After more than 20 years, Ridley Scott returned to one of his most famous materials to “finish” the narrative of the Roman dream, which began very fatefully and grandly with Marcus Aurelius and then seemingly died with Maximus in the middle of the fabled Colosseum. IN Gladiator II However, these dreams are coming back in full force and we will now tell you what we think about it. I recommend tempering your expectations.
As Cival sees it:
It’s a good movie! And a very worthy follow-up to the Oscar-winning classic. Even more dignified than I would have expected at the time of the filming announcement. I’m happy to return to Gladiator for two reasons: First, it sounds meaningful to me from the plot framework, and secondly, I can once again see the benchmark of a historical Hollywood epic, as only Ridley Scott and his team can cut it. And the result feels not only like a big cinematic narrative, but also like a beater where every dollar can be seen.
The monstrous budget and the work of all those costume designers, architects, make-up artists and scenographers can be damned felt, and you can really walk through a spectacular spectacle that suits the big screen and the sound of crashing, as if it were the last gladiator fight for your eardrums. The actors are excellent, Denzel Washington in “I’m really enjoying this filming of Training Day 2 in ancient settings” mode is applying for another Oscar, and the whole thing is more than trying to match the original Gladiator’s layout. Sure, it’s not as straight-forward and it doesn’t culminate in such iconic moments, but at the same time, the pace is significantly more lively and the tedious schemes of the senators are not boring this time, because the speed is much higher. Sometimes maybe too much, but… The number two is just a bit behind the number one, which is a generally gratifying finding.
As Mr. Hunger:
Epic? No debates. Amusing? More or less. Ridley Scott is closer to ninety than to eighty, and it seems to me that he is already filming so that he doesn’t push himself too hard. The Second Gladiator is definitely not a bad movie, and I wasn’t bored for two and a quarter hours, but I expected more. Practically in every way. The action scenes are narrative, but not very imaginative. The spectacular opening battle, the clashes with animals and other gladiators or the naval battles in the Colosseum offer solid craftsmanship, but unfortunately also a minimum of ideas and often a minimum of energy. On the other hand, the second Gladiator bets more on politicking and the fact that there are several important characters with their own agenda and the relationships between them are quite complicated.
But Scott can’t sell this very well. The motivations of all the heroes seem rather erratic, as do the too sudden changes in their relationships. And actually even in the status of the protagonist, who turns from a zero fighting god everywhere into a gladiator superstar, without it being clear how this happened. And the same goes for everyone else. Gladiator II often acts like House of Cards or let’s call it Game of Thrones, which of course you don’t watch on TV, but watch recaps on YouTube. The result is a film that was pretty emotionally draining for me and doesn’t offer any iconic scene or moment that’s really worth remembering in its own right. It’s not a “mess” like Napoleon, but to the first part and the best of Scott’s filmography, this narrative, but unfortunately rather superficial spectacle is unable to engage emotionally, in every way. You should definitely see it, but don’t expect another classic.
How he sees it to_From:
The sequel to Gladiator is an order of magnitude more epic and also more popcorn than its predecessor, and indeed than the last couple of Ridley’s historical flicks. With ship battles, digital animals, a straight pair of cartoonish villains and twice the size of the cast (where did the normal male musculature like in the first one go? does everyone have to have oiled, tanned buns to make it macho enough?) but naturally it also comes far intellectually as well an emotionally poorer story that tries to repeat the formula of number one in every possible way, while adding various other motifs, so that in the end it feels overpaid and unfocused.
Potentially strong themes are opened and closed without much thought, characters change beliefs and alliances like on a treadmill, and everything feels about as deep as a pizza plate. In addition, and this probably surprised me the most, the second Gladiator is completely out of character. With the possible exception of Connie Nielsen, everyone here either overplays (Emperors, Denzel), doesn’t get adequate space (Pascal), or definitively confirms that they are slobbery acting logs that are absolutely not suitable for leading roles (Mescal).
