Maximus was faithful to his wife and even had a son about Lucius’ age. The first film implied that Lucilla had a crush with Maximus, perhaps they even had a relationship before they were married, but that was it. Why turn Maximus a cheater, when the whole point of the first film was his devotion and loyalty to his murdered wife and son?!!!!
It’s realistic. That doesn’t take away the fact he’s a good man. The man was a general, meaning most of his entire life surrounded the military likely keeping him far away from his home for months even years at a time. but physical desires don’t just magically disappear. Not far fetched to believe that over his career (even when married) he at least occasionally would’ve use a prostitute and/or did stuff with Lucilla giving the attitudes they have towards each other in gladiator 1.
@@MrWord283 Hardly. it doesn’t take away from the point the first movie (not like he knew Lucius was his kid)… I’m just stating the realistic aspect of this scenario that should have already been assumed about Maximus. It’s not like narratively speaking the on screen relationship between Max and Lucilla didn’t give vibes that they likely had intimate history + when you factor realism angle this is an easy take to be believable. As a bonus narratively speaking it’s nice Maximus bloodline didn’t end with him so in a way he didn’t truly lose everything even though he didn’t know it.
Macrinus, the supposedly cunning and intelligent mastermind who manipulated his way to commanding an empire, for some reason decides to ride out into the middle of a battlefield between two armies to be met by Lucius. He then immediately agrees to a 1v1 duel to the death against the younger, more experienced and more physically capable gladiator HE helped create.
Top Gun Maverick was essentially a remake of the first Top Gun, but it was done in a way that viewed didn’t feel cheated. It had heart. It still felt like a sequel, in which Maverick’s life continues. Someone probably saw the huge success of that film and thought that making a Gladiator 1.2 would be enough. It’s the same mistake done with Star Wars The Force Awakens, a mere remake of the true and only Star Wars.
About becoming emperor, in the Roman Empire the only important requirement was getting the confirmation from senate. There were dynasties here and there (starting from Augustus, foe example), but being related to previous emperor or even being of the right social class were not immediate requirements -and there was no stone-carved line of succession. There were several incidents where the army or the Praetorian guard hailed the person with the biggest purse to the job and later the senators (also paid) confirmed the title. There also were numerous cases where the Praetorians killed off their previous emperor for coin. It was not the most stable of system available.
Love your review and your emphasis on the point of one's ability and strength to rule as opposed to social status although that had some influence it was not the overriding reason for being emperor.... blessed
This is a flawed assumption and not entirely true. But for the sake of the movie, let's take the two emperors Caracalla and Geta, in real life they were in fact part of a dynasty and heirs to the empire as were their mother who served as empress of the empire. In real life Carcalla got Geta murdered and left to go into war, cause he hated mondane life. Their mother ruled Rome when Geta was murdered and Caracalla left, he never returned. You did have to have some status, you even say so yourself by saying you could get acceptance through paying the senate and you did have to be regarded in the eyes of the praetorians first and foremost, so the suggestion that you could bacially walz into it without no requirements is simply not true. You needed to have a rank and you were only given one such if you came from the right social class or the right blood line. The praetorians most often killed off their emperor due to a coup not for coin. The idea they did it for coin/money stems from the belief that they did a coup on an emperor, cause another person with a desire to rule Rome promised them better life conditions.
Having just seen it last night, I initially thought it was decent, but the more I think on it, the more it sucks to the point now where I'm like yes, it was awful. 🤦♀️
Not watched it. How does he get the Roman army to follow him? Just because he's maximus' son? after 16 years i doubt any of those men would have even served under Maximus. Also, Maximus' story was supposed to culminate in him creating a republic, not taking power, and I don't think anyone would've considered Maximus the rightful ruler, so why would they consider his son the rightful ruler?
The army was loyal to Marcus and the general leading the army knew the ring Lucius gave him belonged to Marcus as his name was engraved in the inside of the band alongside Marcus Aurelius’ and Maximus’. It wasn’t due to Lucius being Maximus’ son. And Lucius is considered the “rightful ruler” because he is the son of an emperors (Marcus Aurelius) daughter (Lucilla)
ironically, iirc the service period for a legionaire was 16 years, meaning the original soldiers should have retired. for your second question - lazy fucking writing, M shouldn't have a son with that woman to begin with
Bad writing made them accept him as the new emperor.. everyone that knew who Lucius is was already dead at that point. The army was split in two, one side being loyal to Acacius while the other was controlled by Macrinus(those were the Praetorians), yet, after Lucius kills Macrinus, he delivers a cringe ass speech and everyone decides to accept him in hopes he will stop fucking talking, it worked. Honestly, if they made the movie longer and take some time to flesh out the story and the characters it could've been so much better, not great, because the script was terrible, but still..
@@TinyWench Thats such a far fetched plot. So flawed and doesn't make any sense. He has a ring, let's all trust him. Oh he did that thing with taking sand into his hand, he must be the son of Maximus. Like wtf? The people that recognizes Lucius doing what Maximus did, weren't even there when Maximus did it and even if they were, it's highly unlikely they would put two and two together, especially Lucilla. Bad and lazy writing.
I just saw it and it felt like awful gladiator fanfiction. They relied on the original way too much to the point it made me roll my eyes whenever anyone said a classic quote. Also, the CGI looked horrible and it was ridiculous. Especially the monstrous monkeys that could bite through steel chains, the gladiator riding the rhino, and the freaking sharks.
It’s so pathetic to me that you have to have baboons and sharks and rhinos , it just shows even more the spectacle being made to make profit rather than take any risk to make an actually good film. It’s just dumbed down slop it’s not a film to me anymore it’s a product
1:01 IRL Caracalla and Geta were the sons of the previous emperor Septimius Severus who came to power after the year of the five emperors. Caracalla was made a co emperor by his father and Geta too a bit later.
But the Caracalla and Geta in this movie are so different from the real ones that they might as well be purely fictional characters with a completely different background.
@@loxodoncyclotis1823 True. In real life Caracalla and Geta were respected by the pretorians and served as consuls to their father as well as their mother served as empress and accoutant. Caracalla had Geta murdered, cause he disagreed with Getas way of ruling. When he became sole emperor he left himself to go into war and never to return. In real life Caracalla was the first actual emperor who was also a soldier and the one who constituted all romans as free men when they got citizenship of Rome. So basically he was the creator of democracy. In the movie he's just a loud mouthed evil buffoon.
By the 3rd act, i was actually rooting for Macrinus (Denzel) to win 😂. One of the Bright spots of the movie. He actually politic'd, Manipulated, outsmarted, and earned his way into power. He Kept his word to Lucius, he had no problem with getting his own hands Dirty when needed, and his motive and philosophy is directly opposed to the Good guys philosophy. I wish the other characters had this level of consistency and forethought into their characters. Instead, they seem to change and flip motivations with whatever the scene needs at the time. An example of that being, Lucius hating Rome, his mother for abandoning him as a child, and Marcus for killing his wife, but immediately forgiving his mother, Marcus, and changing his entire life philosophy on hating Rome after a few words from marcus in the arena. Then Turning on Macrinus (Denzel) when, from his perspective, Macrinus has only done good by him and gave him exactly what he asked him for to that point (the head of the General).
Pedro Pascal's character is named Justus Acacius, not Marcus. The twin emperors were interesting characters, but I am disappointed there was absolutely no backstory for them. Denzel was amazing, the protagonist had no charisma at all. A pale shadow of Maximus and Russel Crowe.
"...there was absolutely no back story for them." that was the problem with the film for me, it never made me interested or invested in any of the characters.
On the motivation to fight: In the 1st film it wasn't just the fact that Commomdus killed Maximus family, but he killed Marcus Aurelius too. The empreror was a father to Maximus, and it was revealed in the film that Commodus & Maximus grew up together, something that Commodus touched on before the final fight scene (that makes us brothers). Even before he mentions how he'll avange his wife and son, the dropped the line "loyal servant to the true emperor Marcus Aurelius". The emperor, his father, meant a lot to him Its also this betryal by his "brother" that propels him to fight. Throughout the film, the audience knew Maximus' true identity: the real heir to the Roman throne & his desire to fulfil his father's vision for Rome was real. ("Marcus Aurelius had a dream Proximo. This is not it. This is NOT IT!") But in the second film, it was: must revenge wife who died in battle. And I care about Rome because of Daddy's ring! I mean, really?
