(ESP-ENG) Gladiator II | A good sequel? - Movie Review!
Hello friends, good vibes to all.
I have often said that the lack of ideas and little originality in Hollywood is causing us to see more and more sequels, prequels and spin-offs than original stories from scratch. For me this is more negative than anything else because what is achieved, almost always, is that good titles are damaged by these continuations that fail to meet the expected expectations. Gladiator, this film that came out in 2000, is in my top 3 best films of all time and the film starring Russell Crowe is a work of art both visually and sonically. Is it possible that this new installment will do justice to such a monster of cinema? - We'll see.
This new installment is set approximately 20 years after the death of Maximus Tenth Meridius. At this time Rome is under the rule of the emperors Geta and Caracalla, truly ruthless and insane twin brothers who have brought the most important city of the empire to the point of collapse. In parallel we have Hanno (Paul Mescal), the real prince of Rome but who is living in North Africa with his wife Arishat in a kind of anonymity. The thing is that this kingdom is invaded by a Roman army commanded by Acasius (Peter Pascal) being Hanno one of the few survivors.
Once at his new destination Hanno is bought by Macrino (Denzel Washington). This guy who is a lanista, the ones who market and own the gladiators, promises Hanno revenge as long as he is loyal to him and does a good job in the arena. From here the movie takes its course as you would expect and as I'm sure everyone imagines. There is one thing I am always on the lookout for when watching this type of film and that is historical accuracy. While it is true that there will always be a bit of fiction, it should be a rule that at least the events are respected as they happened in reality or at least as much as possible. Does that happen here? - Yes and no, let me explain.
The Roman coliseum besides being an arena that housed animals also had the ability to be flooded to recreate naval battles. Well in this movie that happens but with the particularity that in its waters sharks could be seen, (this spoiler does not affect the plot) something that never happened in reality. Personally I laughed, it may have shocked me a little but I kept watching it because it is not something serious, it is a detail that they had to give vividness to the scene in question. Also in terms of the characters there are some important historical inconsistencies but we all know that in Hollywood that does not matter at all, for them it has no weight at all. But beware, this does not make the film bad, I think it is a very good film, somewhat compressed but good at the end.
The film is based on revenge, both present and past. I say this because being a sequel there are certain connections with things that happened in the first film. This makes the plot very linear and simple to understand, it also seeks to create an emotional connection with the events of the first film because it is known that the rooting with it is great. Even the soundtrack seeks to emulate it. With this I do not mean that it is a copy but it is true that there are very similar elements. I also feel that many things happen in a short time so sometimes it can be perceived as if the plot is slightly compressed.
Now, at a visual level it is impressive, from the first moment of the film you can already notice a display of very well achieved effects. The naval battles, the recreation of ancient Rome, the coliseum, the sequences of the battles in the arena, all the setting, costumes; although it seems simple to recreate the Roman Empire by the excess of things that have been done, when it is done well it is very noticeable and this film is a clear example. The characters are among the highlights. Denzel Washington is a class apart, his ability to play so well is unique in the industry, he is one of the cornerstones of the film. Paul Mescal gets compared to Russell Crowe and it's a shame. I think he does well but personally he lacked a little more screen presence and poise.
Anyway, in general all the actors were up to the mark, the two emperors being one of them Joseph Quinn sincerely very top. So is it worth seeing? - Of course. It is never up to the level of the first one but it is a very good sequel with its little details. Recommended. It lasts almost two and a half hours. I leave the trailer here.
¡Un abrazo a todos, nos vemos en la próxima!
Well friends that's all for today, I hope you liked it.
¡A hug to everyone, see you next time!
Posted Using INLEO
También Gladiador esta en mi top de películas de todos los tiempos, tengo ganas de ver esta para saber si se le hizo justicia a la saga o no.
Lo de los refritos en películas lo venimos viendo desde hace ya una década como dices creo que la creatividad se ha acabado o encontraron una nueva formula de alcanzar mayor cantidad de publico, podría ser estrategia comercial.
Muy buena reseña, sin duda dan ganas de verla. !PIZZA 🍕
Sin dudas es algo comercial, por la plata lo que sea.
Personalmente no me pareció mala pero sigue siendo la primera diez mil veces mejor. Le hace justicia? - a veces si, otra no; muchos detalles raros. Pero nada vela y nos cuentas.
Saludos!!
$PIZZA slices delivered:
@gr33nm4ster(3/15) tipped @javyeslava.photo
Congratulations @javyeslava.photo!
You raised your level and are now a Minnow!
Check out our last posts:
Excelente publicación como siempre @javyeslava.photo estoy de acuerdo contigo en casi todos los puntos, menos en que Denzel fue excelente, de hecho lo vi como Denzel siendo Denzel, lo he visto en muchas entrevistas y era como verlo a él mismo, no creo que le aporto mucho al performance. Lo que si creo es que su personaje era el más interesante, y que si la película hubiese sido alrededor de él, hubiese sido mejor. Sin embargo, la intensión de Gladiador II, fue totalmente Capitalizar la franquicia.
En todo lo demás, estoy de acuerdo contigo. Claro, es muy subjetivo el gusto de cada uno. De todas formas es una película que hay que ver, y disfrutarla sobre todo.
Es que Denzel a veces es muy monótono actuando, por lo menos en the Equalizer es igual a este también no?, solo que acá tiene una túnica. El tema es que él en ocasiones pareciera que siempre tiene la misma actuación. A lo mejor es que porque soy muy fanático de él, la admiración ciega jaja
Gracias por tus comentarios como siempre y por leer!
Un abrazo!!
Qué análisis tan completo! Estoy de acuerdo contigo en que Hollywood a veces se queda corto en originalidad, pero es interesante ver cómo ciertas secuelas pueden aportar algo nuevo, aunque nunca alcancen la grandeza del original. Buena reseña!