It sounds strict, but in the end, thanks to Scott’s amazing design, soundtrack and battle scenes, it is a hair better than his Napoleon, which I surprisingly liked quite a bit. But it definitely fell short of the expectations of a worthy legacy sequel, to which I would return with gusto every time I read the first one. This is how I play the opening (with great subtitles), the flooded Coliseum and then maybe the finale, but unfortunately the rest does not reach my perception of the original Gladiator even after his dusty sandals.
How Krauset sees it:
Roman dream. the american dream Both are fiction to some extent, but with the American one you can at least imagine what it represents. Gladiator II refers to the “Roman dream” very often, but hardly bothers to define what it means to the characters. That vagueness wouldn’t matter if this dream didn’t serve as the main motivation for a number of characters.
Gladiator II is often referred to the golden era. Characters from the time of the Republic or the philosopher on the throne of Marcus Aurelius, the film itself from the time of the first Gladiator. And as the length increases, it feels like another legacy sequel that doesn’t have much to say and that not only musically constantly refers to the past.
Gladiator, despite the quotations from Marcus Aurelius, does not have a comprehensive philosophy and does not offer any idea of what freedom is in his concept. From a certain point on, Lucia is driven by nostalgia rather than revenge, and his political program could be called Make Roma Great Again. This time I was also struck by Scott’s tendency to give historical periods a contemporary mentality (which works very well in Kingdom of Heaven, for example), but in Gladiator I couldn’t believe that the characters gain power in the ways they gain it, or think the way they think, which made me repeatedly it pulled out of immersion (it’s a problem especially in the final third).
So, after the excellent The Last Duel and the rather entertaining Napoleon, Gladiator II is for me the least interesting member of Scott’s recent historical triptych. Even so, it offers a juicy Denzel and a very dynamic opening battle. And I remain grateful to Ridley for every new historical spectacle in an era when Hollywood no longer dares to do them.
Expect a review in the next few days.
Well, well, well! Gather ’round, dear readers, because we’re about to dive into the glitzy arena of Gladiator II, the sequel we never knew we wanted, but Ridley Scott gave it to us anyway. After 20 years, you’d think he was just passing through the Colosseum gift shop, but no, he decided to swing back and finish the narrative of the Roman dream. Honestly, part of me just hopes there’s no Gladiator III, because where do we go from here? Gladiator: The Retirement Plan?
Now, let’s get into the meat—the cinematic bread and butter of this grand sequel—courtesy of our four fantastic film critiques: Cival, Mr. Hunger, To_From, and Krauset. That’s right, folks, we’re serving up opinions hotter than a gladiator’s loincloth!
Starting with Cival, he’s managed to muster enough enthusiasm to say it’s a worthy follow-up. I mean, come on, the man is practically wearing a toga in excitement! He drools over the craftsmanship and the budget, remarking that every dollar is visible on screen. I know I’ve been to some terrible weddings that looked like they put more effort into the décor than their vows, but we’re meant to believe that Ridley Scott is the wedding planner of the cinematic universe! He says the action is lively and engaging—maybe it’s got him dreaming about a future that’s as entertaining as a late-night brawl in the Colosseum!
Now let’s take a step back and listen to Mr. Hunger. He’s a bit hungrier for something more, saying it’s not bad but falls short of his lofty expectations. It’s like ordering a meat feast at a restaurant and getting a salad with the promise that "it’s healthy." Sure, you’re not bored, but the opening battle couldn’t help but offer sustenance for the action fiends. Still, he’s not wrong; the motivations of the characters seemed wilder than a Roman street party after a gladiatorial win. One minute you’re a fighting god, the next, you’re moonlighting on a reality show with unstable alliances—Paging Gladiator House!
Then we wade into To_From’s territory, where he serves up a slice of critique sharper than a gladiator’s sword. His analysis reads like a Roman poet’s lament—charismatic villains, bloated budgets, and character depth that’s about as shallow as a kiddie pool in July. You can see he’s trying to piece together a heart, but instead, he gets handed a pizza plate. If gladiators had an awards show, he’d have a trophy for most severe critique!
