came back as his character from Spartacus.
No worries though... Everyone did ;)
Somehow, emperors returned.
Does it surpass the original? No, the answer is no. Not even close.
If they make Gladiator 3, i hope they have a stronger script.
Not quite sure why this movie was even made, at least you can use it for comedy fodder. Oh that's right, money.
never watched the first one fully outside of random youtube clips, thought the film was great, my brother n dad both loved the first one, said this one was pretty decent no where near the first
Amazing thumbnail
I’m from New Jersey. I was there too
The film lacked focus.
The most 5/10 5/10 film ever. And it’s only a 5 because Denzel got it there.
I'm with Jason. It was okay. The fights felt kinda "eh" and hollow. And it does follow the plot of the first one wayyy to much. Its a messy narrative and kinda wacky plot. Its also edited weird in my opinion.
If any movie didn't need a sequel pr remake it was Gladiator. I feel like the mere existence of this film diminishes the legacy of the original
Paul Mescal is a bit rougher than Paul Tequila, that's for sure.
£200+ million for this movie is crazy, it looks amazing in cinemas - but come on! What is going on with these budgets??
Insane budgets and okay movies.
I think a lot of imbezzling and palm-greasing goes on.
At least you can see it on screen on this one
Well, let's see, Hollywood hasn't been run by artists turned business people who want the industry to flourish. It's being run by people who have business degrees and got a C in high school English because they couldn't understand "The Iliad".
Not too mention that budgets for movies are VERY loosey goosey due to the nature of having to get a thing made, usually, in a massive time crunch.
Let's add that to the fact that Corporations and Wall Street and MBAs have had some history with laundering, embezzlement, and just straight up stealing............
I'm saying that the people up top are destroying the industry for their wallets and they don't care about literally anything other than money.
At least this is a historical film. Red One has a 250 million dollar budget (the Rock got paid 40 million).
The movie isn't great, but Paul Mescal is a beautiful baby boy and laughed off the sausage fingered King of England at the premiere so give him 12 Oscars please
Has the king personally affronted you?
@@Tazza19931I mean, his family are directly responsible for oppression across the globe.
Particularly for Paul’s country too. And just so you’re aware, Paul mescal was personally alive during British soldiers slaughtering Irish civilians. The fighting ended in 1998. The VAST majority of Brits were alive and well during Irish oppression. Anyone over the age of 25. Remember that. Because the people of India. Pakistan. Ireland. Afghanistan. Palestine. Ukraine. Etc etc all remember it.
Just because Ireland is an economic powerhouse now, doesn’t mean they forgot.
@Yan-tz9pn His family, or him? I used the word "personally" in my comment, in that I'm asking what Charles himself has done.
If he himself has personally committed atrocities, then absolutely he should be judged for that, but I've never seen the sense in hating someone based on the actions of their ancestors / relatives.
It's like when you see some folks hate on modern-day Brits because of Britain's colonial history. That also doesn't make sense, either.
@@Tazza19931 you didn’t read my comment did you? 2 points.
1) if you inherit the glory of your father you must also inherit the sins.
Brits LOVE to go on about the glory of the British empire but NEVER acknowledge the atrocities.
2) modern day Brit, including the king, were alive and well during Irish oppression. Charles was in his 50s whilst it was happening. And he did nothing. He happily profited off British soldiers murdering Irish civilians.. as did all of the UK. Even to this day, the British still support the British soldiers and label the Irish terrorists, for defending their own country??
I’ll give you some examples. If my father went into your house and beat you up and threw you out the house. Then my family moved in. My father died and you came up to the door and I said ‘I’m sorry for what happened last week, but nobody alive today personally beat you up. You should move on and stop living in the past’, that’s how ridiculous it is to tell people that.
It was 20 years ago.. part of Ireland is still occupied to this day!.. Google 12th of July/orange parades. British people dress up in bowler hats, march through Irish streets waving flags/banners and beating war drums, where they then burn a massive bonfire covered with Irish flags and dummies of Irish icons (politicians, heroes etc).. imagine if Pakistanis did this in London, the Brits would go to war lol
@Yan-tz9pn I read your comment, I just don't agree with it. I don't believe that someone should be demonised for the sins of their ancestors. That's pretty nonsensical to me. It always makes me laugh, for example, when Brits are even judged for atrocities they weren't alive to see. It's stupid but it happens. I'm not saying people should forget what happened, but I don't agree with blaming most Brits either.
Also, I've never personally come across a Brit who loves going on about the British Empire. I don't doubt there are some, mainly in the older age groups, but I feel like you are generalising a little too harshly. Plenty of Brits acknowledge the atrocities committed, including me, both in Ireland and on other shores.
0:01 Video Starts
25:37 Video Ends
You, sir, are immensely appreciated!
Thank you!
Glad2ator
Gods that’s a good thumbnail
Dont understand why they called it Gladiator II. People saw RIGHT THROUGH that marketing gimmick and it forces the movie to live up to a predecessor that it never can. They couldve just made another unrelated gladiator film set in Rome. I think audiences by and large enjoy Sword and Sandals films so theres no need to bastardize Gladiators legacy. You can just use any number of separate storylines/characters set in ancient Rome
quick answer;
Of course not!!!
Not going to talk about May Calamawy scenes being cut for supporting Palestine?
I enjoyed it, I knew it wasn't going to be better or as good as the first, didn't watch any trailers and enjoyed it as an action film
Shazam 2 is a good movie- said no one EVER
Except for this two blocks😂
Watching the ad before the video. Short answer. NO!
