User reviews

There seems to be a trend these days when making follow ups to beloved classics that you need to add more. More characters! More action! But that doesn't always equal better. It's almost like filmmakers these days think we're stupid and want more of everything but all this does is sacrifice quality.

What made the original such a classic was the relatively simple plot, a protagonist you cared about and action that felt earned and impactful.

This one is so overstuffed it feels rushed. The plot feels like a lazy retread of the first but I didn't care about any of the characters. Paul Mescal was so wooden it sounded like he was reading his lines. If this is how he acts, I really don't see what all the fuss is about with him. Am I missing something.

The action, while visually impressive, lacked impact. Some studio exec probably thought 'hmm there was only 1 exotic animal in the first film, we can do better! Let's add way more!'

My main issue with this film is the total lack of gravitas from Paul Mescal. Russel Crow commanded respect, on screen his presence was immense and it was easy to believe he was a leader of men. Paul Mescal just doesn't have it. He tried to hard in his talisman speeches, but they had to be carried by the music instead of his command of the screen. Even his physical presence is underwhelming, he looked like a boy pretending to be a man. The emperors also lacked a sense of real danger and tyranny. Every time there was a flash back to the original I was reminded of how poor this film was in comparison. If you were hoping for a performance anywhere close to Russel Crowe or a Mel Gibson in Braveheart you will be sorely disappointed. Without the charisma and emotional gravitas of the leading man everything else fails to deliver. Paul Mascals character was very empty, he seemed like the generic man, nothing at all to distinguish him. This movie is a textbook example of how casting will make or break a movie.

I approached this movie truly trying to give it a fair change on its own by not holding and comparing it too much to its original, But this movie just pulls of a force awakens and has 80% just recycled nostalgia bait its impossible to not compare them.

It recycles quotes,plot, narratives, even very same camera shots.

And yeah,alas, the first did absolutely everything, every single aspect better to much better and most definitely story/drama character wise.

Even though tis definitely not the worst movie ever,far from.

But this movie kind of symbolize the state of current Hollywood and how much it has declined over the last few decades.

The fact so many people praising it confirms a bitter reality. Story and plot just don't matter or at least much less then it used to, people are pleased and satisfied as long they see pretty pictures and are not bored!

This movie definitely looks glorious and expensive and had a big grandeur(although some CGI looked comically fake), but it fails to have a coherent driven plot.

In the first movie every scene absolutely mattered, even during battles, characters spoke by their actions and where very consistent in how the character was portrayed,who where gratefully fleshed out

This script ( from the same writer as that abominable napoleon movie) things feel random and forced.

Also Battles feeling quite meh, nothing feels deserved or earned..

pity, as acting was well though ,all where good to great acting performances wich makes it even more of a pity the story was so weak.

The biggest problem with this movie is that it's essentially a soft reboot. If you've seen the first one, you'll quickly realize that you're watching something you've already seen. And once something becomes a repetition of something great, it's almost impossible to recapture that same level of greatness. Mescal, Washington, and the rest of the cast do their best, but this movie relies heavily on nostalgia. For the most part, it repeats the structure of the original story and follows all the clichés typical of sword-and-sandal films: the plot, the betrayal, the arena fights-you name it. The irony is that people who haven't seen the first one will probably enjoy this movie far more than those who remember the original.

The film offers a thrilling experience, the narrative and character development could have been more robust. At times, the storyline feels rushed, and some character arcs lack the depth that made the original "Gladiator" so compelling. This leads to an overall experience that, in my opinion, does not quite reach the heights of the original.

Additionally, Denzel Washington's portrayal is noteworthy, but his American accent felt somewhat out of place within the context of the film. It occasionally detracted from the immersion, making it harder to connect with his character fully.

To sum it up, "Gladiator II" is an entertaining blockbuster that delivers on visual spectacle and excitement. While it struggles with certain aspects of storytelling and character depth, it still manages to provide an enjoyable cinematic experience for fans of the genre.

Everyone has seen Denzel Washington praising fellow actors Pedro Pascal and Paul Mescal for their acting - but the reality is there is nothing special - they are actors that acted - their performance did not elevate the film to the glory of the original.