Exacly and the suggestion that Maximus and Commodus grew up together like brothers makes it even less plausible that Maximus would have had a relationship to Lucilla, who by that logic would basically have been his sister, not by actual blood band, but we are always shown in Gladiator that Maximus and Lucilla has a connection through admiration and kindship, there is no suggestion of any romance and yet porn brains will come to that conclusion cause why not. I see that Gladiator sites are beginning to rewrite the history of Maximus due to Gladiator 2 rewriting it, they are now editing in that he had a short romance with Lucilla when they were young BEFORE he met his wife as some sort of cope for bad script writing. He could not have had a romance before meeting his wife, cause Lucilla says Maximus son is the same age as Lucius, so either he cheated or Ridley and his team are some lazy ass sobs who has ruined the character of Maximus out of sheer greed. I will say it once and say it again, but Ridley Scott has lost the plot. Lucius does not work neither and the plot about the ring is silly, let alone the plot device of Lucius picking up sand in his hand and then suddenly Lucilla realizes it's Maximus and her son. Lazy so lazy.
@KasperK-su9oz Yes, the scene where Lucilla & Maximus discussed their respective families & the age of their sons means that Lucius couldn't be Maximus' son (I mean if he was your son how could you not know?) I'm afraid it's not just rewriting the script, the second film is telling us that Maximus is a failure. Like I said, throughout the film, Maximus was suppose to be not just the true emperor (vs Commodus the usrper), but also the last emperor who ends the corruption and tyranny of empire & bring the Republic back to the people (that was the "Dream of Rome" in the first film) Well, obviously, the "dream" has crashed and burned, and Maxiums has failed. He died for nothing. The idiot twins rule the Empire, but there is no character depth to the twins, nor are we given any account as to why Maximus died for nothing. Congrats, Ridley, you've killed off one of the most famous & beloved characters of cinema!
@@Boatswain_Tam I agree. The legacy of Maximus and the hope of Rome has been destroyed by Ridley. And from a historical perspective it could actually have worked to have Lucilla be the empress of Rome as suggested in Gladiator. It makes it even more baffling and interesting that Caracalla and Geta are the new emperors in Gladiator 2 and they are so WRONGLY portraid, cause what is funny to me is that those two brothers and the real life Severus dynasty is a testament to the fact that the movie could have had Lucilla be empress, cause their real life mother was empress to their father and later became empress and ruler of Rome when Caracalla murdered Geta and left Rome to invade other dynasties. Ridley has become a Hollywood hack who just wanted asses in the theatre seats, but did he really need to destroy Maximus.
@armando5846 Lucio and maximus son are the same age, as stated in the first conversation between Lucila and Maximus in the film. Maximus was already married when Lucius was born...
@@armando5846 What are you on about? Lucius is almost the same age as Maximus son, so let's say they had the affair before he married, do you think he just married his wife on the spot with no dating before hand? Let me shack this broad up and then quickly find another broad to shack up and marry. It is a huge plot hole to suggest Maximus cheated on his family when the whole plot of the first movie is how an honorable and good man has everything taken away from him. Could you stop already, seriously.
My 2 biggest complaints: 1) The script felt really meh. In the first movie there were plenty of scenes where actions speaks louder than words like when Lucilla slapped Commodus and kissed his finger showed her anger & forced submission without even saying a word. There's none in this one. 2). Paul Mescal just doest not carry that gravitas as the main character and this is coming from a girl who simps over hot men on screen. The thing is, he is charming in interviews but his character is just so mehhh.. They keep mentioning of his "rage" but when I saw Paul Mescal acting, I felt none of this so called "rage". I'd rather they focus on Pedro Pascal's character, a respected general whose forced to do the emperor's bidding while they keep his family as hostage (his family not being Lucilla because I really want them to just diverge from the characters of the first movie).
Pedro Pascal's character doesn''t work neither, cause we never see him or hear about him in Gladiator, so he feels empty and shoehorned in. If they made a movie with no relation to the old characters, they'd might as well not call it Gladiator. Then again, they should just have left it with the first film and kept it there.
In regards to the "sudden" rise to power of Geta and Caracella, ever since the death of Marcus Aurelius, Rome went into a very turbulent period of emperors coming and going very quickly. Some emperors lasted less than a year before being murdered by their own men or dying in battle. Two very unstable individuals inheriting the throne, and not living that long, was not an uncommon sight at that point. Emperors like Caligula, Nero and Commodus also had the reputation of being absolute crazies shortly before their demise.
In real life Geta and Caracella were hires to the empire and they were not idiots as portraid in the movie, they were both consuls to their father, despite their young age and both highly regarded by the praetorians as were their mother who served as an administer of the empire, the whole family were very intelligent and very respected by the roman people, getting the highest ranks possible, furthermore it was Caracella who had Geta murdered, cause he wanted to rule the empire alone and never saw one to one with Geta. When Geta died the responsibilites of their mother became even bigger, cause Caracella was not interested in mondane responsibilites, so if anything the movie should have portraid that Rome was practically ruled by a woman. They had that chance by continuing the idea that Lucilla became emperor, but no, Ridley did not like that. Caracella was actually a soldier, who was much more interested in going into war, he never returned and thus came their actual demise. We are living in some make belief world were we think every emperor of Rome was some loon who had a demise in mental health, it's a weird phenomenon exagerrated by mainstream media. And even if they were portraid correctly, which they ain't, it doesn't matter - The two emperors are simply plot devices, Ridley could have sat one of the CGI baboons and pretended that was the emperor, it would have ment just as much or little. They have no gravitaze, we don't care about them, like we cared about Commodus or hated him, cause they have no back story, they are simply plot tools and comedy reliefs and they don't work. What the hell was Ridley thinking??
The sudden rise to power is not true in regards to Geta and Caracalla. Geta and Caracalla was heirs to the empire and part of the Severan dynasty. They were consuls to their father who reigned Rome from 193 to 211 and their mother the empress was accountant to their father. They were always destined to rule Rome and was not some "come and go" thing. It is however true that Macrinus became their successor, however Macrinus was not evil and actually tried to restore the economy of Rome, but was almost never present due to being in war. In regards to the Severan dynasty, it fell when Caracalla had Geta murdered and then himself left to venture into battle/invasion never to return. Caracalla was regarded as an actual solider, not some buffoon, and as the emperor who constituted that all men of Rome are free men, when granted citizenship all despite his young age.
I disagree with what you said about this movie feeling more cinematic than its predecessor - it was made using superior technology, but most of the shots felt boring and plain. I watched Gladiator for the first time two days ago and watched Gladiator II today, and in the original, Rome felt like this massive, awe-inspiring, almost fantastical place, whereas the city in the sequel was nearly lifeless. The fight between Lucius and Acacius was the only sequence in the sequel, in my opinion, that even came close to the original film in this regard
There’s people comparing Lucien vs Macrinus to Maximus vs Commodus, because Commodus was also a far weaker fighter. Here’s why they’re not comparable; Commodus acknowledges that Maximus is the superior fighter and “fixes” the fight by starving Maximus out for some time, tying him in a way that ensures he wouldn’t get any quality sleep, and stabs him five minutes before the fight. Maximus does win, but he also dies from that eventually. Lucien has nothing working against him to balance out the age gap. If he had a broken arm or something, maybe, but as is, he’s fresh from a fight (where he solos multiple Praetorians), and Macrinus is a 70 year old without any recent experience.
