aguynameddrew

When a movie is great like Gladiator is, it sets up hope that the sequel will be great or at least very good. Gladiator II is neither.

The premise of Gladiator II is about how young Lucius from the first film becomes a charismatic fighter who becomes a threat to the emperor (in this case 2 co-emperors) is good.

Tragedy brings the adult Lucius out of hiding and into the familiar world of Roman gladiators and Roman politics and it's violence, corruption and madness.

His connection to the past is revealed and those in support and opposition play their parts until the final conflict resolution.

Unfortunately this movie is badly written and the lead actor, Paul Mescal, is awful (at least in this role). Denzel Washington is mediocre as a character who tries to be both wise and ambitious but is shallow at both.

Lior Raz, best known for his lead role in Fauda which he co-created and co-wrote, has a minor role but he may be the most believable character of the lot. Pedro Pascal and Connie Nielsen are decent.

Whatever your expectations are for this movie, lower them before your watch it. Shame on Ridley Scott for making us wait so long for this low quality sequel to a great movie.

America is in the final stages of a civil war. On one side California, Texas, and Florida are the insurrectionists against the central US federal government.

California and Texas are referred to as the Western Front (WF) and they are closing in on Washington DC where the American president is held up.

3 experienced war correspondents and a newbie set out on a 1,000 mile journey to get to the White House to record what they assume will be the collapse of the president and the federal government. They traverse a war torn country, weaving in and out of combat between those supporting the government and those seeking to overtake it.

Some very good scenes that are weighted down by completely unsympathetic correspondents. The writers and producers should have made this a civil war movie with the reporters as a subplot but instead they made the opposite.

Kirsten Dunst looks like she woke up with a massive hangover, put her dying cat down at the vet's, and then ended up on set as the director yelled "Action". A totally flat performance.

I gave it a 5 out of 10 for the pretty decent dystopian and combat production production value.

Cheers,

Like my title says, this show is not good but it's also not bad. The premise of Earth on the verge of extinction and two competing enemy factions fighting each other is a decent background premise.

Each of the factions building space ships (arks) to facilitate the escape of a small number of people to travel through space to human suitable planet(s) to save and maybe rebuild our species is a decent launch premise for the show - we are in space, not on earth.

The trigger event is on board one of the arks, Ark 1. The event causes the death of all the senior officers and portions of the key crew members.

Cue the ups and downs, obstacles and challenges of the remaining crew of Ark1 as it tries to head to its assigned destination planet to save and rebuild humankind.

Ok, cool.

The show often feels like it was written by children, especially the characters and the dialogue.

Two of the main characters are called Sharon Garnet and Spencer Lane. The characters are weak and the acting is pretty bad.

If you adjust your expectations accordingly I think you can make decent watch out of this. That's what i have done and i'm cool with it.

There is enough "I didn't expect that" and "I want to see what happens next" to keep you on board

Cheers,