Storyline wise the film is a joke - the plot twists are illogical and only work because the characters are forced to change - the first half of the film concentrates on a man's desire for vengence which is overturned by a single line of dialogue.

Hollywood is failing - it clearly looks to have been influenced by accountants and MBA muppets that somehow believe the more twists a film contains the more $$ it attracts.

Side note: if Rome was so great - why was it always falling apart.

This film was never going to be a Godfather Part II equivalent, no matter how much us fans of the original Gladiator might have hoped or dreamed that it could be.

The potential parallels are there, as too, are leanings towards this being a virtual next-gen rehash, so if you go into the movie theater expecting something fresh or new, well then, I regret to say, that you will likely be left wanting. Hoity-toity cinephiles will love to hate it for this reason alone, so if that's what you've paid your admission fee for, you'll get your money's worth.

Alternatively, if you go with just the reasonable expectation of having fun and being entertained by the spectacle of a high production value Hollywood blockbuster, you also should be satisfied, and, just maybe even pleasantly surprised like I was.

I just watched the movie in a theater. It is full of entertainment battles ( although a little too much spectacularly blood ), the story line it's in the same path as the first ( you are not amazed cause you practically know what is going to happen ) with some changes here and there. Not the depth of the first one, you don't get the emotion of the firts one. The music it's not on the same level, Zimmer is a master and Gregson-Williams didn't catch that cloud. Mescal did his best (he's not Russell Crowe), and Denzel did what Denzel does, giving his character a whole other dimension. It's not bad, but you're not going feel the same way you felt after you watched The Gladiator back in 2000.

If ever a film did not need a follow up, it's Gladiator, some films are just not meant to have sequels, Gladiator is definitely one of those.

Not bad, but not good either, the main question I have, is why, why was this made, is the creative magic at Hollywood now dead, can we soon expect Titanic 3, or Halloween Junior High, film making just doesn't feel free flowing or exciting right now.

I quite liked Denzel Washington's over the top performance, it was quite fun, Sir Derek Jacobi was great for the time he was on screen.

There are two big flaw however, one it's trying to hard to compete with its superior predecessor, everything done here, was done better in the original and secondly, Paul Mescal just wasn't right for the role, he just didn't have the presence of gravitas, Crowe was totally superior in every which way.

The sharks, what can you say about those sharks, proof that this felt like a made up story, the original felt like a tale from history, this felt like it was conjured up during a drunken Saturday night.

It's worth seeing, just don't expect too much. I went on a Saturday night in Cardiff, and there were six of us in the screen, Wicked was packed.

5/10.

I was lucky to sit through an early screening here in NYC, so let's start with the obvious.

Gladiator 2 has superb CGI & practical effects. You will, at times, feel as though you are in Rome. Denzel excels in his role and is a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination, and the blood & gore is highly entertaining. What's not to like about a Roman gladiator lopping off a head in THEE Colosseum?

Now, the drawbacks.

Paul Mezcal, a phenomenal actor, fell short of what I wanted from him in the film. Without divulging the plot, he excels in one-on-one scenes and compliments his screen partners well. However, he could have done better in group settings where he was supposed to be the catalyst of the scene. As a "leader" throughout the film, inciting the rumblings of a rebellion, uprising, etc., we expect a draw from him. However, at no point was there a desire to follow him. This may be a nitpick but when the one character im supposed to be enraptured with doesn't make me want to charge into the fray it falls short of its target.

The story is better than average but could be better. It complements the bones of the original film and provides some fan service, but it is in no way a standalone marvel compared to its predecessor.

The music score was solid, but they could have taken some notes from Dune Part 2 on how to give an audience goosebumps during its most pivotal scenes.

All in all, it's a good counterpart to the original Gladiator, one of the better films of 2024, and will receive some Oscar buzz, but it falls short of what it could have been, which is a masterpiece.

Visuals are stunning, sets and costumes look reach and amazing. Pedro Pascal is great in every scene, he's really selling all the emotions with such subtlety and minimalim. And that's about it what I've found good here.