Dont forget in the beginning when commodosus shows up at the front we seem he "sparring" with a few men with swords so we know he has some experience handeling weapons
“Skinny theatre kid” He played Gaelic football growing up and if he wasn’t an actor he’d be playing at the highest level of the sport in Ireland right now. If u didn’t like the voice fine, but you clearly don’t know much about him
Im literally 15 minutes into the original and if they ended it right now, its already a better film than Gladiator 2 and im not joking or being facetious at all.
I agreed with 100% of what you said up to the point that you talked about it being better from a cinematography standpoint. Time and the value of spending money on a movie have nothing to do intrinsically with the quality of film. From a technical standpoint even. Gladiator I is superior in every way from a cinematography, shot/editing/angle, coloration, color grading perspective. Also many of your points are surface level action analysis or plot sequence analysis, and Id argue, while theyre totally valid you could have included the in-depth details that are missing from Gladiator. What made Gladiator incredible, was also a lot of the small things like the connection to philosophy, stoics, the oral tradition, and the notion of Elysium which isn't even touched once.
It felt like a cheap copy of the original, tbh. Reminds me of JJ Abrams copying the entire plot of a new hope. However it had some positives, the main villain here is way better than Commodus in gladiator 1 has more of an interesting story. The good thing is the ending was well made and sets up for gladiator 3 which basically will be able to be a completely new plot from the first two. The bad part is that idk why they killed off Denzel Washington's character like he was actually good and should have been in the final movie but now they are gonna have to introduce a completely new villain and idk if they will have the time to properly develop a new villain.
@@KingDanny9 Macrinus was not evil in real life/history. The Severan dynasty had fallen, cause Caracalla had murdered Geta and left to venture into war invasions never to return. Macrinus tried to restore the economy of Rome, but was hardly ever sat at his trone due to also having to venture into war battles. His reign has short, but there was no suggestion of him being manipulative or downright evil.
not a cinematic masterpacie like the first movie, but the second one is still far better than 90% of crap movies we get today.. probably something like a 6.5 /10 - first movie was a 10/10
The time frame from Commodus to Caracalla and Geta is actually pretty accurate. In real life, there were no more emperors of the Nerva-Antonine dynasty after Commodus. The real Lucius would not have had a claim to the position, because he was already dead.
Caracalla and Geta and not accurately portraid. They were hires to the empire and consuls to the emperor. Their mother was acountant to the emperor and the entire family was highly regarded by the praetorians. In real life Caracalla was the one who had Geta murdered, not through manipulation or any such thing, but disagreements and a desire to rule Rome alone. The family's demise came when Caracalla later left Rome into battle and never returned. When he was absent his mother was believed to have ruled the empire from behind the scenes due to the fact that Caracalla despised mondane responsibilites. The movie did not get anything accurate as far as I am aware.
The writers also cut the legs out of their revenge story immediately after setting it up, by showing us that Acacius is a good man and despises the bloodshed and corruption he's forced to do as a general. So, unlike in Gladiator where we can't wait for Commodus to die, we're dreading when Acacius will undeservedly die. It destroys Lucius's revenge motivation instead of letting us root for him to see it through.
It was also laughable how quickly they rushed through the first fight in the desert amphitheater. He fights off the monkey and shows compassion briefly to his city’s leader, which catches the attention of Denzel. In the original, Maximus is chained to his fellow gladiator, and they work together to overcome the opponents, along with the other captured gladiators. It was such an epic scene with character development. I felt nothing like this through the monkey fight scene.
0:50 It's a different dynasty. Caracalla and Geta were sons of the emperor Septimius Severus, they are not related to Marcus Aurelius or Commodus from the first movie. I don't expect historical excurses from Ridley after Napoleon. 😄
6:30 also, Maximus had a clearly defined goal. Kill Commodus, restore power to the senate, step down. Giving our new hero the goal to “restore the dream of Rome” is so vague. What is the audience supposed to root for?
The frustrating thing for me is that you can see the bones of an original plot in the final product. Lucius’s conflict with the general was a really interesting dynamic that if flushed out more could’ve made for a really entertaining original story if they just had the balls to NOT make Lucius a bootleg Maximus.
Gladiator II is the crappiest movie I've seen in years. The dialogue is insufferable, the plot has so many holes it is laughable, the characters' motivations are as shallow as can be, the cgi is unnecessary, and the ending is ridiculous. Not even Paul Mescal's legs save it.
Damn so they copied even more than what I was afraid of. Its just a rehashed first movie. I miss when sequels atleast had potential to be good, LIKE SHREK 2!!! 🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️
It's just, why not just make a movie about a fucking gladiator that rises to emperor or something? Why make a re-make/sequel of a movie that you know you will not be able to compare to in the slightest. And how is this the movie we get about Rome with Denzel in it...Denzel should have been playing Hannibal crossing the Alps like 15 years ago
I think RUclips trashing the film and comparing it to the original is a mistake. Look at the audience score on rotten tomatoes. Movie was a good sequel.
Ridley's style is a matter of taste. The last 4 movies were all like that. Prometheus, Covenant, Kingdom of Heaven. Beautiful sets and props with high quality effects. Just soulless.
Ridley deciding to shoot 'Gladiator 2' on a digital camera for the sake of convenience gives it that actors-doing-cosplay look that makes it 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 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.
It was inevitable than in Gladiator II Lucius was meant to become a Gladiator. The issue is how similar both stories are. Why not make Lucius emperor since the very beginnign? That would make sense, he was the next in line, and see how Caracalla and Geta overthrow him, which leads Lucius to become a Gladiator?
In real life, the death of Commodus led to a succession crisis known as the Year of the Five Emperors. The winner in the end was Septimus Severus. Severus is the father of Caracalla and Geta. Before seeing this movie, I assumed Lucius would end up in the arena as his continued survival was a threat to the brothers' claim as emperor.
I thought of the line from Moneyball. They couldn’t replace Maximus or Commodus in this movie, so they attempted (and failed) to recreate them both with two other characters that are much less compelling.
This Movie was a disaster all through. The editing was bad. The music was boring, except some tracks. The actors except Denzel were boring. This movie was so unnecessary. I would give it more praise if it wouldn´t be the Sequel to one of the more successful movies of all time.
to be honest i was underwhelmed with the movie but i've been thinking about it everyday since i saw it... damn you ridley scott, even when it's not the greatest movie, it's still ridley scott
You need to give the public time to get to know the characters, make them love or hate them or find them at least interesting. The many, many references to Gladiator one: ..... I loved Gladiator one,, now this... I can't recommend. The scenario was repetitive, poor, vulgar (cut off heads, sliced throats...) A lot of battles at sea and the Colosseum: Our protagonist somehow got through them. What for? Everybody that matters is dead and we all know the republic is lost forever, at least for antique Rome....(sigh)
The movie trick us to engage for Final Battle that could be the new Battle of the Bastards and then bam, we're run of out of budget so no Battle, and just Paul Mescal mumbling
I think you´ve been way more merciful with this movie than you should have. I remember walking out of the cinema after Gladiator and keep thinking about 5 or 6 epic scenes, with one of the best soundtracks to ever grace a film, and wanting to be Maximus. I cant remember a single tune from the second one that´s not recicled from the first, and the battles were entertaining but had nothing epic or spectacular. Not a bad movie itself, but a terrible sequel to one of the best films ever. And what is worse, completely unnecesary, Gladiator was almost perfect as a standalone story and didn´t need a sequel.
Yeah i did the same thing. I actually finished the first one like 20 minutes before my showing and felt ao disappointed throughout the second one because it did feel like I was watching a remake with no heart and soul
I will tell you what, didnt watch the trailers so Hano was a surprise to me and his connection to Maximus too. About the animals in the arena, well I agree human fights are more complex and exciting but it is known the Romans used a lot of animals in fights in the Arenas. I think this is more of a show of Rome and their ways. Makranus was my biggest problem tbh, was a very blend, stale and uncarismatic completly. Could not have him fit in the story "manipulating" things. I loved Akacius and Pedro, he was great and uplifting.
