DanteRiggs

It's a pure '90s (or '80s) nostalgic martial arts movie. It's like Bloodsport or Kickboxer, but with a South-American and Miami twist. And instead of a classic martial arts tournament, there is a story about a school in a bad neighbourhood, overrun by thugs, drugs and violence.

The music is nice, very exotic and catchy. Dacascos does a good job portraying a likable main character.

The main antagonist is a bit cheesy but overall he fits the tone of the movie.

The rest of the actors are also decent and believable.

It has a more serious tone (I can't remember a fully comedic scene) but it still manages to deliver a "feel good" vibe. Nature, music, dancing, helping other people, standing up for the innocents, self-improvment and discipline... "Only the Strong" is a good movie, entertaining, with a fairly good message (although a bit too idealistic).

If you enjoyed Bloodsport or Kickboxer, you'll probably like "Only the Strong".

This movie highlights the seed of cultural decay in 2024.

"Being gay is normal" in 2005 has turned into "LGBT everywhere, including in schools and video games, gender fluidity is real, people are obsessed with pronouns, you are a bigot if you don't date a trans person" in 2024.

"Poor guy was arrested for having a Quran" in 2005 has turned into "the Islamization of Europe and criticism only towards Christians" in 2024 (I'm agnostic, btw).

"We should welcome all immigrants" in 2005 has turned into "the crisis of refugees invading Europe and demanding free stuff" in 2024.

"The fight against fascism" in 2005 has turned into "Antifa committing gratuitous violence" in 2024.

"Political protest" in 2005 has turned into "disrespect for a country's history and the complete demonization of the past" in 2024.

So what's the appeal of this movie?

Obviously, a tyranical regime is bad. Unfortunately, the movie mixes some valid arguments with progressive propaganda and blaming conservative views. "Our story begins, as these stories often do, with a young, up-and-coming politician. He's a deeply religious man and a member of the Conservative Party".

There is a specific appeal to the idea of a "revolution". It's the same drive that make people go skydiving: adrenaline. I wouldn't say revolutions are "fun", but they do present a certain charm, especially for young people. They give purpose, a reason to fight. The will and need to fight for something is embedded in the human condition. It has accompanied humankind throughout its history.

Another positive point for this movie: The action is nice and the main character is pretty cool. He knows how to fight, he is intelligent and has a moral compass, which is always appreciated.

However, he does something very questionable at some point. But it's not like the movie tries to start a discussion around his actions, asking the viewer if he really is a "hero" or justified in his actions. He is clearly portrayed in a heroic manner. He isn't an "antihero". He is a "hero" and the movie tells us that the end justifies the means. I'm not so sure I agree with that statement.

Also, there is at least one plot hole. Nothing big, but it did make me pause the movie and ask ChatGPT for an explanation.

...and it turns out, I liked it more than the first movie. Way more.

Gladiator II is entertaining and surprisingly profound. The action is good and overall it's very captivating. The political intrigue might be the highlight of the movie. While watching, I kept thinking "Yeah, cool action scenes but give me more of that dialogue".

I appreciate there were some references and allusions for people that know a bit about Ancient Rome. Like something from the ending. Or what one of the emperors did in the middle of the movie. It involves an animal and it made me think about a different Roman emperror doing something very similar.

I am very passionate about Rome and I'm a bit tired of modern filmmakers making Rome always look like the bad guy. People tend to overlook the positive things that Rome brought to the world and that in those days, it was better to live inside the Roman Empire/Republic than outside of it. Contrary to popular belief, people outside Rome weren't that peaceful either.

That said, Rome did have its flaws and bad periods and I thought Gladiator II showed this very well, in a balanced and fair manner.

There was a point when I thought "This movie is a 6/10 at best". But things happen that change the context, cast the characters in a different light, and make you, in the end, appreciate the scenes you initially frowned upon.

Also, I was afraid Gladiator II will be a woke movie. It wasn't. In fact, you could argue it's anti-woke. Denzel did a good job and his character doesn't virtue signal.

As for the bad parts... some CGI animals look a bit strange and I wish the soundtrack (which is good) had more impact. I liked one song during the credits but I don't know if that song is played earlier in the movie.

Lastly, skip the trailers and don't read anything about the plot. I think the marketing for this movie did a bad job and spoiled something. And don't expect a documentary.

I liked Gladiator II. I will rewatch it at some point in the future and I hope there will be a Gladiator III.