Main actor is one of the huge problems, he always looks pale, like he is not really acting and has no real emotions. He was supposed to grab our hearts from scene one, however it somehow didn't happen. Film lacks some more time at the begining for the audiance to meet and fall in love with him, so that his motivations are more believeble and his story be more emotionally relatable.

Another huge issue is the story that goes everywhere, plot of Denzel Washington's character is just bizzare and bloated, diallogues are shallow in general...

I expected worse, but anyhow this movie left me feel numb...

There is nothing of note or to remember about this film. A poor lazy remake rather than a sequel, with the basic plot and most of the characters and even scenes & dialogue are a poor quality carbon copy of the original, and too much reliance on CGI. 90% of this film has you thinking "this is the same plot/situation/ scene from the original, but not as good". The guy playing the lead character, Paul Mescal, has no presence, charisma or gravitas, and comes across as a minor everyman character, wooden & insipid, and just doesn't make it work. Even Denzel gets bored at the end and starts to ham it up as the OTT camp panto villain. What a disappointment.

Predictable & boring. 4/10.

The movie has some strongpoints: Denzel's and Quinn's performances, the way the City looks and some of the battles in the Colosseum. Like all Ridley Scott's movies after KoH, the last good one, it adresses an audience who is only there for the nachos and the thrills and knows nothing about history, warfare or common sense.

To be fair, Ridley really can direct huge movies that look good. But the writing, the ending...Scarpa really should find a hobby.

Being such a fan of Gladiator I wanted so much for this one to be decent that I concentrated on the strong points and until the last 30 minutes hit this was a decent effort. The ending is nevertheless an utter mess, it's senseless and unpleasant, an overthetop insult to common sense.

The producer's money would have been better spent elsewhere. Mine too.

The incredibly bad: the monkeys, Caracalla's character, Macrinus 's fate after a good buildup, the sharks, attacking a city's walls by sea with siege towers, the way the roman legion looks, the Praetorians, the last speech, the uninspired use of the score... A word about Paul Mescal: he doesn't shine but really, how could he, with such writing. I think his performance was strong, I felt the emotions, he does good in the arena....really not his fault.

Ridley, you have fooled me for the last time.

The sad thing is: the ending in this one makes Napoleon seem ok 😔

Could have been huge. Ended up very average.

In comparison to the first movie it scores way way below in every category, from production, to designs, to acting, to scenery. Way too much use of CGI and unfortunately poor quality CGI.

Denzel is trying to save the day but unfortunately once again, he is alone. I honestly believe that the only thing that resembles anything from the first legendary movie is Denzel's role as the villain and probably also Emperor Geta.

The rest of the movie is a poor copy paste.

I really hope that cinema will return to its past glory days. We are really missing great opportunities here for great movies.

The film has plenty to commend it. Spectacular set pieces. Multiple plots that weave together. Interesting side characters. A pace that rises and relaxes with the right beats. The feeling of a taking place within a rich Roman world that has a life of its own.

But it's hard to appreciate those when the film has numerous key flaws. There's very little tension outside of a 4th act twist, with everything before being a reskin of the events of the first film. The echoes aren't subtle either, but the characters quote their predecessors and we have multiple flashbacks. The action, the historical details, and even individual characters key decisions make so little that it often breaks the suspense of disbelief (not least of all that scene of kids playing football). Most critically, the key cast and Paul Mezcal most of all (but with the notable exception of Denzel Washington) simply fail to make their characters believable: that the scripts has them always giving stern speeches rather than simply talking doesn't help.

There's elements of a good film in there. But it's hard to appreciate them when the flaws stick out so sorely.

I went to the Copenhagen premiere yesterday, and the movie was great.

There is nothing in this movie, that I can't forgive, and all of the actors, deliver a solid performance. Especially though is Denzel Washington and his choices.

There are of course a few logical things regarding for example the naval battle.

Sharks and crystal clear water, makes no sense and is not at all logical, but it is also used so little, that's it is not too big of deal.

I found the story enticing and exciting (maybe getting a bit to superficial in the end), but I don't think this movie would be so great, if it had only come out 3 years after the first one.