Ridley Scott has lost his marbles with all the recent historical movies he's attempted - Gods and Kings, Napoleon and now Gladiator 2 with deviation from history. Even Gladiator was more fictional than factual - Ridley Scott's films often use factual historical characters acting on a fictional storyline devised and directed by him - but Russell Crowe carried that film with his stellar performance. The rest of Ridley Scott's historical movies are all sub par - Gods and Kings is sub par as compared to The Ten Commandments Napoleon was disgustingly inaccurate - did Napoleon in historical fact ever order the destruction of the Sphinx in Egypt in Ridley Scott's Napoleon? And now Gladiator 2 in which Maximus is now shown as an adulterer and cheater on his wife with Lucilla to sire Lucius. Completely destroys the audience's liking for Maximus's "strength and honor" code from the first film. Denzel Washington's Macrinus looks more like Training Day's Alonzo Harris in ancient Rome in a toga.
The decision to have that wonky final duel seems like an extension of a Ridley Scott wart. I love RS films as a whole, but that doesn't keep me from noting his misses and flaws, and the need to finish with a brainless one on one duel seems like an itch he can't help but scratch. To me, the ultimate example of this was the final and silly duel at the end of the Kingdom Of Heaven director's cut. I liked the theatrical version and I love the DC, with virtually every bit that was reinserted being worth inclusion. The exception is the cartoonish duel at the very end. It serves no purpose for either Balian (who has already saved the day) or Guy (who has already been humiliated), not to mention that it doesn't even fit the spirit of the history of the time that the film held to (obviously it was historical fiction, but when you include plenty of real elements such as "kings do not kill kings" you don't need this revenge duel bit). And, of course, it doesn't at all flow with the story or pacing of the film. Seems like this is just a RS thing, unfortunately.
I think me enjoying this film is more a testament to how bad films are now that im willing to take more mediocre films than the actual quality of the film
Anachronisms and artistic licence galore in G2; Trebuchets used by the Numidians almost 700 years before their actual introduction in the West, sharks used in the Colosseum?? a Rhinoceros tamed and used as a tank in the arena?? Real Roman life was actually quite brutal, so why not stick to facts?
I enjoyed the movie, but that was only because I loved the original, and this one is just a rehash of the original. My wife never saw the original, so now I'm making her watch the original so she can see how much of this movie is just taken from the first one.
I enjoyed your wife, but that was only because I loved the mom, and this wife is just a rehash of the original. Your wife never saw the original, so now I’m making her watch the original. So she can see how much her moves is just taken from the first one.
It was great. Definitely was entertained and satisfied with the closure to some questions I had left after the first. Might have been more entertaining actually as I feel there was more action in this one.
It could have been so good if it only had some real soul and took some risk :( It could have utilized its actors with meatier roles. The protagonist looked the part and could have been differentiated from Russel Crowe with some volatility. Watching him at the trailer just clicked for me, but unfortunately he wasn't given much to work with. None of them did, really. It was like the last season of Game of Thrones compared to the first seasons...
Gladiator 2 is utter trash on every level - acting, writing, directing….even CGI. Two strikes in a row for Ridley Scott (Alien Romulus being the first).
It’s a very rushed remake with probs the worst CGI I have ever seen in a movie with that budget in this time period. You want a good comparison? It’s like gladiator 1 is the first few seasons of game of thrones, gladiator 2 is season 8.
I never watched gladiator too other then walking in on my dad when I was younger, And just from those few scenes i saw i felt Desha vu (idk how to say it) even tho I hadn't watched the first one. Overall i feel it was a dumb fun movie u would never see again but for most people well yk, they already saw it.
Macrinus was Berber in real life so he would look Moroccan not black African. But in Hollywood black washing is good and normal white washing is bad though. But it’s ok to not have representation for middle eastern and North African people
But all the Roman court and emperors being all white dudes isn't the issue? Or making a black man who freed himself from slavery from the main character's grandfather the bad guy is not an issue?
I don’t like the movie but how was she a Hollywood girl boss? I don’t think she had an arrogance and snarkiness that is portrayed as positive vibe around her. She’s just resilient fighter? An archer even.
The lead actor was the most disappointing. Came across as another hollywood DEI hire, when the part required a stronger/better actor with gravitas and charisma.
Maximus was faithful to his wife and even had a son about Lucius’ age. The first film implied that Lucilla had a crush with Maximus, perhaps they even had a relationship before they were married, but that was it. Why turn Maximus a cheater, when the whole point of the first film was his devotion and loyalty to his murdered wife and son?!!!!
It’s realistic. That doesn’t take away the fact he’s a good man. The man was a general, meaning most of his entire life surrounded the military likely keeping him far away from his home for months even years at a time. but physical desires don’t just magically disappear. Not far fetched to believe that over his career (even when married) he at least occasionally would’ve use a prostitute and/or did stuff with Lucilla giving the attitudes they have towards each other in gladiator 1.
Hear, hear!
Because Ridley Scott is a senile hack with a penchant for cannibalizing and ruining his own legacy.
@@redt8311ok? .. haha but that was not the point of the first movie. It’s just pure laziness
@@MrWord283 Hardly. it doesn’t take away from the point the first movie (not like he knew Lucius was his kid)… I’m just stating the realistic aspect of this scenario that should have already been assumed about Maximus. It’s not like narratively speaking the on screen relationship between Max and Lucilla didn’t give vibes that they likely had intimate history + when you factor realism angle this is an easy take to be believable. As a bonus narratively speaking it’s nice Maximus bloodline didn’t end with him so in a way he didn’t truly lose everything even though he didn’t know it.
Macrinus, the supposedly cunning and intelligent mastermind who manipulated his way to commanding an empire, for some reason decides to ride out into the middle of a battlefield between two armies to be met by Lucius. He then immediately agrees to a 1v1 duel to the death against the younger, more experienced and more physically capable gladiator HE helped create.
And shoots Lucilla when he could've taken out Lucius.
The script is really stupid.
They really didn't know how to end the movie.
I think we all knew this when they decided to reveal the whole plot in the trailer.
There was a plot?
@@SaviorCross yes there was obviously a plot there. Don’t try to deny that was shown in the trailer without giving away the whole thing.
Making a Gladiator 2 is one of those ideas that feels like an SNL joke. I still can't believe this exists.
True. I'm not going to the theaters for it 😂
It was great. Might even be more entertaining than the first
@@localprime8868 Ridley, you ain’t kiddin anyone
Crappiest movie I've seen in years.
That scene with Denzel and awful rubber head is definitely from SNL.
First Napoleon, now this, THEY DIDNT HAVE FLAT TOPS IN ANCIENT ROME.
Ahh I see you're a man of culture as well. I love it!
what are flat tops
I have come to reclaim Rome for my people.
Sir walter raleigh over here
@@ChronicMane9 a popular hairstyle in the 1960s.
Top Gun Maverick was essentially a remake of the first Top Gun, but it was done in a way that viewed didn’t feel cheated. It had heart. It still felt like a sequel, in which Maverick’s life continues. Someone probably saw the huge success of that film and thought that making a Gladiator 1.2 would be enough. It’s the same mistake done with Star Wars The Force Awakens, a mere remake of the true and only Star Wars.
It really wasn’t a remake at all though. The story is completely different
Well put
No it wasnt. All the pilots in too gun 2 were already graduates of top gun. You dont know what youre talking about
Maverick isn’t not a remake at all. Sure it uses nostalgia and feeds off the first film, but the story is entirely different.
That's not what a remake is.
Ridley Scott has had some breakthrough movies but he has had more bombs than successes and he is getting worse with age. He needs to retire.
I feel like he's on a crusade to piss off every history buff.
@@NangDoofer Pretty much... also the fact that he has his own production company so he can keep doing it
It was great. There’s just to a trend to hate things with originals
@@localprime8868they make it too easy to hate on when the follow ups are unimaginative, lazy and hastily put together without love or vision
After going to see Napoleon in theater, I was not going to give Gladiator 2 any money
The tigers in the part 1 were so good. There was a sense of danger
Because they were real tigers and not CGI
The monkeys look terrible 😂
About becoming emperor, in the Roman Empire the only important requirement was getting the confirmation from senate. There were dynasties here and there (starting from Augustus, foe example), but being related to previous emperor or even being of the right social class were not immediate requirements -and there was no stone-carved line of succession. There were several incidents where the army or the Praetorian guard hailed the person with the biggest purse to the job and later the senators (also paid) confirmed the title. There also were numerous cases where the Praetorians killed off their previous emperor for coin.