Finally, we have Krauset, who goes with a unique angle, comparing the "Roman dream" to the "American dream." Someone tell me—how many times has Ridley Scott tried to define dreams? It’s like watching toddler finger painting with historical motifs! A commendation for Denzel’s juicy performance, at least, but there’s a sense of vagueness that clings to the narrative like cheap cologne at a high school dance.
So what’s the verdict? A wealth of imagery, a sprinkle of action, and a touch of confusion—like buying a luxury sports car and then realizing the engine is under the hood… along with a load of random parts. Gladiator II appears to stall in substance—the majestic fight scenes could get your blood pumping, but the plot twists? They’re about as predictable as a politician’s speech!
And while our critics agree on a few things, like Denzel’s gleaming charm overshadowing our new juggernaut of a lead, one universal truth remains: In the heart of the Colosseum, we want both thrill and fulfillment. Just remember, folks, tempering expectations is essential!
Now, will we raise our swords to Gladiator II at a later date? We might. But perhaps it’s best we let some time pass. After all, when a trilogy starts, we just might end up at Gladiators: The Soul Searching next! But that’s a coliseum for another day! Until next time, dear readers, keep your popcorn close and your expectations closer!
After a two-decade hiatus, director Ridley Scott makes a triumphant return to one of his most iconic narratives in *Gladiator II,* aiming to “complete” the ambitious saga of the Roman dream that began with the majestic reign of Marcus Aurelius and appeared to meet its tragic end with Maximus in the heart of the legendary Colosseum. However, this sequel resurrects those dreams with renewed vigor, igniting discussions about its impact and substance, while encouraging viewers to manage their expectations accordingly.
As Cival sees it:
It’s a commendable film! A worthy successor to the Oscar-winning original, achieving a level of dignity that pleasantly surprised me, even during the early stages of its announcement. What excites me about returning to the *Gladiator* narrative lies in its profound thematic depth, paired with the opportunity to witness a hallmark of historical epics that only Ridley Scott and his exceptional team can deliver. The result transcends mere cinematic spectacle, illustrating a carefully crafted masterpiece where every dollar spent is visibly accounted for.
The staggering budget and the meticulous efforts by costume designers, architects, makeup artists, and scenographers contribute to the immersive experience, providing a visual feast that invites audiences to revel in a magnificent spectacle tailored for the cinematic experience. The sound design amplifies this effect, making moments feel as climactic as a gladiatorial battle for one’s senses. The cast shines brilliantly; with Denzel Washington embodying a performance reminiscent of his work in *Training Day,* he proves to be a front-runner for yet another Oscar nomination. Although the sequel doesn’t quite reach the greatness of the original, it showcases a more dynamic pace and avoids the earlier film’s languid political maneuvering, keeping the narrative engaging throughout, even if it occasionally teeters on the edge of excess.
As Mr. Hunger:
Epic? Absolutely. Amusing? To some extent. At nearly ninety years old, Ridley Scott seems to approach filmmaking with a gentler touch. While *Gladiator II* certainly isn’t a lackluster film, and the two-hour-plus runtime held my attention, I yearned for more depth and innovation. Although the action sequences are practiced and well-executed, they ultimately lack imagination. The enthralling opening battle, the encounters with exotic beasts and fellow gladiators, and the grand naval combats in the Colosseum showcase solid craftsmanship but feel devoid of creative spark and energy. The sequel leans heavily into political intrigue, featuring an array of characters with complex agendas and relationships that ought to be compelling.
However, Scott struggles to convincingly convey their motivations. Character transformations appear haphazard, and the journey of the protagonist from obscurity to gladiatorial fame remains unclear, leaving audiences questioning the authenticity of the narrative arc. The film often resembles a blend of *House of Cards* and *Game of Thrones,* like skimming summaries on YouTube rather than engaging with the source material. Consequently, it emerged as an emotionally taxing experience without any memorable scenes that stand on their own. While it’s not quite the chaotic mess seen in *Napoleon,* it fails to captivate me as the original *Gladiator* did, proving unable to evoke the emotional weight expected from such a storied legacy. Though worth a viewing, do not anticipate a classic rebirth.