The same way "Top gun: Maverick" became a success, I also think this is a success, because the first one had time to be watched and adored for 24 years, setting a stage of anticipation for this sequel, and in my opinion, they deliver.

There are many (too many) errors in this movie to name, and that's without going into the lack of historical accuracy, bad CGI sharks or recycled formula and storyline (at times this feels more of a remake of Gladiator (2000) than a sequel to it).

For me, the biggest sin of them all is a simple sentence: "the memory of what we do in life echoes in history" (or a similar influencer instapost line), which was engraved in ENGLISH on the Colosseum walls. We're talking about a movie set in the 3rd century AD with an inscription in a language 2-3 centuries too young to even exist. Couldn't they do it in Latin, then add subtitles for people to read it? This fails largely beyond historical inaccuracy to bad production design, and made me cringe, revealing the movie for what it actually is: a sword and sandals for the Tik Tok generation. Lush and entertaining, spectacular at times, but a pointless effort. Was it worth bringing this story back, for "this", after 24 years? Or yet another desperate attempt of Hollywood to resurrect a story and hope it becomes a franchise?

From the moment those awful CGI 'baboons' entered the arena I knew this was a disgrace. I can't understand why people keep saying "it's not a bad film, but..." Just call it out, please, for the love of god! Absolutely ridiculous and terrible, I can't believe the guy who made Alien and the original Gladiator made this tripe. Don't fall for the "not as good as the og but entertaining" spiel like I did. Don't waste your money.

As I need more words I'll continue. Shocking, embarrassing, wretched, woeful, god-awful, distressing, calamitous, deplorable, dire, pitiful, sad, lousy, grievous, grim, dire. I didn't like it.

When this movie got announced I believe we all wondered the same thing. HOW is it going to stand next to the masterpiece called The Gladiator? To be brutally honest I had kind of low expectations for the movie. I believed that it would be silly and Paul Mescal as Lucius would be quite underwhelming. The movie exceeded my expectations. It is a film with phenomenal performances mainly from Paul Mescal, Pedro Pascal and Denzel Washington, that definitely gets you instantly bonded with the characters (one of the reasons why it is a blessing for this movie to be carrying the name of it's precurssor). However one of the main reasons that make me appreciate the movie more than I would is the fact that it almost brings back elements of the old cinema -when Gladiator released-. When explosions and 2 hours of raw action followed by an uninteresting plot wasn't the case in 70% of the action movies. When lines, details and character-relationship development used to matter waaaay more than they do now. And of course the movie doesn't contain these a lot...The philosophy and fan-base of modern cinema doesn't allow it to be so...However even seeing movies kind of wanting to bring that kind back does good to cinema. Anyways, the movie is not better than the first, they can barely be compared. However you should learn to judge things in life completely independently, only then will you realise their value. And INDEPENDENTLY Gladiator II is a very nice movie that may lack a bit on the plot and may be kind of silly at times but it definitely manages to stand decently to one of the greatest movies of all time. You should definitely see this movie

P. S Oh and don't forget to sit back and enjoy movie critics and soulless historians whining because the rhinos that were in the Colosseum were a different breed than those being shown in the movie, expecting a history documentary and not a sequel to a cult action movie...

While Gladiator II tries to capture the spectacle of the original, it ends up trading away its emotional depth and character-driven narrative for a loud, fragmented, and sometimes bizarre spectacle. The storyline feels jumbled and over-the-top, making it difficult to take seriously or fully invest in, even though some of its chaotic ideas-like CGI sharks and warships-are undeniably creative. But what's meant to be thrilling too often feels absurd, and those same sharks might be the best place to toss this film and let it sink from memory.

This sequel goes bigger with its visuals, but in doing so, it loses the grounded intensity that made Gladiator so compelling. Ridley Scott's digitally revamped Colosseum, filled with CGI rhinos, apes, and sharks, becomes an overwhelming display of pixels battling each other, while the human stakes that once drew us in are sidelined. The finale is especially disappointing, lacking the emotional punch that the original delivered so powerfully.

Gladiator II may be a feast for the eyes, but it's sadly hollow at its core. It's bigger and louder, yes-but not better."