It was not the most stable of system available.
Yeah, look who voted Trump in. 🤣😂
Love your review and your emphasis on the point of one's ability and strength to rule as opposed to social status although that had some influence it was not the overriding reason for being emperor.... blessed
This is a flawed assumption and not entirely true. But for the sake of the movie, let's take the two emperors Caracalla and Geta, in real life they were in fact part of a dynasty and heirs to the empire as were their mother who served as empress of the empire. In real life Carcalla got Geta murdered and left to go into war, cause he hated mondane life. Their mother ruled Rome when Geta was murdered and Caracalla left, he never returned. You did have to have some status, you even say so yourself by saying you could get acceptance through paying the senate and you did have to be regarded in the eyes of the praetorians first and foremost, so the suggestion that you could bacially walz into it without no requirements is simply not true. You needed to have a rank and you were only given one such if you came from the right social class or the right blood line. The praetorians most often killed off their emperor due to a coup not for coin. The idea they did it for coin/money stems from the belief that they did a coup on an emperor, cause another person with a desire to rule Rome promised them better life conditions.
I am not entertained.
Having just seen it last night, I initially thought it was decent, but the more I think on it, the more it sucks to the point now where I'm like yes, it was awful. 🤦♀️
Just stick to your feelings. It's ok to like something.
It lingers with a bad aftertaste.
@@anthonymartensen3164 That's what the person did. What are you waffling about it?
conformist andy
I initially thought it was awful, but the more I think on it - it's still awful.
Not watched it. How does he get the Roman army to follow him? Just because he's maximus' son? after 16 years i doubt any of those men would have even served under Maximus.
Also, Maximus' story was supposed to culminate in him creating a republic, not taking power, and I don't think anyone would've considered Maximus the rightful ruler, so why would they consider his son the rightful ruler?
The army was loyal to Marcus and the general leading the army knew the ring Lucius gave him belonged to Marcus as his name was engraved in the inside of the band alongside Marcus Aurelius’ and Maximus’. It wasn’t due to Lucius being Maximus’ son.
And Lucius is considered the “rightful ruler” because he is the son of an emperors (Marcus Aurelius) daughter (Lucilla)
ironically, iirc the service period for a legionaire was 16 years, meaning the original soldiers should have retired.
for your second question - lazy fucking writing, M shouldn't have a son with that woman to begin with
Bad writing made them accept him as the new emperor.. everyone that knew who Lucius is was already dead at that point. The army was split in two, one side being loyal to Acacius while the other was controlled by Macrinus(those were the Praetorians), yet, after Lucius kills Macrinus, he delivers a cringe ass speech and everyone decides to accept him in hopes he will stop fucking talking, it worked.
Honestly, if they made the movie longer and take some time to flesh out the story and the characters it could've been so much better, not great, because the script was terrible, but still..
@@TinyWench Thats such a far fetched plot. So flawed and doesn't make any sense. He has a ring, let's all trust him. Oh he did that thing with taking sand into his hand, he must be the son of Maximus. Like wtf? The people that recognizes Lucius doing what Maximus did, weren't even there when Maximus did it and even if they were, it's highly unlikely they would put two and two together, especially Lucilla. Bad and lazy writing.
I just saw it and it felt like awful gladiator fanfiction. They relied on the original way too much to the point it made me roll my eyes whenever anyone said a classic quote. Also, the CGI looked horrible and it was ridiculous. Especially the monstrous monkeys that could bite through steel chains, the gladiator riding the rhino, and the freaking sharks.
this! they used the same lines from the first movie several times, no creativity. just copy.
The critical drinker said: it's shorter than the original but feels longer.
Indeed. I kept thinking when is this thing going to be over?
It’s so pathetic to me that you have to have baboons and sharks and rhinos , it just shows even more the spectacle being made to make profit rather than take any risk to make an actually good film. It’s just dumbed down slop it’s not a film to me anymore it’s a product
i decided to take a nap when i saw the sharks amh
1:01 IRL Caracalla and Geta were the sons of the previous emperor Septimius Severus who came to power after the year of the five emperors. Caracalla was made a co emperor by his father and Geta too a bit later.
But the Caracalla and Geta in this movie are so different from the real ones that they might as well be purely fictional characters with a completely different background.
@@loxodoncyclotis1823 True. In real life Caracalla and Geta were respected by the pretorians and served as consuls to their father as well as their mother served as empress and accoutant. Caracalla had Geta murdered, cause he disagreed with Getas way of ruling. When he became sole emperor he left himself to go into war and never to return. In real life Caracalla was the first actual emperor who was also a soldier and the one who constituted all romans as free men when they got citizenship of Rome. So basically he was the creator of democracy. In the movie he's just a loud mouthed evil buffoon.
By the 3rd act, i was actually rooting for Macrinus (Denzel) to win 😂. One of the Bright spots of the movie. He actually politic'd, Manipulated, outsmarted, and earned his way into power. He Kept his word to Lucius, he had no problem with getting his own hands Dirty when needed, and his motive and philosophy is directly opposed to the Good guys philosophy. I wish the other characters had this level of consistency and forethought into their characters. Instead, they seem to change and flip motivations with whatever the scene needs at the time.
An example of that being, Lucius hating Rome, his mother for abandoning him as a child, and Marcus for killing his wife, but immediately forgiving his mother, Marcus, and changing his entire life philosophy on hating Rome after a few words from marcus in the arena. Then Turning on Macrinus (Denzel) when, from his perspective, Macrinus has only done good by him and gave him exactly what he asked him for to that point (the head of the General).
Pedro Pascal's character is named Justus Acacius, not Marcus. The twin emperors were interesting characters, but I am disappointed there was absolutely no backstory for them. Denzel was amazing, the protagonist had no charisma at all. A pale shadow of Maximus and Russel Crowe.
the twin emperors were the worst. It’s like teenagers running Rome it’s not even believable.
"...there was absolutely no back story for them." that was the problem with the film for me, it never made me interested or invested in any of the characters.
They never really showed why they were awful either. Sure, they like blood and war, but what Roman emperor didn´t?
Gladiator is one of my top three favorite films, I have no interest in this desecration
That’s ok, no one is forcing you to watch it
Cope.
On the motivation to fight: In the 1st film it wasn't just the fact that Commomdus killed Maximus family, but he killed Marcus Aurelius too. The empreror was a father to Maximus, and it was revealed in the film that Commodus & Maximus grew up together, something that Commodus touched on before the final fight scene (that makes us brothers). Even before he mentions how he'll avange his wife and son, the dropped the line "loyal servant to the true emperor Marcus Aurelius". The emperor, his father, meant a lot to him
Its also this betryal by his "brother" that propels him to fight. Throughout the film, the audience knew Maximus' true identity: the real heir to the Roman throne & his desire to fulfil his father's vision for Rome was real. ("Marcus Aurelius had a dream Proximo. This is not it. This is NOT IT!")
But in the second film, it was: must revenge wife who died in battle. And I care about Rome because of Daddy's ring!
I mean, really?
Exacly and the suggestion that Maximus and Commodus grew up together like brothers makes it even less plausible that Maximus would have had a relationship to Lucilla, who by that logic would basically have been his sister, not by actual blood band, but we are always shown in Gladiator that Maximus and Lucilla has a connection through admiration and kindship, there is no suggestion of any romance and yet porn brains will come to that conclusion cause why not.