It's Entertainin' time!
Gladiator vs 300: Dawn of the Washed up directors
Great review boys 😃⚔️👞⚔️😃 !!!
If Riddley Scott actually stuck more to the real history of Geta and Caracalla, opening with the death of their father and focusing rather on a new gladiator character with no connection to Maximus it would have been a better movie. Read the room Ridley. Roman history has gotten this insane revival in the last 4 years. He could have played on that by giving us somethjng at least even half accurate. Open the film with the campaigns in Scottland and the death of Septimus severus who famously said to his sons "Be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, scorn all others"....that could set the tone of the Roman empire and why Caracalla was seen as a tryant. Admist the back drop of a debased currency, higher taxes and the destruction of Alexandria who famously mocked Caracalla for killkn Geta....we can see the declining world of the Roman empire as its approacing the crises of the 3rd century. Amidst this all would be the gladiatory games and the pratorian prefect Macrinus plot to kille Caracalla.
I rewatched Gladiator before seeing this in cinemas to go in without rose tinted glasses. It doesn't really compare to the quality of the first one.
Without considering the first one and treating it on its own, it's ok, but has a lot of weaknesses. Action is average, CGI is wonky in a lot of places, doesn't seem to have an outstanding image quality (don't really know what to call it, take Dune part 2 as my golden standard), lacks gravitas both in story and characters. The characters in particular seem to be just there... Denzel's villain motivations are never really explored, just implied. Lucius is very static, the emperors are, again, just there...
I don't even think performances really shined, and it's a shame because it has a good cast. But overall it is entertaining if you take it as a serviceable action/history flick, so it's not impossible to enjoy it. Don't think I'll rewatch
Paul mescal isnt good in this movie hes not charismatic at all and delivers his lines like he doesnt even believe them.
And he made American Gangster 24:24
it was a truly dreadful watch
I think Gladiator II is better than the first one in most respects, except cinematography I guess, and the performance of the lead actor. Paul Mescal was amazing in this but he's no Russell Crowe in 2000. The constant callbacks to the original were pretty tedious, but it didn't ruin the film for me at all. The actual plot I really enjoyed, Denzel absolutely made this film for me, his plotting and scheming, orchestrating the throne for himself was so much more compelling than whatever Joaquin was doing in the first movie.
The contrast of Maximus following his revenge to the end while Lucius decided against it was really interesting to me. Maximus felt he had nothing left and died in the pursuit of revenge, inadvertently leading Rome into 16 years of misery. Meanwhile, Lucius decides not to take his revenge, and fills the shoes he was supposed to. Idk I found that to be a pretty nice thematic connection between the movies.
People go to these movies for the action and I thought the fights in this movie were awesome. Real scrappy and dirty, it felt like a nasty brawl more than trained soldiers fighting.
Yeah it's not perfect, maybe down to low expectations but this movie really impressed me
‘Better than the first one’ good god
@alexknollys9009 think I justified my reasoning pretty well, if you'd like to explain why I'm wrong I'd happily listen
Also, not that being a filmmaker means you immediately have good taste, but having made short films and studied film and film analysis in college, I do have some basis for my decisions
Ridley is that you?
@alexknollys9009 lol I wish
😂😂😂 stop talking movies nothing about this movie is better than the original
310m is still alot. Could build everyset and use background actors for that price. It's like they spend that money to make the job easier not better
So Gladiator 2 is a sequel/remake?...... What?!
13:56 Ah yes, the CITY of New Jersey. New Jersey does have a lot of Italian-Americans though.
I liked it, it was pretty good.
Not seen the new Gladiator, but its gonna be a no...
I will say, although i understand that lucius is supposed to be a different person from his parents, there was that 'everyone is beautiful but nobody is horny' issue going on in this film where there was just no sexual tension or chemistry anywhere, which came in spades in the first film. The first film had maximus making a joke about having sex with his late wife and there are women in streets trying to get with him, and the chemistry between him and lucilla was off the charts when they were simply looking into each others eyes. And i guess i'd also include the incest which is as repugnant as it is compelling. I saw there was a possible gay thing going on with the twins and their harems but, they spent most of the film being 'crazy' and nothing else.
Hurry up and make Glad3ator so we can Call the next one Gladiat4!
Surpass the original? Its absolutely shite 😂
Yall can’t just post at 6 am ET in Florida time which is basically the Australia of America
That's exactly what Canadians think Florida is lol You got dragons down there.
@@TheNotoriousMrDeeand guys crazy enough to ride them
The first Gladiator was better of course - I still enjoyed the second, even though it didn't need to be made.
they roll back the Rock, and the hierarchy of the JC universe is changed forever... until deadpool, maybe
It was NEVER going to surpass the original!
NO, it doesn't. There, saved you 25 min. YW.
When I'm in an insanely bad take competition and my opponent is Mr Sunday Movies
No.We are NOT.
2:29 Michael Joseph Jackson mentioned!?!
….no.
The thing with the Gladiators is that Crowe's is the most interesting character in Gladiator, and Mescal's is the least interesting in Gladiator 2. Not because Mescal is poor, his character is simply written that way. It's an odd choice.
Glad I'm not the only one that went "it's Hitler!" 😅 9:42
Paul Mescal has his own backstory and you'll never guess what it is... unless you read the plot description.
I'm very disappointed that Russell Crowe's Gladiator didn't come back to life after 3 days and fight the other dude who did the same thing. I think Gladiator 2: Who's Jesus Now was the original title.
Paul Mescal was the biggest problem of the movie for me
Hes so boring