How he sees it to_From:
The sequel to *Gladiator* is decidedly grander and more popcorn-oriented than its predecessor, surpassing even the last few of Ridley’s historical films. Featuring colossal ship battles, digital creatures, cartoonish villains, and an expanded ensemble cast, it leans heavily on style over substance; it raises questions about the necessity of exaggerated physique in contemporary depictions of masculinity. Yet, it suffers from an underwhelming narrative and an emotional depth that pales in comparison to the original.
Potentially significant themes are introduced without due exploration, as characters shift beliefs and alliances with alarming ease, resulting in a superficial experience devoid of impactful moments. Overall, the second *Gladiator* lacks personality, with only Connie Nielsen managing to deliver a performance free from overacting. Denzel and the Emperors are exaggerated, while others fade into the background, failing to leave their mark.
Despite this critical lens, Scott’s brilliant visuals, gripping soundtrack, and thrilling battle scenes make it marginally superior to *Napoleon,* which was surprisingly enjoyable. However, it ultimately falls short of delivering the legacy sequel fans hoped for—a film that could reignite their passion for the original. I would only revisit segments like the grand opening, the flooded Coliseum, or perhaps the closing moments, as the overall experience fails to resonate like the first *Gladiator* even attempts to do.
How Krauset sees it:
Both the Roman dream and the American dream carry elements of fiction; however, the American dream’s representation is at least clearer. *Gladiator II* makes several references to the “Roman dream” but neglects to clarify its significance to the characters, a vagueness that undermines its role as a central motivating factor.
This sequel draws parallels to the golden age, invoking figures from the Republic and the philosophical legacy of Marcus Aurelius while often feeling like another legacy follow-up lacking in bold commentary. With an audience aware of the film’s historic references, the extended runtime often leads to a narrative that lacks the depth required. Scott appears to apply a contemporary outlook to historical figures, a technique that may succeed in other contexts but falters here, and it detracts from viewer immersion, especially in the film’s concluding acts.
After an impressive outing with *The Last Duel* and the engaging yet flawed *Napoleon,* *Gladiator II* emerges as the least compelling entry in Scott’s recent delving into history. Despite its entertaining elements, including a captivating performance from Denzel Washington and a fast-paced opening battle, it disappointingly lacks the profound resonance and depth one would expect from such a revered franchise. Nonetheless, I continue to appreciate Ridley Scott’s contributions to historical cinema in a time when such narratives are growing increasingly scarce.
Expect a review in the next few days.
D argue that *Gladiator II* aims high but lands somewhere beneath its potential, akin to a gladiator who stumbles before striking the final blow.
As for **Krauset**, he takes a philosophical route, contemplating the parallels between the “Roman dream” and the contemporary “American dream.” This thought-provoking angle highlights the timeless nature of ambition, legacy, and the sacrifices inherent in the pursuit of greatness. However, while the film offers a feast for the eyes—thanks to Denzel’s powerful presence and a visual style that dazzles—Krauset notes the narrative feels elusive. It raises vital questions but leaves them hanging like a gladiator’s net in the arena, often resorting to exposition that fails to engage beyond spectacle.
Ultimately, the four critics converge at an intriguing intersection. They appreciate the film’s visual magnificence and thrilling action but share a unanimous concern over its substantive shortcomings. From characters that traverse emotional landscapes too erratically to a narrative that flits between styles without anchoring itself, *Gladiator II* serves as an enthusiastic albeit flawed renaissance of the franchise.
So, what can we glean from this modern gladiatorial contest? **Gladiator II** undeniably captivates with its cinematic execution, yet falters in delivering a story that resonates on the same profound level as its predecessor. Critics highlight both the thrills and the myriad unresolved plot points, advocating for a tempered reception.
As we close the tome on this ambitious sequel, the resounding question remains: Will the epic battles continue? Or is this the crescendo that signals a thoughtful pause before the next chapter? Only time—and perhaps the ancient scrolls we call reviews—will tell. Until then, dear readers, let’s keep our swords sharpened for the next cinematic endeavor!