I see that Gladiator sites are beginning to rewrite the history of Maximus due to Gladiator 2 rewriting it, they are now editing in that he had a short romance with Lucilla when they were young BEFORE he met his wife as some sort of cope for bad script writing. He could not have had a romance before meeting his wife, cause Lucilla says Maximus son is the same age as Lucius, so either he cheated or Ridley and his team are some lazy ass sobs who has ruined the character of Maximus out of sheer greed. I will say it once and say it again, but Ridley Scott has lost the plot. Lucius does not work neither and the plot about the ring is silly, let alone the plot device of Lucius picking up sand in his hand and then suddenly Lucilla realizes it's Maximus and her son. Lazy so lazy.
@KasperK-su9oz Yes, the scene where Lucilla & Maximus discussed their respective families & the age of their sons means that Lucius couldn't be Maximus' son (I mean if he was your son how could you not know?)
I'm afraid it's not just rewriting the script, the second film is telling us that Maximus is a failure. Like I said, throughout the film, Maximus was suppose to be not just the true emperor (vs Commodus the usrper), but also the last emperor who ends the corruption and tyranny of empire & bring the Republic back to the people (that was the "Dream of Rome" in the first film)
Well, obviously, the "dream" has crashed and burned, and Maxiums has failed. He died for nothing. The idiot twins rule the Empire, but there is no character depth to the twins, nor are we given any account as to why Maximus died for nothing.
Congrats, Ridley, you've killed off one of the most famous & beloved characters of cinema!
@@Boatswain_Tam I agree.
The legacy of Maximus and the hope of Rome has been destroyed by Ridley. And from a historical perspective it could actually have worked to have Lucilla be the empress of Rome as suggested in Gladiator. It makes it even more baffling and interesting that Caracalla and Geta are the new emperors in Gladiator 2 and they are so WRONGLY portraid, cause what is funny to me is that those two brothers and the real life Severus dynasty is a testament to the fact that the movie could have had Lucilla be empress, cause their real life mother was empress to their father and later became empress and ruler of Rome when Caracalla murdered Geta and left Rome to invade other dynasties. Ridley has become a Hollywood hack who just wanted asses in the theatre seats, but did he really need to destroy Maximus.
So I heard about the big plot twist. Doesn't this kind of fuck up Maximus's character and honour? How awkward is it in Elysium right now? XD
I would assume it wasn't a big deal. His wife and child from the first film were were his peace. The empress was basically a fling at court.
@@armando5846cheating is not something maximus would do
@guilleyo161 they had the affair before he married. The circumstances of him being the leading general prevented him from settling down with her
@armando5846 Lucio and maximus son are the same age, as stated in the first conversation between Lucila and Maximus in the film. Maximus was already married when Lucius was born...
@@armando5846 What are you on about? Lucius is almost the same age as Maximus son, so let's say they had the affair before he married, do you think he just married his wife on the spot with no dating before hand? Let me shack this broad up and then quickly find another broad to shack up and marry. It is a huge plot hole to suggest Maximus cheated on his family when the whole plot of the first movie is how an honorable and good man has everything taken away from him. Could you stop already, seriously.
My 2 biggest complaints:
1) The script felt really meh. In the first movie there were plenty of scenes where actions speaks louder than words like when Lucilla slapped Commodus and kissed his finger showed her anger & forced submission without even saying a word. There's none in this one.
2). Paul Mescal just doest not carry that gravitas as the main character and this is coming from a girl who simps over hot men on screen. The thing is, he is charming in interviews but his character is just so mehhh.. They keep mentioning of his "rage" but when I saw Paul Mescal acting, I felt none of this so called "rage".
I'd rather they focus on Pedro Pascal's character, a respected general whose forced to do the emperor's bidding while they keep his family as hostage (his family not being Lucilla because I really want them to just diverge from the characters of the first movie).
Pedro Pascal's character doesn''t work neither, cause we never see him or hear about him in Gladiator, so he feels empty and shoehorned in. If they made a movie with no relation to the old characters, they'd might as well not call it Gladiator. Then again, they should just have left it with the first film and kept it there.
Denzel lied about kissing another man in this film
Denzel is in his 70s, he ain't beting nobody in a sword fight
Instead of using monkeys or rhino, they should have used brown bears or venomous snakes or somethings.
Gorillas with flick-knives.
Elephants would been a better idea because they were historically accurate.
In regards to the "sudden" rise to power of Geta and Caracella, ever since the death of Marcus Aurelius, Rome went into a very turbulent period of emperors coming and going very quickly. Some emperors lasted less than a year before being murdered by their own men or dying in battle. Two very unstable individuals inheriting the throne, and not living that long, was not an uncommon sight at that point. Emperors like Caligula, Nero and Commodus also had the reputation of being absolute crazies shortly before their demise.
Historical precedence, sure. Narrative drive, emotional core, some new essential threat to avoid treading the same ground: massive fail.
In real life Geta and Caracella were hires to the empire and they were not idiots as portraid in the movie, they were both consuls to their father, despite their young age and both highly regarded by the praetorians as were their mother who served as an administer of the empire, the whole family were very intelligent and very respected by the roman people, getting the highest ranks possible, furthermore it was Caracella who had Geta murdered, cause he wanted to rule the empire alone and never saw one to one with Geta. When Geta died the responsibilites of their mother became even bigger, cause Caracella was not interested in mondane responsibilites, so if anything the movie should have portraid that Rome was practically ruled by a woman. They had that chance by continuing the idea that Lucilla became emperor, but no, Ridley did not like that. Caracella was actually a soldier, who was much more interested in going into war, he never returned and thus came their actual demise.
We are living in some make belief world were we think every emperor of Rome was some loon who had a demise in mental health, it's a weird phenomenon exagerrated by mainstream media.
And even if they were portraid correctly, which they ain't, it doesn't matter - The two emperors are simply plot devices, Ridley could have sat one of the CGI baboons and pretended that was the emperor, it would have ment just as much or little. They have no gravitaze, we don't care about them, like we cared about Commodus or hated him, cause they have no back story, they are simply plot tools and comedy reliefs and they don't work. What the hell was Ridley thinking??
The sudden rise to power is not true in regards to Geta and Caracalla. Geta and Caracalla was heirs to the empire and part of the Severan dynasty. They were consuls to their father who reigned Rome from 193 to 211 and their mother the empress was accountant to their father. They were always destined to rule Rome and was not some "come and go" thing. It is however true that Macrinus became their successor, however Macrinus was not evil and actually tried to restore the economy of Rome, but was almost never present due to being in war. In regards to the Severan dynasty, it fell when Caracalla had Geta murdered and then himself left to venture into battle/invasion never to return. Caracalla was regarded as an actual solider, not some buffoon, and as the emperor who constituted that all men of Rome are free men, when granted citizenship all despite his young age.
Didn’t watch it cause I knew it was gonna suck, but hearing that it wasn’t inspired is surprising. I was honestly expecting magic and dragons n shit
It's worse than uninspired, it is bad. The script is simply stupid.
Stop getting your opinions from other people. The movie was fine
@@RcsN505its nearly the same script as the original so how is it bad?
They needed to bring back the legendary Tigris of Gaul!!
The almost undefeated Tigris of Gaul 😂
I disagree with what you said about this movie feeling more cinematic than its predecessor - it was made using superior technology, but most of the shots felt boring and plain. I watched Gladiator for the first time two days ago and watched Gladiator II today, and in the original, Rome felt like this massive, awe-inspiring, almost fantastical place, whereas the city in the sequel was nearly lifeless. The fight between Lucius and Acacius was the only sequence in the sequel, in my opinion, that even came close to the original film in this regard
There’s people comparing Lucien vs Macrinus to Maximus vs Commodus, because Commodus was also a far weaker fighter. Here’s why they’re not comparable;
Commodus acknowledges that Maximus is the superior fighter and “fixes” the fight by starving Maximus out for some time, tying him in a way that ensures he wouldn’t get any quality sleep, and stabs him five minutes before the fight. Maximus does win, but he also dies from that eventually.
Lucien has nothing working against him to balance out the age gap. If he had a broken arm or something, maybe, but as is, he’s fresh from a fight (where he solos multiple Praetorians), and Macrinus is a 70 year old without any recent experience.
