[Movie] Gladiator II

[Jaymann]

I saw this yesterday on the big screen. I watched a mixed review, but it's gladiators by Riddley Freakin' Scott, so how bad could it be? Final verdict is it wasn't bad per se, but disappointment is the word I come away with. It had all the ingredients, but somehow it just fell flat. Here is a typical example:

Spoiler:

There was a big build up to have Lucius face off against 20-30 soldiers, but before he could, his gladiator buddies burst onto the scene and wasted them. Couldn't they at least have had Lucius hold them off solo for a minute or two?

And the final boss was???

Spoiler:

Denzel? I don't think he earned it, and he was not threatening at all. And why would the two armies listen to either of these jokers?

A bunch of missed opportunities.

[MCQueen2]

Yeah, I get what you mean. It had potential but just didn’t deliver on some of the big moments. Lucius should’ve had his moment, and Denzel just didn’t feel right as the final boss. Felt like a missed opportunity.

[hepcat]

I haven't seen it yet, but does it really include a scene of someone reading a newspaper...1200 years before the invention of the printing press?

[Jaymann]

What about the newspaper?

In regards to the newspaper blunder, Dr. Shadi Bartsch says the Romans did have daily news but that it wasn’t in the form of a newspaper and they didn’t even have cafes. Romans had to go somewhere to read the news apparently written on giant stone tablets.

“They did have daily news — Acta Diuma — but it was carved and placed at certain locations,” said Bartsch. “You had to go to it, you couldn’t hold it at a cafe. Also, they didn’t have cafes!”

[Roman]

Watched it over the weekend too.
I think that catching lightning in a bottle is very hard.
Was cool to see the North African gladiator stadium from the 1st movie.

Was more violent than I thought it'd be. I like the idea of the story but I think it failed to REALLY deliver.

Spoiler:

I agree that Denzel trying to rally the 2 armies at the end was odd

All in all I am glad I watched it but won't watch it again - unlike the 1st one which I watched more than once.

[hepcat]

What about the newspaper?

In regards to the newspaper blunder, Dr. Shadi Bartsch says the Romans did have daily news but that it wasn’t in the form of a newspaper and they didn’t even have cafes. Romans had to go somewhere to read the news apparently written on giant stone tablets.

“They did have daily news — Acta Diuma — but it was carved and placed at certain locations,” said Bartsch. “You had to go to it, you couldn’t hold it at a cafe. Also, they didn’t have cafes!”

The Dan Harmon animated show Krapopolis set way before the heyday of Rome uses vases as their form of newspaper.

[Sudy]

Preposterous, utterly embarrassing fanfiction.

[$iljanus]

I haven't seen it yet, but does it really include a scene of someone reading a newspaper...1200 years before the invention of the printing press?

I'm reminded of the HBO series Rome when they had the city news crier dramatically shout out the news of the day then throw in an advertisement for a slaver, brothel or other business. They should have done this in the movie.

[Holman]

Ridley Scott has gotten incredibly sloppy.

When historians complained about his NAPOLEON, he didn't defend the inaccuracies as artistic license but suggested that historians didn't really know what they were talking about.

[hepcat]

His cinematographer on both Gladiator movies has called him lazy..

I started a thread a while back asking if Scott was overrated. I think that’s still valid. At least in my opinion. Alien and Bladerunner are amazing. But the vast majority of his work seems to be relying on his name for critical response.

[Holman]

His cinematographer on both Gladiator movies has called him lazy..

I started a thread a while back asking if Scott was overrated. I think that’s still valid. At least in my opinion. Alien and Bladerunner are amazing. But the vast majority of his work seems to be relying on his name for critical response.

He has directed something like 30 movies. Most of them have been forgettable, but five or six have been superb for their genre.

He also has a lot of range, from historical dramas (and his debut, The Duellists, is a far better film than Napoleon) to comedies, SF, war movies, and crime drama. Even just within SF, it's interesting to realize that the same guy made Alien and The Martian.

[Sudy]

The original will always hold a special place in my heart. It's not a perfect film, but it's an excellent piece of sensationalist, big budget Hollywood cinema that coincided with the beginning of my personal exploration of film when I was fifteen. I still remember the day I saw it. First, solo in the afternoon, but then a second time when I ran into a group of friends at the mall theatre in the evening. It contributed to my interest in Roman and general ancient history, delighted my taste in bombastic scores/orchestral pieces (and led me to explore Holst in more detail), and introduced me to the excellent Wallace Breem novel Eagle in the Snow, often cited as a likely partial inspiration. While some of the dialogue could be considered hammy, it had a Shakespearean resonance sold by the emotional, nuanced performances of Crowe, Harris, Reed, Nielsen, and Phoenix. While Phoenix's Commodus was frequently over the top, this was in keeping with the character and I regard his portrayal of hurt, jealousy, immaturity, and duplicitousness as masterful. Many of the film's lines worked their way into my personal lexicon.

In preparation for seeing the sequel I re-watched it (the extended cut) in probably the first time in a decade. It holds up extremely well, and the plot is as relevant as ever. The movie holds additional meaning to me now as a 40-year-old with both greater life experience and a deeper knowledge of cinema. I'm now several years older than Crowe was at the time of shooting; Harris's Marcus Aurelius reminds me of my aging father, and while I want to be the proper heir Maximus was to his ideals, in action I often fear I am more the spoiled, impotent Commodus. (Astonishingly I somehow never made the connection that Richard Harris is Jared Harris's father. Their mannerisms are so similar! I blame this on the fact I had limited exposure to Richard Harris, and most of it was before I became inundated with Jared's excellent television work.)

There are a few problems. Firstly, the extended edition is interesting but largely a downgrade from the theatrical cut, mostly in terms of pacing. From Scott's decorumless introduction on the DVD, it's clear he agrees. But it was my choice to view it (gotta make use of that physical media purchase), having the original cut of the film pretty much memorized. That aside, the post-processed slow motion in the battle sequences is ghastly. While slow mo was in vogue at the time, I recall it being distracting even then. Seeing it now, it just dates the film horribly. But the film itself is beautiful, having been shot on 35mm despite occurring early in the digital era. However, there are several jarring shots of vibrant, CGI-painted skies that mesh distractingly with the scenes' lighting. The inserted tiger sound effects are silly. But compared to Gladiator II, the film is a masterpiece.

I'll save my thoughts on the sequel for this post's sequel.