gcarpiceci
Joined Aug 2012
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges4
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings975
gcarpiceci's rating
Reviews89
gcarpiceci's rating
This movie was sitting on such a big potential that I'm still angry at how it was wasted!
The film is based on a very interesting story, the story of two men who grew together since they were kids to become the two biggest bosses of the American mafia in the 1950's - 60's. Friendship, betrayals, paranoid suspicions and greed nurtured this relationship for more than 50 years.
Thanks to a frantic screenplay and choppy editing, the telling of this story turned out a complete mess. It was often difficult to follow the events and the dialogues and I'm sure I've lost more than one detail. From the number of people leaving the theatre before the end, I wasn't probably the only one...
Having De Niro covering the two main roles might have been a nice gimmick in a more linear movie, here it just adds to the overall mess.
De Niro's great performance is not enough to save the day.
The film is based on a very interesting story, the story of two men who grew together since they were kids to become the two biggest bosses of the American mafia in the 1950's - 60's. Friendship, betrayals, paranoid suspicions and greed nurtured this relationship for more than 50 years.
Thanks to a frantic screenplay and choppy editing, the telling of this story turned out a complete mess. It was often difficult to follow the events and the dialogues and I'm sure I've lost more than one detail. From the number of people leaving the theatre before the end, I wasn't probably the only one...
Having De Niro covering the two main roles might have been a nice gimmick in a more linear movie, here it just adds to the overall mess.
De Niro's great performance is not enough to save the day.
I'm one of the few who found the movie a little better than the first one, if anything for a mildly stricter adherence to historical reality; the Caracalla character in particular was well represented, avoiding to make it too much of a caricature. Granted, CGI do miracles nowadays yet the rendering of imperial Rome was rather impressive. Yeah, the story slipped into sugary melodrama towards the end but what ya know?
The big issue the film has is the huge, incomprehensible miscasting of the main hero, Hanno/Lucius: Paul Mescal has the clean face of a shy good boy than that of the ruthless, ferocious gladiator he should play. And, on top of that, the whole cast is kind of low key: how could a multimillion budget production by Ridley Scott be unable to attract a cast of First League actors is the bug mystery of Gladiator II.
The big issue the film has is the huge, incomprehensible miscasting of the main hero, Hanno/Lucius: Paul Mescal has the clean face of a shy good boy than that of the ruthless, ferocious gladiator he should play. And, on top of that, the whole cast is kind of low key: how could a multimillion budget production by Ridley Scott be unable to attract a cast of First League actors is the bug mystery of Gladiator II.