Dont forget in the beginning when commodosus shows up at the front we seem he "sparring" with a few men with swords so we know he has some experience handeling weapons
He’s ’tough guy’ voice is so corny for a skinny theatre kid actor at heart
Rumours had it that Scott was considering Chalamant, can you imagine that? And even wimpier and skinnier kid. Scott has lost plot.
“Skinny theatre kid” He played Gaelic football growing up and if he wasn’t an actor he’d be playing at the highest level of the sport in Ireland right now. If u didn’t like the voice fine, but you clearly don’t know much about him
Im literally 15 minutes into the original and if they ended it right now, its already a better film than Gladiator 2 and im not joking or being facetious at all.
There is not one single bad minute of cinema in the first Gladiator.
Paul Mescal always looks like he's finished a shift at his warehouse job, and they stuffed him in a costume and put him in front of a camera.
I agreed with 100% of what you said up to the point that you talked about it being better from a cinematography standpoint. Time and the value of spending money on a movie have nothing to do intrinsically with the quality of film. From a technical standpoint even. Gladiator I is superior in every way from a cinematography, shot/editing/angle, coloration, color grading perspective. Also many of your points are surface level action analysis or plot sequence analysis, and Id argue, while theyre totally valid you could have included the in-depth details that are missing from Gladiator. What made Gladiator incredible, was also a lot of the small things like the connection to philosophy, stoics, the oral tradition, and the notion of Elysium which isn't even touched once.
It felt like a cheap copy of the original, tbh. Reminds me of JJ Abrams copying the entire plot of a new hope. However it had some positives, the main villain here is way better than Commodus in gladiator 1 has more of an interesting story. The good thing is the ending was well made and sets up for gladiator 3 which basically will be able to be a completely new plot from the first two. The bad part is that idk why they killed off Denzel Washington's character like he was actually good and should have been in the final movie but now they are gonna have to introduce a completely new villain and idk if they will have the time to properly develop a new villain.
What? How is the main villain better than Commodus and has a more interesting story??
Maybe Macrinus' son will seek revenge? The real Macrinus had a child.
@@KingDanny9 Macrinus was not evil in real life/history. The Severan dynasty had fallen, cause Caracalla had murdered Geta and left to venture into war invasions never to return. Macrinus tried to restore the economy of Rome, but was hardly ever sat at his trone due to also having to venture into war battles. His reign has short, but there was no suggestion of him being manipulative or downright evil.
It's a remake, a blatant copy and yet it's worse on every single level. I'm impressed.
not a cinematic masterpacie like the first movie, but the second one is still far better than 90% of crap movies we get today.. probably something like a 6.5 /10 - first movie was a 10/10
its baffling how anybody could watch the gladiator 2 trailer and think its going to be anything but slop.
The rap song should have been the first warning.
Noticed you used music from the legendary game assassin creed 2. Great piece of music
Washington's character is closer to Lentulus Batiatus as portrayed (by John Hannah) in the "Spartacus" series.
Sharks in the Colosseum was so stupid
@imperatorscoturum6334
You in the closet was so stupid
🤫🫣🙄
You in the closet was so stupid
literally the coolest thing ever - “this fucking sucks actually”
The time frame from Commodus to Caracalla and Geta is actually pretty accurate. In real life, there were no more emperors of the Nerva-Antonine dynasty after Commodus. The real Lucius would not have had a claim to the position, because he was already dead.
Caracalla and Geta and not accurately portraid. They were hires to the empire and consuls to the emperor. Their mother was acountant to the emperor and the entire family was highly regarded by the praetorians. In real life Caracalla was the one who had Geta murdered, not through manipulation or any such thing, but disagreements and a desire to rule Rome alone. The family's demise came when Caracalla later left Rome into battle and never returned. When he was absent his mother was believed to have ruled the empire from behind the scenes due to the fact that Caracalla despised mondane responsibilites. The movie did not get anything accurate as far as I am aware.
The writers also cut the legs out of their revenge story immediately after setting it up, by showing us that Acacius is a good man and despises the bloodshed and corruption he's forced to do as a general. So, unlike in Gladiator where we can't wait for Commodus to die, we're dreading when Acacius will undeservedly die. It destroys Lucius's revenge motivation instead of letting us root for him to see it through.
the music is so meh. not getting hans zimmer again was a mistake
It was also laughable how quickly they rushed through the first fight in the desert amphitheater. He fights off the monkey and shows compassion briefly to his city’s leader, which catches the attention of Denzel. In the original, Maximus is chained to his fellow gladiator, and they work together to overcome the opponents, along with the other captured gladiators. It was such an epic scene with character development. I felt nothing like this through the monkey fight scene.
0:50 It's a different dynasty. Caracalla and Geta were sons of the emperor Septimius Severus, they are not related to Marcus Aurelius or Commodus from the first movie. I don't expect historical excurses from Ridley after Napoleon. 😄
6:30 also, Maximus had a clearly defined goal. Kill Commodus, restore power to the senate, step down. Giving our new hero the goal to “restore the dream of Rome” is so vague. What is the audience supposed to root for?
The frustrating thing for me is that you can see the bones of an original plot in the final product. Lucius’s conflict with the general was a really interesting dynamic that if flushed out more could’ve made for a really entertaining original story if they just had the balls to NOT make Lucius a bootleg Maximus.
Gladiator II is the crappiest movie I've seen in years. The dialogue is insufferable, the plot has so many holes it is laughable, the characters' motivations are as shallow as can be, the cgi is unnecessary, and the ending is ridiculous. Not even Paul Mescal's legs save it.
AS WE ALL EXPECTED!!
Damn so they copied even more than what I was afraid of. Its just a rehashed first movie. I miss when sequels atleast had potential to be good, LIKE SHREK 2!!! 🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️
This happened before but I can't remember which movies.
It's just, why not just make a movie about a fucking gladiator that rises to emperor or something? Why make a re-make/sequel of a movie that you know you will not be able to compare to in the slightest. And how is this the movie we get about Rome with Denzel in it...Denzel should have been playing Hannibal crossing the Alps like 15 years ago
I think RUclips trashing the film and comparing it to the original is a mistake. Look at the audience score on rotten tomatoes. Movie was a good sequel.
RT is deleting negative reviews to boost the positive. Everyone that has watch this movie says it sucks.
@ I didn’t.
Gladiator Awakens.
Ridley's style is a matter of taste. The last 4 movies were all like that. Prometheus, Covenant, Kingdom of Heaven. Beautiful sets and props with high quality effects. Just soulless.
Ridley deciding to shoot 'Gladiator 2' on a digital camera for the sake of convenience gives it that actors-doing-cosplay look that makes it 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 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.
It was inevitable than in Gladiator II Lucius was meant to become a Gladiator. The issue is how similar both stories are. Why not make Lucius emperor since the very beginnign? That would make sense, he was the next in line, and see how Caracalla and Geta overthrow him, which leads Lucius to become a Gladiator?
In real life, the death of Commodus led to a succession crisis known as the Year of the Five Emperors. The winner in the end was Septimus Severus. Severus is the father of Caracalla and Geta.
Before seeing this movie, I assumed Lucius would end up in the arena as his continued survival was a threat to the brothers' claim as emperor.
by the third act i turned my brain off and considered it one of those anime fights, where even elderly can be powerful
Does anyone have an explanation as to why the Tomb of Maximus was written in modern English instead of Latin???
I thought of the line from Moneyball. They couldn’t replace Maximus or Commodus in this movie, so they attempted (and failed) to recreate them both with two other characters that are much less compelling.
Rumors say that dumb and dumber Wrote the Script
I can imagine they had a hand at some point. The movie was a work in progress for 20 years after all.
Rumours say that dumb and dumber sandwiched your mom
😂
Rumors say that dumb and dumber double teamed your mom
This Movie was a disaster all through.
The editing was bad. The music was boring, except some tracks. The actors except Denzel were boring.
This movie was so unnecessary.
I would give it more praise if it wouldn´t be the Sequel to one of the more successful movies of all time.
to be honest i was underwhelmed with the movie but i've been thinking about it everyday since i saw it... damn you ridley scott, even when it's not the greatest movie, it's still ridley scott
You need to give the public time to get to know the characters, make them love or hate them or find them at least interesting. The many, many references to Gladiator one: ..... I loved Gladiator one,, now this... I can't recommend. The scenario was repetitive, poor, vulgar (cut off heads, sliced throats...) A lot of battles at sea and the Colosseum: Our protagonist somehow got through them. What for? Everybody that matters is dead and we all know the republic is lost forever, at least for antique Rome....(sigh)
What happened to the music from. the first film......the music here was terrible
I figured it would be a lame, carbon copy cash grab
The movie trick us to engage for Final Battle that could be the new Battle of the Bastards and then bam, we're run of out of budget so no Battle, and just Paul Mescal mumbling
I think you´ve been way more merciful with this movie than you should have. I remember walking out of the cinema after Gladiator and keep thinking about 5 or 6 epic scenes, with one of the best soundtracks to ever grace a film, and wanting to be Maximus.
I cant remember a single tune from the second one that´s not recicled from the first, and the battles were entertaining but had nothing epic or spectacular. Not a bad movie itself, but a terrible sequel to one of the best films ever. And what is worse, completely unnecesary, Gladiator was almost perfect as a standalone story and didn´t need a sequel.
Nice of you to use Assassin's creed 2 music in the video.🤩
Well what else would you want the plot to be then?
Yeah i did the same thing. I actually finished the first one like 20 minutes before my showing and felt ao disappointed throughout the second one because it did feel like I was watching a remake with no heart and soul
"Basically"?? 😬
I will tell you what, didnt watch the trailers so Hano was a surprise to me and his connection to Maximus too.
About the animals in the arena, well I agree human fights are more complex and exciting but it is known the Romans used a lot of animals in fights in the Arenas. I think this is more of a show of Rome and their ways.
Makranus was my biggest problem tbh, was a very blend, stale and uncarismatic completly. Could not have him fit in the story "manipulating" things.
I loved Akacius and Pedro, he was great and uplifting.
I absolutely LOVED seeing all the GOT clips sprinkled throughout this video! 😂
Assassin’s Creed II’s soundtrack in the background - a true man of knowledge
Ridley Scott has lost his marbles with all the recent historical movies he's attempted - Gods and Kings, Napoleon and now Gladiator 2 with deviation from history.
Even Gladiator was more fictional than factual - Ridley Scott's films often use factual historical characters acting on a fictional storyline devised and directed by him - but Russell Crowe carried that film with his stellar performance.
The rest of Ridley Scott's historical movies are all sub par -
Gods and Kings is sub par as compared to The Ten Commandments
Napoleon was disgustingly inaccurate - did Napoleon in historical fact ever order the destruction of the Sphinx in Egypt in Ridley Scott's Napoleon?
And now Gladiator 2 in which Maximus is now shown as an adulterer and cheater on his wife with Lucilla to sire Lucius.
Completely destroys the audience's liking for Maximus's "strength and honor" code from the first film.
Denzel Washington's Macrinus looks more like Training Day's Alonzo Harris in ancient Rome in a toga.
The decision to have that wonky final duel seems like an extension of a Ridley Scott wart. I love RS films as a whole, but that doesn't keep me from noting his misses and flaws, and the need to finish with a brainless one on one duel seems like an itch he can't help but scratch. To me, the ultimate example of this was the final and silly duel at the end of the Kingdom Of Heaven director's cut. I liked the theatrical version and I love the DC, with virtually every bit that was reinserted being worth inclusion. The exception is the cartoonish duel at the very end. It serves no purpose for either Balian (who has already saved the day) or Guy (who has already been humiliated), not to mention that it doesn't even fit the spirit of the history of the time that the film held to (obviously it was historical fiction, but when you include plenty of real elements such as "kings do not kill kings" you don't need this revenge duel bit). And, of course, it doesn't at all flow with the story or pacing of the film.
Seems like this is just a RS thing, unfortunately.
I think me enjoying this film is more a testament to how bad films are now that im willing to take more mediocre films than the actual quality of the film
Anachronisms and artistic licence galore in G2; Trebuchets used by the Numidians almost 700 years before their actual introduction in the West, sharks used in the Colosseum?? a Rhinoceros tamed and used as a tank in the arena?? Real Roman life was actually quite brutal, so why not stick to facts?
Wouldn't it have made more sense if Lucius was living in Numidia with Juba?
I enjoyed the movie, but that was only because I loved the original, and this one is just a rehash of the original.
My wife never saw the original, so now I'm making her watch the original so she can see how much of this movie is just taken from the first one.
I enjoyed your wife, but that was only because I loved the mom, and this wife is just a rehash of the original.
Your wife never saw the original, so now I’m making her watch the original. So she can see how much her moves is just taken from the first one.
I enjoyed the movie. Though making it a few minutes longer to pace the third Act out a little better, would've worked in stories favor.
Oh look, they made the "Go and touch grass," meme into a whole character.
I did learn something new here: did not know beforehand that David 'Protagonist' Washington was Denzel's nepo baby 😂
It was great. Definitely was entertained and satisfied with the closure to some questions I had left after the first. Might have been more entertaining actually as I feel there was more action in this one.
You are completely right!
1:00 you know this Is history right? Just look at a Wikipedia page I don't know
idk, I quite liked it
It could have been so good if it only had some real soul and took some risk :(
It could have utilized its actors with meatier roles. The protagonist looked the part and could have been differentiated from Russel Crowe with some volatility. Watching him at the trailer just clicked for me, but unfortunately he wasn't given much to work with. None of them did, really. It was like the last season of Game of Thrones compared to the first seasons...
Ridley Scott hates historical accuracy
Gladiator 2 is utter trash on every level - acting, writing, directing….even CGI. Two strikes in a row for Ridley Scott (Alien Romulus being the first).
It’s a very rushed remake with probs the worst CGI I have ever seen in a movie with that budget in this time period. You want a good comparison? It’s like gladiator 1 is the first few seasons of game of thrones, gladiator 2 is season 8.
I never watched gladiator too other then walking in on my dad when I was younger, And just from those few scenes i saw i felt Desha vu (idk how to say it) even tho I hadn't watched the first one. Overall i feel it was a dumb fun movie u would never see again but for most people well yk, they already saw it.
Hollywierd Movies today are just a hollow shell of itself, and you can absolutely tell by the acting as well as the story!!!
No comment on the laughable ocean mock battle and its sharks angers me lol
This movie was a disappointment wall to wall. I want to go on a rant, but honestly, it's not worth the time.
Macrinus was Berber in real life so he would look Moroccan not black African. But in Hollywood black washing is good and normal white washing is bad though. But it’s ok to not have representation for middle eastern and North African people
Well said !!
But all the Roman court and emperors being all white dudes isn't the issue? Or making a black man who freed himself from slavery from the main character's grandfather the bad guy is not an issue?
@@armando5846 why would that be an issue?
Also,the wife was a cringe modern Hollywood girl boss who threw herself in battle.
I don’t like the movie but how was she a Hollywood girl boss? I don’t think she had an arrogance and snarkiness that is portrayed as positive vibe around her. She’s just resilient fighter? An archer even.
@@skywalkerorder2839 The cultural norm in the era of the roman empire was that women were not soliders and did not combat. It's a Hollywood plot.
Also, your wife was cringe modern Hollywood girl boss who threw herself on my shaft in throttle.
☺️😊🥹🤯😂
Also, your wife was cringe modern Hollywood girl boss who threw herself on my shaft in full throttle !!!
The lead actor was the most disappointing. Came across as another hollywood DEI hire, when the part required a stronger/better actor with gravitas and charisma.
isn't Paul Mescal white? how is he DEI
I love fred hechinger, he plays one of the crazy emperors.
He is cute😊
Cute but poorly written